ACP - Cordis

ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report Number 3

ACP - EU Fisheries Research Initiative Workshop Proceedings of the Third Dialogue Meeting Caribbean and Pacific and the European Union Belize, Belize City, 5-10 December 1996

Brussels April 1997

ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 37

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Commission concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers or boundaries.


Copyright belongs to the European Commission. Nevertheless, permission is hereby granted for reproduction in whole or part for educational, scientific or development related purposes, except those involving commercial sale on any medium whatsoever, provided that (1) full citation of the source is given and (2) notification is given in writing to the European Commission, Directorate General for Development, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels. Copies are available free of charge from the Senior Fisheries Co-operation Officer, European Commission, Directorate General for Development, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels. Printed by IFREMER, 155 rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 92138, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France.


Preparation of this document This document was edited by IFREMER, France. IFREMER also provided the administrative and organisational support to the European Commission Directorates General for Development and Research to run the workshop on behalf of National and Regional Authorising Officers of ACP countries in the regions, having formally requested support for the Dialogue from the European Development Fund, and the Commission. The report aims to provide a record of the findings of the Third Dialogue Meeting between the ACP countries (Caribbean and Pacific) and the European Union. It was adopted in draft at the end of the meeting. Editing was discussed with the European Commission Directorates General VIII and XII and checked by elected meeting participants. Rapporteuring during the plenary and working groups was very largely shared by a number of meeting participants. The principal rapporteur was Kenneth Ruddle, seconded particularly by Bisessar Chakalall and Ueta Fa’asili. The document has been organised into 6 chapters: • Introduction • Objective and structure of the meeting • Summary of the input papers • Results and synthesis of the working groups • A partnership for the Initiative • Follow-up to the Dialogue with a series of 12 annexes which provide details of various aspects of relevance to this Workshop. The draft background document about the future shape of the Initiative on which most of the workshop sessions focused is attached in Annex 3.

ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report Series The ACP-EU Fisheries Research Reports is a series of publications that aim to share information about the development of the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative and findings generated in order to maximise the impact of its activities. It includes proceedings of workshops and meetings, statements on policy and research activities under the Initiative.


Abstract The Third Dialogue meeting of the ACP - EU Fisheries Research Initiative was held in Belize 5-10 December 1996. Its objectives were to engage in a dialogue on the problems and opportunities for regional and international research co-operation on coastal and marine fisheries resource systems which are increasingly important for future sustainable economic performance. It was attended by 64 representatives of 18 ACP countries of the Caribbean (14) and the Pacific (4), six regional organisations, two European Union Member States, the European Commission, various observers and resource persons. The dialogue targeted three themes of major importance in the Caribbean and Pacific ACP subregions, namely Large Marine Ecosystems (LME), Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM), and governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Thematic review papers on these themes were presented and discussed, providing the background for fruitful detailed analysis by four working groups. These groups identified and recommended the most appropriate approaches to solve common problems, using research inputs. The main conclusions are: • Research is a priority in the sustainable management of fisheries and aquaculture and the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative can contribute to its development through a continuous dialogue involving all stakeholders. • To this extent voluntary scientific and technological co-operation between institutions of learning in the island states and Europe must be encouraged with special emphasis on existing regional institutions. • Regional and inter-regional co-operation should be promoted as a matter of priority thus allowing small island states to pool resources and access external capacity. • Research must have a marked interdisciplinary character to account for cross-sectoral linkages. • More co-operation between research and the private sector should be encouraged. Cost-effectiveness, transparency, competitiveness and scientific pro-activeness are the basic principles upon which the Initiative should be based. This implies demand-driven research priorities and optimal use of existing institutions. Information management, training and other contributions to an enabling environment for research were also considered critical to the success of the Initiative. Conclusions and recommendations were formulated to further the dialogue process and the underlying principle of partnership within and between the Pacific, the Caribbean and the EU. Participants generally agreed with the thrust of the implementation approach proposed and underscored the need for a facilitating mechanism in the form of a secretariat. A Scientific Advisory Committee was considered useful to ensure scientific foresight. Some differences remain in perceptions as to the desirable institutional linkages of the Secretariat. Finally participants from the Pacific and Caribbean countries elected two representatives for each region to attend the synthesis dialogue, which is expected to complete the dialogue phase with a consensus on a revised background paper and accompanying report to be submitted to the ACP-EU Joint Assembly and other decision making bodies. For bibliographic purposes this report should be cited as follows:


Anon, 1997. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. Proceedings of the Third Dialogue Meeting, Caribbean and Pacific and the European Union. Belize City, Belize, 5-10 December, ACP-EU Fish.Res.Rep., (3):180 p. ISSN 1025-3971

Table of Abbreviations

ACP

African, Caribbean and Pacific countries entertaining development co-operation with the European Union in the framework of the Lome Convention

ACS

Association of Caribbean States

CANARI

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute

CARICOM

Caribbean Community and Common Market

CARICOMP

Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program

CARIFORUM

Caribbean Forum (i.e. Forum of all the Caribbean ACP States)

CDI

Centre for the Development of Industry

CEC

Commission of the European Communities

CEP

Caribbean Environment Program

CFMC

Caribbean Fishery Management Council

CFRAMP

CARICOM Fishery Resources Assessment and Management Program

CIDA

Canadian International Development Agency

CTA

Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation (ACP-EU Lome Convention)

CTDI

Caribbean fisheries Training and Development Institute

CZCS

Coastal Zone Colour Scanner satellite images

CZM

Coastal Zone Management

DGVIII

Directorate General for Development VIII of the EC

DGXII

Directorate General for Research XII of the EC

EC

European Commission

ECLAC

United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

ECOPATH

Mass-balance ecosystem model

EDF

European Development Fund

EEZ

Exclusive Economic Zone

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 42

ENSO

El Niño Southern Oscillation

EU

European Union

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FFA

Forum Fisheries Agency

FIAS

Fisheries Information and Analysis System

GCFI

Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute

GEF

Global Environment Facility

GIS

Geographic Information System

IATTC

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICAM

Integrated Coastal Area Management

ICCAT

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

ICES

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICLARM

International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management

ICRI

International Coral Reef Initiative

IFREMER

The French Institute for Research on the Sea

IMA

Institute of Marine Affairs

INCO-DC

International Co-operation in Science and Technology with Developing Countries

IOC

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

IOCARIBE

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission for the Caribbean

LME

Large Marine Ecosystem

MAREMP

Marine Resource and Environmental Management Program

MCS

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

MPA

Marine Protected Area

NAO

National Authorising Officer [function under the Lome Convention]

NGO

Non Governmental Organisation

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OECS

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

OFP

Oceanic Fisheries Programme

OLDEPESCA

Latin American Organisation for Fishery Development ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 43

PIMRIS

Pacific Islands Marine Resources Information System

R&D

Research and Development

S&T

Science and Technology

SELA

Latin America Economic System

SIDS

Small Island Developing States

SIFR

Study/Strategy of International Fisheries Research

SPC

South Pacific Commission

TCDC

Technical Co-operation among Developing Countries

UNCED

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNCLOS

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UWI

University of the West Indies

WECAF

Western Central Atlantic Fisheries

WECAFC

Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission

WEP

Western Equatorial Pacific

WWF

World Wildlife Fund for Nature


Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the Government of Belize, and in particular to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, for hosting this workshop. Special thanks go to the EU Representation in Belize and staff of the Fisheries Department for their considerable help in organising the workshop. The untiring work of all volunteer rapporteurs is gratefully acknowledged as well as the help of the many more people contributing to a friendly and productive working atmosphere, but who cannot be named individually. This workshop was funded from ‘All ACP’ resources from the 7th European Development Fund. CTA’s additional financial support was re-allocated to sponsor ACP nationals’ participation in major scientific meetings supported by the Initiative.



Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Context of the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative Brief presentation of the meeting

1

3

Chapter 2: Objectives and structure of the meeting discussions ............................................................ 5 Objectives

5

Organisation

5

Chapter 3: Summary of the input papers ................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 4: Results and synthesis of the working groups ...................................................................... 15 Large Marine Ecosystems (LME)

16

Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) Fisheries Governance in the Caribbean

17

19

Chapter 5: A partnership for the Initiative ........................................................................................... 21 Context

22

Conclusion

22

Remaining need for clarification and proposed solutions 22 Chapter 6: Follow-up to the Dialogue .................................................................................................. 25 Annexes: ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Annex 1: List of participants

29

Annex 2: Agenda for the meeting

37

Annex 3: ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. Background and approach to collaborative aquatic resource systems research 41 Annex 4: Opening speeches

53

Annex 5: Ideas for research and development projects on marine productivity within the intertropical Pacific and Caribbean regions 59 Prof. F. Doumenge (Monaco Marine Institute) Annex 6: Stakeholders and cost-effectiveness in research 67 Dr M. Bilio (Germany) Annex 7: Researchable issues relevant for management of Large Marine Ecosystems, with special reference to the Caribbean 79


Dr V. Christensen (ICLARM/North Sea Centre, Denmark) and Dr R. Mahon (Barbados) Annex 8: Defining a large marine ecosystem in the Western Equatorial Pacific

101

Dr P. Lehodey (South Pacific Commission, New Caledonia) Annex 9: Integrated coastal management (ICAM) for the Caribbean with special reference to fisheries and aquaculture 111 Dr J. Gibson (GEF Project, Belize), Mr M. Toure (University College, Belize), Dr A. Smith (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, St. Lucia) Annex 10: The role of local management and knowledge systems in ICAM in the Pacific Region : a review 121 Prof. K. Ruddle (Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan) Annex 11: Fisheries governance in the Caribbean

131

Mr B. Chakalall (FAO Regional Office, Barbados), Dr R. Mahon (Barbados), Dr P. McConney (Fisheries Department, Barbados) Annex 12: Governance of fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific Islands region 165 Dr T. Adams (South Pacific Commission, New Caledonia)



Chapter 1

Introduction

Context of the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative When the ACP-EU Joint Assembly passed a Resolution on fisheries co-operation in October 1993, asking for a Joint Initiative on fisheries and aquaculture research, a major step in the progress towards the sustainable use of aquatic living resources was made. The Joint Assembly based its Resolution on the grave concern felt in ACP countries and in Europe for the continuing existence of an important share of our common heritage - aquatic organisms and the ecosystems in which they live - as well as the livelihood of countless fisherfolk, particularly in developing countries, and the wealth of their societies. The European Commission was asked by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly to implement its Resolution. It is now necessary to move from this high level political vision to practical steps. This explains the dialogue. The sad state in which many fisheries resources find themselves nowadays can certainly be ascribed to poor management practices. Fast expanding demand for fish and its products, resulting from demographic growth and higher purchasing power has increased substantially mankind’s pressure on the resources and, in some cases, has led to their outright ‘mining’. Unsustainable fishing practices coupled with an excessive level of investment in fishing capacity have resulted in serious degradation and low yields in northern hemisphere fish stocks, creating new pressures on resources located in developing countries. These pressures are largely transnational, highlighting the importance of regional aspects to resource management. The danger of desertification of the seas was at last perceived as a real possibility, alerting many directly and indirectly concerned people and institutions all over the world, in developing as well as industrialised societies. Their voices and concerns have been heard through political representatives in international fora but also more directly through the scientific and technical press and more recently the mass media. Only last month, the World Food Summit reconfirmed the world’s preoccupation with the sustainable use of fisheries resources, following the orientations of Agenda 21. The forthcoming United Nations General Assembly Special Session, to be held in June 1997, to review the 5-year achievements of the Rio Conference will undoubtedly re-emphasise the importance of a comprehensive approach to the management of oceans and coastal zones. It will surely also insist on the importance of fisheries and aquaculture sectors and the conservation of biological diversity of aquatic organisms. Perspectives on fisheries and fisheries research moved from a sectoral to a intersectoral stand. It is against this backdrop of growing concern for the conservation of these vital natural resources that a series of prospective analyses and discussions were carried through in the late eighties and early nineties between development support organisations in industrialised countries and the authorities and scientific and technical communities of developing countries. This exercise, known under the acronym ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 50

SIFR (Study of International Fisheries Research) aimed at identifying knowledge gaps in fisheries and aquaculture which were preventing the harmonious development of these sectors. The SIFR findings have been disseminated world-wide and are to a large extent valid today. SIFR’s impact went beyond the identification of technological needs to improve resource management. It emphasised the promotion of co-operation between industrialised and developing economies in relation to a natural resource which was shared by both. This reflected the emergence, in the early nineties, of a global market for fish and its products and the transnational exploitation of fish stocks by several fishing fleets. A voluntary joint effort of the scientific and technological communities of developing and industrialised countries, working in partnership with all stakeholders was accepted as the key mode of operation in future research on fisheries and aquaculture. This marked a shift from traditional donor-recipient relations to a new style of scientific and technological co-operation based on voluntary partnerships. This shift is made possible by scientific complementarities on an international scale. This important message was not lost in the minds of the Members of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly, echoing the concern felt in both regions for the sustainable use of aquatic resources. Their Resolution on fisheries co-operation constitutes the starting point for such a collaborative mode, based on an open and constructive dialogue at intra- and inter-regional levels. The European Commission put together a task force involving DGs VIII and XII services for this purpose. The Commission recognised the importance of a careful and detailed preparation phase, based on open and constructive dialogue and focusing upon concrete activities and mechanisms for co-operation that might be required in the implementation of the Initiative. An initial consultation was carried out inside Europe involving bilateral co-operation agencies of EU Member States and Associated States as well as the Commission in order to identify priorities and perceptions and to reinforce the political support and co-ordination instruments needed for a broad based Initiative. The outcome of these discussions is presented in the working paper entitled “Background and approach to collaborative aquatic resource systems research” (see Annex 3). As this title implies, it is the basis for this dialogue, providing a structured presentation of the issues perceived as important and relevant to the Initiative’s objectives seen mainly from the perspective of the European partners. In the two previous dialogue sessions (Swakopmund, Namibia, 5 - 8 July, 1995 (ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report No.1) and Dakar, Senegal, 22 - 26 April, 1996 (ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report No.2) this working paper was successfully used in the discussions held, with reinforcements of certain aspects and refinement or modification of others being contributed by all participants. Specifically, the issues at stake are: • the emergence of research and scientific knowledge as key factors in the management of fisheries and aquaculture in the future; • the introduction of new approaches to scientific co-operation; • the importance of pursuing research and developing management approaches which are compatible with local cultures and traditions; • the practical implications of these new approaches.


The third dialogue meeting provided an opportunity to focus on the concerns and issues from the perspective of the small islands and small coastal developing Caribbean and Pacific countries. Hence, issues concerning small-scale and subsistence type fisheries, the limited financial and human resources, and the limited institutional capacity for research in these countries were recognised as important factors which needed to be taken into consideration in developing the Initiative.

Brief presentation of the meeting These are the proceedings of the third Fisheries Research Initiative meeting held in Belize City. This was the last of a series of three regional meetings, the objective of which was to engage in a dialogue on the problems and opportunities of regional and international research co-operation which is increasingly important for future economic performance.8A synthesis meeting is scheduled to be held Brussels in the first half of 1997. A set of documents including the draft programme, a list of participants, the background to the ACPEU Fisheries Research Initiative and the 8 input papers were distributed to the participants to the Dialogue to fuel discussion. The background and objectives of the Initiative are reprinted in Annex 3. Four of the five reviews papers were presented by their authors and discussed. They concern conservation of Large Marine Ecosystems (LME), Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) and governance in fisheries and aquaculture. These thematic areas were identified by the promoters of the Initiative as major subject matters in the two ACP regions concerned. In addition, two introductory papers related to the marine productivity in the Pacific and Caribbean regions and stakeholders and cost-effectiveness in research were also presented and are reprinted in the annexes. The meeting in Belize has been attended by 64 participants, i.e. (Annex 1): •

39 ACP national delegates (31 Caribbean; 8 Pacific)

•

6 representatives of regional organisations (SPC, OECS, CARICOM, UWI),

•

2 representatives of European Union Member States,

•

5 representatives of the European Commission (Belize, Brussels, Haiti, Jamaica),

•

1 representative of the ACP Secretariat,

•

8 resource persons,

•

1 facilitator (Dr J. Evans),

•

2 members of the organising committee (Ifremer - France).



Chapter 2 Objectives and Structure of the Meeting Discussions Objectives The objectives of the meeting, building on the experience from the earlier regional dialogues, were to:

• identify areas for research to address, often cross-sectoral, problems which characterise the social and economic context of coastal and marine fisheries resource systems; • recommend the most appropriate mode to solve common problems of research with an emphasis on scientific co-operation between institutions, countries and regions; • formulate conclusions and recommendations to further the dialogue process on the Research Initiative; and • as an underlying principle, establish a full working partnership within and between the Pacific, the Caribbean, and the EU in keeping with the Initiative’s overall goal of achieving sustainable benefits from aquatic resource systems for the stake holders.

Organisation The meeting was structured in three stages (see meeting agenda, Annex 2):

First Stage Presentations of the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative in the plenary session in two main papers: • The Third Regional Dialogue of the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative; and • EU Mechanisms for a Research Partnership between the ACP and the EU Countries. This was supported by papers on: • Ideas for Research and Development Projects on Marine Productivity within the intertropical Pacific and Caribbean regions; and • Stakeholders and Cost-Effectiveness in Research. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 54

Second Stage Four out of five thematic papers were presented in plenary sessions on: • Large Marine Ecosystems with Reference to the Pacific and Caribbean regions respectively; • Integrated Coastal Area Management in the Caribbean and the Pacific regions respectively; and • Governance in Capture and Culture Fisheries. Each plenary session was followed by discussions in working groups based on the issues identified by the plenary session speakers. The working groups’ conclusions and recommendations were then reported back to the plenary session.

Third Stage After re-capitulation of the technical issues covered during the second stage, the meeting moved on to discuss the next stages in the development of the Initiative: • A Partnership for the Initiative; and • Follow-up to the Dialogue. A plenary session on the Partnership for the Initiative was followed by discussions in working groups with the groups reporting back to the plenary session. The follow-up covered essentially the election of representatives from the Pacific and Caribbean to the Fourth Synthesis Dialogue and overall arrangements to ensure the implementation of practical research collaborations under the Initiative.


Chapter 3 Summary of the input papers Two of the four introductory input papers are included in Annexes 5 and 6. The thematic review papers are included in full in Annexes 7 through 12. The main conclusions of all papers are briefly summarised below. Authors were given the opportunity to review their papers in the light of discussions for inclusion in the present proceedings. The discussions in the working groups following the presentation of the papers are summarised in Chapter 4.

Background presentation of the third regional dialogue by Prof. T. Viegas (European Commission) The historical background and context of the dialogue was recalled as already presented in Chapter 1 of the present proceedings. An open and constructive dialogue requires an enabling atmosphere, free of preconceived ideas and with the necessary flexibility for intelligent analysis and compromise, whenever required. The dialogue should cover not only the priorities for research but the ways and means of funding it, as well as organising the necessary support measures in the area of information management and dissemination, training, promotion of scientific partnerships, etc. and specially the profile of a secretariat with responsibility for these functions. This series of regional dialogue sessions will be finished soon with a synthesis meeting involving representatives from all three regional sessions. The time to act is very clear and indeed, some of the activities initiated in the past couple of years have already reflected the spirit of this Initiative. This is the case with several research contracts supported under the International Co-operation in Science and Technology Programme (INCO-DC) as well as various information management initiatives supported through the European Development Fund (EDF). In summary, the main points to be kept in mind are: 1. Research efforts must target priorities identified through an open dialogue involving all stakeholders and its high quality must be assured through a peer-reviewed, competitive project selection system. 2. New approaches to scientific co-operation between industrialised and developing countries are needed, emphasising • a shift to voluntarily established scientific partnerships, replacing more traditional donorrecipient relationships; • the addition to bilateral relations of inter-regional co-operation arrangements giving ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 56

priority to regionally relevant issues; and • a move from sectoral targets and disciplinary research orientations to cross-sectoral issues and interdisciplinary approaches. 3. There are considerable practical implications in implementing research activities of this type. Amongst the concrete issues that should be addressed, the following questions are worth asking: • How do we keep going a permanent ACP-EU dialogue? • How do we disseminate and use information and knowledge generated through research? • How do we involve all relevant stakeholders in the identification of research priorities and in the implementation of interdisciplinary research projects?

• How do we mobilise human and institutional capital resources in ACP countries and in the EU towards the Initiative’s objectives? This is the main justification for organising these regional dialogue sessions. The success of partnerships required freely established consensus on all these key issues. Through this initial step in dialogue we lay together the ground rules for a continuing exchange of ideas on which our activities will be built in a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect.

EU mechanisms for a research partnership between ACP and EU countries by Dr C. E. Nauen (European Commission) The main mechanisms the European Commission and European Member States have in order to support the Initiative were presented. There was no single special instrument that would set aside financial resources for the funding of activities to develop the Initiative, the ACP - EU research, its documentation and related institution building. It was rather believed that the focus provided by the Initiative, the quality of proposals, and the interesting collaborative mechanisms the partners developed would give them a competitive edge in accessing a variety of existing co-operation instruments. Among these are the International Co-operation in Science and Technology with Developing Countries (INCO-DC), the European Development Fund (EDF) operated under the Lome Convention, various budget lines of the Commission’s own resources, and other co-operation instruments, such as bilateral co-operation between EU Member States and ACP countries, and resources mobilised by ACP countries themselves. INCO-DC calls for collaborative research between European research institutes and their partners in developing countries on a number of key themes grouped under the headings of systems research in conjunction with oceans and coastal zones, of wider understanding of ecosystems, of policy and institutional research to underpin sustainable use of natural renewable resources, and of research into production systems, such as aquaculture. Its allocation is competitive and governed by a three-stage evaluation process: • scientific peer review, • assessment of regional and developmental relevance by eminent researchers and managers from the regions concerned, and • complementarity with other co-operation mechanisms. This is a non-governmental form of co-operation.


The EDF is co-managed between governments of ACP countries or regional bodies and the European Commission. Such funding can only be made available following a formal request by the respective ACP country’s designated National Authorising Officer (NAO), often the Minister of Finance or Planning. This form of co-operation takes place in the framework of an international treaty, the Lome Convention, concluded between 70 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the 15 members of the European Union. It is governmental in nature, even though necessary adjustment to a changing economic and political environment has allowed for the development of an array of instruments and thematic foci under this umbrella. EDF projects can have national, regional or global coverage. A recent example of an All-ACP project is a project for “Strengthening fisheries and biodiversity management in ACP countries”. This has a specific technical role in making relevant information available in ACP countries through sharing of the world-wide electronic encyclopaedia on fish, FishBase. It also has a general enabling and capacity building role in the framework of the Initiative. Budget lines of the European Commission span a wide range and a number of them are directly relevant in the context of the Initiative, e.g. co-funding with non-governmental organisations (NGO), budget lines for training and the environment in developing countries, to name but a few. An example of support provided under the environment budget line is the funding of the first two years of development of ReefBase, the world-wide information system on reef ecosystems which has been chosen as the reference system under the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) and which will certainly develop further, e.g. in 1997 during the International Year of the Reef (IYOR). Bilateral and other co-operation instruments are mentioned but not elaborated upon due to their varied nature and the diversity of access mechanisms.

Ideas for research and development projects on marine productivity within the intertropical Pacific and Caribbean regions by Prof. F. Doumenge (Monaco Marine Institute) Fisheries within the Pacific and Caribbean states are at present in a perilous state due to overexploitation and adverse effects of competing economic activities. It is therefore timely to develop a flexible strategy of co-operation with the EU integrating basic and applied research for development and technology transfer adapted to the different situations and structures in countries. The more promising areas for future work on marine productivity concern: • Basic Research: Coral genetics, pelagic productivity enhancement • Applied Research: Coral farming, aquaculture of fast growing tropical species, tropical aquarium fish aquaculture, assessment and identification of exploitable deep water fish stocks • Action for development: sea ranching, integrated lagoon aquaculture using renewable energy and nutrient rich deep water for endo-upwelling, help for medium sized boats using real time remote sensing. • Technological transfer: hatchery/nursery on boats, restocking operations. Two examples together with a bibliography are given in Annex 5. • Coral reef conservation: The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) was adopted in 1994 to provide a focus on the plight of reefs and on the actions necessary to reverse their degradation. It covers both ACP regions considered in this dialogue. Coral reef use must be regulated according to their carrying capacity. Research should be carried out to develop coral nurseries and farms for


local rehabilitation using replanting. This will also offer ways to investigate genetic selection of new strains of species able to brave the stress of environment changes. • New approaches to tropical aquaculture should focus on: (i) species with fast growth rates, such as red drum, Mahi Mahi, tuna, which offer opportunities for rearing in large cages (ii) domestication of reef fishes to supply trade in live fish for aquaria thus reducing stress from current levels of extraction from the natural populations, and (iii) use of fertile endo-upwelled deep water in integrated management of schemes for atoll lagoons.

Stakeholders and cost-effectiveness in research by Dr M. Bilio (Germany) In the last decades, public authorities tended to show reluctance to allocate funds for research in development co-operation. At the basis of this critical attitude are a number of misunderstandings about the role and potential of scientific research, aggravated by the increasing scarcity of funds. The fundamental problem lies in insufficient communication and dialogue between scientists and decisionmakers. While there cannot be any essential difference in quality and reliability between research in general and research for development, there are differences in orientation and objectives. Stakeholdership in research can be defined by an interest in the results of a research project. Target orientation and avoidance of loss or damage through missing the target or deviating from it, can be seen as an important criterion for stakeholdership. The target groups of development co-operation must be considered as principal stakeholders in research for development. This requires their intensive participation in planning and evaluation of research. A way to adequate stakeholder participation is objective-oriented planning. Adequate planning, as an iterative process, includes readjustment and response to unexpected difficulties. Cost-effectiveness can also most adequately be taken care of by objective-oriented planning, including a realistic assessment of inputs and outputs before a project starts and allowing reassessment at any further stage of the planning process. Prerequisite to well-considered adjustments is a monitoring and evaluation arrangement. Substantial cost-saving can be achieved through a thorough examination of a research proposal for necessity, relevance, priority and alternative solutions. Such an examination should also consider risks of failure or only partial success. Planning as well as monitoring and evaluation activities can be very expensive. It is necessary, therefore, to keep the planning costs in the right proportion with the overall costs of the project in order to maintain a reasonable level of costeffectiveness. Comprehensive background information is necessary to arrive at a conclusive decision on the scientific, economic and social merits of a research proposal. This is also true for the choice of methodology. Essential prerequisites for providing such information are functioning communication systems and easily available information services. Cost-effectiveness of research can be considerably increased through collaboration between countries being faced with comparable problems. This is of special importance when they share similar or even the same ecological conditions and fish resources, as is particularly the case with island states of the same marine region or sub-region. Cost-effectiveness can be definitively analysed only after sufficient time has elapsed to allow the results to reach the end users and to be put into practice. Appropriate methodology for such assessment has still to be developed. Research results, to become effective, do not only have to be fully documented, but also made available by reporting and publication. To allow access to them not only for scientists but also for the


other stakeholders, it is indispensable that they are transferred into language that the latter can easily understand. Although this implies additional expenses, maximum overall cost-effectiveness cannot be achieved without such efforts. The full paper is in Annex 6.

Researchable issues relevant for management of large marine ecosystems, with special reference to the Caribbean by Dr V. Christensen (ICLARM/North Sea Centre, Denmark) and Dr R. Mahon (Barbados) The review paper on researchable issues relevant for management of large marine ecosystems (LMEs) with special reference to the Caribbean stresses that countries adhering to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) have accepted a mutual obligation to manage marine areas based on an ecosystem perspective. To facilitate a move toward such ecosystem management the authors outline and discuss the following sequence of actions to be taken: • the ecosystem must be defined; • the resources within the ecosystem must be assessed; • the interactions between the ecosystem components must be quantified; and • the human impact on the system and its components must be described. The approaches and tools for the actions are reviewed with particular emphasis on Longhurst’s classification based on ocean colour as indicator of primary production. It is concluded that a move toward ecosystem management is possible. The authors further review the existing delimitation of Caribbean LMEs, and conclude that these are in line with what is known from fisheries and plankton distributions. Due to natural variation of environmental factors, boundaries move within a range. Finally, an overview is given of existing knowledge of ecosystem resources and of institutional aspects of LME research. Some of the practical types of analyses, notably those involving mass balance ecosystem models, such as ECOPATH, may be adopted at scales short of a LME. The full paper is in Annex 7.

Defining a large marine ecosystem in the Western Equatorial Pacific by Dr P. Lehodey (South Pacific Commission, New Caledonia) The large marine ecosystem (LME) concept as defined by Sherman (1994) concerns ocean regions, primarily coastal in nature. The paper extends this concept to a large open ocean area, the Western Equatorial Pacific (WEP), on the basis of its distinct characteristics and of its importance for tuna fisheries. The WEP corresponds to one of the pelagic provinces recently defined by Longhurst (1995). It is also called the “warm pool” in regard to its major physical feature, the high content of heat of the mixed-layer, with sea surface temperature typically in excess of 29 C. The identifiable physical or biooceanographic boundaries of the warm pool may be dynamic in nature, as shown by the displacement


of the eastern edge of the warm pool in phase with the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Picaut et al., in press). Although the WEP has a relatively low primary productivity in comparison to the Eastern and Central Equatorial Pacific, it supports one of the most productive stocks of tropical tuna in the world. Studies carried out by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) at the South Pacific Commission (SPC) indicate that the levels of exploitation were low to moderate in the eighties (Kleiber et al., 1987). The bulk of the catch consists in two species, skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) tuna, caught by purse seiners. Those catches shift longitudinally in concert with ENSO events, following the similar pattern described by physicists, and thus demonstrating that the tuna production is closely linked to the warm pool and oceanographic events within it. The influence of the environmental variability on the tuna catch distribution is currently investigated at the OFP through numerical models coupling physical and biological data (Lehodey, 1996). Regarding the other components of the WEP ecosystem, very little is known, most information coming from commercial by-catch (Bailey et al., in press). The research effort should be increased in the future to integrate these different components in the development of a comprehensive model of the WEP ecosystem. References are given in the full text in Annex 8.

Integrated coastal area management (ICAM) for the Caribbean with special reference to fisheries and aquaculture by Dr J. Gibson (GEF Project, Belize), Mr M. Toure (University College, Belize) and Dr A. Smith (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, St. Lucia) The Caribbean region depends on its coastal resources for its sustenance and the basis of the two major economic sectors of fisheries and tourism. Yet the coastal area is under threat from a rising population, a lack of understanding of the ecosystems and ecological processes that maintain them, and therefore inadequate management. A special multi-sectoral approach to management, integrated coastal area management (ICAM), is recommended as the most effective means of achieving sustainable use of these coastal resources. Two sectors, fisheries and aquaculture, are discussed within the context of ICAM. Examples in which ICAM can promote sustainable fisheries and aquaculture development are highlighted. Finally, it is emphasised that achieving a fully-fledged ICAM programme may take many years, as the most important factor is strengthening the institutional capacity to develop and sustain this integrated management strategy. A network between ICAM programmes within the region would be beneficial, providing a means of sharing information and learning from the experience of others. The full paper is in annex 9.

The role of local management and knowledge systems in ICAM in the Pacific region: a review by Prof. Dr K. Ruddle (Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan) For any fishery that requires management there exist four actual or potential problem foci: • the flow of the resource (its continued, regular availability);


• stock externalities (the economic and therefore social, impacts of harvesting interactions among users or user groups); • technological externalities (the mutual incompatibility of various harvesting technologies); and • allocation problems (competition for access to a resource[s] distributed unevenly in space and time). Whereas the “conventional” management approach focuses on fish stocks and stock externalities and assumes an open resource regime, in the Pacific Region traditional community-based common property systems of marine resources management focus and base management on the three interrelated factors of stock externalities, gear externalities and allocation problems, and base implementation on geographical areas, with defined boundaries, to which access is controlled. Conventional fisheries management has focused on modelling the biological and physical flow of fish resources onto and through fishing grounds, and in implementation on attempting to manage the resultant stock externalities. Traditional management systems, in contrast, are focused on resolving gear externalities and allocation problems, are implemented on defined geographical areas and control access, are self- monitored by the local fishers based on local knowledge systems, and are enforced by local moral and political authority. This implicitly accounts for the complex multi-species and multi-gear nature of the resource, thereby avoiding inherently irresolvable issues. Both the problems of gear externalities and assignment are overcome in traditional community-based management systems, control of a fishing area, as a strictly-bounded common property, establishing exact social boundaries, by rights, to define who has access rights to that area, and by rules of operational behaviour that then specify assignment of time and place within that space and group having access. The set of rules that comprise a fisheries management system derive directly from local knowledge and concepts of the biological and physical environment and resources on which the fishery is based. Thus local knowledge is fundamental to the continuity of sound community-based management practices and to the design of new systems of sustainable resource management. The full paper is in Annex 10.

Fisheries governance in the Caribbean by Mr B. Chakalall (FAO, Barbados), Dr R. Mahon (Barbados) and Dr P. McConney (Fisheries Department, Barbados) The critical issues which the Caribbean region must address in defining its approach to fisheries governance were identified and practical measures were suggested which should be implemented in order to deal with these issues. Emphasis was placed on institutional reform which builds a broader institutional base for fisheries resource management than has been common in the past. Fisheries administrations need to develop partnerships with non-governmental organisations particularly fisherfolk organisations. This includes strengthening the capacity of those organisations to participate in the management process. There is also the need to strengthen regional organisations within the Caribbean, in order that they may better manage shared resources with in the region as well as participate in international management initiatives. The potential roles of inter-governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, academic and other research institutions, and private sector institutions in strengthening the capacity of fisheries administrations to undertake their full range of fishery management functions were highlighted. These included research, the generation of data and information for management and decision-making purposes, and effective communication and information exchange between the stakeholders and ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 62

partners involved in the management of the fishery. Widely disseminating research results and obtaining feedback is part of the process of information exchange. The tapping of local knowledge and the involvement of the fishing industry in research are essential elements of this process. The full text of the paper is in Annex 11.

Governance of fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific Islands region by Dr T. Adams (South Pacific Commission, New Caledonia) Governance aspects of Pacific Islands fisheries are reviewed under three main headings: Oceanic fisheries, domestic food fisheries and coastal export fisheries, respectively separated by each other by an order of magnitude in volume. Oceanic fishery governance is currently in transition following the coming-into-force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Despite progressive development of the last century, Pacific Islands domestic food fisheries are considered to remain some way along the path to McGlade’s (1994) recommended path towards local property rights, community management regimes and broad recognition of the complex nature of resources. The governance of coastal export fisheries is considered to be the main area in need of attention. Consideration is also given to aquaculture, which has had a minimal impact to date but which will require increasing attention in the future, and to the optimum geographical scales of governance for different types of fisheries. The full paper is in Annex 12.


Chapter 4 Results and synthesis of the working groups The dialogue targeted three themes of major importance in the Caribbean and Pacific ACP regions, Large Marine Ecosystems (LME), Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM), and governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Four working groups were formed on a voluntary basis. The sections following contain the full reports of the working groups. They present thematic analyses of problems and envisaged solutions, and recommendations. Some re-arrangement and synthesis has been done in order to eliminate duplication or inconsistencies arising from the diversity of discussion in the groups. The principal recommendations made by participants are: • Research is a priority in the sustainable management of fisheries and aquaculture and the ACP Fisheries Research Initiative can contribute to his development through continuous dialogue; • More co-operation between research and industry is required; • Voluntary scientific exchange must be encouraged; • Regional and inter-regional co-operation is a necessity; and • Research must become more interdisciplinary; • Capacity building for research and resource management is also a priority for sustainable development within ACP States; • The Initiative should build on the work of existing organisations in the regions; • Greater emphasis needs to be given to public education and public awareness building programmes, even if this transcends the Initiative itself. In addition and in keeping with the background presentation of this dialogue, several practical issues were highlighted pertaining to the concerns on: • How to maintain a permanent dialogue? • How to disseminate the results? • How to involve all stakeholders in the dialogue? • How to enhance human capacity?


Theme 1: Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) Background The sustainable production of marine resources is vital to the economic and social well-being of Caribbean and Pacific Island nations. However, many such resources are derived from large and internally diverse marine ecosystems (LME) that are not well-understood scientifically. Further, most such systems are shared among several nations, none of which alone has either the capacity to conduct scientific research on them or to design and implement resources and environmental management strategies based on that research.

Identified Problems and Proposed Solutions (i) The Research Environment Since no single country has the human, financial and institutional resources to conduct LME research, it was acknowledged that research can be effectively conducted only at the regional level, with the help of an agency. The Caribbean countries noted the effectiveness of the SPC and FFA in the Pacific Region, and proposed that a parallel organisation be established for the Caribbean. The University of the West Indies already plays an important role in regional research and education. The scale of large marine ecosystems in the Caribbean is much smaller than in the Pacific. Further, because of the complexities involved in conducting research on LMEs, the strengthening of the research partnership with rich nations is necessary. In addition to the conduct of research, such a research partnership would provide avenues for funding and professional development. (ii) Access to Information In both the Caribbean and Pacific regions access to information remains problematical (although relatively less so in the Pacific owing to the existence of the FFA, SPC and PIMRIS). In the modern communications era this can be overcome by: • establishing a network of participating professionals and institutions among the ACP countries; • linking this network with appropriate institutions in nations with well-developed LME and marine ecosystems expertise; • consolidation of existing information channels. (iii) Training and Professional Development An adequate pool of professionals is lacking to undertake research in fisheries and marine sciences generally and LME research in particular. This should be remedied by: • developing or enhancing marine resource-environment-policy programmes in regional universities, particularly UWI; • incorporating training components within all types of partnership research with non-regional countries; and • the implementation of “mobile training programmes” using teams of visiting specialists.


Theme 2: Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) The four working groups discussed the presentations in the light of participants’ experience and in relation to a possible contribution by the Initiative to solving problems identified in the reviews. The following is a synthesis of the working groups’ reports.

Background The diverse, complex and highly productive coastal-marine ecosystems of the Caribbean and Pacific regions are increasingly required to support a wide range of often incompatible economic activities. Development pressures are expected to increase, further stressing ecosystems and exacerbating conflicts among the various stakeholders. Compounding these already complex problems is that effective ICAM demands a far wider scope of information from both natural and social sciences than is required for managing either whole terrestrial or marine ecosystems. Although in the last 20 years impressive strides have been made in developing ICAM methodologies, guidelines and training, there remains a pressing need to improve methodologies, to increase the pool of trained human resources, to integrate existing knowledge (particularly local or ‘traditional’ knowledge) and methodologies in the management process, and to overcome vested bureaucratic, academic and scientific interests that inhibit innovation.

Identified problems and proposed solutions Under the umbrella of information for ICAM, it was repeatedly emphasised that a major constraint on the implementation of ICAM is a lack of information on the types, characteristics and operations of existing stakeholders. Information required to manage coastal zones in integrated ways needs to rely on cross-sectoral work and a variety of sources. A suitable framework is required to analyse such diverse information to make it relevant and usable by decision makers. To overcome this problem, an inventory should be made of stakeholder types and other factors that impinge on coastal marine ecosystems. Comprehensive and interdisciplinary baseline studies should be made of all stakeholder categories. The stakeholders themselves should be involved in the design and conduct of such applied research. Particular attention should be paid to integrating local ecological and resource knowledge bases into resultant reports or information systems. In tandem with that, there is an urgent need to clarify existing resources management systems and their related legal basis, the foundation of their authority and legitimacy and their range of responsibilities, in order to reveal overlap and lacunae in existing frameworks. It was recognised that it is important to do this at regional, national and local levels. The latter is particularly important since the presence of pre-existing and often still well-functioning local community management systems is ignored by government in some countries. With respect to application and enhancement of methodologies and tools for ICAM, the groups discussed the second major constraint constituted by the lack of personnel trained in the adaptation and use of integrated methodologies for coastal-marine resources and environmental planning and for conducting ICAM. Although professionals in both regions are aware of the existence of such data analysis and modelling tools as geographical information systems (GIS), ECOPATH, coastal transects and the derived simulation model with user-friendly front end (SIMCOAST), some of these were developed elsewhere and are not yet available in the regions. Training and capacity building was required in both regions to allow professionals and institutions to make use of such tools for their own management needs and adapt the tools as required to the specific requirements of Caribbean and Pacific Island countries.


It was recognised that a third major constraint in the design and implementation of ICAM is the lack of public awareness for it in all sectors and at all levels of society. There is a need to gradually overcome this by conducting training of officials in all public sectors as well as reach out to other stakeholders, e.g. in the private sector. Finally, courses could be introduced into educational curricula and into “broad-spectrum” public education conducted. Clearly, ICAM planning and implementation requires the establishment of a specific institutional framework for it to be effective. Participants estimated that such a framework did not exist at present, at least not to the extent necessary. Based on the comprehensive information assembled on the resources and stakeholders (see above), a central mechanism for implementing ICAM should be established. This could be integrated into existing work and initiatives. The mandate of such an institution would be to: • establish planning and research priorities; • provide timely information and reports to decision makers and legislators; • prioritise the funding of research; • ensure the involvement of and consultation with all stakeholders; • maintain collaboration with regional organisations; and • integrate the efforts of NGOs and researchers. Particular stress was placed on the needs of fisheries within the spectrum of coastal-marine resources. Within the fisheries sector there is a need to: • define the scope of the fisheries sector and improve the information bases of socio-economic and resource factors; • enhance the capacity of fisheries departments, other fisheries institutions and fishing communities to represent fisheries interests; • design and implement an education and public awareness programme for fisheries management, fishers and other stakeholders in the fisheries sector; and • document existing local knowledge and self-regulatory management systems to conserve them, to properly interface them with other management systems; and to augment the support of resource users. • stress the importance of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Research, training, education and public awareness is required to understand, plan, implement, and monitor MPAs is considered to be of urgent and of great importance. A dialogue with all stakeholders involved is required to achieve a consensus on the role of MPAs. • strengthen aquaculture and more specifically mariculture which are rapidly emerging in both the Caribbean and Pacific regions as a major factor which might be best accommodated in the context of ICAM. As such it should be a focus of research, training and information exchange within the structure of the Initiative.


Theme 3: Fisheries Governance in the Caribbean Background The state of fisheries governance in the Caribbean is reviewed showing that most Caribbean governments are committed to civil service reform, a process that provides the opportunity for institutional strengthening and reform of fisheries' administrations through investment in human resource development and scientific understanding of the resource in support of governance. The implementation of governance can be initiated through civil service reform and the development of new partnership between stakeholders and other pertinent local and international institutions. The authors identify deficiencies in state institutions, inter-governmental organisations, academic and research institutions, private sector institutions and non-governmental organisations that are or could be involved in fishery's governance in the Caribbean region. Suggestions are presented on ways to address these deficiencies. Deficiencies in monitoring, control and surveillance, and in the promotion and dissemination of research results are also outlined, and suggestions offered for improving these systems. The majority of recommendations concern two main groups: the need for fisheries' administrations to develop partnerships with non-governmental, fisherfolk and private sector organisations; and the need to strengthen regional organisations to better manage shared resources within the region.

Identified problems and proposed solutions Following is a synthesis of the four working group reports. •

Governance starts with governments and partnerships were considered necessary. The need to promote and develop partnerships with fishing industry organisations, universities, other government agencies, NGOs and with the private sector to achieve good governance was emphasised. However, it was thought necessary to be aware of the special interests of stakeholders.

•

Decisions on how much to spend on management should be guided by the value of the resource. The difficulties in putting a monetary value to the resource, especially to the intangibles, were acknowledged. Nevertheless, it was considered possible to assign a value to the resource.

•

Capacity building of institutions within the Caribbean Region was considered to be critical to good governance. Determination of the most effective approaches to re-orienting and building the capacity of fisherfolk communities for fisheries management should be a priority action for research. It was suggested that the extent to which traditional fisheries management practices were being utilised in the Caribbean region be surveyed and their applicability to management be evaluated.

•

Ways to improve communication among stakeholders should be researched, with emphasis on dialogue on management reference points and fisheries advice based on local knowledge. Evaluations of communication means being used, improved feedback to fisheries and improving the communication skills of scientists were suggested as areas for priority action.

•

The need to strengthen national and regional organisations to participate in international management initiatives and research was identified. Involvement of public and private sector research and training institutions in research and capacity building in order to achieve a critical mass was considered necessary. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 68

•

The promotion of TCDC [Technical Co-operation among Developing Countries], south-south cooperation, inter- and intra-regional sharing of information was considered to be important in governance.

•

The need to continuously educate and train resource managers, and users at all levels was identified. The need for education and training permeated all levels of governance.

•

The need for an information service to review fisheries literature for information of possible interest and communicate it to Caribbean clients was considered essential. In this regard, it was suggested that the PIMRIS system being employed by the South Pacific countries and which was co-ordinated by the South Pacific University should be explored for possible relevance to the Caribbean.

•

The lack of political will to implement certain management decision was highlighted as a major impediment to governance.

•

It was suggested that other regional models for decision making [e.g. the South Pacific Commission] be explored for possible application in the Caribbean.

•

It was suggested that wherever possible, research in relation to governance be pursued as pilot field projects.

By way of conclusion, the following issues have been identified as particularly critical: • moving from sectoral to cross-sectoral approaches in natural resource governance, specially in the situation of small island economies; • changing from a predominantly technological paradigm to one in which policy and organisational/management/information issues become important and which is compatible with local cultures and traditions; • striving towards greater synergy between public and private sectors through dialogue and consensus building; • shifting from donor-recipient behaviour to collaboration and partnership.


Chapter 5 - A partnership for the Initiative In a brief introduction, C. E. Nauen recapitulated the overall goal of the Initiative and the need to shift from the earlier donor-recipient relationship to partnership. In elaboration of section 3 of the “Background and approach to collaborative aquatic resources systems research”, she emphasised the need to improve the interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research focus, which, in conjunction with much broader-based collaborations and synergies with other bilaterally and multilaterally supported activities, would bring about greater cost-effectiveness, in pursuance of sustainable management. In keeping with these concerns, it was useful that an entire toolkit of collaborative mechanisms and financial instruments be accessed. Prompted by a specific question, it was made clear that there would not be a specific amount of money set aside for the Initiative. Rather, partners in the Initiative would be expected to compete within the framework of existing financial instruments. Among these are the European Development Fund (EDF), INCO-DC, a variety of the European Commission’s own budget lines and, of course, instruments from bilateral co-operation, and ACP countries themselves. These financial mechanisms had their own targets and administrative rules. In as much as they were compatible with the objectives of the Initiative partnership, funding could be sought from them for specific undertakings. Scientific pro-activity, effective networking and access to a diversity of funding mechanisms would be greatly enhanced by a facilitating mechanism in the form of a small secretariat serving partners in the Initiative. The secretariat would get guidance from a scientific advisory committee. The principal functions and composition of such a secretariat as laid out in appendix 3 to the background paper (Annex 3 of this report) were reiterated. It was suggested that the role of the Scientific Advisory Committee focus on • ensuring the match between research orientations and needs of sustainable development; • ensuring focus of the Initiative; and • advising on mechanisms to achieve broad-based ACP-EU collaboration. The composition of the Scientific Advisory Committee was suggested to comprise the following profiles: ACP senior scientists or science managers, EU Senior Fisheries Co-operation Advisers, independent members and Commission representatives. It was also suggested that the size not exceed 12 to allow the committee to operate effectively. The groups were invited to focus in their discussions particularly on two issues: • the function and composition of the secretariat or facilitating group, and • the function and composition of the Scientific Advisory Committee so that clear inputs could be made from the Caribbean and Pacific dialogue into the synthesis dialogue. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 70

The four working groups convened largely in the same way as on previous days, however, participants from the Pacific felt they wanted to convene a regional group in order to input their specific experience and outlook in an undiluted manner. Discussions were animated throughout the groups and took the morning and part of the afternoon. The reporting back and ensuing discussion in the plenary can be summarised as follows.

Context Given the changing context in which research operates, the greater need for interaction with diverse stakeholders and the competitive access to funding, there is demand for additional and more flexible interactions between different players, including research, administration, political decision makers, NGOs, and fisherfolk organisations. Participants felt that they had no mandate to make decisions which have potentially far-reaching institutional implications for national and regional implementation. They would best discuss the suggested implementation arrangements in the light of experience with their own regional and interregional co-operation institutions and make recommendations which would be considered at the synthesis dialogue in view of reporting back to the ACP-EU Joint Assembly which was at the origin of the dialogue. These recommendations were to take into account the need for strengthening existing regional institutions and forms collaborations and for analysing institutional relationships to ensure that functions of different bodies and their relationships were well defined and not conflicting. It was recognised that the emphasis during the dialogue was on process and interaction rather than on fixed structures. During the next phase when emphasis would naturally shift to implementation, but with maintaining dialogue, the search for operational flexibility rather than crystallisation should remain a major concern.

Conclusion Participants were in general agreement with the thrust of the implementation approach and underscored the need for a facilitating mechanisms in the form of a secretariat. The Pacific Region felt to have already closely knit relationships between sector stakeholders and wished to continue to rely heavily on existing regional organisations, particularly the South Pacific Commission (SPC) and the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). It felt also that there was still benefit in developing closer interaction with other institutions and regions and take advantage of opportunities arising from the Initiative. A Scientific Advisory Committee is useful in order to ensure scientific foresight and focus combined with sensitivity to regionally specific relevance considerations.

Remaining need for clarification and proposed solutions There remained some differences in perceptions as to the desirable institutional linkages of the Secretariat. The relations between formal institutions created under the Lome Convention, such as the Centre for the Development of Industry (CDI) and CTA, which are closely supervised by an ACP-EU Joint Committee of Ambassadors, may not be a model commensurate with the need for flexibility required to develop dynamic research and capacity building partnerships under the Initiative. At the same time, any facilitating mechanism depends on maintaining good relationships with technical level ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 71

partners as well as administrative and political decision makers, and particularly the ACP-EU Joint Assembly. The original draft terms of reference of the secretariat can then be amended as follows: “The overall goal of the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative is to ensure sustainable benefits from aquatic resource systems to stake holders through enhanced cost-effectiveness and impact of ACP-EU co-operation in the fisheries sector. The secretariat is charged with facilitating this overall goal. It shall have the following tasks: 1. Assist with the consolidation of the collaborative mode of action for the Initiative. To this effect it will: • undertake, in interaction with the agencies or bodies mentioned under 1.3, regular up-dates of the assessment of needs and capacities (institutional, economical, etc.) in research, planning, management and training in ACP countries and in the EU to the extent that they do not put the ACP countries at a disadvantage; • strengthen collaborative research and training mechanisms, specially when they can benefit planning and management needs for sustainable resource use; • liaise and, as appropriate, collaborate with such institutions as ICLARM, FAO, SIFR, ISNAR, and other agencies, programmes and bodies, particularly CFRAMP, SPC, FFA and other regional bodies, keeping in mind their long-term relative role and strengths; • report to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Initiative and receive scientific and managerial advice. 2. Assist in pro-active planning of the Initiative. To this effect it will: • establish and maintain a computer aided monitoring and communication system for performance of the Initiative; • maintain good relations and collaboration with research teams around the world working on issues of relevance to the Initiative; • provide guidance and planning support to partners of the Initiative, in particular competent fisheries authorities; • promote and participate actively, if appropriate, in the development and dissemination of information systems in support of sector planning, management and research; 3. Provide, as requested, sector policy advice to ACP countries and the Commission. To this effect it will: • provide support to the ACP/Commission efforts to table proposal(s) for appropriate European Community funding; • promote the development of decision making capabilities of ACP partner institutions through training and research, and providing access to information;


• provide support to the ACP/Commission efforts to improve the quality and relevance of cooperation through extending expert advice on proposals as required.” The suggested composition of the Secretariat was accepted and specificities elaborated on. These concern the qualification of staff to ensure credibility of the Secretariat’s role which should be ensured through competitive international recruitment, sensitivity to ACP concerns through ACP representation and the duration of secondments. Some participants felt that funding should be sought to allow adequate ACP secondment to the secretariat. The location of the secretariat was also considered suggesting Brussels or another European city, however, location is a secondary concern compared with functionality and effectiveness in rendering the service expected. The Scientific Advisory Committee’s mandate could be amended adding strength to its guiding rather than purely advisory role. A balanced composition would comprise three to five ACP senior scientists or science managers or possibly senior planners in administrations with a firm grasp of the needs in the sector, three EU Senior Fisheries Co-operation Advisers, four independent members chosen in their personal capacity as outstanding researchers or managers, one to two Commission representatives. The terms of service of members would have to be further clarified.


Chapter 6 - Follow-up to the Dialogue The discussion on follow-up focused on practical next steps between this meeting and the implementation phase. In chronological sequence, participants would report back on return to their home countries. The proceedings will be available for dissemination by the end of February 1997 to permit the synthesis dialogue meeting by end April. Participants from Pacific and Caribbean countries elected two representatives to attend the synthesis dialogue. The Pacific representatives are:

Mr. Ueta Fa’asili (Western Samoa) Mr. Saimone Tuilaucala (Fiji)

The Caribbean representatives are:

Mr. Milton Haughton (CFRAMP) Mr. Horace Walters (St. Lucia)

It was understood that should funding problems arise for the second person, countries from the region could cover the cost. Pacific countries said they wanted an SPC representative to advice their representatives. As a matter of principle countries would also like to retain the right to send other representatives as observers at their own expense. Overall arrangements will have to be confirmed to ensure that the meeting remains manageable and commensurate with funding. This meeting is expected to synthesise the dialogue and bring out a consensus with a revised background paper and accompanying report. This would be submitted to the ACP-EU Joint Assembly. ACP participants decided to approach their competent authorities to trigger formal requests to the EC to seek continued funding for the next steps of the dialogue process including a special dissemination effort about the progress on the Initiative towards ACP and EU research establishments and support to prepare collaborative research projects complementary to on-going efforts. It was understood that funding for the Secretariat and implementation of more concrete collaborations would require additional special request by a number of ACP National or Regional Authorising Officers.


Annexes


Annex 1 List of participants TOTAL DELEGATES

64

ACP Delegates

EU Delegates

Other participants

Antigua and Barbuda

2

Commission

5

Resource persons

8

The Bahamas

2

Portugal

1

Regional Organisations

6

Barbados

2

The Netherlands

1

ACP Secretariat

1

Belize

5

Organisers

2

Dominica

2

Facilitator

1

Dominican Republic

2

Fiji

2

Grenada

2

Haiti

2

Jamaica

2

St. Kitts and Nevis

2

St. Lucia

2

St. Vincent

2

Surinam

2

Trinidad and Tobago

2

Tonga

2

Tuvalu

2

Western Samoa

2

TOTAL ............................. 39

TOTAL ............................... 7

NAME

ADDRESS

Mr Viwale Adigo

ACP Secretariat

TOTAL ............................. 18

PHONE

FAX

+32 2 743 0600

+32 2 735 5573

+501 2 32 070

+501 2 72 785

451, avenue Georges Henri Brussels 1200 Belgium

Ms Louise Aguilar

European Union Representative of the European Office Cor. Hutson and Eyre Street


NAME

ADDRESS

PHONE

FAX

+676 21 399

+676 23 891

Bahamas Government Department of Fisheries

+1809 242 393 1777

+1809 242 393 0238

PO Box N 3028

+1809 242 393 1014

Nassau

+1809 242 393 1015

Belize

Mr Mafi Akauola

Ministry of Fisheries Deputy Secretary for Fisheries PO Box 871 Nukualofa Tonga

Mr Roland Albury

The Bahamas

Mr Timothy Antoine

Ministry of Finance and Planning

+1809 440 9701

Planning and Development Division

+1809 440 2731

+1809 440 4115

The Carenage, St. George’s Grenada

Mr Nikolasi Apinelu

Ministry of Natural Resources

+688 20 348

+688 20 826

+685 34 333

+685 21 312

+501 2 44 552

+501 2 32 983

Fisheries Department Funafuti Tuvalu

Mr Mose Asani

Government of Western Samoa Treasury Department PO Box 3017 Apia Western Samoa

Mr James Azueta

Fisheries Department Marine Protected Area Co-ordinator Princess Margaret Drive Belize City Belize


NAME

ADDRESS

Mr Audra Barrett

Government of St. Kitts and Nevis

PHONE

FAX

+1809 469 5521

+1809 469 1806

ext. 2095

Fisheries Division Ministry of Agriculture PO Box 507 Charlestown St. Kitts and Nevis

Mr Karim Belhadjali

Ministry of Natural Resources

+688 20 348

+688 20 826

+49 6174 931 676

+49 6174 931 676

+501 2 73 165

+501 2 30 486

+1809 456 1410

+1809 457 1688

+1246 426 7110

+1246 427 6075

Fisheries Department Funafuti Tuvalu

Dr Martin Bilio

Am Hirschsprung 10 D-61462 Koenigstein Germany

Mr Ramon Bradley

National Fishermen’s Coop Belize City Belize

Mr Samuel Carlton

Ministry of Agriculture and Labour Permanent Secretary Murray Road Kingstown St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Mr Bisessar Chakalall

Food & Agriculture Organisation of United Nations (FAO)

+1246 426 7111

Sixth Floor, Central Bank Building

EMAIL

Church Village - PO Box 631-C

Bisessar.Chakalall@

Bridgetown

field.fao.org

Barbados

Mr Pierre Charlier

Fisheries Department

+597 476 741

PO Box 2957 Paramaribo Surinam


+597 421 119

NAME

ADDRESS

Dr Villy Christensen

International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management

PHONE

FAX

+45 98 94 46 22

+45 33 96 32 60

North Sea Centre

EMAIL

PO Box 101

[email protected]

9850 Hirtshals Denmark

Mr Vallierre Deleveaux

Department of Fisheries

+1809 242 393 1014

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

+1809 242 393 1015

PO Box N 3028

+1809 242 393 0238

EMAIL

Nassau

[email protected]

The Bahamas

Dr Manuel Lima Dias

Instituto de Investigaçao das Pescas e do Mar

+351 1 3010 814

+351 1 3015 948

Avenida de Brasilia internet :

1400 Lisboa

http://www.ipimar.pt

Portugal

Prof. François Doumenge

Musée Océanographique de Monaco

+04 93 15 36 00

+04 93 50 52 97

+1 301 718 0861

+1 301 718 8530

+685 20 369

+685 24 292

Director Avenue Saint-Martin MC 98000 Monaco

Mr John P. Evans

Management and Institutional Consultant 4701 Willard Ave., Suite 634 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 USA

Mr Ueta Fa’asili

Fisheries Division Department of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries, and Meteorology PO BOX 1874 Apia Western Samoa


NAME

ADDRESS

Dr Boris Fabres

Caricom Fisheries Resources Assessment and Management Programme

PHONE

FAX

+1809 457 1904

+1809 457 2414

CFRAMP

EMAIL

Tyrell St.

[email protected]

Kingstown St. Vincent and The Grenadines

Mr Orlando Fachada

European Commission Delegation

+509 490 141/2

Delmas 60 - Impasse Brave 1 Port au Prince Haiti

Dr Marie-Louise Félix

Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Forestry

+1809 758 452 6172

+1809 758 452 3853

+01 46 48 21 81

+01 46 48 21 88

Department of Fisheries, Castries St. Lucia

Dr Philippe Ferlin

IFREMER Director of International Relations and Cooperation

EMAIL

155 rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[email protected]

92138 Issy-les-Moulineaux France

Mr James Finlay

Chief Fisheries Officer

+1809 440 3386

+1809 440 4191

Ministry of Agriculture

+1809 440 3814

+1809 440 6613

+1809 925 1506

+1809 927 1904

+01 46 48 22 62

+01 46 48 22 76

Fisheries Division Mount Wheldale St. Georges Grenada

Mr Hopeton Fraser

Ministry of Agriculture & Mining Chief Technical Director Hope Gardens Kingston Jamaica

Dr Jacques Fuchs

IFREMER


NAME

ADDRESS

PHONE

FAX

Living Resources Department 155 rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau

EMAIL

92138 Issy-les-Moulineaux

[email protected]

France

Mr Léonel Garnier

Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources

+509 453 608

+509 453 608

+501 2 35 739

+501 2 35 738

+1246 425 1310

+1246 425 1327

Turgeau, Impasse Deverger #8 Port-au-Prince Haiti

Ms Janet Gibson

GEF/UNDP Coastal Zone Management Project 8 St. Mark St. Belize City Belize

Ms Charmaine Gomes

Marine Resource and Environmental Management - U.W.I.

ext. 707

P.O. Box 64

EMAIL

Bridgetown

[email protected]

Barbados

Mr Krishna Gooriesingh

Ministry of Agriculture Lands and Marine Resources

+1809 622 1221

+1809 622 9131

+1809 448 0140

+1809 448 0140

St. Clair Circle Port of Spain Trinidad and Tobago

Mr Harold Guiste

Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Fisheries Division Roseau

+1809 448 2401 ext. 3391/3392

Dominica

Mr Carlos Hamilton

Departamento de Recursos Pesqueros

+1809 547 2687

Secretaria de Agricultura Carretera Duarte km/6.5 Santo Domingo Dominican Republic


+1809 227 1186 +1809 227 1286

NAME

ADDRESS

Dr Milton Haughton

CFRAMP

PHONE

FAX

+501 2 34 443

+501 2 34 446 EMAIL

PO Box 642

[email protected]

Belize City Belize

Mr Noel Jacobs


+501 2 32 623

+501 2 32 983

+1809 462 1213

+1809 462 6104

+1809 634 4504/5

+1809 634 4488

+509 45 0848

+509 45 0848

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Princess Margaret Drive, PO Box 148 Belize City Belize

Ms Cheryl Jeffrey

Fisheries Division Ministry of Finance, Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries, Planing and Co-operatives Nevis and Temple Streets St. John’s Antigua and Barbuda

Ms Sita Kuruvilla

Fisheries Division Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources St. Clair Circle Port of Spain Trinidad and Tobago

Mr Pierre-Guy Lafontant

Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural

+509 22 3591

Impasse Mansart, Rue Armand Holly Port-au-Prince Haiti

Mr Tevita Finau Latu

Ministry of Fisheries

+676 21 399

Fisheries Officer PO Box 871 Nukualofa Tonga


+676 23 891

NAME

ADDRESS

Dr Patrick Lehodey

Senior Fisheries Scientist

PHONE

FAX

+687 262 000

+687 263 818

+597 472 233

+597 421 119

South Pacific Commission BP D5 Nouméa cedex 98848 New Caledonia

Mr Rene Lieveld

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries,

+ 597 476 741

PO Box 1007 Cornelis Jongbawstraat No50 Paramaribo Surinam

Dr Robin Mahon

Fisheries and Environmental Consulting

+1246 432 7415

+1246 432 7415

48 Sunset Crest St. James

EMAIL [email protected]

Barbados

Dr Patrick McConney


+1246 427 8480

+1246 436 9068

Fisheries Division EMAIL

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

[email protected]

Near Hincks Street Bridgetown Barbados

Mr James Moran

Delegation of the European Commission

+1809 924 6333

+1809 924 6339

to 6337

PO Box 463

EMAIL

Constant Spring

[email protected]

Kingston Jamaica

Mr Kerwyn Morris


+809 456 2738

+809 457 2112

Ministry of Agriculture and Labour EMAIL

Kingston

[email protected]

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Mr Peter A. Murray

Programme Officer

+1809 758 452 1847


+1809 758 452 2194

NAME

ADDRESS OECS Natural Resources Management Unit

PHONE +1809 758 453 6208

EMAIL

Morne Fortune

[email protected]

PO Box 1383

oecss@zans

Castries

[email protected]

St. Lucia

Dr Cornelia E. Nauen

Directorate General for Development

+32 2 299 2573

[email protected]

200, rue de la Loi

or

1049 Brussels

[email protected]

Belgium


+32 2 299 0603 EMAIL

European Commission

Mr Lloyd Perriott

FAX

+501 2 32 187

+501 2 32 983

+1809 448 2401

+1809 448 0140

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Princess Margaret Drive PO Box 148 Belize City Belize

Mr Algernon Philbert

Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Fisheries Division

ext. 3391/3392

Roseau Dominica

Mr Terrence C. Phillips

CFRAMP

+1809 634 4528

Shrimp and Crawfish Resource Assessment

+1809 634 4530

+1809 634 4549

123 Western Main Rd. Trinidad and Tobago

Mr Enrique Pugibet Bobea

Acuario Nacional

+1809 598 6844

+1809 593 0029

Av. Espana Sans Souci Santo Domingo Dominican Republic



NAME

ADDRESS

Mr Valentine Rodney

Director Fisheries (Acting)

PHONE

FAX

+1809 923 8811/3

+1809 923 7571/2

Ministry of Agriculture and Mining EMAIL

Fisheries Division

[email protected]

Marcus Garvey Drive, PO Box 470 Kingston Jamaica

Mr Frits C. Roest

International Agricultural Centre (IAC)

+31 317 490 247

Senior Fisheries Adviser

+31 317 490 111

PO Box 88 - 6700 AB Wageningen


The Netherlands

Mr Eustace Royer

Fisheries Division

+31 317 418 552

+1809 462 1213

+1809 462 6104

+81 798 712 904

+81 798 714 749

Ministry of Finance, Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries, Planning and Co-operatives Nevis and Temple St. St. John’s Antigua and Barbuda

Prof. Kenneth Ruddle

11-20 Matsugaoka-cho Nishinomiya-shi

Mr Joseph Simmonds

Hyogo-ken

EMAIL

Japan 661

[email protected]

Fisheries Division

+1809 465 8045

+1809 465 5202

+1809 457 1904

+1809 457 2414

Department of Agriculture Bay Road Basse Terre St. Kitts and Nevis

Dr Susan Singh - Renton

c/o CFRAMP Tyrell Street St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Mr K. Mustafa Toure

Marine Research Centre

+501 2 30 256

University College of Belize


NAME

ADDRESS

PHONE

FAX

+679 361 184

+679 361 184

+679 477 781

+679 479 770

+32 2 295 8636

+32 2 296 6252

University Drive Belize

Mr Saimone Tuilaucala

Fiji Fisheries Division P.O. Box 3165 Suva Fiji

Mr Jone Vasuca

Fiji Fisheries Division Naduruloulou Fisheries Station PO Box 819 Nausori Fiji

Prof. Tilak Viegas

Directorate General for Research and Development European Commission

EMAIL

8 Square de Meeus

francisco.tilak-viegas@

1040 Brussels

dg12.cec.be

Belgium

Mr Horace Walters

Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries and Forestry

+1809 758 452 6172

+1809 758 452 3853

+1246 427 8480

+1246 436 9068

Department of Fisheries Castries St. Lucia

Mr Stephen Willoughby

Deputy Chief Fisheries Officer Fisheries Division Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Fisheries Division Near Hincks Street Bridgetown Barbados


Annex 2 - Agenda for the Meeting Wednesday 4 December 1996

Arrival of the participants

17h30 - 18h30

Registration

19h00 - 20h30

Reception hosted by the Government of Belize

Thursday 5 December 1996 09h00

Official opening of the workshop

09h30 - 13h00

Session 1 - ACP/EU Fisheries Research Initiative, an introduction

09h30 - 10h00

Background presentation of the 3rd Regional Dialogue ACPEU Fisheries Research Initiative, by Prof. T. Viegas (European Commission)

10h00 - 10h30

Ideas for research and development projects on marine productivity within the intertropical Pacific and Caribbean regions, by Prof. F. Doumenge (Monaco Marine Institute)

10h30 - 11h00

Coffee break

11h00 - 11h30

EU mechanisms for a research partnership between EU and ACP countries, by Dr C.E. Nauen (European Commission)

11h30 - 12h00

Stakeholders and cost-effectiveness in research, by Dr M. Bilio (Germany)

12h00 - 13h00

Start-up discussion on the background document on the Initiative

13h00 - 14h30

Lunch

14h30 - 18h00

Session 2 - Large Marine Ecosystems (LME)

14h30 - 15h00

Large marine ecosystems (LME) with reference to the Caribbean region, by Dr V. Christensen (ICLARM/ North Sea Center, Denmark), Dr Robin Mahon (Barbados) and Dr P. Lehodey (South Pacific Commission)

15h00 - 16h00

Working group meetings - Session 2 - Large Marine Ecosystems

16h00 - 16h30

Coffee break

16h30 - 17h00

Working group meetings - Session 2 - Large Marine Ecosystems (cont’d)


17h00 - 18h00

Plenary session - Synthesis of Session 2 - LME

20h00

Dinner


Friday, 6 December 1996 08h30 - 13h00

Session 3 - Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM)

08h30 - 09h00

Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) in the Caribbean, by Ms J. Gibson (UNDP/GEF, Belize), Mr M. Toure (University College, Belize), Dr A. Smith (CANARI, St. Lucia)

09h00 - 09h30

Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) in the Pacific, by Prof. K. Ruddle (currently Japan)

09h30 - 10h30

Working group meetings - Session 3 - ICAM

10h30 - 11h00

Coffee break

11h00 - 12h00

Working group meetings - Session 3 - ICAM (cont’d)

12h00 - 13h00

Plenary session - Synthesis of Session 3 - ICAM

13h00 - 14h30

Lunch

14h30 - 18h00

Session 4 - Governance in capture and culture fisheries

14h30 - 15h00

Governance in the Caribbean, by Dr B. Chakalall (FAO Regional Office, Barbados), Dr Robin Mahon (Barbados), Dr Patrick McConney (Barbados)

15h00 - 15h30

Governance in the Pacific, by Dr T. Adams (South Pacific Commission)

15h30 - 16h30

Working groups meeting - Session 4 - Governance

16h30 - 17h00

Coffee break

17h00 - 18h00

Plenary session - Synthesis of Session 4 - Governance

20h00

Dinner

Saturday 7 December 1996

Technical visits Demonstrations of computer programmes etc.

Sunday 8 December 1996

Free

Monday 9 December 1996 08h30 - 09h30

Recapitulation of earlier technical discussions

09h30 - 13h00

Session 5 - A partnership for the Initiative

09h30 - 11h00

Working group meetings - Session 5 - Mechanism of the implementation of the Initiative

11h00 - 11h30

Coffee break


11h30 - 13h00

Plenary discussion - Synthesis of Session 5 - Implementation

Monday 9 December 1996 13h00 - 14h30

Lunch

14h30 - 18h00

Session 6 - Follow-up to the dialogue

14h30 - 16h30

Working group meetings - Session 6 - Follow-up to third dialogue meeting

16h30 - 17h00

Coffee break

17h00 - 18h00

Plenary discussion - Synthesis of Session 6 - Follow-up to the dialogue

20h00

Dinner

Tuesday 10 December 1996 09h00 - 12h30

Preparation of the final draft report

12h30 - 14h00

Lunch

14h00 - 17h00

Plenary session for adoption of the report, including main findings of Working Groups and recommendations for future action

19h00

Farewell reception

Wednesday 11 December 1996

Departure of participants



Annex 3 - ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. Background and approach to collaborative aquatic resource systems research 1.

Background

The design of management plans for the sustainable use of aquatic resources needs to take into account several aspects including: 1. its global nature 2. the still open access to the resources, and 3. the internationalisation of trade in fish and its products. The aquatic resources themselves depend on the existence of a chain of physical and biological resources and an intact natural environment. Pressure on the environment is increasing through • conflicting use of water, land and biological resources, • poor infrastructure development • unsustainable forestry, livestock and agricultural activities, and • industrial and domestic pollution. The sustained use of aquatic resources thus necessitates proper and effective area and resource management, coastal zone planning and the management and mitigation of conflicts. Accelerated population growth world-wide has led to a growing demand for fish. On the other hand, the total world catch has now reached a maximum and access to fish for food is increasingly a function of purchasing power and not of physical availability. The increased fishing effort and the capital investment poured into the sector has not only accelerated the plateauing of the total world catch, but has also resulted in ecological changes and in social and economic waste. Population pressure and the lack of alternative employment have also increased labour inflow, particularly in the small-scale sub-sector, itself contributing to unsustainable exploitation patterns in some places. The need to satisfy the growing demand for fish has led to an expansion in aquaculture operations. This has been based on the intensification of fish farming, along the lines followed by livestock production. Aquaculture, if not properly managed, can also have negative effects on water supplies, coastal and inland ecosystems and biodiversity. The growing mismatch between population growth and the availability of food requires the sustainable use of more intensive and integrated (but still ecologically sustainable) methods of fish farming and ways to rationalise the exploitation of land and water-based resources. In terms of aquaculture practices, this calls for low-input integrated fish production within farming systems that cater for the needs of small producers in the subsistence sector. The critical situation of the exploitation of aquatic resources has been highlighted in an internationally co-ordinated analysis, i.e. the Study of International Fisheries Research (SIFR). This Study went on to identify major themes requiring coherent and sustained research efforts. Moreover, the study looked into ways of organising the fisheries/aquaculture research efforts while emphasising the international nature of the main issues and the comparative advantages associated with trans-regional co-operation.


SIFR influenced the adoption by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly of a “Resolution on Fisheries”, specifically as it relates to research. The Resolution gives due consideration to the need to promote research on the sustainable use and management of aquatic resources in ACP countries, emphasising the need for scientific and technological co-operation between these countries and the EU. The timing of this “Fisheries Research Initiative” coincides with a desire to develop stronger links (with improved impact and costeffectiveness of research) between the EUs Development Co-operation and Research & Technological Development policies. Furthermore, the Maastricht Treaty has called for an improved co-ordination between the European Union Member States and the European Commission. The outline presented here for a proposed Initiative on scientific and technological co-operation between the ACP countries and their regional organisations and the EU and its Member States, will lead to a new generation of activities to be implemented through a widely concerted effort.

2.

A Concept for the Initiative

The main goal of the Initiative is; “to contribute to the stabilisation or increase of economic and social benefits to stake holders of aquatic resource systems and to reduce environmental degradation through collaborative research activities”. The collaborative research will thus need to provide solutions to the most pressing researchable problems in the sustainable use of aquatic natural resources and aiming at equitable sharing of benefits amongst the stakeholders in the sector(s) concerned. It is important to emphasise that this Initiative will avoid duplication with existing bilateral and multilateral efforts in research and development. The Initiative should focus mainly on: i)

Prioritising research activities which can be implemented in ACP countries, making full use of available human, institutional and capital resources and ensuring that these activities are tied to local decisions making systems in order to ensure continuity of the research effort;

ii) Building the capacity of local institutions to identify resource management issues and formulate and implement the corresponding research activities; iii) Strengthening regional and sub-regional co-operation through the promotion of joint training and of information systems as a pre-requisite for regional management programmes; iv) Emphasising that sustainable use of aquatic resources implies putting high priority on governance of capture and culture fisheries, involving interdisciplinary research on the biological, physical and socio-economic factors affecting sustainability. A tentative partial logical framework matrix on researchable priorities is attached in Appendix 1. This is drawn from the SIFR report and preliminary technical consultations between European Senior Fisheries Advisors and aims at providing a framework for constructive discussion. The six major Purposes have been identified as: 1. adoption and implementation of a strategy for the conservation of Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) by coastal states and the international community; 2. adoption and implementation of a regional strategy for the management of resources in international freshwaters; 3. implementation of integrated coastal area management (ICAM) plans;


4. implementation of effective integrated management of floodplain resources; 5. development of sustainable aquaculture systems; 6. development of governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Action on all these themes is required in order to achieve the overall goal of the Initiative. However, it is clear that an in-depth discussion must be carried out on a regional basis, taking into account regional specificity and relative priorities. The criteria for the assessment of themes on a regional basis may be suitably divided into strategic criteria aiming at providing focus, and operational criteria aiming at ensuring feasibility. Strategic criteria are poverty alleviation (focus on stake holders), food security and the globalisation of resource exploitation and trade. Operational criteria can be grouped into three classes: financial (cost-effectiveness), organisational (flexibility), and existence of valid interlocutors for scientific co-operation in ACP countries (human and institutional capital). The Initiative will reflect a practical and pragmatic application of the subsidiary principle. Care must be taken that the Initiative undertakes and promotes research activities that are not normally be carried out by national institutions or through bilateral arrangements. The latter focus, for good reasons, on a national and/or narrower agenda. In the medium term, the Initiative should strive to build interregional relations involving scientists and institutions in the ACP and EU regions.

3.

How could the Initiative be implemented?

The Initiative aims to provide: • an improved focus for research activities; • the enhanced use of scientific, technological and organisational comparative advantages held by participating partners; and • an overall improvement of cost-effectiveness brought about by the two previous factors. Implementing an Initiative of this type requires a strongly co-ordinated network able to guide its members in scientific projects and programmes, including activities such as advanced training, the management of information systems and the use of scientific and management information in decision-making. Tuning existing mechanisms to the needs of the Initiative will create considerable opportunities for ACP and EU partners. A network of this type should: • promote the participation of ACP and EU scientists and institutions in identified projects and programmes that take into account the partner’s interests and competencies To this effect, an electronic inventory of ACP human and institutional resources is currently under preparation • have the flexibility to include different types of activity and membership as the need arises, in close co-ordination with on-going or planned activities world-wide; • take advantage of (a) the review of Lome IV, (b) the programming discussions on the second financial protocol - 8th EDF, and © the IV Framework Programme managed by DG XII. The latter has become operational in early 1995 for a five year period and supports direct co-operation between scientific institutions and individuals in Europe and elsewhere.


• reconcile the need for a proactive approach with that of scientific openness to all interested partners • ensure cost-effectiveness and subsidiarity in relation to bilaterally or internationally supported activities; • set up a scientific co-ordination or facilitation core group (a secretariat). Two or three senior scientists would staff the core group of the network’s co-ordination and this group would be reinforced with temporary staff on secondment from institutions in Member States and/or ACP countries. Responsibilities would include; a) encouraging ACP leadership in identifying research priorities; b) the promotion of an enabling environment for research in ACP institutions through installation of scientific and management information systems (e.g. FishBase, FIAS, etc.) and advanced training in the use of these tools; c) ensuring awareness by the EU scientific community of the priorities for S&T co-operation with ACP countries; d) promotion of the submission of joint research proposals (ACP/EU) to Activity 2 of the IV RTD Framework Programme; e) preparation of a workplan for the next five years with its performance closely monitored by DG VIII and DG XII. • have a scientific Advisory Committee. Funding An initial phase of five years would thus be funded principally through already committed or planned EDF (European Development Fund) or other DG VIII managed resources and also through DG XII/FP4/Activity 2 funds (following the procedures of each of these EU instruments). A mid-term evaluation would be carried out during the third year of operation at which time a decision would be made to continue and expand or discontinue its operations. Pending a successful evaluation of the first five years, a second phase of five years could be envisaged in which the experience obtained in the previous period would allow further progress on two main fronts: consolidation of collaborative links with key ACP institutions involved in fishery and related natural resource management and research; and expansion of the Initiative’s operations to other ACP countries in the regions where these institutions are located.

4.

Consultation with ACP Countries

This Initiative reflects a growing awareness by ACP countries of the importance of sustainable management of their aquatic resources in the context of socio-economic development. UNCLOS and UNCED have already provided the platform for the Initiative. However, the ability of the ACP countries to effectively manage the aquatic resources tends to require differing levels of support depending on the country. This situation results from significant institutional and human capital shortcomings which will have to be addressed by the Initiative in an equitable manner. Failure to do so would result in the scarcity of able communicators in ACP countries and in intra-regional imbalances; both situations are detrimental to the key objective of exploiting aquatic resources in a sustainable way. For these reasons, the activities in ACP countries on a regional basis will have to be based on a well balanced mix of: • joint-research,


• information management, and • training. These activities will be organised in a mutually supportive way. For instance, all will share common instruments such as FishBase, ReefBase or, where appropriate, the Fisheries Information and Analysis System (FIAS) currently under preparation for joint implementation between coastal West African countries and external holders of relevant knowledge. Furthermore, the Initiative should develop, with the national centres in individual ACP regions, a relationship that would promote intra-regional cooperation while also contributing to greater cost-effectiveness. Therefore, the Initiative should encourage steady but cautious progress in the implementation of activities, both geographically and temporally. This approach will be reflected in the phasing of the proposed activities while ensuring sufficient flexibility to accommodate faster than expected progress whenever it occurs. The final draft for the Initiative should therefore aim at identifying those situations where co-operation can begin immediately and those where further preparatory dialogue will be required.

5.

Organisation & Management

The interdisciplinary nature of the scientific approaches outlined previously and in Appendix 1 determines broadly the structural and functional elements of the Initiative. These will be further discussed during the dialogue process. It also provides a strong indication of the required operational features, financial requirements and of the expected outcome (to be used later in Monitoring & Evaluation). Structure The Initiative will be open to all scientific, technical and decision-making personalities and institutions interested in its objectives, in ACP and in Member States of the European Union (and associated countries). It would be an informal networking arrangement open to the above-mentioned interested parties with a permanent but limited secretariat composed of core and visiting staff. The modalities of participation in the Initiative’s activities are outlined below but its fully voluntary character should be emphasised as well as the joint responsibility of active partners in its operational and financial aspects. Functioning of the secretariat The secretariat should be fully accountable to the Initiative’s partners and should be given the operational autonomy needed for a pro-active “modus operandi”. Long term programmes and annual workplans will be prepared by the secretariat. These will incorporate the preferences indicated by the partners (organised into some kind of advisory committee) as well as the required activities identified by the secretariat. Programmes and workplans will have to be previously approved by active partners. A tentative organisational chart is attached in Appendix 2. The professional profile and number of core and visiting staff will reflect the scientific (biological, environmental and policy), technical, institutional and training requirements for the effective implementation of the Initiative. Active participation of staff from interested ACP institutions will be encouraged. Operational features The Initiative will have two main operational pillars: • promoting synergy between research and development oriented activities in ACP countries; and ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 96

• promoting co-ordination between European (Member States and the EU) and ACP partners and activities in scientific and technological co-operation aiming at the sustainable management of fisheries and aquaculture. Synergy will involve: • identifying and promoting areas for interdisciplinary research which are suited to the specific needs of ACP countries and/or groups of countries in order to generate local support for research and for the management of natural resources; • preparing and implementing programmes to enhance human and institutional resources in these countries; and • developing suitable information systems to support decision making at the required level. Co-ordination - with the aim of improving focus and cost-effectiveness of European co-operation activities with ACP countries: the Initiative will address mechanisms to strengthen voluntary intraand inter-regional co-operation through the use of complementary resources, in Europe and in ACP countries. It follows from the above that the secretariat will not normally be directly involved in field research activities. This will be the responsibility of the Initiative’s partners in ACP countries and in Europe. The secretariat is expected to participate and contribute to the identification of research needs, the active promotion of research results and the uptake of research. In this context the secretariat will be responsible, in association with active partners, for • the preparation of studies on selected themes with wide consultation and then follow-up in terms of research proposals and ancillary activities; • the development of resource management information systems needed for policy decision making, and • preparation and implementation of programmes to strengthen human and institutional resources. The outputs from the secretariat will be subject to discussion with ACP partners. Among the terms of reference, a region specific and a region independent part may be distinguished. Tentative terms of reference are detailed in Appendix 3. Financial requirements The Initiative will have “fixed” and “variable” parts in its programme, corresponding respectively to activities to be funded mainly (and initially) under the appropriate EU mechanisms and to those that will involve funding by European and ACP partners jointly. Indicative budget estimates should be prepared in the near future, once a work programme has evolved for the Initiative’s first phase of five years.

6.

Expected Results

The outputs from the Initiative are expected to lead to a better focus of research into the major development issues and constraints and to a quantitative and qualitative increase of interdisciplinary and participatory research. Over a longer time frame, human resources and infrastructure will be strengthened in participating institutions and will then result in enhanced capacity to carry out relevant and high quality research and to communicate within research and wider communities.


Indicators for the success of the initiative will be initially the number of institutions/individuals participating in the Initiative in terms of research, training and exchange visits, as well as publications in technical and scientific journals and books. More specifically, suitable indicators would be: 1. quality of proposals is improved (number of rejected proposals decline) 2. research is increasingly cost-effective (useful results at lower cost) 3. uptake of results by target institutions and transformation of results into policy, investment or development (technology transfer) 4. impact of research on social and economic status of target beneficiaries realised, or on environmental status of a resource or ecosystem. Provided suitable baseline information is available, some impact will thus be visible through progress towards sustainable use of resources and reduction of environmental degradation. However, some of the impact will occur only indirectly or in conjunction with other factors and may be difficult to measure because of the complexity of the resource systems, their exploitation, and the societies we are dealing with.


Appendix 1 - Principal objectives and purposes according to a partial logical framework matrix GOAL

Stabilise or increase economic and social benefits to resource users Reduce environmental degradation

PURPOSES

(EU policy - ACP selection)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Strategy for the conservation of large marine ecosystems (LME) adopted and implemented by coastal states and international community

Strategy for the management of resources in international freshwaters regionally adopted and implemented

Integrated coastal area management (ICAM) plan implemented

Effective integrated management of floodplain resources implemented

Sustainable aquaculture system adopted

Governance of fisheries and aquaculture developed

OUTPUTS

(ACP-EU technical negotiation)

1.1 resources assessed



4.1 strategies for enhancing fisheries elaborated

5.1 knowledge base for the enhancement of fish production in existing water bodies accrued

6.1 community structure and dynamics of small-scale fisheries understood

1.2 exploitation yields economic

2.2 economic/biological optimum achieved sustainable exploitation

3.2 institutional co-ordination mechanism established

4.2 governance system for maximising production from impoundments in place

5.2 constraints to integration of fish culture into farming system understood

6.2 small-scale fishing and farming communities empowered

1.3 optimum sustainable yield (OSY)

2.3 regional management mechanism established/ strengthened

3.3 planning capacity at provincial (area) level improved

4.3 integrated use of land and water resources optimised

5.3 controlled reproduction of local species of low trophic levels understood

6.3 role of different institutions in governance clarified

1.4 biodiversity protected

2.4 human resources developed

3.4 mechanism for community participation integrated into governance system

4.4 institutional co-ordinating mechanism established

5.4 constraints to continued controlled reproduction understood

6.4 conflict solution/ mitigation mechanisms developed

1.5 regional resource management mechanism in place, strengthened

2.5 biodiversity mapped/ conserved

3.5 financial services available to small-scale resource users


5.5 potential farm-based feeds and fertilisers identified

6.5 role of private, cooperative and public sectors understood


1.6 legal framework for LME conservation adopted

2.6 local governance system established

3.6 legal and other institutional mechanisms for resolution of conflicts established

4.6 biodiversity mapped and conservation strategy elaborated

5.6 replacements of fish meal component in fish feeds by plant and other cheap protein achieved

6.6 institutional change associated with 6.5 brought about


2.7 financial services (credit) available

3.7 land and water resources quantified, mapped

4.7 financial services available for small-scale resource users

5.7 aquaculture impact on the environment & means of avoiding environmental deterioration better understood

6.7 participatory methodologies for research into governance developed

1.8 awareness built up

2.8 distribution/equity secured

3.8 mechanism for allocation of use rights developed through participation

4.8 patterns of resource use understood and strengthened

5.8 social constraints on intensification understood

6.8 gender concerns fully integrated into governance system

1.9 ocean/coastal dynamics understood

2.9 gender involvement rationalised

3.9 systems for waste management/pollution control implemented

4.9 communal management of resources established/strengthened

6.9 use of farm based resources improved

2.10 awareness built up

3.10 gender and distribution aspects rationalised

4.10 improved land tenure/legal framework

6.10 social constraints to intensification of resource use understood and acted upon

4.11 gender and distributional issues understood and enhanced

6.11 resource systems understood

6.12 international trade in fisheries products understood

NB Inputs/activities cannot be handled at this level and must be dealt with at a more advanced stage of implementation by researchers. Some of the major themes identified in the original table in the working paper should more appropriately figure in this matrix at a lower hierarchical level. This is the case of postharvest issues while information systems and better use and “valorisation” of human and institutional capital are inputs required throughout. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 100

Appendix 2 - ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative

ACP-EU Scientific Advisory Committee

Secretariat's own activities

European Union

Secretariat of the Initiative

dialogue

projects

ACP countries

FP4 EDF others

Tentative organisational chart of the Initiative

ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 79

Appendix 3 - Draft terms of reference for the secretariat The overall goal of the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative is to contribute to sustainable benefits from aquatic resource systems to stake holders through enhanced cost-effectiveness and impact of ACP-EU co-operation in the fisheries sector. The secretariat is charged with promoting this overall goal. It shall have region independent and region specific tasks. The region independent tasks are as follows: 1. Assist with the consolidation of the collaborative mode of action for the Initiative. To this effect it will • undertake regular up-dates of the assessment of needs and capacities (institution, economic interests, etc.) in research and training in ACP countries and the EU; • strengthen collaborative research and training mechanisms; • liaise and, as appropriate, collaborate with ICLARM, FAO, SIFR, ISNAR and other agencies, programmes and bodies keeping in mind the long-term relative role and strengths; • report to the Advisory Committee of the Initiative and receive scientific and managerial advice; 2. Assist in pro-active planning of the Initiative. To this effect it will • establish and maintain a computer aided monitoring system of performance of the Initiative; • maintain good relations to research teams around the world working on issues of relevance to the Initiative; • provide guidance and planning support to partners of the Initiative; • promote and participate actively, if appropriate, in the development and dissemination of information systems in support of sector planning and management (and research); 3. Provide, as required, sector policy advice to ACP countries and/or the Commission. To this effect it will: • provide support to the ACP/Commission efforts to table proposal(s) for appropriate community funding; • promote the development of decision making capabilities of ACP partner institutions through training and research, and providing access to information; • provide support to the ACP/Commission efforts to improve the quality and relevance of cooperation through extending expert advice on proposals as required. The region dependent tasks can only be determined in the dialogue with ACP partners and are therefore left pending at this stage. The composition of the secretariat will be as follows: • a core group of scientific staff with considerable experience of ACP development problems • a variable number of staff on secondment (ACP and EU) ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 80

• regional focal points (corresponding members of the secretariat) • staff responsible for administrative, legal and contractual matters.



Annex 4 - Opening Speeches Opening statement on behalf of the Government of Belize by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Hon. Russell Garcia It is indeed a pleasure to be here this morning and to have the privilege of welcoming you to this important meeting on behalf of the government and people of Belize. Unfortunately the Right Hon. Prime Minister Mr Manuel Esquivel, is not able to be with us this morning, to personally welcome you, and open this meeting because of a previous engagement abroad. On behalf I extend a warm welcome to all of you this morning, particularly to our guests from the European Union and the ACP States. I hope that you will find time, despite your busy schedule, to sample the delights of this jewel of ours, the natural beauty, culture and traditions of Belize. Only yesterday, the Bureau of World Heritage Convention, meeting in Merida, Mexico, included the Belize Barrier Reef Protected Area System in the UNESCO list of world heritage sites. In achieving this prestigious award for our country, please join me in thanking all those persons and organisations in and out of Belize that have worked collaboratively. I want to take this opportunity to thank European Union for their foresight in convening this important dialogue on fisheries as a means of stabilising and improving fisheries in the EU-ACP countries. This meeting is the third in the series under the ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. The first was held in Namibia in July 1995, the second was held in Senegal in April of this year and the third and penultimate meeting is being held here in Belize. The final meeting is being held in Brussels in 1997. This Initiative is a demonstration of the EU’s commitment to fisheries and a reflection of the special relation that exists between the ACP states and the European Union which has contributed significantly to the development of Belize and the ACP states present here today. We thank you and look forward to strengthening our co-operation through this dialogue as we begin discussion of another Lome agreement and as we approach the 21st Century. The purpose of this meeting is to engage the ACP States and the European Union in a dialogue on the problems and opportunities in fisheries, and on ways of improving the socio-economic contribution of fisheries towards humble development through research and improve regional and international cooperation. The approach of developing the Initiative through dialogue is significant as there seems to be no other alternate path to promoting development outside improving co-operation and integration. Belize is a unique geopolitical position to foster regional co-operation and integration in fisheries management and development. It is a bridge between the English and Spanish speaking Caribbean. This is one of the more important reasons why Belize decided to host the CFRAMP Program that is seeking to promote sustainable management of fisheries in the CARICOM Countries. As you may be aware, Belize was elected chairman of the Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC) at its last meeting in Venezuela in November 1995. I plan to be an active chairman and use the opportunity to foster regional co-operation in fisheries research, the results of which will promote SUSTAINABLE management and development of fisheries and aquaculture in the wider Caribbean region. I took the initiative to discuss with the Director General of FAO, Dr Jacques Diouf when he visited Belize last October, the future role of WECAFC in a rapidly changing fisheries world. In this regard I anticipate that some action will be taken early next year. Belize has already


offered to host an inter-agency lobster stock assessment workshop sponsored by FAO and CARICOM (through CFRAMP) involving all the countries in the wider Caribbean Region. In the same vein, Belize will be hosting, in 1997, the meetings of the WECAFC Working Parties on Fisheries Economics and Planning and Resource Assessment and Management. Mr Chairman, the world’s population is growing by nearly one billion persons every 10 years and we must find food and other basic necessities for these people. It is therefore vitally important that we find ways of developing and using our renewable natural resources in a sustainable manner. Fishery resources have been an important source of food and livelihood for millions of people. Fisheries contribute towards food security, employment, foreign exchange earnings, development of rural and coastal communities, recreation and tourism. We must not neglect or overlook the importance of the seas and oceans as a source of food and livelihood for our peoples. As we adopt the Code of conduct for responsible fisheries we would have increased potential developmental needs of society. It is important that policies and measures designed to promote conservation are balanced with those designed to promote the developmental needs of the countries. The health of fisheries and other aquatic systems are threatened by various factors such as pollution, degradation of critical coastal habitats, waste disposal, irresponsible fishing practice, inadequate institutional capacity; and lack of knowledge of the resource systems. To respond effectively to this situation and the difficulties that can be foreseen in meeting the growing demand for fish, and at the same time protect the marine ecosystem will require fundamental reforms and prompt action on several fronts. It requires research, creative thinking, new innovative strategies and the political will to implement corrective measures. Fishing operations must be transformed to operate on the principles of responsible fishing recognising that fish are renewable resources that must be managed to assure long-term sustainable yields. The ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative is therefore timely and will provide us with a framework and the resources to generate the type of knowledge and information required to attain the goals of sustainable fisheries. I hope that this dialogue will take in recent international developments related to fisheries, such as UNCLOS, UNCED, the Kyoto Conference, and Code of conduct on responsible fisheries that was recently adopted by the FAO Conference. Mr Chairman I would like to take this to wish participants success in their deliberations. I anticipate that your report will address the needs of small-scale fisheries that is the most important sector in the Caribbean Region.


Speech of Mr James Moran, Head of the European Commission Delegation in Belize Hon. Minister Russell Garcia H.E. Gordon Baker, British High Commissioner Mr John Evans, Colleagues from the European Commission and EU Member States Ladies and Gentlemen It is an honour and a privilege to be with you today at the opening of this Third Dialogue between the EU and ACP States on our joint Initiative in Fisheries Research. On behalf of the European Commission, I would like to extend greetings to you all and a special welcome to those who have travelled great distances to be here this week. Indeed, it is among other things a measure of the continuing value of our close ties through the Lome Convention that so many have sacrificed their valuable time and endured arduous voyages to participate in this dialogue. It is appropriate that Belize should be hosting the event, for this country is the lead Caribbean ACP State for fisheries in the Lome Caribbean regional programme, and will be spearheading the new US$2,35 million fisheries effort expected to get underway early next year. Belize also sports a wide variety of fishery environments from traditional activities through sophisticated conservation linked with ecotourism. By all accounts the first two meetings held in Namibia and Senegal were a notable success, in terms of developing ideas and strategies in this increasingly important filed, and I know that expectations for this exchange are high. I am sure that you will be hearing much more about those events from the horse’s - or should I say fish’s - mouth later, and it is certainly not for me to comment on the substance of these proceedings in such knowledgeable company. I fear that my own direct involvement in the sector is limited to pottering around with a snorkel and occasional pleasure fishing, with the emphasis on pleasure, as my fishing skills are woefully inadequate. But I want to emphasise that regional exchanges such as this are extremely important in the overall development thrust that we are now pursuing, especially when we are dealing with the very particular problems of small island and coastal states. As you probably know the so-called post-Lome debate is becoming a major preoccupation for both Europe and the ACP as we approach the year 2000, when the present convention will expire. The latest contribution to this debate is the Commission’s green, or discussion, paper on the future of relations which has just been issued. The message conveyed in it is that the world has become a very different place in the 1990’s and that, if it is to maintain its relevance our relationship must be revitalised and restructured so as to deal with the emerging world order. One of these « new realities » is that within the ACP, the last 25 years has seen a major divergence in the development of the three constituent parts, to the point where many have questioned whether a unitary approach of the kind we have had through Lome is still the best option, in terms of making the best use of development resources. EU-ACP

The green paper which I must emphasise is a discussion not a position paper provides a deep analysis of this crucial point, and puts forward four options for the future, namely : • the status quo, • an overall agreement supplemented by bilateral agreements,


• splitting Lome into regional agreements, and here there are many options for the Caribbean, including the idea of an agreement covering the whole of the region, leading ultimately to integration of EU-Caribbean co-operation with the framework of Latin American relations. Similarly, enlargement of the framework to other island States in the Pacific would increase effectiveness of EU policy, notably vis-à-vis trade with APEC countries, • and finally, a specific agreement for the least developed ACP countries. There is no telling at this stage which of these alternatives is likely to prevail, and there is a great deal of discussion ahead of us as we are near the formal opening of negotiations on post-Lome in September 1998. However, we believe that the green paper provides both partners with the first intelligible map for what could be likened to a voyage of discovery in the brave new « globalised » and liberalised world of the 21st Century. That new world is also a much more interdependent one, and as our green paper points out that, whatever option prevails for the future of EU-ACP relations, there is a need to rethink the nature of our collaboration along lines of common interest and reciprocity. The type of partnership promoted by this Initiative is a move in the right direction here and the approach will be useful in other areas too. For example, the impact of the 1992 Rio Summit will be reviewed next year and the issued surrounding sustainable management are high on the agenda. Fisheries is as you know one of the most critical areas, as the crisis caused by global overcapacity deepens. We all have a strong interest in finding better ways of dealing with this, and this involves, among other things, orienting research more toward a better definition of choices for decision makers in both public and private sectors so as to ensure that sustainable approaches are bolstered at a time of increasing scarcity. We also need to improve strategies for enhancing the sector’s contribution to economic development, poverty alleviation, food security and employment and last but by no means least, for we must remember that we are in Belize, ecotourism. This dialogue is making an important contribution to these issues, and there is one last point about it that I want to stress. That is that if truly sustainable development is to be achieved, enhanced regional integration is no longer an afterthought. It is an imperative. Exchanges such as this help to cement this process, and I wish you every success in the days to come.


Speech of Dr Marcelino Avila, Adviser, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Belize It is a special privilege for me this morning to express our collective appreciation to the excellent presenters and participants. First, let us thank Mr James Moran, as head of the EU delegation, who stressed the role of this Dialogue in terms of forging closer ties among Lome-related fishing programmes and seeking greater regional and international integration, an imperative ingredient in this age. Belize, we agree, is an ideal site, not only because of its natural attractions but also because of its ethnic diversity. In fact, each one of us here today, though unique in appearance, can easily qualify as Belizeans. Mr Moran quite accurately has informed us of the current debate on Lome future, aiming to rethink, revitalise and reorganise our relationships. He presented us with four possible options, articulated not as a position but discussion « Green » paper. Finally, we must thank him for his wise advice on productive research to guide us in choices which can lead to economic development, food security, employment and ecotourism. Secondly, we must thank Minister Russel Garcia for further articulating the priorities for our dialogue, in particular to focus our attention and energy on improving our fishing industries, building regional integration, bridging national efforts and seizing the opportunities and international support for fisheries, for effective human development. In his words, Belize is fully committed to the sustainable development and conservation of fishing resources and international integration in order to further key social, economic, food security and environmental objectives of our people. He also stressed the urgent need for effective policies, research, training and commitment at multiple levels of our society. We are grateful to him for his timely insights. Thirdly, we must thank you, distinguished delegates, who have come from near and very distant countries, 19 in total. It is an excellent opportunity for us all to learn from each other, to understand our problems, priorities and strategies. As the Minister states, you will « Belize » it together. However, we must not forget to thank your countries and families for their sacrifices made back home in your absence. They all deserve our deepest gratitude. Fourthly, a strong acknowledgement must go to the European Union for their wise decision to support this Dialogue. Also to the able representatives of Portugal, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the UK, whose scientific and technical co-operation will play a critical role in our deliberations. Fifthly, our deepest gratitude goes as well to the assisting institutions : FAO, our Departments of Fisheries, the Caribbean Fisheries Resource Assessment and Management Program, and others I may be forgetting. Lastly, let us not forget all those fishermen and fisherladies, for their trust and participation in our programmes and for their hope that our efforts, like this one, will significantly improve their livelihood systems through the sustainable management and conservation of our fisheries resources. We cannot afford to disappoint them. Thank you.


Annex 6 - Stakeholders and Cost-Effectiveness in Research by Dr Martin Bilio Consultant for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Coastal Resources Management Am Hirschsprung 10, D-61462 Koenigstein Germany

Abstract The terms stakeholder and cost-effectiveness are non-monetary extensions of the terms shareholder and cost-benefit relationship. No essential difference exists between research in general and research for development co-operation. Stakeholdership is characterised by economic, social, environmental and other interests in the research results. Interest criteria for stakeholdership in research are target orientation and the avoidance of economic losses and social or environmental damage through application of the results. Transparency of approaches and objectives and participation in planning and evaluation are considered key issues of stakeholdership. Cost-effectiveness analysis of research projects is divided into four stages: subject identification, choice of methodology, project realisation and impact assessment. Transfer of know-how and technology, as well as the establishment of pertinent communication systems and training schemes, are of special importance for stakeholdership and the analysis of cost-effectiveness in co-operation research.

Introduction In recent years, the use of economic and sociological terms in international discussions on technology development and on the role of scientific research in innovation has considerably increased. This has often led to uncertainty about the meaning of the terms and their relevance for the progress of the discussions. To secure the usefulness of the terms, they need sufficient definition and their use needs limitation. If such terms become jargon, which not seldom is the case, they soon mean everything and nothing, with the consequence that their use is no longer of any real advantage. The introduction of new terms is common practice in development co-operation, where new aspects are almost continuously added in philosophy and policy discussions. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that stakeholder and cost-effectiveness considerations are attracting increased attention and gaining importance and that such considerations begin to include research. Dealing with the perspectives and problems of development co-operation, it is often surprising how much the pertinent discussions are restricted to the still so-called developing countries and how little thought is given to the situation in the industrialised partner countries. Although the analogies and similarities in technological, economic, social and environmental development are staggered in time, they are considerable and nevertheless they are overlooked and mutual understanding remains poor. Another consequence is the disturbing fact that sometimes new principles are developed that should be followed in the ”developing“ countries while they are completely or largely neglected by the industrialised partners.


This paper deals first with general principles and then refers to aspects of special importance for ”cooperation research“ (in the following used for ”research to the benefit of north-south co-operation“). No fundamental distinction is made between basic and applied research, since a testable hypothesis, sound logic and methodological reliability are indispensable requirements for both. The paper draws its examples from the fisheries sector; yet the principles on which it is based should also be valid for other sectors. In the last decades scientific research as a possibility to solve problems of societal relevance has gone through repeated changes between hot and cold showers of appreciation and depreciation. In development co-operation in particular, public authorities tended to show reserve, and sometimes even strong reluctance, to allocate funds for research. They had come to the conclusion that the funds committed had not really served the envisaged purpose and that it was preferable to spend them otherwise. At the basis of such a critical attitude were, and in part are still, a number of misunderstandings about the role and potential of scientific research. The responsibilities are rather equally distributed: wrong expectations on the side of the authorities met with inadequate responses from the side of the scientists, and the situation was aggravated by the increasing scarcity of funds. The fundamental problem lies in insufficient communication and dialogue and, therefore, sometimes also in lack of trust and confidence between the two sides. As a prerequisite for a general solution, it must be recognised that scientists are indebted to society for the public means made available for their research activities. Consequently, it is not sufficient that the results of their work are put on file or published in scientific journals and books. There is, in addition, an obligation to submit and explain them at least to the public authorities competent for their consideration and application. This includes clear indication of opportunities as well as of limitations and risks ensuing from their utilisation. The dialogue between scientists and competent representatives of the public should, whenever appropriate, lead to joint project identification and planning. If this process is adequately followed, many problems of mutual understanding can be solved before causing financial losses and other damage. Determination of objectives, evaluation of alternatives, priority-setting, methodological choices, financial and other commitments can then be discussed more realistically though, obviously, still provisionally. However, public authorities are not the only party having an interest in research and its results. There are sets of other groupings, changing with type and objectives of the research in question, that can be directly or indirectly implicated. It has become customary to speak of them as the ”stakeholders“ in research, with a relatively new meaning of the term that still needs to be better defined. With regard to the stakeholders, cost-effectiveness gains in importance and deserves a closer look, in particular concerning its specific meaning in the research context. In the following some thoughts and suggestions are brought forward in order to stimulate discussion and exchange and, possibly, to further agreement on some of the major issues in research promotion.

Stakeholders The concept The term ”stakeholders“ is in recent years increasingly being used beyond the original meaning. Formerly it meant an independent person holding in custody the property or money which was at stake in a betting, contention or litigation between two or more other parties. (This meaning is even more clearly expressed in the French equivalent ”tiers dépositaire“.) Meanwhile economists have come to use the term ”stakeholder“ also in another context, namely as an extension of the term ”shareholder“. While shareholders are all persons having a share in the capital and interest rates of a company, ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 89

stakeholders include other groups which have an interest in an enterprise, such as the work force, the suppliers, tax-collecting communities, environmental authorities, etc. It is this latter sense in which the term ”stakeholder“ is used in the context of research, be it research to the benefit of ”developing“ or industrialised countries.

Stakeholders in research Research objectives range from the solution of day-to-day problems of a more technical nature (R&D) to the better understanding of the world in which we live, even in philosophical terms (theory of cognition). The means necessary to add to the already available knowledge through ever more sophisticated research can today only be raised by public authorities, big enterprises and, rather seldom, by very wealthy people. In the case of public authorities, it is the public that provides the means for research and is interested in the results. Society must, therefore, be seen as the primary stakeholder (see Box 1). In the case of big enterprise and well-off people, it could seem, at first sight, that they are the only ones whose interests count. However, there are numerous examples showing that even here society is, as a rule, heavily involved because of the economic, social and ecological interlinkages of most, if not all, human activities. Box 1 Stakeholder levels and pertinent interests in research results __________________________________________________________________________________ Society Interests: legal, political, macro-economic, social, environmental, public health, ideal ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......

Providers of funds Public authorities and agencies

Private enterprise and individuals

see Society

micro-economic, social, ideal

Interests:

............................................................................................................................................................. Users of research results Decision-makers Public

Private

Interests: see Society

economic profit

Beneficiaries Communities

Social groups

Individuals

economic, social, health, environmental, ideal

............................................................................................................................................................. Researchers and assisting personnel Interests:

employment, reputation, career, economic gains, ideal

The entire society as stakeholders in research is a rather unwieldy and impractical idea, although it is important that the interests of society as a whole be always kept in mind. If the modern stakeholder concept is to contribute to clarity and differentiation, it needs reasonable and easily applicable criteria. They could proceed from the type of interest taken in research and its results and emphasise two aspects: target orientation and avoidance of economic losses and social or environmental damage. In comparison with pure technology and know-how transfer projects, research projects are characterised


by a relatively high degree of uncertainty about the outcome. The more information about the context and the suitability of the methods is at hand, the narrower is the possible range of variability and error of the research results. Target orientation and avoidance of loss or damage have, therefore, to be related to the expectations that can reasonably be associated with a research project. Let us consider the following four examples, which are put in an order of increasing complexity, in order to understand who can be a stakeholder in a research project: a) Fish farmers want to know whether a certain locally available natural material (of plant or animal origin) can be profitably utilised as a component of fish feed. b) A disease is seriously affecting the culture of a fish by causing mortalities at such a level that the economic success of a big group of fish farming enterprises is endangered and a drug is sought that could eliminate the disease or keep the damage which it causes at an economically insignificant level. c) A fish resource is under such a heavy fishing pressure that an assessment of the stock size and the degree of exploitation is necessary with a view to introducing regulations for a sustainable resource management. d) The sustainable exploitation of the fishery and aquaculture resources of a coastal area is threatened by other uses of the coastal zone. This requires investigation into the relative importance of the different potentials and the interrelationships between them in order to provide a basis for informed decision-making. In example (a) the most immediate interest in the outcome is obviously taken by the farmers. The people conducting the research have also to be included since their occupation or at least their reputation and further career is at stake. The next question is about the origin of funding. If the group of local farmers interested in the research can pay for it, they are stakeholders in a double sense. If not, the question is whether there are other groups of farmers in the country who could also benefit and therefore share the expenses. Otherwise, if the interest is sufficiently long-term and the economic success of the industry is important enough for the local or national economy to justify the allocation of public money to cover the research expenses, the competent authorities representing the public become stakeholders. In a still wider sense, suppliers of the new feed stuff and buyers and consumers of the additional production achieved through the research efforts also have a stake in this research. In example (b) not only the farmers are beneficiaries of positive research results but also the manufacturers of the drug. If with the production and sale of the drug big business is involved, the stakeholdership of the pharmaceutical industry, as providers of funds and intermediate beneficiaries of the research, may even play a dominant role, at least in comparison to researchers and public authorities. Here, however, the public comes in from another end: the environmental implications of the application of the drug as well as possible health problems at the level of the fish consumers can require public control. Environmentalists and again scientists (doing environmental and health impact research) may have a role to play and thus be stakeholders in the research. Via the aquatic environment, fish farms downstream and other users of the effluent, if untreated, could be affected. In example (c) from the capture fisheries all resource users and managers are immediately involved. Further interest groups – in addition to researchers and environmentalists concerned with the whole ecological context of which the fish resource is an integral part – are boatbuilders, boat and gear suppliers, the processing and preservation industry, commerce and consumers. If a big and highly valuable resource is concerned, the users may be divided into different interest groups (e.g., artisanal and industrial, fishermen and women fish processors and traders). If it is distributed across national boundaries, different countries and authorities may be interested in the exploitation and management of the resource and thus in the management information provided by the research. This is of particular


importance in the areas on which we are focusing at this meeting: the C and P (Caribbean and Pacific) part of the ACP group of countries. In example (d), in addition to the typical stakeholders in the utilisation of a fish resource, a number of other interest groups have to be taken into account. Their interest is determined by questions such as the following: Is aquaculture or capture fisheries the better option; which advantages and disadvantages have to be taken into account? Is the utilisation of agriculture and/or forestry potentials to be preferred; do industry settlements and the provision of transport facilities and infrastructure offer more benefits and what about recreation and tourism? Is the area or part of it of special aesthetic value, or do its flora and fauna comprise a particularly high biodiversity and an unusual wealth of genetic resources so that it has to be protected as it is in order to avoid significant losses? The number and variety of stakeholders and their interests, the priority setting and, where possible, the squaring of the various interests are in this case apparently also researchable subjects and require appropriate methodology to be adequately accounted for. Research has to be multidisciplinary and have strong accents on socio-economic and socio-political aspects, including those of governance.

Stakeholders in co-operation research If we transpose the above examples into the context of research for development co-operation, we have to deal with a few, but not too many changes. They concern the aspects of know-how and technology transfer and the relatively great importance of socio-economic and socio-cultural aspects. There is no difference in the principles of stakeholdership in research. It appears useful to refer to the four examples dealt with above, in order to point out of what kind other possible differences are. Example (a) is by its nature very close to the development context, e.g., in Africa. However, the fish farmers in developing countries can hardly in any case be stakeholders through funding. Yet, when making ponds, fish or working time available, they indirectly support the research project also financially. The main share of the funding must be borne by the competent authorities of the country or, more often, by foreign agencies, organisations or institutions, who then also become stakeholders. Particularly important can be the community to which the fish farmers belong, as also other members can, at least indirectly, benefit from the increase in economic success of the former. On the other hand, the use of a certain material (e.g., maize bran) as fish feed can be of direct concern to others who need the same material as human food, although perhaps only under emergency conditions. For the local researchers it can often be essential to gain access to pertinent information and methodological knowhow already available either through carrying out research together with foreign experts or through specific training in combination with research projects. Example (b) is more typical of at least partly industrialised countries where high-input systems prevail. Diseases become more frequently a problem when the density of the farmed organisms is substantially increased and when organisms from other areas are introduced, e.g., in shrimp farming. All remarks made further above, equally apply to the development context when drugs are really needed. In example (c) the emphasis in many activities, such as boatbuilding, gear supply, processing, etc., has to be shifted from the industrial to the artisanal level with a sociologically different type of stakeholders and interests. Where foreign fleets are involved, these activities may be largely restricted to foreigners and their societies, with stakeholder interests different from those of the local ones. In example (d) the stakeholders in research are essentially the same in developing and industrialised countries, varying with the geophysical, ecological and socio-economic conditions. As for the rest, differences such as those referred to with examples (a) - (c), may apply according to the type of research problems to be solved.


Cost-effectiveness The concept ”Cost-effectiveness“ can be understood as an extension of the cost-benefit relationship, i.e. an extension from a comparison where both positions, costs and benefits, are fully or at least mainly expressed in terms of money, to a comparison where a monetary quantification is not or only marginally possible. In a cost-effectiveness analysis costs and effects have thus largely to be valued and weighed in non-monetary quantities or in more qualitative terms. This makes it better applicable not only to macro-economics and to development co-operation projects, but also to the evaluation of research with its greater number of imponderables. The intention here is not to enter into a comprehensive discussion about the assessment of the socalled ”tangible“ (monetary) and ”intangible“ (non-monetary) costs and benefits. It is important to realise that many of the benefits to be achieved through research are intangibles but therefore not less important. The main objective of this paper is to discuss where costs can be saved and effects be increased. This way of appraisal is sometimes reduced to a ”least-cost combination“ approach, which is ”the least expensive alternative combination of tangible costs that will realise essentially the same intangible benefit“ (Gittinger, J. Price: Economic analysis of agricultural projects. EDI Series in Economic Development, 2nd edition, 1989, p. 280).

Cost-effectiveness in research The four main stages of a research project where cost-effectiveness is an important issue, are subject identification, choice of methodology, project realisation and impact on technological and social development as well as on the natural environment (see Box 2). All stages must be considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis of a research project.

Box 2 Cost-effectiveness in research Stages of assessment and items to be considered

1. Subject identification a)

Is research necessary to solve the problem in question?

b)

Has the problem already been solved elsewhere?

c)

Is the proposal demand-driven or curiosity-led?

d)

Is the subject relevant enough?

e)

Does the solution of the problem have sufficient priority?

f)

Are problems of environmental incompatibility to be expected?

2. Choice of methodology a)

Scientific and technical approach

b)

Experimental orientation and design

c)

Reliability and representative value of the results

d)

Scientific, technological and economic advantage


3. Project implementation a)

Unforeseen difficulties and losses of time and money

b)

Unexpected discoveries

c)

Interim evaluation

4. Impact assessment a)

Ex-post evaluation

b)

Economic, social and environmental effects

c)

Stakeholder acceptance

d)

Impact research

Subject identification Considerations of cost-effectiveness should already start before research efforts are made. This can avoid unnecessary expenditure of time and money and guard against inappropriate expectations. Essential questions to be asked are: • Are we dealing with a problem that can only be tackled with the help of research or can it be solved otherwise? • Has the same or a similar problem already been solved elsewhere? • Is the research proposal in question demand-driven or curiosity-led? • Is the research subject relevant enough to justify research efforts in the given context and situation? • What is the priority ranking of the research subject as compared with other subjects of current interest? • Which problems of environmental incompatibility have to be anticipated? The first question can sometimes not be answered off-hand. Going back to example (a) of the previous chapter on stakeholdership, a simple trial-and-error approach could be chosen by one or a few farmers in order to try out the usefulness of the material in question in an empirical way. If the results are clearly negative, there might be no need to make expensive research efforts. If, however, the results are not clear and for some reason the use of the material appears still promising, adequate statistical tests could be applied as a first step, followed, if appropriate, by analysis of the material for nutritionally interesting components or tests with the material in a processed form (e.g., chopped or composted). To answer the second question, it is necessary to have access to the available information through appropriate communication systems permitting a comprehensive and rapid exchange of new research results. In addition, providing relevant information requires adequately skilled personnel to operate these systems, to recognise relevant information and, where necessary, to translate it into a language understandable by the stakeholders. Only through an unhampered flow of information can duplication of efforts and repeated invention of the wheel be prevented. The importance of the research-specific distinction between demand-driven and curiosity-led research should not be undervalued. From time immemorial development progress has been based on man’s


curiosity: what is behind a phenomenon, how can I make use of it in order to improve my conditions of live, which consequences does it have for the survival of my group? Scientific research probably started with experimental thinking: under which conditions do I obtain the same answers to my questions? Curiosity-led research must, therefore, maintain a significant position in societal development. It also implies the greatest potential for creativity in research. It is immediately intelligible that the more a research effort is conditioned by a stakeholder request to achieve a certain, well-defined objective, e.g., towards results required for technology development or decision-making in an area of special economic or social interest, the more it is demand-driven and the less space is left for curiosity-led research. Cost-effectiveness of a demand-driven project will, as a rule, be more easy to assess than that of a curiosity-led one. However, a warning should be expressed against too much rigidity in this respect since creativity could be strangled to such a degree that only conventional results are achieved and new perspectives are overlooked. Even if a research project is mainly curiosity-led, it can nevertheless be cost-effective. In an advance assessment of its cost-effectiveness a high degree of uncertainty about the outcome has to be taken into the bargain. Importance and validity of a curiosity-led research proposal have to be judged more on the basis of the known professional competence of the scientist applying for a research grant than on the logic of the evidence provided in support of the proposal. In this case cost-effectiveness depends on the achievement of interesting and valuable results without a precisely determined practical objective. The relevance of a research project is determined by the expected outputs and can be of a technological, economic, social, environmental or ideal nature. Whether a proposal is relevant enough to be accepted, depends on the interests involved and must be determined according to publicly valid rules and agreements among the stakeholders. With the rejection of a proposal because of lacking relevance, unnecessary expenses (or a low cost-effectiveness of the research project, in case it would have been implemented) can be avoided. Priority-ranking among a number of relevant research proposals can help to direct possible research efforts towards the solution of the most urgent problems thus increasing cost-effectiveness (not necessarily also improving the monetary cost-benefit relationship) because higher interests are involved. The application of research results can have severe negative impacts not only on the economic and social but also on the natural environment in a target area. Such potential environmentally adverse effects can also prejudice the cost-effectiveness of a research project and must, therefore, be assessed and weighed against other solutions already at the first planning stage.

Choice of methodology Highly relevant in terms of cost-effectiveness is the choice of adequate methodology. Key issues in this respect are: scientific and technical approach; experimental orientation and design; reliability and representative value of the results; scientific, technological and economic advantages. An example for the choice between different approaches can be taken from the quantitative assessment of pelagic fish stocks where echo-acoustic surveys and egg production methods could be considered. The choice would have to be made according to the information basis already established, the precision required and the availability of adequate equipment and skilled personnel. In experimental approaches, orientation and design of the experiments to be conducted are often deficient. Most neglected is preliminary collection of data in order to test the adequacy of the equipment and to assess the range of variability of the results to be expected. For the design of the experiments, information on the natural variability of the results is as important as is sufficient knowledge of the accuracy of the method and the degree of precision of the equipment. The


effectiveness of the design depends on the appropriateness of the underlying statistical concepts and especially the tests to be applied in order to prove the validity of the results. The reliability of the results depends on the experimental design, on the adequacy of the equipment and its state of maintenance and, not least, on the training, skills and performance of the personnel, which are all factors closely related to cost-effectiveness. The representative value of the results is, next to the experience of the researcher, strongly connected with the sampling procedure: the more adequate this procedure is and the more strictly it is followed, the better the results can reflect the real situation. Lack of statistical knowledge related to sampling can be very expensive, since with a good sampling strategy a small number of samples can be representative of a large population or a complex situation, thus saving a considerable amount of sampling effort. An important issue in good planning, thus also connected with cost-effectiveness, is the assessment of alternatives. Comparison of alternatives can concern differences in the scientific approach to the solution of the problem in question; it may also stress differences in the technological requirements of the different approaches and it should deal with the differences in costs connected with the different alternatives, all this being done under the heading ”Which solution is preferable under the given circumstances?“

Project implementation During the implementation of a research project, the probability that unexpected difficulties occur is rather high and this probability increases with the complexity and the duration of the project. As a rule, difficulties mean loss of time and money and, e.g., in the capture fisheries, sometimes even loss of equipment. It appears reasonable, therefore, to consider ways to keep such losses at a minimum. In projects of limited scope and short duration, consulting with the supervisor will be sufficient to overcome the problem. In severer cases it might be necessary to inform other stakeholders, in particular representatives of the funding authorities or agencies, in order to discuss an increase of the funding basis, to reduce expectations regarding the outcome of the research project and to adapt or change the planning, as appropriate. In extreme cases it might even require a stakeholder meeting. However, it is also important that the costs of such interventions be kept within reasonable limits, which holds also true for the consultation of other experts. It appears in any case advisable to make allowance for such unforeseeable difficulties already in the first planning. When through curiosity-led research or completely by chance new information is obtained, new potentials are discovered or new perspectives are opened up that can help to reach the established goal even better or in a shorter time, this should be reported to the stakeholders as soon as possible with a view to incorporate it into the planning. If such findings are not relevant in pursuing the project objective, they should be fully documented for further use in a parallel or later project. Mid- and longterm research projects should in any case be subjected to interim evaluation by independent specialists as well as by the stakeholders.

Impact assessment How useful and cost-effective a research project really is, can only be reasonably assessed after a sufficient lapse of time after project conclusion, allowing the results to be critically reviewed, tried out in day-to-day situations and appreciated and accepted, or disregarded and rejected, by the stakeholders. In addition, such an ex-post evaluation or final impact assessment is of utmost importance for the improvement of the cost-effectiveness of future research projects and their planning. Unfortunately, scientists are rather reluctant to embark on such activities and tend to deny that they have a responsibility to demonstrate the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of their research. They tend to be satisfied when their work is recognised by other scientists, i.e. when their manuscripts are published in peer-reviewed journals and achieve a high number of quotations in other publications. Although this is largely accepted in purely curiosity-led research, it is certainly insufficient for demand-driven research. ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 96

Impact assessment requires itself research efforts. Experience with such research is still rather limited and adequate methodology is largely lacking. Institutes with an extensive experience in commissioned research should be in a particularly favourable position to develop appropriate methodologies and design effective evaluation procedures, although they might in part be obliged to keep the results of the commissioned research confidential. A good incentive to embark on impact research could be the funding of a few pilot projects using project examples of common interest as research subjects. More attention has been paid to the assessment of negative impacts on the environment (environmental impact assessment, EIA). However, in many areas the methods of valuing environmental damages and losses ensuing from the application of research results are also largely unsatisfactory so far.

Cost-effectiveness in co-operation research Differences between research in general and research to the benefit of north-south co-operation can on principle not be of an essential nature regarding the quality and reliability of research. However, when cost-effectiveness is concerned, some additional interests and considerations come into play. The main objective of north-south co-operation is the transfer of know-how and technology. In research it is the transfer of scientific background information and of methodological and technological know-how related to the realisation of research projects. This means that in research co-operation the successful transfer of such know-how and the training in its use must be accounted for as an additional, but essential aspect in cost-effectiveness considerations - in other terms: mobilisation and enhancement of human resources must be seen as an important means to improve the cost-effectiveness of research. Know-how transfer is based on communication. Effective communication systems are, therefore, indispensable prerequisites for an efficient flow of information between the partners of development co-operation. For training measures to be successful it needs a favourable learning atmosphere and sufficient time. From both, know-how transfer and training, arise additional costs that must enter into the cost-effectiveness analysis and be borne by a stakeholder. Another difference regards general orientation and objectives of research. In the development context, there is an urgent need for the solution of a considerable number of problems that not only impede progress, but are also connected with the present situation in terms of lack of food, labour and income. This means that research that can help to solve this kind of problems must be given highest priority, and cost-effectiveness has primarily to be measured by its contribution to the solution of these problems. Consequently, the restricted funds available must be allocated to extremely demand-driven research with precisely defined objectives and only very limited margins for curiosity-led investigation. Many countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are facing similar problems of development. Being situated in the same region or sub-region, not only the ecological factors but also the living aquatic resources and the socio-economic conditions of their exploitation are comparable or can, in the case of shared stocks, even be identical. This means that cost-effectiveness of research can be considerably increased through international collaboration and sharing of research inputs, may these be funds, personnel, information, equipment, facilities and infrastructure, expert advice, etc. Obviously, this is particularly true for Caribbean and Pacific island countries where the need for intraregional co-operation is paramount.

Conclusions The above statements and explanations lead to the following conclusions:


1. While there cannot be any essential difference in quality and reliability between research in general and research for development, there are differences in orientation and objectives. From the urgency of the solution of basic-needs problems ensues an orientation towards extremely demand-driven research with very little margin for curiosity-led research. 2. Stakeholdership in research can be defined by an interest in the results of a research project. Target orientation and avoidance of loss or damage through missing the target or deviating from it is in the greatest interest of a stakeholder. This interest can thus be seen as an important criterion for stakeholdership. 3. The target groups of development co-operation must be considered as principal stakeholders in co-operation research. This requires their intensive participation in research planning and evaluation. 4. A way to adequate stakeholder participation is objective-oriented planning. Adequate planning, as an iterative process, includes readjustment and response to unexpected difficulties and can also accommodate curiosity-induced creativity, if appropriate. Participation of stakeholders in objective-oriented planning can, therefore, be seen as an effective means to save their interests. 5. Cost-effectiveness can also most adequately be taken care of by objective-oriented planning, including a realistic assessment of inputs and outputs before a project starts and allowing reassessment at any further stage of the planning process. Prerequisite to well-considered adjustments is a monitoring and evaluation arrangement. 6. Substantial cost-saving can be achieved through a thorough examination of a research proposal for necessity, relevance, priority and alternative solutions. Such an examination should also consider risks of failure or only partial success as well as the opportunity to allow a margin for curiosity-led research. 7. Planning as well as monitoring and evaluation activities can be very expensive, especially when stakeholders from distant locations have to convene for a planning seminar. It is, therefore, necessary to keep the planning costs in the right proportion with the overall costs of the project in order to maintain a reasonable level of cost-effectiveness. 8. Comprehensive background information is necessary to arrive at a conclusive decision on the scientific, economic and social merits of a research proposal. This is also true for the choice of methodology. Moreover, the more background information is at hand, the more specific and convincing can be the research results. Essential prerequisites for providing such information are functioning communication systems and easily available information services. 9. Cost-effectiveness of research can be considerably increased through collaboration between countries being faced with comparable problems. This is of special importance when they share similar or even the same ecological conditions and fish resources, as is particularly the case with island states of the same marine region or sub-region. 1.

Cost-effectiveness can be definitively analysed only after sufficient time has elapsed to allow the results to reach the end users, or beneficiaries, and to be put into practice. Only then can the advantages arising from their application be assessed. Appropriate methodology for such assessment has still to be developed.

2.

Research results, to become effective, do not only have to be fully documented, but also made available by reporting and publication. To allow access to them not only for other scientists but also for the stakeholders, it is indispensable that they are transferred into language that the latter can understand. Although this implies additional expenses, maximum overall cost-effectiveness cannot be achieved without such efforts.


3.

Improvement of consciousness concerning the relationship between the envisaged research results and the costs of achieving them must be seen as an important issue of stakeholder participation in research.

Saving in research is a great error since it restricts perspectives for innovation and development. It is equally true that research stakeholders are entitled to request that funds and resources be utilised efficiently, intelligently and wisely. Adequate stakeholder participation in the planning and management of research projects is indispensable to achieve a maximum of cost-effectiveness. It is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that these principles are effectively applied.

Acknowledgement The author acknowledges with pleasure advice on economic terminology kindly provided by Jürgen Schlichting, GOPA, Bad Homburg (Germany) and Suitbert Schmüdderich, COFAD, Tutzing (Germany).


Annex 7 - Researchable issues relevant for management of large marine ecosystems, with special reference to the Caribbean by Dr Villy Christensen (1) and Dr Robin Mahon (2) (1) ICLARM, North Sea Centre, P.O.Box 101, DK-9850 Hirtshals, Denmark, [email protected] (2) Fisheries and Environmental Consulting, 48 Sunset Crest, St. James, Barbados, [email protected]

1. Introduction Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) nation-states have accepted a mutual obligation to consider the impact of their policies on marine ecosystems, to take all appropriate actions to preserve the marine environment, and to manage ecosystem resources based on the interdependence of the system components (Belsky, 1993). The precise phrasing in UNCLOS includes that all elements of an ecosystem must “be taken into account” in decision-making, and the obligations are to be implemented by nation-states through “the best practicable means at [their] disposal and in accordance with their capabilities.” The consequence is that an ecosystem approach does not have to lay an onerous burden on nationstates, but it calls for all nation-states to “make, within their capabilities, all efforts to reach the scientific ideal of ecosystem management” (Belsky, 1993). UNCLOS III requires that management be focused on the ecosystem level; hence, we need to have a perception of what an ecosystem is. The present day paradigm of the ecosystem is one of an “open system, one that is in a constant state of flux, usually without long-term stability, and affected by a series of human and other, often stochastic, factors, many originating outside of the ecosystem itself. As a result, the ecosystem is recognised as probabilistic and multi-causal rather than deterministic and homeostatic; it is characterised by uncertainty rather than the opposite” (Talbot, 1996). The scientific community involved in management of ecosystems have gradually accepted the fundamental role of uncertainty. In addition it is now being both recognised and stressed that ecosystem management cannot be based on scientific criteria alone; social and economic factors must form integral parts of the management (Mangel et al., 1996). We have recognised this fully in the preparation of the present contribution, yet our focus will be on the more technical aspects of ecosystem management, as the sociological concerns are addressed by other contributions to this volume. We will, however, discuss aspects linking science and sociology, notably related to valuation of ecosystem resources. Given the open nature of ecosystems, how can we possibly manage ecosystems in a sustainable manner? Our scientific methods are based on assessing ecosystem components, assuming that interactions with the surroundings are either negligible or quantifiable. Can’t we simply manage ecosystem components on a species-by-species basis? The responsible answer is no. We have been giving management advice for fisheries for decades, but with a discouraging rate of success. Too often, fisheries management has gone hand in hand with fishing failures. One reason for this was given by May et al. (1979), “… a prey-predator system cannot be managed by applying maximum sustainable yield notions to each species individually”. Also, analyses conducted by the ICES Multispecies Working group (Magnússon, 1995) shows that explicit inclusion of species interaction tends to lead to very different long-term management advice ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 100

than those coming from single-species analysis. Yet, fisheries management is still conducted largely at the single-species level. It appears that a change of paradigm is on the way, however, and much work has been conducted to increase our understanding of how fish stocks impact each other through their predominant trophic interactions (e.g., Christensen, 1996), leading toward ecosystem management of fishery resource systems. Also, consensus is growing among scientists that only by managing at the ecosystem level can sound advice be given (Mangel et al., 1996). One major reason for aiming at system management is that in spite of their open nature, ecosystems actually do persist. Through research we see certain structures being maintained over time, and properly defined such structures can form the basis for management units. The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) approach is an important tool for achieving this, and it is the main topic for our contribution. The uncertainty aspect of the new ecosystem paradigm has major implications for ecosystem management. Most importantly, we cannot predict how ecosystems will develop in the future, and given their complex nature we may never be able to do so. The key issue is therefore to give guidelines for the direction in which we should move through management interactions, and then update the directions as new information becomes available. This can be done using a well described approach termed “adaptive management” for orienting management interventions in the face of uncertainty (Walters, 1986). Most LMEs extend over more than one nation-state, hence, if management is to be effective for such systems it must involve regional co-operation. A number of regional organisations already exists in the areas of concern here, see the governance paper of Chakalall et al. (this volume). Even if ecosystem management per se has not hitherto been of concern for these organisations, the UNCLOS directs a growing future need. Where appropriate regional organisations are not in place, discussions should be initiated on the possibilities for establishing them.

2. Reaching ecosystem management An ecosystem approach to ecosystem management is required by UNCLOS as described above. To reach that level from the present species-by-species management a sequence of potentially complex actions have to be taken: • the ecosystem must be defined; • the resources within the ecosystem must be assessed; • the interactions between the ecosystem components must be quantified; and • the human impact on the system and its components must be described. We will treat each of these conditions for ecosystem management in some detail. Provinces of the sea To define ecosystems for management an overall stratification is called for. Over the years various attempts have been made to stratify the world’s oceans based on mixing regimes, oceanographic structures, etc. One of the more well-known by Hela and Laevastu (1962) defines the natural regions of the near-surface layers of the world’s oceans based on physical boundaries: the presence, size, and depth of the continental shelf; current systems and their convergences; and temperature regimes. Longhurst (1995, in prep.) defined a new concept in oceanography: ecological geography, a concept of a dynamic, or ecological biogeography of the oceans based on extensive analysis of satellite data globally showing regional and seasonal differences in the processes forcing algal growth dynamics. ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 101

Longhurst distinguished oceanic, coastal, and neritic systems, and was only concerned with the first two types – the neritic being the nearshore zone shoreward of the turbidity front occurring along most coasts at depths of less than 50 meters – whereas due to the fishery importance of the nearshore systems we will have to include these systems in our considerations. Based on the ecological geography concept, Longhurst developed the ocean stratification scheme a milestone further by first outlining and describing four biogeochemical domains: • polar domain; • westerly winds domain; • trade wind domain; and • coastal boundary domain. each with characteristic and distinctly different phytoplankton dynamics. Where detailed studies of CZCS (Coastal Zone Colour Scanner satellite images) chlorophyll distributions can be compared to meanders, eddies and squirts from simultaneous sea surface thermal fields, a very close match is observed. This indicates that the observed details in the chlorophyll images are not random noise, and it can be concluded that the chlorophyll distributions are caused by physical forcing in the surface water masses (Longhurst, 1995, in prep.). Each of the four domains can be divided further. Longhurst (in prep.) did this by using existing knowledge to propose a comprehensive global series of biogeochemical provinces that are compatible with recent knowledge, based on surface chlorophyll fields. This was done examining all available regional, seasonal images of surface chlorophyll fields, either published, from NASA CD-ROM browse files, or from previous analysis, and resulted in information on areas and seasons when surface chlorophyll was enhanced at the ocean surface. Next, the satellite-based distributions of chlorophyll enhanced areas were compared to available published, information on surface circulation, together with atlas and other data on mixed layer topography, seasonal wind stress and wind stress curl, heat flux across the surface, the distribution of observable oceanic frontal zones, more than twenty thousand chlorophyll profiles, and studies of phytoplankton ecology. From this meticulous examination, Longhurst (in prep) identified 53 biogeochemical provinces (Figure 1) whose boundaries and characteristics he described in detail. Longhurst (1995, in prep.) aimed at dividing the oceans into approximately 50 provinces as a practical, maximal number that can be handled for global studies. However, he also made it clear that division into provinces is a fractal process that can continue ad infinitum. Hence, given specific interest in certain areas, e.g., the Caribbean, his approach can be taken further to yield meaningful, finer strata. The stratification made by Longhurst (1995, in prep.) is the best founded ever, and will probably only be improved in the future, not changed radically or invalidated. Therefore, we suggest to call the biogeochemical provinces “Longhurst areas” as a tribute to Longhurst’s outstanding contribution to biological oceanography. The Large Marine Ecosystem concept The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept is seen to have three roots, (1) the multidisciplinary North Sea research under the auspices of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES), (2) the FAO assessment of the fish resources of the oceans, and (3) the major LME research initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (Hempel and Sherman 1993). Of these roots it is the AAAS initiative that has made the concept widely known as “LME” research


through a series of workshops and publications over the last decade (Sherman and Alexander, 1986, 1989; Sherman et al., 1990, 1991, 1993). 2

LMEs are defined in the AAAS approach as “relatively large regions, on the order of 200,000 km or larger, characterised by distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically dependent populations” (Sherman and Alexander, 1986). The LMEs occur within and extend seawards of the EEZs, and are subject to steadily increasing stress from exploitation and other anthropogenic factors. The definition of LMEs sensu AAAS is held in quite general terms and, from review of the contributions in the five LME volumes, it appears that a strategy for what to achieve through the initiative may not have been of high priority for the implementation. Thus, contributions ranging from mathematical features of high-dimensionality and effects of physics on predator-prey interactions, over the effect of turbulence on planktonic contact rates, to application of molecular techniques, may have scientific interest, but it is difficult to draw the link from such studies to ecosystem management. Such contributions are however outnumbered by more relevant ones; still, for most contributions there is far to go to actual ecosystem management. The AAAS initiative has helped focus attention on the LME system level, and should be acknowledged for this. Furthermore, much knowledge of ecosystem resources is summarised in accessible form in these volumes. In the present contribution we will adopt the term “LME”. We will however use it as a synonym for ”Longhurst areas” to give the term a more clear-cut definition. Defining the ecosystem Ecosystems, LMEs included, are linked with their environment, and depend on energy input from outside. Most often this energy comes in form of solar energy, while terrigenous input can be of importance locally. For ecosystem management, the input in form of solar energy is of minor concern as the “currency” for management models usually is carbon or nutrient based. In addition to the external carbon or nutrient input of concern here, there is a large amount of transfer within the ecosystem – from one ecosystem component to another. For the present contribution, we will adopt a definition of the “ecosystem” based on the relationship between external and internal transfers: the ecosystem is a management unit maintained over time in which the internal trophic flows by far exceed the flows linking the ecosystem with the external. The definition has the advantage of focusing on the magnitudes of trophic flows within systems and between systems, i.e. on quantifiable terms. Because of the open nature of ecosystems discussed in the introduction a stratification as described in the form of “Longhurst areas” (see fig. 1) forms a suitable basis for ecosystem management. From a practical point-of-view it may, however, be necessary to base the initial ecosystem descriptions on a number of finer stratifications (each of which may in turn be based on the approach underlying the definition of the “Longhurst areas”). These finer stratifications can later be joined in a LME-level management model describing the larger strata. Such an approach is at present being initiated for the Gulf of Mexico as part of a Mexican/US co-operative research effort. Ecosystem resources Having defined the ecosystem, the next level is to describe the ecosystem resources. This is the traditional main focus of fisheries biology. Based on catches and where possible, fishery-independent surveys, the stocks of the most important species are assessed giving stock sizes, levels of exploitation, and recommendations for future exploitation.


From an ecosystem management point this has to be supplemented with information on the nonexploited species; notably top-predators such as marine mammals and birds, prey species, and to some extent on plankton and benthos. In addition, the potential productivity of the LMEs should be assessed. An important measure of this is the primary productivity by phytoplankton, which on a “Longhurst area” basis, is available on a global scale (Longhurst et al., 1995, see Table 1 for the Caribbean LMEs). The different resource types within a LME can be studied with different intensity depending on the nature of the ecosystem management. If it is pollution-oriented, a thorough understanding of the nutrient, plankton, and detritus conditions is required. However for fishery-oriented management, the lower trophic levels are of minor importance, and emphasis should be on the upper trophic levels. In any case, a description of the whole ecosystem should be given. Only through this can ecosystem management be reached. Relationships between ecosystem resources The trophic flows within an LME must be quantified as part of the ecosystem management process. The trophic (food) linkages between the ecosystem resources must be identified to do this. Fortunately, information on predator-prey relationships is very abundant in the literature, and a wealth of information is available through the EC-funded FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 1996). Where relevant information is not available, the food biology of the key ecosystem components should be studied through stomach sampling programs. In addition to establishing the food web structure, information on the quantities transferred must be obtained for the important parts of the ecosystem, i.e. for the upper trophic levels if the management is fishery-oriented. For this, food consumption estimates must be obtained for the important ecosystem components. It is possible to start with a minimum expenditure of effort by first searching the published literature (including FishBase). If published estimates are not available, or if they are deemed too uncertain it may then be necessary to consider a suite of available tools, from empirical (e.g., Palomares and Pauly 1989), through analytical (e.g., Jarre et al., 1991), to experimental approaches if needed to verify the estimates. Anthropogenic impact on ecosystems Humans exploit the marine environment, through fishing, whaling, pollution, etc. To reach ecosystem management we have to be able to quantify the impacts. For the non-neritic marine ecosystems described by Longhurst the pollution aspects are not of immediate concern. However, as neritic systems support significant fisheries in the Caribbean Region, and are shared in many parts of the region by tourists and associated users, it may be necessary to explore means of incorporating nonfishery impacts in order to have meaningful models for fisheries management. These models would also be valuable for conservation of marine systems which are critical for tourism, and which frequently contribute considerably more than fisheries to national GDP. For fisheries it is of importance to acquire information at the right level. Bearing in mind the underlying basis for Longhurst’s (1995, in prep.) ecosystem stratification, we consider the LME to be the appropriate level at which to address most management issues. In consequence stock assessment and catch statistics should relate to this level. It was described earlier that one of the roots for the LME concepts is the FAO assessment of fish stocks in oceans globally. The FAO catch and stock estimates are indeed fundamental for our knowledge of fish populations and their exploitation but unfortunately the FAO statistical areas are often defined with more reference to political boundaries than to ecological geography. In an attempt to partly remedy the situation, A. Fonteneau (pers. comm.) allocated to “Longhurst areas” the global catches for tuna as reported by FAO. Further, it is intended to express also all other FAO catches on this basis (Christensen and Pauly, MS). These activities will, however, result in fairly uncertain


estimates only. It would be far better if a process was initiated to report the FAO catches on an ecosystem basis in lieu of, or in addition to, the present politically-based stratification. In the Caribbean Region, the problem of mismatch between reporting areas and LMEs is fortunately not as severe as in other parts of the world. Virtually the entire area of the Caribbean Region is taken up by EEZs. Since there are many small countries, the data are reported by country. As most landings are from within national EEZs, it is possible to allocate the catches to specific areas which would correspond reasonably closely to LMEs or subunits of LMEs. In the Caribbean, the greatest problem with catch reporting is that the landings are not reported in sufficiently disaggregated form to allow the catches to be allocated to the various ecosystem types for which trophic models are likely be constructed. For example, the category ‘marine fishes unidentified’ reported by a single country, may include coral reef fishes, deep reef snappers, schooling coastal pelagics, and some offshore large pelagics . The catch levels reported to FAO are on a species or species grouping level, and should be supplemented with catch at length information for the most abundant species for estimation of growth and mortality parameters (using, e.g., FiSAT, Gayanilo, Jr., et al., 1996). Fisheries independent estimates of stock abundance are, where available, important for evaluation of stock sizes, but take second priority to catch estimates. It has been asserted that in many exploited ecosystems fish biomasses are now only a fraction of what they once were (Pauly and Christensen, 1996). What we see today may well be only fractions of what once were; hence, catch levels could well be much higher than they currently are, were the ecosystem resources given a chance to rebuild to the level where it was possible to fully exploit ecosystem carrying capacity, and were they managed properly (Christensen and Pauly, MS). With ecosystem management in place, it becomes possible to study technical interactions between fleets and gears in a multispecies context. For this purpose, it is necessary to record the catches on a fleet/gear basis. In addition, economic parameters must be obtained. As a minimum, species/groupspecific prices and costs are required on a fleet basis. Only with such information at hand can appropriate strategies for ecosystem exploitation be made. Ecosystem management also provides opportunities for valuation of non-extractive exploitation of resources. For example eco-tourism is increasing in importance, e.g., it is reported that a small colony of penguins near Cape Town, South Africa, brings in a million dollars a year per penguin. To address such issues the ecosystem resources must be valued using shadow-values where appropriate. This indeed calls for close co-operation between natural and social scientists.

3. Tools for ecosystem management It has been, and still is, a problem that too little is known of ecosystem resources and of their interaction to make ecosystem management realistic. Things are however gradually improving after decades of initiatives have paved the way. Focusing on the methodological aspects of the whole system management we have at least two types of approaches available, which explicitly incorporate species interaction. These are described in the following sub-sections. First, an empirical method should be mentioned, however, the use of marine protected areas (MPAs) in which fishing is prohibited as part of management schemes for ecosystems. The knowledge of, and hence, literature on MPAs is rapidly growing, and we can only give it a cursory treatment. Our main assertion is that to preserve faunal diversity and stock stability, establishment of MPAs should be an integral part of the management of all LMEs, and that a network of MPAs should be established within each LME. This is consistent with recent recommendations from international fora. Local, successful experience with MPAs shows that leaving an area undisturbed long enough for stocks to rebuild can result in overall gains, more than compensating for ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 105

the non-fishing in the MPAs, see e.g., Russ and Alcala (1994). A research topic that needs to be addressed is, how big a proportion of LMEs should be made into MPAs, and how big should the individual areas be? In the Caribbean, the MPA emphasis has been mainly on coral reef systems (OAS, 1988). Reserves have been established mainly with tourism in mind, rather than for fisheries enhancement. Until recently, there have been few Caribbean studies aimed at quantifying the effects of these reserves (e.g., Polunin and Roberts, 1993; Rakitin and Kramer, 1996). Multispecies virtual population analysis The first and most data-demanding approach is the multispecies virtual population analysis (MSVPA) developed under the auspices of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) over the last 15 years (Pope, 1991; Sparre, 1991). In the North Sea, where the first MSVPA was implemented, more than 40,000 stomachs of the commercially important predator fish species were collected in the 1981 “Year-of-the-Stomach”, and an even larger number in the 1991 re-occurrence of the event. Based on the stomachs, a database giving prey species age and species by predator age and species groups on a quarterly basis was assembled, along with a database giving catches, also by species and age groups and on a quarterly basis. These databases drive the MSVPA analysis, through which it is possible to address questions as, e.g., “what is the impact of changing mesh size in the fishery for a predatory species likely to be on overall catches and stock sizes?” The long-term management advice is often fundamentally different from the advice coming from single-species analysis as discussed above, yet it is difficult to implement a new management paradigm (see the review of Christensen, 1996). The MSVPA, in the shape it has taken through development within ICES, is data-driven, which has been necessary for it to gain credibility as a management tool. The data demands, however, make it difficult to get enough information on all ecosystem components. Therefore, top predators and marine mammals and birds are not included in the North Sea MSVPA, nor are the prey food levels considered in any detail – all components but the central fish species are either “other predators” or “other food”. For ecosystem management this may be problematic, e.g., it was not possible to use the North Sea MSVPA to address the question of what impact the reduction fisheries for sandeel in the Northwestern North Sea had on bird colonies relying on sandeels for food. This question was the focus of a Greenpeace International campaign in the North Sea in 1996, where activists in press searchlight physically tried to stop industrial trawlers. This perhaps most clearly demonstrates the need for fisheries assessments to be able to quantify ecosystem impact of fishing. The development of the MSVPA has so far taken more than 15 years, and full applications are still limited to the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The low rate of dissemination is likely to be a consequence of two aspects: the methodology is very data-intensive, and it is difficult to change the management paradigm. In an attempt to address the first of these aspects, Christensen (1995) developed a test version of a more general and much less data-demanding MSVPA. This more generic version of MSVPA applies aspects of length-based methodologies, and bases the predator-prey interaction on the prey size preference model of Andersen and Ursin (1977). The reduced data demand is seen to facilitate both a wider applicability of the methodology, and modelling the interaction of all important ecosystem components, not just of the main exploited species. Ecosystem modelling A second type of management tool discussed here is ecosystem models in the form of trophic models centred on the exploited components of ecosystems. Notably, such are implemented in form of models developed using the widely disseminated Windows-freeware, Ecopath (Polovina, 1984; Christensen and Pauly, 1992, 1995). At present more than 500 scientists in 74+ countries are registered as users of the Ecopath software, and more than 60 models covering a variety of ecosystem types have been published, e.g., Christensen and Pauly (1993).


The main virtues of the trophic models are that they are easy to construct, require limited information, and can be used to summarise all ecosystem resources and quantify their interactions. To construct a model, it is basically necessary to follow the steps given in the section above, i.e. to 1. define the ecosystem: decide on geographical extent using, e.g., “Longhurst areas”; 2. describe the ecosystem resources: decide what ecological groups to include and obtain stock estimates and production (mortality) rates for these where available; 3. quantify the interactions: define diet compositions and consumption rates for all ecological groups; and 4. quantify the catches by ecosystem resource groups. With this information (in form of point estimates or ranges and distributions), a trophic model can be constructed based on an assumption of mass-balance, i.e. it is assumed that for all groups input (consumption) must equal output (production, wastes, and respiration). Therefore, the consumption of predators must match the utilised production of prey. On the basis of this assumption it becomes possible to balance a model with a limited number of parameters being estimated by the software (one basic parameter – biomass, production, consumption, or other mortality, can be unknown for each group in the ecosystem). Once a trophic model is constructed, it can be used for a variety of analyses using a suite of tools from network analysis. Of interest here are, for instance, trophic transfer efficiencies, mixed trophic impacts (see Fig. 2), and a number of measures of ecosystem structure, e.g., recycling indices. An example of the use of mass-balance models for ecosystem management issues was presented recently by Robertson et al. (1996), who, using a combination of MSVPA and Ecopath models, studied the impact of North Sea industrialised fisheries for prey species on ecosystem structure, and especially on food availability for the fish species used for human consumption. In addition to exploring the current state of ecosystems, simulations are needed of the possible shortand long-term ecosystem effects of perturbation caused by human interaction. Up to now simulations models with emphasis on the exploited parts of ecosystems have been rare. It appears, however that a newly developed model bears considerable promise for ease of use and general applicability (Walters et al., in press). The new model, EcoSim, builds directly on the Ecopath approach described above. It uses the same data files, and it has already been applied to a number of ecosystems. It is expected that the new model will be a valuable tool for design of ecosystem-scale adaptive management regimes.

4. LMEs of the Caribbean Stratifications A first question to be addressed is the number of LMEs in the Wider Caribbean Region, which as usually defined, and adopted by the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, includes the Northeast coast of Brazil to the north-eastern border of Florida, including the Gulf of Mexico. This corresponds roughly to the FAO fishing area 31, the area covered by the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC). The WECAFC area extends up to Cape Hatteras, but not as far east on the Brazilian coast as UNEP’s Wider Caribbean Region. According to Sherman (1993), the following LMEs have been distinguished within the region of concern here: • Northeast coast of South America – which he calls the Northeast Brazil Shelf, elsewhere it is often called the Guyanas-Brazil area; ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 107

• the Caribbean Sea, bounded on the east by the Lesser Antilles; • the Gulf of Mexico; and • the area from Florida north to Cape Hatteras is a fourth, called the Southeast US Continental Shelf. Longhurst (in prep.) in his treatise separates the following main areas, and gives very extensive descriptions of each of these. • North Atlantic Tropical Gyre province (NATR) extending across the Atlantic south of the subtropical convergence zone. Its southern boundary is at about 10ºN, while the western limit is the coastal boundary domains from Guiana via the Antillean arc to Florida. It thus includes the offshore Bahamas region. The region has a consistently low and uniform surface chlorophyll field, with a seasonal cycle with very little oscillation. As discussed by Longhurst the provinces that he describes may be subdivided further, and this may be a case where it would be worthwhile for management reasons (more than for ecological); • The Caribbean province (CARB), enclosed by the Antillean arc and the Bahamas, going through the Gulf of Mexico, north of Cuba, including the Great Bahamas Bank and to the Straits of Florida. Upwelling is of importance in the Gulf of Mexico, and along the southern coasts of the Caribbean Sea, while spring influx of turbid water from the Guiana current strongly influences the southeastern part of the Caribbean Sea. For management purposes separation of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea as two distinct LMEs must be considered, and there is also some basis for treating the Bahamas Banks as a separate LME. • Guianas coastal province (GUIA) extends from Cabo de Sao Roque (5ºS) in Brazil to Trinidad (10ºN) (or in some representations further to the west along the coast of Venezuela) within the offshore limits of the Guiana current along the northern coast of Brazil. The flow of the Guiana current is dominated by discharges of freshwater from the Amazon, Orinoco, and several other large rivers. The Amazon river discharge is relatively nutrient-depleted, and it has been suggested that the discharge may actually depress the continental shelf productivity in the province. • The Gulf Stream province (GFST) comprises the Gulf Stream current along the eastern coast of North America from the Straits of Florida to the Newfoundland basin, i.e. it includes the Southeast US Continental Shelf LME described by Sherman (1993). The seaward boundary is not welldefined, but corresponds in the southern part of interest here to the continental shelf. The landward margin north from Cape Hatteras is the North Wall of the Gulf Stream. • Offshore of the Gulf Stream province, Longhurst defines the North Atlantic Subtropical gyral province, West (NASW), bounded to the west and Northwest by the Gulf Stream. To the Northeast the boundary is around 40-46ºN. To the south, the boundary is the Subtropical convergence, while separation from the eastern part of the subtropical gyre is based on the eastern limit for the distribution of Sargassum natans. The STGW includes the northern Sargasso Sea. Passage of the Atlantic Current across the Mid-Atlantic Ridge drives some mid-ocean upwelling, while eddy formation in the western part from the Gulf Stream guided by seamounts induces biological enhancement. Some features, including primary productivity estimates of these LMEs, are presented in Table 1. The LMEs as outlined by both Sherman (1993) and by Longhurst (in prep.) are preliminary, and further work is needed before settling on ecosystem boundaries for ecosystem management purposes. It appears that Sherman’s areas would also make sense to fisheries people working in the region, and that they are supported by a preliminary analysis of faunal distributions (Mahon, 1993). The distinctiveness of the Guianas-Brazil area is recognised by WECAFC through the formation of a Guianas-Brazil Working Group. However, probably due to lack of resources, this working group has


not extended its considerations to the ecosystem level, but has mainly focused on the commercially important shrimp. Table 1.

Features of the LMEs of the western central Atlantic, based on Longhurst et al. (1995). For total primary production three options are given for the GUIA, assuming that 100%, 50%, and 25% of water-leaving radiation represents chlorophyll, and the rest presence of particles other than algal cells.

LME

Area

Primary production rate

(106 km2)

(gC·m-2·year-1)

(Gt C·year-1)

North Atlantic tropical gyre (NATR)

8.27

106

.88

Caribbean (CARB)

4.48

190

.85

Guianas coastal (GUIA)

1.23

699

.86/.43/.22

Gulf Stream (GFST)

1.10

178

.20

N. Atlantic subtropical gyre, west (NASW)

5.80

95

.55

It should be noted that Longhurst’s classification includes only oceanic and coastal systems – mainly because turbidity makes it difficult or impossible to use satellite images for estimating chlorophyll levels in the neritic systems. Longhurst thus exclude some of the nearshore systems that support most of the small-scale fisheries in the Caribbean Region, including many coral reefs (which have been included in various trophic modelling studies (see Table 2). There appear to be strong linkages between adjacent reefs, seagrasses, and mangroves (collectively referred to as reefal systems), hence the emphasis by the Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program (CARICOMP) (section 0) on all three of these habitats. Similarly, in river influenced mud bottom areas which support shrimp fisheries, there are strong linkages between coastal swamps which serve as nursery areas and offshore adult feeding grounds. Coastal lagoons also serve as nursery areas for exploited fishes, which is the reason given for the modelling of the three coastal lagoons in Mexico (Abarca-Arenas and Valero-Pacheco, 1993; Chavez et al., 1993; de la Cruz-Aguero, 1993). Therefore, in the Caribbean (and probably all tropical areas) ecosystem modelling for fisheries management will need to include the neritic zone, and there will be the need to give some attention to defining the role of neritic systems within the larger scale LMEs described above. Caribbean trophic models A number of models have been constructed in recent years summarising ecosystem features, biological components and interactions in the LMEs listed in Table 1. A summary of these models is given in Table 2. Table 2.

Trophic mass-balance models describing (parts of) LMEs in the Wider Caribbean Region. Only models which seek to describe all trophic levels are included. For abbreviations of LMEs, see Table 1.

LME

Model

Reference

Continental shelf of NE Venezuela

Mendoza, 1993

Virgin Island fringing reef

Opitz, 1996

NATR CARB


GUIA

Looe reef, Florida

Venier and Pauly, 1996

Northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf

Browder, 1993

South-western Gulf of Mexico shelf

Arreguín-Sanchez et al., 1993a

Yucatan north continental shelf

Arreguín-Sanchez et al., 1993b

Campeche bank, Gulf of Mexico

Vega-Cendejas et al., 1993

Tamiahua lagoon, Gulf of Mexico

Abarca-Arenas and Valero-Pacheco, 1993

Celestun lagoon, Southern Gulf of Mexico

Chavez et al., 1993.

Mandinga lagoon, Southern Gulf of Mexico

de la Cruz-Aguero, 1993

Several under preparation in Brazil

GFST NASW Notably, the work on trophic models to date has focused on demersal systems. With the recent emphasis on expanding pelagic fisheries in many Caribbean ACP countries, it would be desirable to promote studies of nektonic systems. One candidate for such ecosystem level research would be the flyingfish/large pelagic subsystem in the south-eastern Caribbean in which both predators and prey are exploited simultaneously. However, the migratory nature of the large pelagics, of which several species range throughout the Atlantic, will require consideration of the relative strengths of internal and external trophic pathways in defining the appropriate scale for models of nektonic systems. See however, Lehodey (this volume) who, for the Western Equatorial Pacific LME defined by Longhurst (1995), found that the distribution of tunas and probably also of other associated species was largely confined to within the LME, despite the migratory behaviour of the species. Some indication of the relative importance to fisheries of the various ecosystems in the Caribbean Region can be inferred from the fishery landings (Fig. 3). However, these must be interpreted with care. For example, although the landings of reef fishes are relatively small, they are of considerable socio-economic importance to subsistence fisheries. Furthermore, they area poorly reported, and the unspecified category under finfish probably includes considerable quantities of reef fishes. Even if only a limited number of models have been published from the Wider Caribbean Region, the tools and the knowledge for making such models is available. As an example, a joint Mexican/US initiative to construct trophic models of a number of sub-systems of the Gulf of Mexico is being initiated. In Mexico, it has already started with the support of Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), and several models are under parametrisation. Based on these models and a stratification of the Gulf, a “mega-model” linking the component models is planned. This mega-model can be used for addressing management issues at the LME level for the entire Gulf of Mexico. Also, many models have been parameterised elsewhere, mainly in tropical situations. These models can be used as building frames for other models – for many ecosystems a model from a similar system can be used, and for components with missing or sparse information, the original parameters may simply be carried over. With this approach it is almost always possible to construct an ecosystem model for an area. At first it will be preliminary, but as more and more local information is built-in, uncertainty is reduced, and its potential for addressing ecosystem management issues can be explored. In the process of parametrisation of mass-balance models, existing knowledge will be summarised on all ecosystem components. This importantly prepares an elevated starting point for new researchers, and it helps to ensure that information is not lost simply because it is published in sources which are difficult to access, e.g., in theses.


Institutional aspects of LME research Although there has been a considerable amount of marine research throughout the Wider Caribbean Region, all of it potentially useful for understanding and modelling LME function, there has been very little effort towards assembling it and integrating it at the LME level. The IOC Co-operative Investigation of the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (CICAR) Project was an early integrative initiative (1968-1976) to study the biology, oceanography, meteorology, geology and geophysics of the Caribbean (van 't Hof, 1978). Although the integrity of the Caribbean Sea as an ecosystem was recognised, there was no attempt to link the various disciplines into a model which could provide useful management advice. The CARICOMP is a more recent ongoing regional initiative of an integrative nature. The following summary is compiled from various abstracts of papers presented at the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, June 24-29, 1996, in Panama City, Panama. The CARICOMP network was established in 1990 through a memorandum of understanding with 25 institutions in 16 countries. Since 1993, the network has made a standardised, synoptic set of measurements of the structure, productivity, and associated physical parameters at selected sites with relatively undisturbed coral reefs, seagrasses, and mangroves. The preliminary analysis of the first two to three years of data was carried out in 1995-96. The principal goals of the programme are to determine the dominant influences on coastal productivity and to discriminate human disturbance from long-term natural variation in coastal systems. The programme maintains a data management and communications centre at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, and regularly organises workshops and training sessions. The sampled sites cover a wide range of settings from the continent to small islands, volcanic to carbonate substrates, each with a wide range of oceanic exposures. The land surrounding the sites varies from urban to nonperturbed. Seagrass sampling began in 1993 and currently is being carried out at 12 sites. Biomass, productivity, and other related ecological parameters of the seagrasses are measured at the sites using the same techniques. Meteorological and physical oceanographic conditions have been monitored since 1993 at 12 sites. Permanent chain transects have been established since 1993 at 15 coral reef sites around the Caribbean to assess benthic community composition and later productivity. The Caribbean aspect of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) can also be viewed as an integrative effort with conservation motive. The research and monitoring aspect of ICRI will generate and integrate information region-wide. An IOC IOCARIBE plan to take an LME approach to the Caribbean Region was initiated at the IOCARIBE meeting in Barbados in 1995. The first step will be to assemble information for an LME study/proposal for the region and to prepare a proposal for a long-term research programme for IOCARIBE. Under the sponsorship of the NMFS SEFSC there was an IOCARIBE Workshop on Fisheries Oceanography of Highly Migratory and Straddling Species of the Intra-Americas Seas, held in Miami, in March 1995. The aim was to get the oceanographers and fisheries scientists together to discuss the information needs for fisheries management. There also, it was concluded that it was necessary to take an LME approach. Since most marine research in the region has been carried out in non-ACP countries, due to the relatively small research capacity of the ACP countries, and since the LMEs are shared between the ACP countries and these larger countries, it would seem appropriate to use available funds to enable the ACP countries to participate as full as possible in regional initiatives which are wider in scope than


the ACP countries alone, for example, the IOCARIBE activity described above. Most, if not all, Caribbean ACP countries are members of IOCARIBE. In order for small countries with limited research capacity to benefit from a regional LME programme, it will be necessary to have emphasis in two areas: (1) the transfer of information from work carried out in other areas, and (2) the generation of management recommendations which can be readily incorporated into management schemes in human resource limited situations. Regarding the first point, it is clear that knowledge gained from studying similar systems elsewhere in the region may be usefully transferred between areas. For example, lessons learned from a trophic model of a coral reef in the US Virgin Islands may be applicable in Grenada, but only if Grenada knows about them and can adapt the results. The results are even more likely to be adaptable if potential end users are involved in formulating the questions to be addressed. Thus, for the benefits of an LME programme to be widely useful, networking and information transfer may be as important as the actual scientific research. The second consideration, the generation of management recommendations which can be readily incorporated into management schemes in human resource limited situations, is a more difficult problem. It may require a reorientation in thinking regarding the formulation of questions during the design phase for the development of the models. It will certainly require creative thinking regarding ways in which the modelling efforts can provide management recommendations which will be useful in the emerging management framework for small developing countries (see the Caribbean Governance paper, Chakalall et al., this volume). Indeed, even for developed countries with considerable research and management capacity, there is the danger that the process of carrying out and applying LME research may follow a similar path to that of single species population dynamics (stock assessment). One which turned out to be inappropriate. That is, the path of attempting to quantify too much, and to eliminate too much uncertainty, before the information is used to promote useful action. Unfortunately, when stock assessment did not perform as expected from theory, practitioners responded by attempting to quantify more, measure more accurately, and develop more complex models. In addressing this concern, it may be useful to think in terms of ecosystem level reference variables, and ecosystem level management reference points. In order for there to be successful management at the ecosystem level, it will be necessary to develop a suite of such reference variables and reference points, as well as strategies for monitoring and achieving them. In many instances, it may be possible to use qualitative information about ecosystem functions to suggest reference points which can be agreed upon by stakeholders in the fishery (Caddy and Mahon, 1995). An LME program which would serve the needs of small developing countries would include components addressing both the technical aspects of ecosystem research and modelling, and the mechanism for application of the results.

5. Linking local and global knowledge The first publication utilising the detailed stratification of “Longhurst areas” (Longhurst et al., 1995) derived an estimate of global oceanic primary production based on 26,000 chlorophyll profiles, and CZCS ocean colour files on a 1º, monthly grid for the entire ocean. This made state-of-the-art estimates of net annual primary production available for all of the stratification units, (see Table 2 for an example), and represents a major effort for linking biological oceanography with global climate -1 research. The global estimate amounted to 45-50 Gt C·year , comparable with current published -1 estimates for land plants of 45-68 Gt C·year . Comparison of their work with previous published estimates of global oceanic primary production stressed the need for a well-defined spatial stratification (Longhurst et al., 1995). Previous estimates were shown to have serious flaws in the area represented by different provinces or regimes.


This type of study demonstrates that it is possible to use LMEs to address global questions. Information from the local level can feed the regional level which, through further stratification, can in turn be used to raise to the global level. In reverse, experience gained at the global level through such a process can be used to feed back to the regional and local levels empowering not just those who originally took part in the process, but the scientific environment in all areas. It is also important to note that the strict scientific methodology of using experiments to test hypotheses is very difficult to apply at the ecosystem level – even if anthropogenic impact has resulted in numerous, unintended experiments taking place. Through comparisons across ecosystems the experimental approach can be simulated. An example of this is given through a study of the food web competition between marine mammals and fisheries in the LMEs of the Pacific. Trites et al. (in press) used the seven FAO regions of the Pacific as strata, and compared how much primary production was required to sustain the fishes caught in the fisheries, and how much that was required to sustain the consumption by marine mammals. This was done based on detailed food studies and knowledge of the trophic functioning of all ecological groups. The results indicated that in regions where the fishery was unimportant the marine mammals would appropriate 20-25% of the total primary production through their food webs; where the fishery took more (up to 10-15% of the primary production), less seemed to be left to the marine mammals (down to 10%). The conclusion of the study was that there was food web competition, and that fisheries seems to be better competitors than the marine mammals. The results were not conclusive with only seven strata, but it is possible to apply the same concepts to many more strata, which may yield results which will be very difficult to get by studying the local level only.

6. Acknowledgements The first author wishes to thank Cornelia Nauen and Daniel Pauly for the discussions that helped this contribution taking shape. He also thanks the Danish International Development Assistance for funding. ICLARM Contribution No. 1337.

7. Recommendations Research priorities for systems research The focus of research should be on the exploited system components, and on non-exploited toppredators. However, all parts of systems should be included to some degree. The following actions should be taken: • the ecosystems of concern must be defined based on their ecological geography; • the resources within the ecosystem must be assessed; • the interactions between the ecosystem components must be quantified; • the human impact on the system and its components, notably through the fishery must be described; • methodologies for ecosystem management must be applied and further developed in the process; • recent developments on “eco-labelling” of fish products will lead to increased need for assessment of the ecological impacts of fisheries. The ecological criteria for such “eco-labelling” must be a focus for research.


Mechanisms to enhance collaborative research on such priorities • All LMEs in the Wider Caribbean Region extend over more than one nation-state. If management is to be effective for such systems it must involve regional co-operation; particularly since management will be based more on negotiation and agreement than on quantitative assessment estimates. A number of regional organisations already exist in the areas of concern here; if ecosystem management has not hitherto been of concern for these, the UNCLOS directs a growing future need. Where appropriate regional organisations are not in place, discussions should be initiated on the possibilities for establishing such. • Appropriate tools for systems research should be identified, and regional training courses and workshops related to their application should be facilitated. Linkages between research and development and different actors in the sector • For LME research, one approach would be to establish direct links between researchers in European institutions and those in Caribbean institutions. The problem is how to build long-term capacity for applied ecosystem research in the region, rather than just providing a mechanism for external researchers to do research in the Caribbean. One way of enhancing regional research capability in this specific area would be to establish a position at the University of the West Indies in biological oceanography specifically to address Caribbean LME issues. A review of marine research capability at UWI suggested that there be three positions in oceanography established: physical on the Jamaica campus, biological on the Barbados campus, and chemical on the Trinidad campus. Until there is such a focus, such as that, applied marine ecosystem work will not go very far in the ACP countries.

8. References Abarca-Arenas, L.G. and E. Valero-Pacheco, 1993. Toward a trophic model of Tamiahua, a coastal lagoon in Mexico, pp.181-185. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.). Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.Proc., 26. Aliño, P.M., L.T. McManus, J.W. McManus, C. Nañola, M.D. Fortes, G.C. Trono and G.S. Jacinto, 1993. Initial parameter estimations of a coral reef flat ecosystem in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Northwestern Philippines, pp. 252-258. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.). Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.Proc., 26. Arreguín-Sanchez, F., J.C. Seijo and E. Valero-Pacheco, 1993 a. An application of ECOPATH II model for analysis of the community of the north continental shelf of Yucatan, Mexico, pp 269-278. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.). Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.Proc., 26. Arreguín-Sanchez, F., E. Valero-Pacheco and E.A. Chávez, 1993 b. A trophic box model of the coastal fish communities of the south-western Gulf of Mexico, pp. 197-205. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.). Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.Proc., 26. Andersen, K.P. and E. Ursin, 1977. A multispecies extension to the Beverton and Holt theory of fishing, with accounts of phosphorus circulation and primary production. Meddr.Danm.Fisk.og Havunders.,7:319-435 Belsky, M.H., 1993. Legal regimes for management of large marine ecosystems and their component resources, pp. 227-236. In K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.). Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation, and sustainability. AAAS Press, Washington, DC.


Browder, J.A, 1993. A pilot model of the Gulf of Mexico continental shelf, pp. 279-284. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM.Conf.Proc., 26 . Caddy, J.F. and R. Mahon, 1995. Fishery management reference points. FAO.Fish.Tech.Pap., 347:87 p. Chakalall, B., R.Mahon and P.Mc Conney, 1997. Fisheries governance in the Caribbean. pp. 133-166. In Anon. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. Proceedings of the Third Dialogue Meeting, Caribbean, Pacific and the European Union. Belize City, Belize, 5-10 December 1996. ACPEU Fish.Res.Rep., (3). Christensen, V., 1995. A multispecies virtual population analysis incorporating information of size and age. ICES C.M. 1995/D:8:14 p. Christensen, V., 1996. Managing fisheries involving top predator and prey species components. Rev.Fish Biol.Fish., 6:417-442 Christensen, V. and D. Pauly., 1992. ECOPATH II - a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem models and calculating network characteristics. Ecol.Mod., 61(3/4):169-185 Christensen, V. and D. Pauly (eds.), ICLARM.Conf.Proc., 26:390 p.

1993.

Trophic

models

of

aquatic

ecosystems.

Christian, R.R. and J.J. Lucztovich, 1996. Foodweb structure of the seagrass community of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge in winter through network analysis. Report submitted to the US National Biological Service. Christensen, V. and D. Pauly, 1995. Fish production, catches and the carrying capacity of the world oceans. Naga,ICLARM Q., 18(3):34-40 De la Cruz-Aguero, 1993. A preliminary model of Mandinga Lagoon, Veracruz, Mexico, pp. 193-205. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.). Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.Proc., 26. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.), 1995. FishBase 96: concepts, design and data sources. ICLARM, 179 p. Gayanilo, Jr., F.C., P. Sparre and D. Pauly, 1996. The FAO-ICLARM stock assessment tools (FiSAT) User’s manual. FAO Computerized Information Series (Fisheries), 8:126 p. Hela, L. and T. Laevastu, 1962. Fisheries hydrography. London, Fishing News Books, 137 p. Hempel, G. and K. Sherman, 1993. Scientific and organizational aspects of large marine ecosystems research. p. 18-23. In K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.). Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation, and sustainability. AAAS Press, Washington, DC. Jarre, A., M.L. Palomares, M.L. Soriano, V.C. Sambilay and D. Pauly, 1991. Some new analytical and comparative methods for estimating the food consumption of fish. ICES Mar.Sci.Symp., 193:99-108 Leodey, P., 1997. Defining a large marine ecosystem in the Western Equatorial Pacific. pp. 101-111. In Anon. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. Proceedings of the Third Dialogue Meeting, Caribbean, Pacific and the European Union. Belize City, Belize, 5-10 December 1996. ACPEU Fish.Res.Rep., (3).


Longhurst, A, 1995. Seasonal cycles of pelagic production and consumption. Progr.Oceanogr., 36(2):77-167 Longhurst, A, (in prep.). Ecological Geography of the Ocean. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Longhurst, A., S. Sathyendranath, T. Platt and C. Caverhill, 1995. An estimate of global primary production in the ocean from satellite radiometer data. J.Plankt.Res., 17(6):1245-1271 Magnússon, K.G., 1995. An overview of the multispecies VPA - theory and applications. Rev.Fish.Biol.Fish., 5(2):195-212 Mahon, R, 1993. Natural fishery management areas in the Western Central Atlantic Region. Ocean.Coast.Manag., 19:121-135 Mangel, M. et al. (43 authors), 1996. Principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Ecol.Appl., 6(2):338-362 May, R.M., J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt and R.M. Laws, 1979. Management of Multispecies Fisheries. Science, 203(4403):267-277 Mendoza, J.J., 1993. A preliminary biomass budget for the north-eastern Venezuela Shelf ecosystem, pp. 285-297. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.Proc., 26. OAS, 1988. Inventory of Caribbean marine and coastal protected areas. Organization of American States/U.S. National Park Service, Washington, DC., 140 p. Opitz, S., 1996. Trophic interactions in a Caribbean coral reefs. ICLARM Tech.Rep., 43. Palomares, M.L.D., and D. Pauly, 1989. A multiple regression model for predicting the food consumption of marine fish populations. Aust.J. Mar.Freshwat.Res., 40:259-273 Pauly, D. and V. Christensen, 1996. Rehabilitating fished ecosystems: insights from the past. Naga, ICLARM Q., 19(3):13-14 Polovina, J.J, 1984. Model of a coral reef ecosystems I. The ECOPATH model and its application to French Frigate Shoals. Coral Reefs, 3(1):1-11 Polunin, N.V.C. and C.M. Roberts, 1993. Greater biomass and value of target coral-reef fishes in two small Caribbean marine reserves. Mar.Ecol.Prog.Ser., 100:167-176 Pope, J.G., 1991. The ICES multispecies working group: evolution, insights and future problems. ICES.Mar.Sci.Symp. 193:22-23 Rakitin, A. and D.L. Kramer, 1996. Effect of a marine reserve on the distribution of coral reef fishes in Barbados. Mar.Ecol.Prog.Ser. 131:97-113 Robertson, J.H.B., J. McGlade, J. and I. Leaver, 1996. Ecological effects of the North Sea industrial fishing industry on the availability of human consumption species. Univation, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala, 1994. Sumilon Island Marine Reserve: 20 years of hopes and frustration. Naga, ICLARM Q.,17(3):8-12


Sherman, K., 1993. Large marine ecosystems as global units for marine resources management - an ecological perspective, pp. 3-14. In K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.) Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation, and sustainability. AAAS Press, Washington, DC. Sherman, K. and L.M. Alexander (eds.), 1986. Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 99. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO. Sherman, K. and L.M. Alexander (eds.), 1989. Biomass yields and geography of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 111. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO. Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.), 1990. Large marine ecosystems: patterns, processes, and yields. AAAS Symposium. AAAS, Washington, DC. Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.), 1991. Food chains, yields, models, and management of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Symposium. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, Co. Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.), 1993. Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation, and sustainability. AAAS Press, Washington, DC. Sparre, P., 1991. Introduction to multispecies virtual population analysis. ICES.Mar.Sci.Symp., 193:12-21 Talbot, L.M., 1996. Living-resource conservation: an international overview. Ecol.Appl., 6(2):355-357 Trites, A.W., D. Pauly and V. Christensen., (in press). Competition between fisheries and marine mammals for prey and primary production in the Pacific Ocean. J.North.West.Atl.Fish.Sci. Van 't Hof, T., 1978. A short history of CICAR. FAO Fish.Rep., 200 (Suppl.):1-8 Vega-Cendejas, M.E., F. Arreguin-Sanchez and M. Hernandez., 1993. Trophic fluxes on the Campeche Bank, Mexico, pp. 206-213. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.Proc., 26. Venier, J. and D. Pauly, 1996. A preliminary trophic model of the coral reef ecosystem of Looe Reef Key, Florida. Paper presented at the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, 24-29 June 1996, Panama City, Panama. Walters, C.J. 1986., Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillan, New York. 335 p. Walters, C.J., V. Christensen and D. Pauly, (In Press). Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments. Rev.Fish Biol.Fish.


Figure 1. Stratification of the world’s oceans in biogeochemical provinces called “Longhurst areas” (based on Longhurst, in prep.). The stratification is based on extensive studies of chlorophyll distributions from satellite images, and the available physical and biological oceanographic literature. The map is the surface area true to Peters Map Projection.


Figure 2. Mixed trophic impacts in a model of the Bolinao reef flat, Philippines (Aliño et al., 1993). The mixed trophic impacts describe how each of the ecosystem groups (including fishery) impacts all other groups in the given mass-balance situation. Impacting groups are shown to the left, impacted groups across. Positive impacts are shown above the baseline, negative below. Impacts are relative but comparable between groups.


TO TA L LA NDINGS BY MA JO R GRO UP

FINFISHES (EXCLUDING MENHA DEN)

2,500,000

800,000

2,000,000 600,000 1,500,000

400,000

1,000,000

500,000 200,000 0 70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92 0 70

FINFISH (-MENHA DEN)

CRUSTA CEA NS MENHA DEN

72

74

PELA GIC FISHES

MOLLUSCS

76

78

80

82

DEMERSA L FISHES

84

86

SHA RKS/ RA YS

88

90

92

UNSPEC.

PELA GIC FISHES

DEMERSA L FINFISHES 300,000

200,000

250,000 150,000 200,000

100,000

150,000

100,000 50,000 50,000 0 70

72

74

76

78

80

82

GROUPERS

SNA PPERS

REEF FISHES

OTHER DEMERSA L

84

86

88

90

92

0 70

CROA KERS & DRUMS

72

74

LA RGE OFFSHORE

76

78

80

LA RGE COA STA L

82

84

86

SMA LL (-MENHA DEN)

88

90

92

UNSPEC.

MOLLUSCS (EXCLUDING CA LICO SCA LLO P & CUPPED O YSTERS)

CRUSTA CEA NS

160,000

300,000

140,000 250,000

120,000 100,000

200,000

80,000 150,000

60,000 40,000

100,000

20,000 50,000

0 70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

0 70

72

74

CRA BS

76

78

LOBSTER

80

82

84

SHRIMP

86

88

90

OTHER & UNSPECIFIED

92

CLA MS & MUSSELS

CO NCH

O CTO PUS

O YSTER

SQ UID

O THER UNSPEC.

Figure 3. Trends in fishery landings (mt, 1970-1993) for WECAFC countries as reported to FAO.


Annex 8 - Defining a large marine ecosystem in the Western Equatorial Pacific by Patrick Lehodey Coastal Fisheries Programme South Pacific Commission New Caledonia

Introduction The large marine ecosystem (LME) concept involves “relatively large regions of ocean space on the order of 200,000 km2 or larger, characterised by distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically dependent populations” (Sherman, 1994). They have been described as regional units for the conservation of living marine resources in accordance with the legal mandates of UNCLOS, and also provide a framework for the achievement of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) commitments. They are typically “regions of ocean space encompassing nearcoastal areas from river basins and estuaries on out to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current systems” (Sherman, loc. cit.). The 49 LMEs defined by Sherman (1994), 21 in the Pacific, are thus far primarily coastal in nature, albeit extending considerable distances seawards in some cases. Areas of open ocean seem to have received little attention, possibly due to their being less well understood biological entities, and the generally lower productivity of open-ocean pelagic areas relative to ocean margins. Longhurst (1995) has however recently defined ecological domains and biogeochemical provinces in the pelagic ecosystem, based on oceanographic considerations, both biotic and physical. One of these 56 provinces, the Western Pacific Warm Pool (WARM), is here proposed with minor amendment for consideration as a Large Marine Ecosystem, on the basis of its distinct self-sustaining characteristics and its importance as an area of oceanic fisheries production of global significance.

The Western Equatorial Pacific The area here defined as the Western Equatorial Pacific (WEP) lies approximately between 10°N and 15°S, between the longitudes of 130°E and 150°W, and is bounded by the land masses of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia in the west. It is an area some 15 million km2 in extent, and is mostly ocean, but includes the EEZs, all or in part, of 19 coastal states and territories, as well as significant areas of high seas (Fig. 1).


140°E

120°E

Minami Tori Shima

Hawaii

20°N

Wake Northern Marianas

Johnston

Guam

Palau

Marshall Islands

Palmyra

Federated States of Micronesia Howland and Baker Papua New Guinea

0° Jarvis

Kiribati

Nauru

Line Islands

Phoenix Tuvalu Tokelau

Solomon Is

Cook

Fiji Australia

Vanuatu New Caledonia

Islands Wallis & Western Futuna Samoa Am Samoa Tonga Niue

20°S French Polynesia

Matthew & Hunter

Pitcairn

Norfolk

New Zealand

Figure 1. The western equatorial Pacific Ocean (heavy black line) and the SPC statistical area (light black line)

Physical Oceanography The physical oceanography of the South Pacific Commission area, which includes the WEP, has been reviewed in detail by Wauthy (1986), who highlights two outstanding features of the area - the generally impoverished nature of the surface waters, and the high thermal content of the surface layers - the WEP provides the largest reservoir of heat on the planet (Wauthy, 1986), with surface water temperatures typically in excess of 29° C, and nearly constant from the dateline to the Philippines/Indonesia. The hydrography of the WEP is dominated by the major eastwards or westwards flowing current systems which traverse it - the west-flowing North Equatorial Current, centred on 10° N; the eastflowing North Equatorial Counter Current (NECC), flowing between 3°N and 8°N, and the Equatorial Current (EC), between 5°N and 5°S. Beneath the EC also lies the eastward-flowing Equatorial Undercurrent, or Cromwell Current. A recently described convergence of two water masses and a well defined salinity front demarcate the eastern edge of the warm lower salinity water (Picaut et al., submitted). This is displaced eastwards during El Niño events and westwards during La Niña events, ranging in recent years between 140°W to 160°E. To the west of 160°E, the many high islands of Melanesia break up the orderly current patterns, and the large land masses of Philippines and Indonesia provide a western boundary to the WEP. Southern and northern limits are roughly defined by the subtropical current gyres and their oligotrophic waters.


It is thus possible, in physical terms, to discriminate a distinctive area of ocean, the WEP, on the basis of its physico-chemical features, but particularly the consistently high water temperatures in the surface layers.

Biogeochemical Oceanography As noted, Longhurst (1995) has recently used a series of biogeochemical criteria and ecological principles to define firstly four ecological domains, then 56 biogeochemical provinces. Of particular interest amongst these, within the Trade Wind domain, is the Western Pacific Warm Pool (WARM), extending from 125°E to 160° W, and 10°N to 15°S, and thus closely approximating the WEP as defined above (Figure 1). Characteristics of the WARM are as follows: • weak seasonality in mixed layer depth and primary production • deep chlorophyll maximum (centred around 100 m) • productivity nutrient limited in the mixed-layer • rates of phytoplankton chlorophyll accumulation and consumption closely balanced at all seasons • lower surface salinity than to the east of the dateline • a surface isohaline layer at 40-50 m overlying a strong halocline Close to the WARM, Longhurst defined the heterogeneous Western Pacific Archipelagic Deep Basins (ARCH) province including the Bismarck, Solomon and Coral Seas, as well as the Andaman, South China, Sulu, Celebes, Flores, Molucca and Banda Seas, and would encompass the four LMEs of the Bay of Bengal, the South China Sea, the Sulu-Celebes Seas and the Indonesian Seas. As it is closely allied with the western margins of the WARM, parts of it could well be included within the WARM, such that its western limits be extended to include the Bismarck and Solomon Seas.

Distribution of Primary and Secondary Productivity If the warm pool can be envisaged as a semi-isolated lens of warm, low density, well mixed waters, floating above high density cold saline water (Picaut et al., submitted), this water mass is also well differentiated from the remaining equatorial Pacific, with respect to its primary productivity. Although the consistent decrease of nutrients and primary productivity from east to west for the surface equatorial waters of the Pacific Ocean has been known for several decades (Desrosières, 1969; Vinogradov et al., 1981), the first global views of phytoplankton distribution provided by satellites reveal the clear pattern of the eastern Pacific Ocean and equatorial upwelling, and highlight the contrast between eastern and western Pacific (Fig. 2). Within the tropical zone, the equatorial upwelling, characterised by an extreme uniformity in the distribution of chlorophyll and phytoplankton (Le Bouteiller and Blanchot, 1991), is the area of highest primary productivity, potentially capable of providing half of the primary production of the Pacific Ocean (Chavez and Barber, 1987). The equatorial upwelling disappears west of the dateline, where the equatorial current joins the warm pool. The warm pool (coastal waters excepted) and the areas to the north and south of the equatorial upwelling (subtropical gyres) have oligotrophic waters, and exhibit the lowest primary production rates in the Pacific Ocean (Longhurst et al., 1995).


Figure 2. Annual mean distribution in the Pacific ocean of phytoplankton pigment concentration (CZCS climatological data: 1978--1986) “In contrast with the frequency of data of primary production in the sea, there are few good values for secondary production, and those that are available are rarely comparable with one another”; this observation of Cushing and Walsh (1976) is still valid 20 years later, despite the development of automatic plankton samplers. Indeed, since sampling of zooplankton and micronekton still remains limited relative to the spatial and temporal scales involving the classical means of observation at sea, knowledge of their ocean-wide distribution is sparse. In the equatorial Pacific Ocean, a similar distribution pattern to the primary biomass, with a contrast between central-east and west, is observed for the next trophic level up from the phytoplanktonic, i.e., organisms like copepods (Dessier, 1983), euphausids (Roger, 1994), and amphipods (Repellin, 1978). However, as we progress up the food web, to organisms of larger size and longer life-span, patterns in distributions become more difficult to describe, even though the time-space sequence through the first planktonic levels is known since the works of Margalef (1967) and Vinogradov et al. (1972).

Fisheries In addition to its intrinsic interest as a driving force for the world’s climate, the Western Equatorial Pacific supports an oceanic fishery of global importance. The catch of tunas in the SPC area has exceeded one million tonnes in most years since 1991, and when combined with production in adjacent eastern Indonesian and Philippines waters, reaches 1.3 million tonnes, or nearly 50% of the world production of the primary market species of tuna (SPC, 1995). This represents more than 1% of the world marine nominal catch, more than the yields for the majority of the 49 LMEs so far described (Sherman, 1994). These figures also do not include the catch of associated, or by-catch species, much of which may be discarded and not included in global statistics. In the SPC area, around 80% of the total catch by weight is taken by the international purse seine fleet, 12% by longline, 8% by pole-and-line, and a small percentage by troll and other gears. Virtually 100% of the purse seine catch, 90% of the pole-and-line catch and probably 60% of the longline catch i.e. over 90% of the SPC area total tuna catch, is taken in the WEP, or Warm Pool area (Fig. 3), and it is clear that this area supports a large standing biomass of tropical tunas, indeed sufficient to support the world’s largest tuna fishery on a sustainable basis.


120°E

140°E

160°E

180°

160°W

140°W

20°N

0°

20°S

Figure 3. Aggregated tuna catch (skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore; all fleets and gears) for 1990-1995 in the western-central Pacific Ocean by 5° square (heavy black line delimits the WEP) The distribution of the purse seine catch shifts longitudinally in concert with ENSO events, distributed eastwards during El Niño events, and westwards during La Niña events (Fig. 4), indicating also that this production is closely linked to the Warm Pool and oceanographic events within it. The dynamics of tropical tuna populations in the WEP (skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis; yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares; bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus) have been the subject of considerable study by the SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme in particular, through monitoring of commercial catches of tuna and research on the stocks (SPC, 1995). Large scale tagging experiments have been especially valuable in elucidating details of the population dynamics of skipjack and yellowfin. Analysis of 18,000 tag returns from approximately 150,000 releases of tunas in the WEP area has indicated that current levels of exploitation are low to moderate, on a regional basis, and that the current high catches of skipjack in particular could be further increased on a sustainable basis (Kleiber et al., 1987). The tagging results also demonstrate that very little movement of tunas tagged in the Warm Pool area occurs beyond it (SPC, unpublished data), underlining the maintenance and retention of a very large biomass of tunas within the area.


140E

150E

160E

170E

180

170W

160W

150W

130E

140E

150E

160E

170E

180

170W

160W

150W

130E

140E

150E

160E

170E

180

170W

160W

150W

130E

140E

150E

160E

170E

180

170W

160W

150W

10N

10N

130E

10N

10N

10S

10S

0

0

a

10S

10S

0

0

b

Figure 4. Tuna catch by U.S. purse seine fleet in the western-central Pacific ocean by 5° square during La Niña (a, Mar 1988-Aug 1989) and El Niño (b, Jan 1992-Dec 1994) periods

Other components of the WEP ecosystem Apart from the highly visible commercially exploited component of the WEP ecosystem i.e. the tropical tunas, there are many other biotic components to this pelagic ecosystem - the phyto-, zoo- and ichthyoplankton, marine birds, marine mammals, marine reptiles, and a variety of non-tuna fish and shark species. Very little is known of these other components of the ecosystem, and even less of the system dynamics, most information on this vast area of ocean coming from commercial fishing activity. The catch of other species taken in the tuna fishery of the WEP has recently been reviewed (Bailey et al., in press), with over 50 fish species, 10 shark and ray species, and small numbers of marine reptile species taken by the purse seine fishery alone. An even greater diversity of species is taken by the longline fishery, with over 20 shark and ray species, a similar diversity of fish species, and additional marine reptile species. These are not by any means the only species inhabiting this poorly known biotope, but simply represent those taken by the gears in use in the tuna fishery. Whilst most of the above species are cosmopolitan, or at least widely distributed, their distribution within the ecosystem, population structure, levels of exploitation, can only be guessed at.


Terrestrial/coastal effects Within the WEP are the large number of islands generally known as Oceania. Whilst comprising only 2% of the SPC area, they undoubtedly have considerably impact on, and biological inputs to, the WEP, particularly in the western part where the larger land masses of Melanesia occur. Export of terrigenous nutrients, especially from high rainfall high islands, island wake effects, and islandassociated upwellings, on a local scale, all must contribute significantly to an environment where productivity may be nutrient or trace element limited. A good example of these terrestrial effects is given by the problem of regulation of primary productivity rate by the eolian supply of iron (Barber and Chavez, 1991; Frost, 1996). In the particular context of tuna fisheries, much of the purse seine catch is still taken in association with floating objects, notably logs, which may be an other important example of a terrestrial input to an LME. The high concentration of tuna larvae (and presumably spawning) around islands (Leis, 1991) provide another example of the importance of islands in the oceanic milieu. Separate from the above of course are a host of human impacts on LMEs, most of which can be assumed to be deleterious e.g., transboundary movement of hazardous waste, pollution on a global scale, over-fishing, etc.

An apparent paradox The presence of the most productive tuna fishery in the world in the warm pool area, characterised by a generally unproductive nature of the “thick layer of warm very infertile westward moving water” (Wauthy, 1986) appears quite paradoxical. This situation is all the more surprising since tuna species which provide the bulk of the catch (skipjack and yellowfin caught in the surface layer by purse seiners) have very high energetic requirements and feed on epipelagic prey (Dragovitch, 1970; Hida, 1973; Grandperrin, 1975; Roger and Grandperrin, 1976; Olson, 1982; Roger, 1994), depending on primary productivity of the surface layer. In fact, as far as secondary productivity is concerned, the warm pool may be not so poor. High but presumably patchy concentrations of oceanic anchovy (Encrasicholina punctifer) have been regularly observed in the warm pool (Fig. 5). This phenomenon is routinely utilised by tuna vessel to catch (purse seine) tuna schools actively feeding on anchovy concentrations at the surface (A. Lewis, pers. com.), while adults of the oceanic anchovy have also dominated mid-water trawl catches made in the western part of the warm pool (M. Ogura, pers. com). Therefore, it is likely that this forage species is an important component of the food web leading to tuna in the warm pool.

160°E

180°

160°W

10°S

0°

140°E

Figure 5. Location of tuna sampled during the Regional Tuna Tagging Project (SPC 1995) with


stomach contents containing oceanic anchovy, Encrasicholina punctifer (black line delimits the WEP) Aggregations of prey species (e.g., oceanic anchovy) can be facilitated by some physical mechanisms, such as fronts between currents (convergences), like those which typically occur between equatorial currents and counter-currents (Yoder et al., 1994, Flament et al., 1996). Mechanisms proposed to explain these concentration of organisms involve the concept of time-space sequence of plankton communities (Margalef, 1967; Vinogradov, 1977) and the meridional transport in the equatorial Pacific region (Vinogradov, 1981). Following these previous works, the hypothesis that horizontal advection provides an enrichment of secondary production in the warm pool is currently being investigated through a numerical model (Lehodey, 1996). The importance of the zonal advection in the secondary production enrichment of the warm pool suggested by the model appears confirmed by the correlation between the displacements of tuna abundance and the convergence outlined on the eastern edge of the warm pool (Lehodey et al., in prep.).

Conclusions The information presented above provides reasonably compelling evidence for considering the waters of the Western Equatorial Pacific (WEP) to constitute a Large Marine Ecosystem, which can be summarised as follows : • uniformly high temperatures throughout the surface layers of the WEP, with little seasonal variation • identifiable physical or bio-oceanographic boundaries to the area, which may however be dynamic in nature • unique productivity enhancement mechanisms which allow an otherwise unproductive area to support an oceanic tuna fishery of global significance • distribution of tunas and probably other associated species largely restricted to within the area, despite their migratory potential • a relatively diverse macrofauna characteristic of the area can probably be defined.

References Bailey, K., P.G. Williams and D. Itano, (in press). By-catch and discards in western Pacific tuna fisheries: a review of SPC data holdings and literature. SPC/OFP Tech. Rept. No. 34. Barber, R.T. and F.P. Chavez, 1991. Regulation of primary productivity in the equatorial Pacific. Limnol.Oceanogr., 36(8):1803-1815 Blackburn, M., 1965. Oceanography and the ecology of tunas. Oceanogr.Mar.Biol., 3:299-322 Blackburn, M., 1969. Conditions related to upwelling which determine distribution of tropical tuna off Western Baja California. Fish.Bull.U.S.Wildl.Serv., 68(1):147-176 Chavez, F.P. and R.T. Barber, 1987. An estimate of new production in the equatorial Pacific. DeepSea Res., 34:1229-1243 Cushing, D.H. and J.J. Walsh, 1976. The ecology of the seas. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Alden Press, Oxford, 467 p. ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 140

Dalzell, P.J., 1993. Small pelagic fishes, pp. 97-133. In A. Wright & L. Hill (eds.), Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific. IPS, Suva, FFA, Honiara, ICOD, Canada. Desrosières, R., 1969. Surface macrophytoplankton of the Pacific ocean along the equator. Limnol.Oceanogr., 14(4):626-63 Dessier, A., 1983. Variabilité spatiale et saisonnière des peuplements épiplanctoniques des copépodes du Pacifique tropical sud et équatorial (est Pacifique). Oceanologica Acta., 6(1):89-102 Dragovitch, A., 1970. The food of skipjack and yellowfin tunas in the Atlantic Ocean. Fish.Bull. NOAA/NMFS, 70(4):1087-1110 Flament, P.J., S.C. Kennan, R.A Knox, P.P Niiler and R.L Bernstein, 1996. The three-dimensional structure of an upper ocean vortex in the tropical Pacific ocean. Nature, 383:610-613 Forsbergh, E.D., 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, (Linnaeus, 1758), in the Pacific Ocean. Spec.Rep. I-IATTC, (2):295-360 Frost, B.W., 1996. Phytoplankton bloom on iron rations, Nature, 383:475-476 Grandperrin, R., 1975. Structures trophiques aboutissant aux thons de longues lignes dans le Pacifique sud-ouest tropical. Thèse Doctorat, Université de Marseille, 295 p. Hampton, J. and K. Bailey, 1993. Fishing for tunas associated with floating objects: a review of the western Pacific fishery. South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia, TBAP, Tech.Rep. 31:48 p. Hida, T.S., 1973. Food of tunas and dolphin (Pisces: Scombridae and Coryphaenidae) with emphasis on the distribution and biology of their prey Stolephorus buccaneeri (Engraulidae). Fish.Bull., 71(1):135-143 Kleiber P., A.W. Arguee and R.E. Kearney, 1987. Assessment of Pacific skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) resources by estimating standing stock and components of population turnover from tagging data. Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci., 44(6):1122-1134 Le Bouteiller, A. and J. Blanchot, 1991. Size distribution and abundance of phytoplankton in the Pacific equatorial upwelling. La mer (Société franco-japonaise d’océanographie) 29:175-179 Lehodey, P., 1996. Modelling the distribution of skipjack tuna in the Pacific ocean with environmental data. Abstract of the Japan-Globec Symposium, 27-28 June 1996, Nemuro City, Hokkaido, Japan. Leis, J.M., T. Trinski, M. Harmelin-Vivien, J.P. Renon, V. Dufour, M.K.El Moudni, and R. Galzin, 1991. High concentration of tuna larvae (Pisces: Scombridae) in near-reef waters of French Polynesia (Society and Tuamotu Islands). Bull.Mar.Sci., 48:150-158 Longhurst, A., 1995. Seasonal cycles of pelagic production and consumption. Progress in Oceanography, 36(2):77-167 Longhurst, A., S. Sathyendranath, T. Platt and C. Caverhill, 1995. An estimate of global primary production in the ocean from satellite radiometer data. Journal of Plankton Research, 17(6):1245-1271 Margalef, R., 1967. Some concepts relative to the organization of plankton. Oceanogr.Mar.Biol. Ann.Rev. 5:257-289


McPhaden, M.J. and J. Picaut (1990). El Nino - Southern Oscillation Displacements of the Western Equatorial Pacific Warm Pool. Science, 250:1385-1388 Olson, R.J., 1982. Feeding and energetics studies of yellowfin tuna: food for ecological thought. Collect.Vol.Sci.Pap. ICCAT, 17(12):444-457 Pauly, D., and V. Christensen, 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255-257 Picaut, J., M. Ioualalen, C. Menkes, T. Delcroix and M.J. McPhaden (submitted). Mechanism of the Zonal Displacement of the Pacific Warm Pool: implications for ENSO. Reid, Jr.J.L., 1962. On circulation, phosphate-phosphorus content and zooplankton volumes in the upper part of the Pacific ocean. Limnol.Oceanogr., 7:287-306 Repellin, R., 1978. Les amphipodes pélagiques du Pacifique occidental et central. Biologie, écologie et relations trophiques avec la faune ichtyologique. Travaux et Documents de l’ORSTOM, 86:381 p. Roger, C., 1994. The plankton of the tropical western Indian ocean as a biomass indirectly supporting surface tunas (yellowfin, Thunnus albacares and skipjack, Katsuwonus pelamis). Env.Biol.Fish., 39(2):161-172 Roger, C. and R. Grandperrin, 1976. Pelagic food webs in the tropical Pacific. Limnol.Oceanogr., 21(5):731-735 Sherman, K., 1994. Sustainability, biomass yields, and health of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspective. Mar.Ecol.Prog.Ser., 112:277-301 SPC, 1995. Tuna Fishery Yearbook 1994. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, SPC, Noumea. 77 p. SPC, 1996. Status of tuna stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Working Paper 3, 9th Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 22-23 July 1996, Noumea., New Caledonia. 37 p. Vinogradov, M., 1981. Ecosystems of equatorial upwellings, pp. 69-93. In A.R Longhurst (ed.). Analysis of Marine Ecosystems. Academic Press. Vinogradov, M.E., V.V. Menshutkin and E.A. Shushkina, 1972. On mathematical simulation of a pelagic ecosystem in tropical waters of ocean. Mar.Biol., 16:261-268 Wauthy, B., 1986. Physical ocean environment in the south Pacific Commission Area. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, 83:90 p. Yoder J.A., S.G. Ackleson, R.T. Barber, P. Flament and W.M. Balch, 1994. A line in the sea. Nature, 371:689-692


Annex 9 - Integrated coastal management (ICAM) for the Caribbean with special reference to fisheries and aquaculture By Dr J. Gibson (1), Mr M. Toure (2), and Dr A. Smith (3) (1) GEF/UNDP Coastal Zone Management Project, P.O. Box 1884, Belize City, Belize (2) Marine Research Centre, University College of Belize, P.O. Box 990, Belize City, Belize (3) Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, Clarke St., Vieux Fort, St. Lucia, West Indies

Introduction The Caribbean Region In general, populations living near the sea are rising and this is very much the case in the Caribbean where all the capital cities are located on the coast. The Wider Caribbean’s coastal population is estimated at 80 million, with 20 million tourists visiting annually (UNEP, 1996a). In this region, industry, trade and tourism are concentrated with the concomitant problem of increased levels of pollution. The interface between the land and the sea represents a highly dynamic area with complex ecological processes. In most Caribbean countries, this area is comprised of estuaries, mangroves, seagrasses and coral reefs, all of which are highly productive systems. Bioconstruction dominates the coastal processes in this region and thus human effects on the marine communities have been catastrophic (Jackson, 1996). In the Caribbean, which can be considered as a semi-enclosed sea, the coastal ecosystems are under threat from a rising population, inadequate management, and lack of understanding (UNEP, 1996a). At the same time, the region depends on these ecosystems for its productivity, biodiversity and a large percentage of its food supply. These ecosystems also provide protection against storms and hurricanes, coastal stabilisation and the basis of the major economic sectors of fisheries and tourism. In order to sustainably use these coastal resources, a special type of management strategy will be required.

Integrated Coastal Area Management Definition and Rationale The coastal zone encompasses the areas of highest biological diversity and productivity on earth. For example, 8% of the area of the globe is coastal which accounts for 26% of all biological productivity, and 95% of the world’s fish catch is from the continental shelf areas. In addition, two-thirds of the world’s largest cities are located on the coast and many industries are located on the coast or rivers, with wastewater discharged into coastal waters directly or via rivers, with little or no treatment (Pernetta & Elder, 1993). In general, coastal resources are considered common property with often free access to users. This invariably leads to excessive use and degradation, the well-known dilemma of the “tragedy of the commons”. Multiple use conflicts are common in coastal zones where, under economic development pressure, short-term financial gains from the heavy exploitation of direct use of coastal resources often take precedence over long-term sustainable use and conservation (Turner & Adger, 1996). The traditional sector-oriented approach to the management of coastal resources has not provided an ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 143

effective framework for achieving sustainable development in the past. In contrast, integrated coastal area management (ICAM) endeavours to manage use in a sustainable manner and reduce user conflicts. To enhance the sustainability of one sector, for example, fisheries, the management of several different sectors such as waste management, agriculture, and conservation needs to be integrated. Thus, several countries including many in the Caribbean such as Barbados, St. Kitts, Jamaica, Belize, and the Dominican Republic are adopting ICAM programmes which provide a more holistic, multidisciplinary approach to planning and management. In addition, a six year project entitled Environmental and Coastal Resources Management (ENCORE) has been initiated by the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, with pilot projects in St. Lucia and Dominica (Sorensen, 1993). Integrated coastal area management (ICAM) can be defined as a process which “involves the comprehensive assessment, setting of objectives, planning and management of coastal areas and resources, taking into account traditional cultural and historical perspectives and conflicting interests and uses; it is a continuous and an evolutionary process for achieving sustainable development” (Turner & Adger, 1996). ICAM can be considered as a special planning process which encompasses some fixed and some flexible boundary concepts, an ecosystem conservation ethic, socio-economic goals, an active, problem-solving participatory management style, and a strong scientific basis (UNEP, 1996a). A systems perspective and multi-sectoral approach can be considered the distinguishing features of ICAM (Sorensen, 1993). As people are involved in the “use” of these resources, ICAM is very much linked to human resources. Thus ICAM is very much concerned with both the natural and socio-economic systems. The boundaries of the coastal area may vary from place to place, but it is important to consider the “ecosystem” boundaries, and the off-site as well as on-site benefits and impacts. In the case of the small island states of the Caribbean, virtually the entire islands can be considered as coastal areas. The overall goal of an ICAM programme is therefore to ensure optimum sustainable use of coastal resources, perpetual maintenance of biodiversity, and conservation of critical habitats (Clark, 1992). ICAM can be considered as a means of achieving the conservation of biodiversity as required under the Convention of Biological Diversity to which many of the Caribbean countries are signatories. Sustainable Development Sustainability requires development that improves the quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological process on which life depends (Resource Assessment Commission, 1993). This process of development aims to achieve the following goals: high per capita income for an indefinite period which requires an optimal rate of use of natural resources; distributional equity; environmental protection including protection of diversity and natural processes; participation of all sectors in decision-making (Archer & Healy, 1990). ICAM is recognised as the most acceptable way of achieving this goal of sustainable development in the coastal area. The need for integrated approaches to coastal area management was first noted in the UNEP Wider Caribbean Environmental Action Plan and the Cartagena Convention during the late 1970’s. Extensive references to the need for ICAM arose from UNCED in 1992 and are reflected in Chapters 10 and 17 of Agenda 21 which call on the need for coastal states to prepare integrated plans and develop the institutional arrangements to ensure integrated coastal management. The Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island States (SIDS) held in Barbados in 1994, also recognised the strong dependency of small islands as well as coastal developing states on coastal marine resources (OAS, 1996). Finally, the draft declaration for the up-coming Bolivia Summit as revised by CARICOM, gives further impetus to ICAM, recognising the need to protect and make rational use of coastal marine resources in order to reverse the process of degradation and ensure the conservation of biodiversity in our common hemisphere (CARICOM, 1996).


This paper will consider two sectors, fisheries and aquaculture, and attempt to demonstrate how they can be developed on a sustainable basis within the context of integrated coastal area management.

Common Problems/Issues Fisheries Most Caribbean countries rely heavily on reef species to sustain their fishing industries. However, catches have declined for several reasons. Overfishing has resulted in the depletion of inshore commercial and recreational fisheries (UNEP, 1996a). Catches have also declined as a result of general degradation of habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs. With the decline of these habitats, fish depart and the community is taken over by small invertebrates (Jackson, 1996). Production may also be affected by general declining coastal water quality caused by land-based sources of marine pollution. Successful fisheries depend on a high level of environmental quality. They also depend on a good infrastructure that supplies water, transportation, telecommunications, etc. Therefore their management requires an integrated approach which can be provided through ICAM (Clark 1992). An ICAM programme can help protect fish habitat, nursery areas and water quality, that is, it addresses the multi-sector concerns (Clark, 1992). In an effort to conserve the productivity of coastal habitats for fisheries production, an ICAM programme can help prevent pollution, restrict harmful development and create protected areas. The socio-economic aspect of fisheries is also an important consideration. Apart from its importance in providing a source of food and protein, fisheries provide a livelihood for fishermen and their families, boat builders, packers, retailers, etc. This helps promote social stability in coastal areas; a strong domestic fishery promotes self-sufficiency and reduces the outflow of foreign exchange. It can also prevent migration from rural coastal areas to overcrowded cities (Clark, 1992). In a recent review of regional coastal zone issues carried out by ODA (Barr et al., 1996), the following were identified as major concerns which could affect fisheries: • Declining coastal water quality due to land-based sources of pollution; • This was primarily caused by sedimentation as a result of poor land-clearing activities, misuse of fertilisers and pesticides, and the discharge of sewage; • Impact of marine protected areas on natural resources; • The role of marine protected areas as fishery reserves needs to be clarified; • Habitat degradation, alternative uses and management options for coastal resources; • There is widespread concern for fragile coastal ecosystems and recognition of the need for adequate baseline data. In Jamaica, for example, the decline in fisheries has been dramatic. Overfishing of the fringing reefs off the north coast has presented a threat to the health of the reefs themselves. By 1973, intensive artisanal fish trapping was at two to three times the sustainable level (Hughes, 1994). This level of overexploitation can be defined as ecosystem overfishing (Roberts, 1995; Pauly in Clark, 1996) in which the actual balance of species on the fishing grounds is altered. In this case, the large predatory species virtually disappeared, followed by a significant reduction in herbivorous species. The removal of the fish herbivores, coupled with the Diadema die-off in 1983, helped to change the balance from a coral-dominated to an algal-dominated reef (Hughes, 1994). Thus the relationship between herbivory


and overfishing is a vital concern in the management of coral reefs. Maintaining the health of reefs is necessary not only for fisheries, but also for tourism and shoreline protection. Belize has also experienced problems with declining fisheries production but not to the extent of that experienced in Jamaica. The main fisheries are for lobster and conch, but the status of these fisheries is unknown as catch statistics have not been collected systematically until recently (McField et al., 1996). The conch fishery is presumed to be overexploited, with exports reaching over a million pounds annually in the 1970’s and declining to only 200,000 to 400,000 lb. at present. The reasons for declining fisheries production has been attributed to overexploitation of stocks, destruction of critical habitats for commercial species, and declining water quality and habitat productivity due to agricultural and industrial runoff and siltation (McField et al., 1996). Aquaculture Aquaculture, which utilises the sea, wetlands and the land, is one of the fastest growing sectors of the coastal zone economy (Clark, 1996). Although aquaculture is not a major activity in the Caribbean, it is locally important on some of the larger islands such as Jamaica, and some mainland countries such as Belize. With the decline in capture fishery resources and a growing human population, there is the potential for increasing aquaculture development in the region. Aquaculture can also provide a valuable source of protein and foreign exchange earnings. This activity, however, requires a clean environment but at the same time can be a polluter. Some of the main issues involved in aquaculture development include (McField et al., 1996; Clark, 1996): • Declining water quality caused by nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion of effluents; • Habitat destruction, particularly of wetlands (mangroves) and loss of biodiversity; • Overexploitation of natural sources of seedstock of larvae and juveniles; • Introduction of exotic species which can disrupt natural ecosystem functioning and displace native species; • Introduction of diseases, such as the infectious Taura Syndrome Virus (TSV); • Conflicts over water supplies; • Development of acid-sulfate soil conditions. There are examples of aquaculture in the region which have not shown any adverse impacts. These include the case of seaweed or seamoss cultivation in St. Lucia (Smith, 1992). Seamoss, Gracilaria spp., were traditionally harvested from the wild for the local market. But in response to stock depletion, a project was initiated in 1981 to develop seamoss cultivation. This project has been very successful although there are only a relatively small number of commercial farmers. Aquaculture development along the coast often conflicts with other coastal activities, such as fisheries and tourism. Thus, decisions regarding this type of development require governments to balance the benefits against the losses to the environment and other economic sectors (Clark, 1996). At present, however, in many countries of the region, policies and legislation guiding the development of aquaculture are lacking.


Some Solutions/Research Requirements Fisheries Maintaining fisheries productivity is an important function of ICAM. As many fisheries of the region are reef-based, general coral reef management programmes will help to ensure the future health of reefs for fisheries production. Such programmes often address the issues of overfishing, water quality and habitat degradation, and the establishment of marine reserves. The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) for the Tropical Americas which includes the Caribbean region, endorses ICAM as the means for achieving management of human activities which affect coastal, marine and related terrestrial ecosystems (ICRI 1995). The ICRI, in their Framework for Action, has also outlined areas of coral reef studies which should be given priority action. In the case of overfishing, an essential starting point is the collection of baseline data and the implementation of management measures which protect stocks for the long-term. One method is the introduction of limited entry for certain fisheries. This measure, however, will often require alternative options for employment for fishermen. As fishermen are involved in the day-to-day activities of their industry, they should be involved in its management through community-based programmes. An excellent illustration of fishermen participating in management decisions is provided by the Soufrière Marine Management Area (SMMA) in St Lucia, as described by Renard and Koester (1995). The fishermen, numbering approximately 150, are engaged in net fishing, pot fishing and trolling for pelagics. The major conflicts arose between fishermen and divers in reef areas, and yachts anchoring in fishing areas. The negotiation process was facilitated jointly by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) and the Department of Fisheries. Prior to the negotiation process which began in 1992 to resolve the conflicts amongst users of marine resources on the Southwest coast of St. Lucia, fishermen could be considered a marginalised group. However, as active participants in the negotiations for establishing management zones which culminated in the establishment of the SMMA in 1995, fishermen secured Fishing Priority Areas, improved infrastructure and services, and alternative employment running water taxis. The sources of water quality degradation often originate from land-based sources of pollution. In several countries of the Caribbean this is chiefly sewage discharge, and runoff of sediment and agrochemicals. UNEP has sponsored studies on marine pollution in the region and has recently drafted a protocol under the Cartagena Convention to address this issue (UNEP, 1996b). Although it is well-known that sedimentation affects the growth of corals (Rogers, 1990) the cause and effect relationship between nutrients and harm to corals still needs further study. Further studies are also required on the rehabilitation of degraded reefs, such as the effects of removing algae to enhance coral recruitment, and transplantation of coral fragments (Clark, 1996). Furthermore, through the integrated approach being recommended, land-based activities such as protecting buffer zones along riverbanks, appropriate use of pesticides and fertilisers and improving land-clearing practices also need to be promoted in an effort to improve coastal water quality. These changes can only be successfully introduced through working closely with the various stakeholders in the coastal watersheds, such as farmers. For example, in the Dominican Republic, WWF is working with local farmers to decrease the level of pesticide use and to document the effects on marine biodiversity (WWF, 1995). Sewage treatment plants also need to be established. In Belize, waste disposal is a major issue on the cays which line the barrier reef offshore. To guide development on these cays, the CZM programme has drafted a Cays Development Policy which addresses waste disposal as a prime issue. The status and trends in changes in coral reef communities can only be detected through adequate monitoring. Within the region, a monitoring programme known as the Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Network (CARICOMP) has been developed for corals, seagrasses and mangroves. It is based on a regional co-operative network of marine laboratories, parks and reserves. The overall objective is to document and monitor the distribution, structure and function of the major coastal ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 147

ecosystems and the extent to which these attributes are influenced by contact with land and human settlements. This long-term monitoring capability can provide base-line data on Caribbean coastal marine biodiversity and also document threshold responses to change, including human impact and climate change. CARICOMP comprises a network of 24 institutions in 17 countries. These institutions are monitoring sites according to a Manual of Methodologies which was specially designed for the region. The network has a Data Management Centre based at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica (UNESCO, 1996). In addition to healthy coral reefs, many fisheries also depend on the associated habitats of mangroves and seagrass beds which are important as nursery areas. Improved management of these habitats can be afforded through zoning schemes, development guidelines, special permitting systems, and the environmental impact assessment process. For example in Belize, coastal areas are zoned for particular uses through the Special Development Area process. To prepare such zoning plans, however, it is essential to collect information on the distribution of marine and coastal resources. This data also needs to be managed and analysed, and is generally most adequately processed via a geographic information system (GIS). The CZM programme has also prepared guidelines to govern dredging activities in the coastal area. Activities such as the clearance of mangroves, sand mining and dredging require special permits. Review of applications and site assessments for such activities are carried out by a multi-disciplinary team. Establishment of marine protected areas is an integral part of ICAM. Marine reserves provide several functions including protection of biodiversity, regulation of tourism, and fisheries management. They also serve as areas for research, education and improving public awareness of natural systems. Several studies have been carried out which have shown the benefits of marine reserves to fisheries. They conserve critical habitats, maintain habitat continuity, and support the maintenance of ecological processes (Kapetsky & Bartley, 1995). Some of these benefits include the following (Bohnsack, 1996, pers com): • protect spawning potential and stock age structure • protect larval supply • protect genetic integrity of stocks • protect against overfishing • protect rare species • simplify enforcement • require little data Studies in Belize (Polunin & Roberts, 1993; Roberts & Polunin, 1993) have demonstrated that within the Hol Chan Marine Reserve many fish species showed increases in abundance, size and biomass when compared to other fished sites. For instance many predatory species such as groupers, snappers and grunts had greater biomass in Hol Chan than in other unprotected sites. Similarly, preliminary studies in Hol Chan have shown that counts of lobsters and conch were significantly higher than in unprotected sites. Thus marine protected areas can provide an alternative fisheries management strategy to traditional methods which so far have not prevented the collapse of many fisheries. A mix of management measures may be required to ensure sustainable fisheries, particularly for reef fisheries which are the most difficult in the world to manage (Roberts, 1995). Further studies are required, however, to clarify the effectiveness of marine protected areas in fisheries management. For example, specific studies recommended include: the movement of fishes in and out ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 148

of reserves and the potential of reserves to export fish to surrounding fisheries; the role of reserves in larval recruitment; genetic studies; the optimum size, shape and location of marine reserves; species which benefit most from marine reserves; cost/benefit analysis of establishing marine reserves (Kapetsky & Bartley, 1995; Wells et al., in press); and scientific basis for zoning within marine reserves (Barr et al., 1996). Studies are also required on effects of fishing on coral reefs and ecosystem processes (Roberts, 1995). Aquaculture Through appropriate planning and management control, many of the impacts of aquaculture discussed above can be adequately addressed. For example, to reduce the impacts of nutrient-laden effluent from ponds, waste water should be discharged into areas of vigorous circulation and downstream of sensitive habitats. In addition, effluents could be treated by biological methods to reduce their nutrient level or efforts could be made to recycle pond water; these are areas where further research could be helpful. Furthermore, proper monitoring of feeding will result in improved food conversion ratios of farmed species and result in decreased levels of pollution of coastal waters (Clark, 1996). Pond siting is also crucial in minimising impacts by avoiding ecologically critical areas (Cayetano & Palacio, 1996). For instance, ponds should be located behind the mangrove belt ensuring the conservation of mangroves which provide nursery areas and shoreline protection. Such siting also makes the development of acidic soil conditions less likely (Clark, 1996). The development of seamoss cultivation in St. Lucia has addressed the issue of appropriate siting selected in consultation with the adjacent fishing community. It has also included the development and transfer of a technology that is now available to coastal communities. In general, sites should be considered in light of their long-term sustained yield potential. To reduce the dependence on exotic species, more research and development needs to be carried out on native species, many of which may be eminently suited for culture. Aquaculture development should be considered within the context of an ICAM plan, whereby protection of coastal habitats for sustaining fisheries, tourism and biodiversity is included (Clark, 1996). Proper siting through zoning plans is critical for the environmental sustainability of the industry. Such zoning plans could be developed as part of local development or land use plans in which special areas are designated for aquaculture (New, 1996). Typically such plans help to separate incompatible uses, determine the optimal use of the land, and protect ecologically sensitive areas. They generally include zones for different types and intensity of uses (Cayetano and Palacio, 1996). In identifying zones for aquaculture all the necessary factors can be considered which will prevent environmental deterioration, take into account cumulative impacts, and determine the optimum mix of economic activity for a particular area (Clark, 1996). By considering the environmental impacts for the zone, environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for individual projects would not be required and would thus help streamline the development process. In the absence of zoning, however, EIAs serve as a planning tool for aquaculture projects, affording some level of control, environmental protection and a means of reaching balanced, multiple use decisions. Finally, policies and guidelines are required to control and manage the aquaculture industry. In Belize, for example, the industry has not had a comprehensive policy to govern its development and the coastal areas have experienced many of the impacts discussed above, namely the effect of effluent discharges with high nutrient content, conflicts over water use, escape of exotic species, and introduction of diseases. Belize is now considering developing policies and legislation to control and guide the industry. These should be carefully integrated with national policies for environmental protection and be developed through a participatory process involving all the resource users. Fortunately the coastal area has already been mapped for soil type, vegetation, and land use (as coverages on a GIS), and therefore the designation of special aquaculture zones should be a relatively straightforward process. Similarly, such special zones could possibly be included in the land use


controls and policies being developed in Jamaica and the Bahamas (UNEP, 1996a). By introducing proper site selection and management protocols, the basis for sustainable development of aquaculture can be achieved (Clark, 1996). At present, there is very little in the literature on aquaculture which is helpful to planners and managers. It is therefore recommended that more case studies be documented which would help in the preparation of management guidelines and policies.

Conclusion It must be emphasised that developing an ICAM programme takes time and can be a slow process. The preparation and implementation of programmes require more external support and time than usually estimated (Sorensen 1995). An ICAM programme often evolves gradually and incrementally, often in response to a specific problem such as beach erosion, loss of mangroves or pollution. The approach to ICAM has varied from country to country. However, Cambers (1993) notes that institutional building is the most important factor that needs to be addressed as it provides the basis for the other major components of legislation, coastal inventory, and development of a coastal zone management plan. To develop a fully-fledged programme may take as long as 30 years, allowing time for staff to be trained and for political acceptance (Cambers, 1993; Cambers in Clark, 1996). At the same time, however, much progress can be made in the interim, before a formal plan and legislation are in place, for example through the work of special Committees as has been the case in Belize (McField et al., 1996). Another important point to bear in mind is that ICAM takes the broader, systems approach which recognises the interconnections among coastal systems and looks to conserving ecosystems in support of coastal activities for the long term. In the Caribbean there appears to be the need for stronger networking and sharing of information and experiences between the various countries implementing ICAM programmes. In Belize, for example, little is known about the ENCORE project in the Eastern Caribbean. It is therefore recommended that a framework be developed which would facilitate this information exchange.

References Barr, J.J.F., J. Douglas, F.M. Homer and N.V.C. Polunin, 1996. Report on a Programme Development Visit in the Caribbean, 7th-19th January 1996. Overseas Development Administration, Natural Resources Systems Programme, Land/Water Interface Production Systems. 20p. CARICOM, 1996. Towards sustainable development in the Americas (Draft Rev. 2): Declaration and plan of action, as revised by the Caribbean Community. CARICOM Secretariat, Georgetown, Guyana. Cambers, G., 1993. Coastal zone management in the smaller islands of the eastern Caribbean: an assessment and future perspectives. Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, New Orleans, Louisiana, American Society of Civil Engineers:23432353 Cayetano E.S. and V. Palacio, 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment Training Manual. Belize Center for Environmental Studies, Belize. 114 p. Clark, J.R., 1992. Integrated management of coastal zones. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap, 327:167 p. Clark, J.R., 1996. Coastal Zone Management Handbook. CRC Press Inc. 694p.


Hughes, T.P., 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science., 265:1547-1551 International Coral Reef Initiative, 1995. Report to the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development on the International Coral Reef Initiative. 12p. Jackson, J. and L. D’Croz (in press). The Ocean divided. Kapetsky, J.M. and D.M. Bartley, 1995. Fisheries and protected areas, pp 88-104. In J.A McNeely (ed). Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. IUCN, Island Press, 302p. McField, M., S. Wells and J. Gibson, 1996. State of the Coastal Zone Report, Belize, 1995. Coastal Zone Management Programme, Government of Belize with assistance of UNDP/GEF, 255p. New, M., 1996. Sustainable global aquaculture. World Aquaculture, 27(2):4-6 OAS, 1996. Coastal zone management in the hemisphere. In: Environment and Sustainable Development. Organization of American States, Permanent Council document 2691/96. Washington DC, USA. Pernetta, J.C. and D.L Elder, 1993. Cross-sectoral, Integrated Coastal Area Planning (CICAP): Guidelines and Principles for Coastal Area Development. A Marine Conservation and Development Report. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. vii + 63p. Polunin, N.V.C. and C.M. Roberts, 1993. Greater biomass and value of target coral-reef fishes in two small Caribbean marine reserves. Mar.Ecol.Progr.Ser., 100:167-176 Renard, Y. and S.K. Koester, 1995. Resolving conflicts for integrated coastal management: the case of Soufrière, St. Lucia. Caribbean Parks and Protected Areas Bulletin, 5(2):5-7 Resource Assessment Commission, 1993. Coastal Zone Inquiry: Final Report. RAC: Canberra, Australia. Roberts, C.M., 1995. Effects of fishing on the ecosystem structure of coral reefs. Conservation Biology, 9(5):988-995 Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin, 1993. Marine reserves: simple solutions to managing complex fisheries? Ambio, 22(6):363-368 Rogers,

C.S., 1990. Responses of coral Mar.Ecol.Progr.Ser., 62:185-202

reefs

and

reef

organisms

to

sedimentation.

Smith, A., 1992. Seaweed cultivation in the West Indies. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Sustainable Seaweed Resource Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sorensen, J., 1993. The international proliferation of integrated coastal zone management efforts. Ocean and Coastal Management., 21:45-80 Turner, R.K. and W.N. Adger, 1996. Coastal Zone Resources Assessment Guidelines. LOICZ/R&S/96-4, LOICZ, Texel, The Netherlands. iv + 101p. UNEP, 1996a. Guidelines for Integrated Planning and Management of Coastal and Marine Areas in the Wider Caribbean Region. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, Jamaica. 141p.


UNEP, 1996b. First Meeting of Legal/Technical/Policy Experts for the Development of a Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region. UNEP(OCA)/CAR WG.20/4, Kingston, Jamaica, June 1996. UNESCO, 1996. Science and technology in Latin America and the Caribbean: cooperation for development. UNESCO-Montevideo Publishing, Ecuador. Wells S., M. McField, J. Gibson J., J. Carter and G. Sedberry G, (in press). Marine protected areas in Belize and their potential in fisheries management. WWF, 1995. Caribbean Coral Reef Action Plan. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC. 6p.


Annex 10 - The Role of Local Management and Knowledge Systems in ICAM in the Pacific Region: a Review by Prof. Dr Kenneth Ruddle Professor, School of Policy Studies Kwansei Gakuin University Japan

1. Introduction For any fishery there exist four actual or potential foci of problems that require management: •

The flow of the resource (its continued, regular availability);

•

Stock externalities (the economic, and therefore social, impacts of harvesting interactions among users or user groups);

•

Technological externalities (the mutual incompatibility of various harvesting technologies); and

•

Allocation problems (competition for access to a resource[s] distributed unevenly in space and time).

The way in which these problems are addressed in coastal fisheries demonstrates convincingly the special characteristics of traditional, community-based common property coastal resource management systems in the Pacific Region, compared with “conventional” management. The crucial difference is that whereas the "conventional" management approach focuses on fish stocks and stock externalities and assumes an open access resource regime, in the Pacific Region traditional community-based common property systems of marine resources management focus and base management on the three interrelated factors of stock externalities, gear externalities and allocation problems, and base implementation on geographical areas, with defined boundaries, to which access is controlled. Conventional fisheries management has focused on modelling the biological and physical flow of fish resources onto and through fishing grounds, and in implementation on attempting to manage the resultant stock externalities. In other words, it focuses on trying to manage what is unknown (and perhaps inherently unknowable) and thus unmanageable. Traditional management systems, in contrast, make no such attempt. Rather, they are focused on resolving gear externalities and allocation problems, are implemented based on defined geographical areas and controlled access, are self-monitored by the local fishers based on local knowledge systems, and are enforced by local moral and political authority. In other words such systems focus in an integrated manner on human ecological problems which are inherently manageable. This implicitly accounts for the complex multi-species and multi-gear nature of the resource, thereby avoiding inherently irresolvable issues. Both the problems of gear externalities and assignment are overcome in traditional community-based management systems at the first level by: •

control of a fishing area, as a strictly-bounded common property, and


•

establishing exact social boundaries, by rights, to define who has access rights to that area.

At the second level boundaries are set by of rules of operational behaviour that then specify assignments of time and place within that space and group having access. The first level is sustained by rights of exclusion, or limited access, that maintain the private area of a community of local fishers against outsiders. The second level, intra-group operational rules, is sustained by local authority that has the power to invoke sanctions on offenders. In a great many systems sustainable harvesting practices are enforced, thereby leading to resource conservation. The sets of rules that comprise a fisheries management system derive directly from local knowledge and concepts of the biological and physical environment and resources on which the fishery is based. Thus local knowledge is fundamental to the continuity of sound community-based management practices and to the design of new systems of sustainable resource management. Local knowledge systems are empirically-based and practically-oriented. Some are complex and highly organised. Important commonalities characterise corpuses of local knowledge of coastal-marine environments and resources in many widely separated parts of the world. The principal ones are that they are: • based on long-term, empirical, local observation that is adapted specifically to local conditions, embraces local variation, and is often extremely detailed; • practical and behaviour-oriented, focusing on important resource types and species; • structured, which makes them somewhat compatible with Western biological and ecological concepts through a clear awareness of ecological links and notions of resource conservation; and • often dynamic systems capable of incorporating an awareness of ecological perturbations or other changes, and of merging this awareness with a local core of knowledge. Local knowledge may be gendered. Because men and women usually have distinct economic, resource bases and social constraints, types of local knowledge vary between them. There are at least main four types of gender difference in local knowledge systems: • different knowledge about similar things; • knowledge of different things; • different ways of organising knowledge; and • different ways of preserving and transmitting knowledge. Some local knowledge of environments and natural resources is exclusive to females, and some bodies of local knowledge may have complementary male and female components. Both must be understood to comprehend particular aspects of resource production and environmental management. On the other hand, other bodies of specialised knowledge are possessed only by one gender (or age set). This pertains to the cultural roles of one gender, and often may not be available to the other. Further, in some societies specific bodies of knowledge are held only by particular office holders. This occurs, for example, among fisheries "magicians", such individuals also often being religious leaders.


2. Background to the Theme: the Design Principles of Traditional Fisheries Management Systems In much of the Pacific Region fisheries are/were managed traditionally by community-based systems of property rights and associated regimes of rights and rules that closely reflect social organisation and local power structure. Such systems seem not to have been based principally on ecological conditions, which would be the case were their primary purpose resource conservation. Rather, as would be expected, since property is a social relationship that defines its holder's security of claim to a resource or to the services or benefits it provides, they reflect a correlation among property, property rights, and social organisation. Management systems in the aquatic domain often, but not always, mirror those on land. In these traditional community-based systems of marine resource management an individual's sea rights depend on his or her social status within a corporate community, which ranges from villages through clans, sub-clans, and lineages, to the family. Resource territories and user groups are defined. Resource use is governed by rules and controlled by traditional authorities who mete-out sanctions and punishments for infringement of regulations. Conservation for sustainable resource use is a widespread objective of these systems. (a) Authority Resource control and management is/was usually vested in traditional authority, the nature of which varies according to social organisation. Four principal types can be recognised: secular leaders, religious leaders, specialists, and rights-owners. These categories frequently overlap, and responsibility is divided and shared, usually in some kind of "village council”. Often, too, a chief exercises this authority on behalf of the entire community. Marine resources are also often managed by fisheries specialists (“master fishermen”), who function under some form of higher authority. Rights-holders themselves commonly have management authority over marine resources, with such authority commonly vested in the senior person of a lineage, family, or other small social group. (b) Rights Under traditional systems marine resource exploitation is governed by use rights to a property. Such a grant of authority defines the uses legitimately viewed as exclusive, as well as the penalties for violating those rights. The characteristics of property rights may vary situationally. Common characteristics are exclusivity, the right to determine who can use a fishing ground, transferability, the right to sell, lease, or bequeath the rights, and enforcement, the right to apprehend and penalise violators of the rights. The right of enforcement, and in particular that to exclude the free-riding outsider, is a key characteristic, for without it all other rights are diminished either actually or potentially. Almost universal throughout the Pacific Region is the principle that members of fishing communities have primary resource rights (usually “birthright”) by virtue of their status as members of a social group. Such rights to exploit fisheries are subject to various degrees of exclusiveness, which depends on community social organisation and local culture. Most commonly, traditional fisheries rights apply to areas, but superimposed on these may be claims held by individuals or groups to a particular species or to a specific fishing technology. Traditional rights to marine resources may be exclusive, primary, or secondary, and may be further classified into rights of occupation and use. The relationships between the two main types, primary and secondary, is an important and complex characteristic of many traditional management systems, in which overlapping and detailed regulations on the use of technologies and particular species are widespread. Individual rights as sub-divisions "nested within" corporate marine holdings occur widely throughout the Pacific Region. Rights of transfer and loan and shared property rights also occur.


(c) Rules Rules give substance and structure to property rights by defining how a right is to be exercised, through specification of required, permitted and forbidden acts in exercising the authority provided by the right. Thus whereas a right authorises a fisher to work a specific fishing ground, his options in exercising it are governed by rules which may, for example, specify gear type used or seasonal restrictions, among other limitations. The more complete a set of rights, the less exposed are fishers to the actions of others. Basic rules define the geographical areas to which rights are applied, define those persons eligible to fish within a community's sea space, and govern access of outsiders. Operational rules govern fishing behaviour, gear externalities, assignment issues (via temporal and/or spatial allocation rules), as well as specify unacceptable fishing behaviour, conservation practises, and distribution of the catch within the community. (d) Monitoring, Accountability and Enforcement If rights are to be meaningful, provision must be made within the system for monitoring compliance with rules and imposing sanctions on violators. Under community-based marine resource management systems in the Pacific Region, monitoring and enforcement are generally undertaken within the local community; resource users policing themselves, and being observed by all others as they do so. For a variety of reasons traditional authorities frequently impose temporary or permanent bans, as well as spatial, temporal, gear, or species restrictions on the exploitation of marine resources. These commonly take the form of taboos. (e) Sanctions Sanctions are widely invoked throughout the Pacific Region for the infringement of fisheries rights and the breaking or ignoring of locally-formulated rules governing fishing and other marine resources uses. Four principal types of sanctions are/were widely invoked; social, economic, physical and capital punishment, and supernatural.

3. Knowledge of Systems in the Geographical Region Knowledge of systems is patchy in the Pacific Region, where such systems have been widely but usually incompletely described. They have now either completely or largely disappeared from many parts of this vast region, whereas elsewhere they remain strong and govern daily activities, especially in Melanesia. In Micronesia their importance varies considerably. In the Federated States of Micronesia, they remain important in Yap State (where rights systems are among the most complex in the entire Pacific) and the outer islands, as they do in Chuuk State and the outer islands of Pohnpei State, whereas they have largely disappeared from the main island of Pohnpei and from Kosrae. The current status of systems in the Marshall Islands is unknown. On Nauru they have probably disappeared entirely. In Palau they have lapsed since the Japanese administration formally appropriated the area below the high water mark. In contrast, in Kiribati a rich inshore fisheries tradition and lore includes detailed local traditional rights and regulations. Many traditional management practices have been codified in island by-laws, and so incorporated into contemporary management. In Polynesia traditional systems have all but disappeared in the State of Hawaii, USA and have been severely eroded in American Samoa. Elsewhere they remain largely unstudied. In the Kingdom of Tonga they were abolished by Royal Proclamation in 1887. Little information is available for Wallis and none for Futuna, and little also for French Polynesia or for Tuvalu. In contrast, in the Cook


Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and Western Samoa, elements of traditional systems have been incorporated into contemporary fisheries management. Traditional systems remain extensive and diverse in Melanesia, although little studied. They are best described for Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and the Torres Strait Islands of Australia, and are now being more widely examined in New Caledonia, Fiji and Vanuatu. In Papua New Guinea most descriptions of traditional systems of fisheries management have been based on brief surveys, but more complete information is available for Ponam Island and the Trobriand Islands. A 1985 survey of 43 locations in Solomon Islands provided basic general information, but because of the highly complex cultural variations, in-depth and society-specific field research is required, as has been done at Marovo Lagoon, Western Province, and the Lau and Langalanga lagoons of Malaita Province.

4. Design Principles of Local Knowledge Systems The often fragmented and cursory data on subsistence-level societies throughout the world, obtained by researchers from a wide range of disciplines, yield remarkably consistent generalisations about certain structural and processual characteristics of local knowledge systems. These are: • There exist specific age divisions for task training in economic activities; • Different tasks are taught by adults in a similar and systematic manner; • Within a particular task complex (e.g., gill-netting) individual tasks are taught in a sequence ranging from simple to complex; • Tasks are age and gender specific and are taught by members of the appropriate sex; • Tasks are site specific and are taught in the types of locations where they are to be performed; • Fixed periods are specifically set aside for teaching; • Tasks are taught by particular kinsfolk, usually one of the learner’s parents; and • A form of reward or punishment is associated with certain tasks or task complexes. But there have been few comprehensive studies of local knowledge systems. Some systems are highly structured and systematic, with either individual or small group instruction. Emphasis is placed on "learning by doing", through repeated practice over time rather than by simple observation and replication. But not all systems are like that. In Polynesia most local knowledge is transmitted informally in the context of an activity in the situationally relevant performance of daily tasks. Thus, for example, place names on a reef and the names and characteristics of reef fishes are gradually acquired as boys accompany their fathers on fishing trips. Verbal instruction is rare, and both children and adults learn by observation followed later by imitation. Formal instruction is minimal, and questioning, especially by children, discouraged, except where it pertains to concrete situations. Repetition of observation, listening and practice is the principal factor in the Polynesian transmission of knowledge.

5. Researchable Constraints In the Pacific Region, as throughout the world, traditional community-based marine resource management systems are being increasingly affected by external factors that cause stresses and often ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 157

lead to radical change, including their demise. There is nothing new about this, except that the intensity of impacts and diversity of their sources has increased in recent decades. Thus contemporary community-based marine resource management systems exist under environmental, social, economic, political, and demographic circumstances that are often very different from those of even the recent past. Nowadays such systems are swept-up in the overall process of national development. Among the principal, all-pervasive external forces are the legacy of colonialism, contemporary government policy and legal change, the replacement of traditional local authority, demographic change, urbanisation, changes in education systems, modernisation and economic development, commercialisation and commoditisation of living aquatic resources, technological change, the policies of external assistance agencies, and national policies for economic sectors other than fisheries. Such external forces rarely act in isolation, but rather as a mutually reinforcing and potentially destructive complex. Somewhat more recent pressures - but not universally so - are the commercialisation and monetisation of formerly local and mainly subsistence or reciprocal exchange or barter economies, which now link them with external markets. This, in turn, leads to changed perceptions in fishing communities regarding the value of marine products, and often to external factors being internalised by village elites, and so to the breakdown of traditional management systems through the weakening or total collapse of traditional moral authority. Small communities are not immune from the pressures that drive larger polities and commercial elites, and which undermine the moral imperative of local management systems from within. Regional and global markets also have a direct impact on them: external incentives introduce temptations for individual profit at the expense of local social equity, and thus undermine systems from within by weakening or even destroying their moral and traditional authority. Thus the equitable allocational and distributive effect of existing local institutions should not be romanticised. Community institutions and management systems are not immutable: they change through time. They are dynamic, adapting to external as well as internal and local experiences and pressures, many of which are not directly related to the fisheries sector. Traditional management systems decline under pressures exerted by both internal and external sources, and the latter can trigger the former, such that local phenomena may mask deeper-seated problems afflicting social institutions. Such systems are dynamic, historically conditioned and deeply embedded in larger political, economic and social realms. Therefore participants in local management systems cannot be assumed a priori as being inherently benign resource conservational and socially equitable actors. Hence any policy and programme decisions about the present-day and future usefulness of local management systems must be based on a clearheaded and realistic evaluation of the moral authority, motives, interests, and cultural conceptions that underpin and drive them.

6. Policy Options Several policy options emerge from an analysis of researchable constraints. Some traditional community-based resource management systems will have a future usefulness, both nationally and locally. Equally there will be valid grounds for either diluting, modifying or abolishing outright other systems. Deciding which course to follow will basically depend on national priorities and national fisheries management capacity. There are three basic alternative policy approaches for community-based fisheries management that consider its relationship to the development of fisheries and other economic sectors: • the case-by-case approach; • dilution policies; and


• reinforcement policies. The case-by-case option implies that no policy is established and legislated for, and that individual problems are resolved as they arise in terms of the relative costs and benefits to nation, region and local community. This approach has the advantage of political acceptability, since no fundamental changes are required. The disadvantages are that traditional rights-holders incur no obligations, such that development of other sectors will be difficult at best and impossible at worst. Further, because this process is ad hoc, no guidelines would emerge for the legal interpretation of traditional resource rights and their articulation with national development priorities. The case-by-case option is unsatisfactory in the long-term. A dilution policy requires legislation to strictly define the powers of traditional rights-holders, and to modify traditional management systems to enable the use of some traditional resource rights areas for other economic activities. Some systems would be abolished entirely. The advantages of a dilution policy are that it allows other economic sectors to develop rapidly, clarifies property rights and related issues, and defines the modern rights of traditional rights-holders. Its disadvantages are that it is often politically difficult and numerous implementation problems would arise. In many cases, the losses of rent, administrative costs and problems and possible social unrest would outweigh the economic and other benefits derived. The reinforcement option has the advantage that it also specifies the scope and power of traditional rights. That this approach would make conventional development difficult may often not be bad, although many would regard it as a disadvantage. But the reduction of the powers of central governments while placing responsibility on the rights-holders would likely be construed as a disadvantage by vested interests. However, this could be overcome by reinforcing the scope of traditional systems within a concurrently legislated framework of co-management.

7. Recommendations on Major Research Issues for the Pacific Region Most information on traditional marine resources management systems in the Pacific Region remains largely anecdotal and unsynthesised. No nation has a comprehensive knowledge base on the range of types, functions and the status of its systems. Equally lacking are the essential complementary and systemic data sets on basic ecological, biological, general fisheries, and socio-economic settings in which such management systems are embedded. Further, most of the fragmented and ad hoc information available is dated to the point of little more than historical value by the rapid changes at national and local levels as a result of modernisation. Thus detailed, systemic, location-specific, contemporary studies of community-based marine resource management systems and of their socio-economic, political, ecological contexts are indispensable, as is verification of recently completed research. The problem is compounded by the fragmentary and commonly anecdotal nature of, and confusion of tenses in the existing literature, the lack of recent fieldwork in most places, and the rapid decay and disappearance of such systems since Western contact. Thus the remaining inshore fisheries management systems are commonly hybrids of traditional and modern components, with the former decaying rapidly. The principal knowledge gaps in the Pacific region are: (1) Geographical Knowledge •

In Micronesia and Polynesia more needs to be learned about the current status of traditional community-based management systems throughout the entire area. But information is needed especially for American and Western Samoa, Chuuk, Kosrae and the outer Caroline Islands of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, French Polynesia, Tuvalu, and Wallis and Futuna; and ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 159

•

Much more needs to be known about the vast range of systems in Melanesia, only a few of which have been studied, and then mostly just by reconnaissance surveys. Systems in Irian Jaya Province of Indonesia, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu are in particularly urgent need of basic description, since almost nothing is known about them. Further surveys, accompanied by in-depth field studies, are required to expand the information available for Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands.

(2) Integrated Resources Management Virtually nothing is known about the systems for the integrated management of resources. Most fishers in the Pacific Region, as elsewhere in the tropics, are predominantly part-timers, combining fishing and farming, and other activities. It is typical of this region that land and sea and their associated occupations are seen as economically and nutritionally complementary domains, as is often expressed in the concept of "corporate estate", a territory held jointly by a kinship-based group and embracing a connected range of terrestrial and marine resource zones. In the Pacific this is exemplified by the Hawaiian ahupua'a, the Yap tabinau, the Fijian vanua, the Marovo (Solomon Islands) puava, and the Cook Islands tapere, among others. Such estates provide a collection of rights and implied duties to the social communities (the "corporate group") which possess them. On high islands in the Pacific "estates" are usually wedge-shaped, extending from a central watershed, along lateral ridges into inshore marine waters. These were self-contained units that included a complete set of the resource areas and habitats required to provision the society which inhabited them. (3) Fisheries Resource Systems Since systems specifically designed to manage coastal resources cannot be separated from the sociocultural and ecological systems in which they are embedded, information is required on at least the following major parameters of the larger system: • the ecological structure of the system, and the basic aspects of the biology and productivity of the relevant living components; • the principal socio-cultural characteristics of the fishing community; and • the estimation of the multi-species harvest productivity, definition of surpluses that may be available after local needs have been satisfied, and product distribution and/or marketing systems. (4) The Nature and Management Characteristics of Traditional Fishery Resource Territories (i.e. Boundary Issues) Given the world-wide phenomenon of the impingement of externally controlled, commercial and large-scale fisheries on inshore waters hitherto controlled locally by traditional, small-scale fishing communities, and an increasingly frequent official realisation of the need to counteract this tendency, a critical area for research is the nature and characteristics of the boundaries of traditional fishery resource territories, and the rights, rules, authority structure, and enforcement associated with them. There is, thus, a particularly important need to identify and define traditional marine resource boundaries, in order to provide an effective legal basis for traditional activities while accommodating compatible development in fisheries and other sectors of the economy. "Traditional" boundaries should be recorded precisely. This has more practical than academic urgency, because when a resource becomes commercially valuable, fishing communities will quickly invent "traditional" fishing rights and boundaries to ensure that they obtain the most benefit. In particular, the following topics relating to boundaries need detailed attention: • the nature of boundaries;


• the resources and habitats contained within traditional boundaries; • the permeability of boundaries; • the nature of boundary and resource control; and • the adaptation of boundaries and rights. (5) The Traditional Ecological Knowledge Base Supporting Systems Since local knowledge is fundamental to the continuity of sound local resource management practices and to the design of new systems of sustainable resource management, local knowledge systems are in need of both documentation and understanding. (6) The Legal Support of Management Systems It is extremely important to document local systems of customary law that underpin and validate various types of management systems in the Pacific Region. In particularly it is important to examine the problems of implementation, monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement. In many places legal issues are among the principal constraints on the viability or future usefulness of traditional marine management systems. Thus, if the contemporary usefulness of such systems has been formally recognised by government, they will require support by appropriate amendments to national fisheries laws, and the rules and regulations of lower order governments, such as provinces/states, with explicit and easily-understood recognition of customary law and communitybased management rights as local corporate entities, accompanied by procedures for establishing the recognition of these rights. Other laws will probably require amending to recognise the authority of local legislative institutions, and so further validate the authority of (or to re-establish) traditional management systems. This is a very fruitful area for basic and applied research, both in policy design and research.

8. Note about References Since more than 1,000 individual references on the Pacific Region were used in the preparation of the publications on which this review paper is based, it is obviously unfeasible to refer to them all here. Comprehensive bibliographies are to be found in those publications. They are:Ruddle, K., 1996. Formulating policies for existing community-based fisheries management systems. Journal of Policy Studies, 1:55-64 Ruddle, K., 1996. Traditional management of reef fishing. pp. 315-335 IN Polunin, N.V.C. and M. Roberts (eds.). Reef Fisheries. London, Chapman and Hall. Ruddle, K., 1996. Design principles of community-based inshore fishery management systems in the Asia-Pacific Region. pp. 26-39 IN Davis, A. and C. Fawcett (eds.). Japanese and Atlantic Canadian fisheries social science: an international working seminar. Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, St. Francis Xavier University. Ruddle, K., 1994. A guide to the literature on traditional community-based fishery management in the Asia-Pacific tropics. FAO Fish.Circ., 869:114 p. Ruddle, K., 1994. External forces and change in traditional community-based fishery management systems in the Asia-Pacific Region. Maritime Anthropological Studies, 6(1-2):1-37


Ruddle, K., 1994. Local knowledge in the future management of inshore tropical marine resources and environments. Nature and Resources, 30(1):28-37 Ruddle, K., 1994. Marine tenure in the 90s. pp. 6-45 IN South, G.R., D.Goulet, S. Tuqiri and M. Church (eds.). Traditional marine resources in Asia and the Pacific: proceedings of the international workshop 4th-8th July, 1994. Suva, The International Ocean Institute, South Pacific and Marine Studies Programmes, University of the South Pacific. Ruddle, K., 1994. Local knowledge in the folk management of fisheries and coastal-marine environments. pp. 161-206 in C.L. Dyer and J.R. McGoodwin (eds.). Folk management in the world fisheries. Niwot, University press of Colorado.


Annex 11 - Fisheries Governance in the Caribbean by Mr Bisessar Chakalall (1), Dr Robin Mahon (2) and Dr Patrick McConney (3) (1) Regional Fisheries Officer, FAO, Barbados (2) Fisheries and Environmental Consulting, Barbados (3) Chief Fisheries Officer, Barbados

1.

Background

The concept of governance or the more popular term ‘good governance’ has its origins in the field of political sciences, and is currently being promoted as a means of achieving the goal of sustainable utilisation of natural renewable resources such as fisheries resources. Good governance usually implies liberalisation, privatisation, deregulation, decentralisation, community participation and democratisation (government reform and community development). With respect to the fisheries sector an efficient and motivated civil service is critical for governance, which can be interpreted as the formulation and effective implementation of policies and programmes for the sustainable utilisation of the resource. Most Caribbean governments are committed to civil service reform, decentralisation and community participation. The broad aim of this reform is the creation of a government work force of the size and with skills, incentives and accountability needed to provide quality services and to carry out the functions of the state. In addition to cost containment, reform includes diagnostic and structural measures. In the Caribbean most central government administration still suffers from inefficiency and lack of accountability to clients. However, decentralisation over the past decade has had positive effects on the quality of fisheries administration and management in the region and has contributed significantly towards improving governance of the fisheries sector. In the countries of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and Barbados legislative reform has led to harmonised fisheries legislation and regulations that included the formation of national fishery advisory committees, the establishment of fishing priority areas and local fisheries management authorities, that facilitates the involvement of the stakeholders (interested parties) in the management of the resource. Barbados is currently following a participatory and consultative process involving the stakeholders and the public in the preparation of “The Plan for the Management and Development of Fisheries in the Waters of Barbados”. In Saint Lucia the fisheries department has been promoting community-based approaches for the sustainable management of their fisheries resources with notable success in the sea urchin fishery. The civil service reform process provides the practical opportunity for institutional strengthening and reform of the fisheries administrations through investment in human resource development and scientific understanding of the resource in support of governance of the fisheries sector. The aim of reforming the fisheries administrations should be the creation of a skilled and efficient work force for achieving governance. Whereas this does not necessarily imply curbing expenditure through personnel and wage cuts, the costs involved in governance of the fisheries resources must not exceed the value of the resource. The success of governance also depends on the support of research to provide the necessary data and information in order to properly identify and prioritise management issues. his may often be best achieved through participatory pilot projects. ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 163

In reforming the fisheries administrations new partnerships involving other government institutions and the stakeholders are essential to achieve governance and the goal of sustainable utilisation, and to make more efficient use of existing resources. Governance is based on accountability, transparency and participation in the management of fisheries resources, and management of any fishery has serious implications for all stakeholders. It is essential that management proceed with full participation of all recognised interest groups especially fishers (McGlade, in press). It is recommended that the implementation of governance be initiated through civil service reform and the development of new partnerships between stakeholders, local government, central government and the international community and institutions. The main challenge facing governments in this process is to ensure that decentralisation and civil service reform does not dilute accountability and weaken government functions in areas that need to remain centralised, such as monitoring the state of the fisheries resources and the environment, and the formulation of fisheries policies.

2.

The region and its fisheries

The "Wider Caribbean" region includes the north-east coast of South America, the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the south-eastern Atlantic coast of North America. This is also the area referred to as the Western Central Atlantic by FAO (Fishery Statistical Area 31). ACP countries occur throughout the area except in the Gulf of Mexico. The region is geographically complex with the highest density of separate states per unit area in the world. The Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Caribbean countries form a mosaic which includes all of the marine space in the region with the exception of two small areas of high seas in the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 1). Oceanographically, the region is highly variable both spatially and temporally. The North Coast of South America and the Gulf of Mexico are dominated by the effects of three of the largest river systems in the world: the Amazon, Orinoco and Mississippi rivers. In these areas there are extensive areas of mud bottom continental shelf. Most Caribbean islands are influenced more by the nutrientpoor North Equatorial Current (which enters the Caribbean Sea through the passages between the Lesser Antilles) than by coastal waters. Those islands with appreciable shelf area exhibit significant coral reef development. From Isla Margarita west to Mexico, the continental shelf is also extensively occupied by coral reefs at shallow depths. Seagrass beds and mangroves are also common coastal habitats. The fisheries of the Caribbean Region are based upon a diverse array of resources. The fisheries of greatest importance are for offshore pelagics, reef fishes, lobster, conch, shrimps, continental shelf demersal fishes, deep slope and bank fishes and coastal pelagics. There is a variety of less important fisheries such as for marine mammals, sea turtles, sea urchins, and seaweeds. These fishery types vary widely in state of exploitation, vessel and gear used, and approach to their development and management. The importance of these fisheries also varies widely among the countries (Tables 1 and 2). Although quantitative assessments of status and importance are not available for most fisheries, Table 1 provides a qualitative evaluation from several sources (e.g. Mahon, 1987; SEFSC, 1993; FAO, 1993). In most Caribbean fisheries, there is more fishing effort than is required for optimal return from the resource, whether this be measured in biological, social or economic terms. Thus the task of achieving optimal returns from the fishery resources will be largely one of reducing fishing effort and allowing the resources to rebuild to levels where they can provide their full potential. Rebuilding overexploited resources will be more difficult than preventing overexploitation in the first place, as may still be possible in the case of fishing for large pelagics, because stock rehabilitation requires either displacing those who have invested in, or depend on fishing, or waiting for them to retire from the fishery.


The Western Central Atlantic does not support any of the world's major fisheries, and contributed only 1.8% of total world fishery landings in 1990. Nonetheless, the fisheries are economically important to the countries. In general, shelf resources (e.g. lobster, conch, reef fish, shrimps) are either fully exploited or already overexploited, particularly near shore (FAO, 1993; FAO 1994). Offshore resources, mainly tunas and swordfish, appear to hold some potential for development. Harvesting of fishery resources in Caribbean countries is primarily artisanal, or small-scale, using open, outboard powered vessels 5-12 m in length (Table 2). The most notable exception are the shrimp and groundfish fisheries off the north coast of South America and in the Gulf of Mexico where trawlers in the 20-30 m size range are used, and the tuna fishery of Venezuela which uses large (>20 m) long liners and purse seiners. In some countries there has been a recent trend towards mid-size vessels in the 12-15 m range, particularly for large pelagics, deep-slope fishes and lobster and conch on offshore banks.

3.

Institutional arrangements and constraints

3.1

The legal regime

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which recently came into force, resulted in the global acceptance of the coastal states' authority to manage fisheries within their jurisdiction. This authority created new opportunities and responsibilities as well as problems of adjustments for countries operating distant water fleets. The Law of the Sea Convention has made it necessary for most countries to revise their fisheries legislation. The Convention accords to all coastal states the jurisdiction to exploit, conserve and manage the living marine resources within their exclusive economic zone (EEZ). It should be emphasised that this right includes certain responsibilities which are stipulated in the Convention. As appropriate, the Convention requires the coastal state to co-operate with competent international, regional and sub-regional organisations to determine proper management and conservation measures and their implementation. With the assistance of FAO the majority of Caribbean states have revised their fisheries legislation in line with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international legal instruments. In doing this, several Caribbean states have harmonised their legislation. The harmonised legislation provides for the appointment of a Fisheries Advisory Committee to advise on the management and development of fisheries and also for the entering into arrangements or agreements with other countries in the region or with any competent regional organisation concerning co-operation in fisheries management. The legislation requires the fisheries officer to prepare and keep under review a plan for the management and development of fisheries. Initially, all member states of the OECS enacted harmonised fisheries laws and regulations, with minor differences among them. A few states (e.g. Dominica) have experienced delays in the promulgation of the harmonised fisheries regulations. Barbados and Guyana, not members of the OECS, have passed new Fisheries Acts which are in harmony with those of the OECS countries. The Netherlands Antilles have also enacted new fisheries laws in 1990 which are similar to the OECS harmonised fisheries laws. The OECS countries are currently seeking FAO's assistance to update their harmonised fisheries legislation in line with the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, and the UN Agreement on the Implementation of the Provisions of the 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea related to Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations, 1995).


Caribbean ACP states share boundaries with many other countries of the wider Caribbean the various fisheries legislation of which will be relevant to attempts to co-operate in managing shared resources (Fig. 1). For example, The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Public Law 94265, approved by the United States Congress in April 1976, created eight Fishery Management Councils for the conservation and orderly utilisation of the fishery resources of the United States of America. The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) is responsible for the orderly utilisation of the fishery resources in the FCZ of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands (Appendix). 3.2

State Institutions

In most countries of the Caribbean the State itself plays a leading role in all aspects of fishery policy by regulating management and conservation of capture fisheries and aquaculture, and through direct intervention in the implementation of policies and development programmes. It is possible to identify different fisheries administrative structures. These range from the complex administration of the US Virgin Islands to the more simple, as in the OECS countries. It is normal to find fisheries located within a wider Ministry concerned with Agriculture and other matters. Taking into account the population, size, existing manpower, present importance of fisheries and present economic circumstances in most of the countries of the region, it is not practical to set up a fisheries administration as a separate entity in most of them. Fisheries administrations in Caribbean countries vary widely in staffing and the level of expertise. They often lack the required technical and support staff to administer and manage their respective fisheries, and to act as counterparts for projects financed and partially staffed by external agencies (Chakalall, 1986). Small fisheries administrations will seldom have all the expertise or numbers of staff to address all areas of fisheries administration, research, management and development. Consequently their structure and functions must be carefully planned and human resource development programmes must be geared to the need for individual staff members to cope with several subject areas. It is recommended that the deficiencies in expertise in state fisheries administrations be addressed using innovative approaches, such as the building of partnerships with other governmental and non-governmental organisations, using outside expertise on a project basis, and the sharing of regional expertise (World Bank et al., 1992). Although the present situation may create problems for implementing fisheries policy, the relative smallness of the Ministries can itself be an advantage in that it may allow for direct access by the Fisheries Officer to the Minister or other senior government officers such as the Permanent Secretary. However, no matter where the fisheries sector is located within government's administrative system, it is very important that the sector be given its appropriate share of development resources. With the emergence of the extended fisheries jurisdiction under the UN Law of the Sea Convention the co-ordination of fisheries policy between governments and between governmental bodies responsible for scientific research, foreign affairs, co-operatives, marketing, merchant shipping, etc. in each country becomes more critical in the Caribbean region. Several other government departments are typically responsible for functions which affect fisheries. These include, environment, tourism, ports, health, agriculture, and the coast guard. The overlap in responsibility is usually greatest between fisheries and the department responsible for coastal area management, which is relatively a new area of government activity in most countries. The inter-departmental linkages, which are essential for effective collaboration, in fisheries and coastal area management are not yet well developed in most countries. Ultimately, living aquatic resource management must be set within a broader context of coastal and marine area management. Fisheries must be included in the newly emerging practice of integrated coastal zone management, if conflicts in area and extent of impact on marine resources are to be minimised. Given the relative importance of fisheries in most countries, it is recommended that fisheries administrations proactively establish ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 166

collaborative relationships with other institutions, especially those whose activities also impact on the health of the coastal and marine environment and thus the fisheries resources. It should be emphasised that, particularly in the case of the small island developing states (SIDS) of the Caribbean, fisheries administrative schemes should reflect the comparatively limited living resources in their EEZ and not be so elaborate that they utilise more fiscal resources than the fishery itself is worth. It is recommended that in these circumstances, fishery managers explore management approaches which a less demanding of data and expertise and which rely to a greater extent on management reference points based on agreement among stakeholders, the precautionary principle and the guidelines for responsible fishing (Caddy and Mahon, 1995; FAO, 1995a, 1995b). 3.3

Inter-governmental Organisations

The proximity of states in the Caribbean Region, and the fact that many resources are shared, will require considerable inter-state co-operation for successful governance (Fig. 1). The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the more recent International Agreement on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks (SS/HMS Agreement) both emphasise the need for inter-state co-operation. They require that in regions where no appropriate international organisation exists, the fishing countries shall co-operate to establish such an organisation and participate in its work. Inter-state arrangements for management of shared, highly migratory and straddling stocks may vary according to the distribution of the resource and its fishery characteristics. Where only a few countries are involved, this can be achieved through bilateral or multi-lateral agreements. For example, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, Barbados, St. Lucia, Dominica and Martinique could co-operatively manage flyingfish on the basis of a multi-lateral agreement. For stocks which extend more widely, e.g. throughout the Caribbean Region and on to the High Seas, there will be the need to involve many countries in management. In such cases, regional or international organisations will be required. There are several such organisations which have an interest in fisheries and development in the Caribbean (Fig. 2). Some of these organisations could play a role in fisheries management of shared, straddling or highly migratory stocks, but will need strengthening (Mahon, 1996). The OECS and CARICOM are already addressing fisheries issues, and can represent the interests of their member states collectively. The OECS through its Natural Resources Management Unit (NRMU) is actively pursuing the establishment of a common fishing zone. CARICOM, has pursued similar aims through its Intergovernmental Agreement on the management of EEZs. CFRAMP is currently developing proposals for a CARICOM Regional Fisheries Mechanism. However, because their member states are interspersed with numerous other non-member countries, the ability of OECS and CARICOM to undertake international fisheries management without referring to non-member countries is limited to relatively small geographical areas. Newly emerging organisations such as CARIFORUM and the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) provide more complete geographical coverage but the extent to which their mandates include co-operative management of fisheries remains to be defined. The Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), includes all the countries of the wider Caribbean Region. Since its inception in 1975, WECAFC has primarily been a forum for fisheries personnel to exchange technical information. There has been no attempt to use WECAFC for fishery management decision-making, as has been the case in FAO commissions in other parts of the world. Now that the UNCLOS has become operational, WECAFC could be enhanced so that it can assume a more significant co-ordinating and decisionmaking role. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), with headquarters in Madrid, has the mandate for conservation and management of all tuna and tuna-like species in the entire Atlantic, including the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas. It is the most active international ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 167

fishery organisation relevant to the Caribbean. However, until recently Venezuela, the US, Brazil and Cuba (now resigned from ICCAT) have been the only Caribbean countries participating in ICCAT, and there is very little attention to the details of pelagic fishery resources within the Caribbean region. Although CARICOM and Mexico have recently sent observers to ICCAT meetings in order to become more informed about the management of these resources, these and other Caribbean countries will have to increase their membership, either individually or collectively, and become more involved before they can have a significant impact on ICCAT decisions. Although management based on the best available scientific advice will be essential for the sustainable exploitation of large pelagic resources in the WECAFC Region, the current or future value of the resource may not justify implementation of the full range of functions outlined by the UN Agreement. Therefore, if stock depletion is to be avoided, application of the precautionary approach may be a more prominent requirement in the WECAFC Region than in other regions of the world with more abundant tuna resources. The new emphasis on agreement in determining management measures in the face of uncertainty and inadequate information underlines the critical role to be played by an institution for collaborative management of shared resources (Caddy and Mahon, 1995; FAO, 1995b; United Nations, 1995). This institution will also play a critical role in facilitating the better use of the information currently available. If the current information on large pelagic species in various locations throughout the WECAFC area were to be compiled and synthesised and applied, it would significantly improve the technical basis for conservation and development decision making. This observation should not be used to discount the value of, and need for, research. Instead, compilation and synthesis at the regional level would lead to more efficient use of research funds, by reducing duplication of effort and by having research focus on critical questions. Existing organisations and arrangements are not adequate for management of shared stocks, or of SS/HMS, as per the recent UN Agreement. Any such institution must have linkages with extraregional organisations, primarily ICCAT, and, in order to maximise efficiency and avoid duplication, should also be able to deal with shared, straddling and migratory stocks other than pelagics, e.g. lobster and reef fishes with planktonic early life history stages. WECAFC, with modifications to its statutes, appears to be the most feasible existing organisation to adopt such a role. It is recommended that inter-state co-operation for management of shared, highly migratory and straddling stocks be pursued on several fronts: • The promotion and support multi- or bilateral initiatives to co-operate in management of specific resources, e.g. flyingfish; • The promotion and support of regional and subregional organisations that can provide a forum for co-operative management of some stocks and which can provide collective representation at international fora; and • Support for participation of countries and regional organisations in the activities of international fishery management organisations. 3.4

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

Governance often involves vesting some or all responsibility for management in the stakeholders through partnership arrangements, in particular, co-operative management (co-management) and community based management (McGlade, 1994). This requires that they be adequately organised to undertake the task. Stakeholder NGOs may either comprise parties directly involved in the fishing industry or other stakeholders. Where the required level of organisation is absent, or for other reasons, responsibility may be vested in facilitatory NGOs which would not otherwise normally have a stake in management. These three types of NGO are discussed below. ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 168

3.4.1

Fisherfolk organisations

Fisherfolk organisations in many Caribbean countries are relatively weak and in a few countries, such as Barbados, have not become established at all. Therefore, their involvement in any form of comanagement or community-based management is seriously structurally and operationally constrained (McConney, 1995). It is recommended that the barriers to effective and sustainable collective grassroots action be researched in collaboration with the fisherfolk so as to inform which approaches to management are most feasible. Fisherfolk organisations are the most likely candidates to assume the role of management, but often require technical assistance from government or facilitatory NGOs (Hannesson and Kurien, 1988; Jentoft, 1989). Although fisher co-operatives and associations are common throughout the Caribbean, their level of organisation and orientation towards fisheries management varies a great deal (CANARI, 1992). For example, there is inevitably difficulty in obtaining information on catches and noncompliance to fisheries regulations from fishers. Such information is essential for co-management to succeed. The most successful co-operatives are those of Belize and Guyana, where they manage the full range of operations from supply of fishing gear and ice to processing and marketing the catch. Many cooperatives, however, exist only to purchase fuel and gear wholesale, and would need to be strengthened and better organised before they could undertake any significant management responsibility (Jentoft and Sandersen, 1993). It is recommended that determining the most effective approaches to reorienting and building the capacity of fisherfolk organisations for fisheries management be a priority for action research. Sharing power and responsibility with fisherfolk organisations, and tapping into their valuable pool of local knowledge, is new to fishery managers in Caribbean countries. There are few instances of meaningful community participation in Caribbean fishery management. Notable exceptions are the Discovery Bay reef fish fishery, Jamaica and sea urchin management in St. Lucia (Smith and Berkes, 1991). Nonetheless, fishery managers are interested in instituting co-management or community-based management approaches wherever they may be applicable. There may, however, be legal and institutional constraints in addition to the structural and operational ones related to the capacity for governing. It is recommended that research on the ways Caribbean states and fishing industries may arrive at mutually acceptable arrangements for governance within the contexts of their various resources, cultures and socio-economic situations be carried out. 3.4.2

Other stakeholders

Other stakeholder NGOs may have interests that coincide or conflict with those of fisherfolk. Which relationship applies may depend more on the specific situation than the composition of the organisation. Whether international or local, environmental organisations often play a role in ensuring that governance of the fisheries is for the public good through environmental protection. For example, the Community Environmental Resource Centre (CERC) of Jamaica was involved in a grassroots environmental sensitisation strategy by showing the linkage between improper sewage disposal and the fouling of oyster beds and recreational beaches in the Kingston Harbour. However, NGOs comprising competing commercial users of ocean or coastal areas may have narrower interests. Examples throughout the Caribbean are water sports and tourism associations which have a stake, and often a powerful voice, in governance through integrated coastal area management. By lobbying for restrictions to customary harvest while encouraging non-consumptive use of the fishery resources in certain areas, there may be both positive and negative aspects to their involvement. The initiative of the Professional Association of Dive Operators (PADO) to establish and manage a marine park in Barbados is a case in point.


Good governance cannot be achieved without the integration of fisheries into coastal area management as set out explicitly in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. How this may best be achieved in the Caribbean in relation to the usually longer established and more influential other parties requires investigation. It is recommended that integration of fisheries into coastal area management be pursued in the form of pilot projects in participatory coastal planning and management. 3.4.3

Facilitatory NGOs

There are a small number of NGOs which facilitate fisheries governance. An example is the Agency for Rural Transformation (ART) of Grenada which promoted, and provided assistance for, the formation of fisher co-operatives. This organisation also co-operated with the National Fishermen’s Association in conducting a socio-economic survey of the fishing industry. An example of an NGO evolving from being a facilitator into a stakeholder is seen in the work of the South Coast Conservation Foundation (SCCF) in the Portland Bight area of Jamaica. Following facilitation through education, training programmes and organisational development, the Foundation was able to implement the co-management of fishery resources and is now a stakeholder in the process through the award of an area management license (Brown, 1996). Generally, Caribbean governments and all three types of NGOs have demonstrated an interest in collaboration with respect to the marine sector, including fisheries. However, such co-operation is currently very limited. In order for NGOs to fulfil their potential role, better channels of communication with the scientific community and the governments will have to be established. Efficient communication is a prerequisite for the participatory approach to the sustainable development of the fisheries sector. It is recommended that research on ways to improve communication among stakeholders be carried out with emphasis on dialogue on management reference points and fisheries advice based on local knowledge. Particular attention should be paid to the role of facilitatory NGOs in this process. 3.5

Academic and other research institutions

There are several institutions and organisation either in Caribbean ACP states, or to which many Caribbean ACP states belong, which carry out training, research and project implementation related to fisheries management and development (Freon et al., 1991; FAO, 1995c). These include several university (e.g. the Marine Science Center, UWI, Jamaica; the Marine Resource and Environmental Management Program, MAREMP, UWI, Barbados) and college departments (e.g. University College of Belize), university related laboratories (e.g. Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory, Jamaica; Bellairs Research Institute, Barbados), government institutes (e.g. Institute of Marine Affairs, Trinidad and Tobago), NGOs (e.g. CANARI, St. Lucia; Caribbean Conservation Association, Barbados) and international organisations (e.g. UNEP; Caribbean Environmental Program, Jamaica; UNESCO; IOCARIBE, Colombia). The University of the West Indies is an institution within CARIFORUM whose programmes and capabilities should be highly relevant to fisheries. However, activity in fisheries at UWI on all three campuses combined is limited to about three to four individuals who teach fisheries and carry out fisheries research, primarily biological. Other aspects of fisheries, e.g. sociology, economics, anthropology, law, small business management, receive little or no attention at UWI, although there are faculty members with expertise that could be applied in all these areas. It is recommended that fisheries organisations and administrations explore ways of encouraging university faculty from all relevant disciplines to take an interest in fisheries problems. There are also many institutions in non-CARIFORUM countries that carry out research on stocks which are shared with CARIFORUM countries (Appendix). Thus in looking at research in the Caribbean it is necessary to take account of the activities of those institutions also.


Although research capability and efforts are widely distributed throughout the region, the funds and staff capacity to carry out biological or socio-economic fishery assessments is limited in all but a few (mainly non-CARIFORUM) countries. Thus, the efforts are highly focused on the major stocks, largely via ICCAT, and on the other species in a few areas, primarily the waters of the USA and Mexico. Efforts to understand stock structure, and to assess exploitation status of the smaller and less abundant species have not produced a comprehensive body of information on which to base management decisions. Nor is the information which is available routinely compiled, synthesised, evaluated and shared as would be required by an ongoing management advisory mechanism, such as ICCAT. Advisors in many of the small developing countries must frequently rely on a miscellaneous array of studies carried out by various agencies. It is recommended that CARIFORUM countries establish an organisation or institutional arrangement which will routinely compile, synthesise, evaluate and share fishery information required for ongoing management advice. Much of the transfer of expertise and technology to the fisheries research community of the Caribbean has been through bilateral development assistance from northern temperate countries. Whereas some of the approaches and techniques for management and assessment are adaptable, many are not, or have been adopted without adaptation. Caribbean fisheries would benefit from an increase in interaction with other tropical areas of the world with similar fisheries and problems (Chakalall, 1995). It is recommended that increased south/south co-operation be promoted among research institutions, including liaison of CARIFORUM institutions with institutions such as ICLARM, the Forum Fisheries Agency and the various Fishery Commissions in the eastern Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. 3.6

Private sector institutions

In the Caribbean there are apparently no private sector institutions involved in fisheries management and development. However, given that governance also implies privatisation one should expect more private sector involvement in the management of coastal and marine resources, including fisheries, in the future. The private sector is already leasing marine space for the extractive industries, such as oil and gas, and may also become involved in the extraction of minerals such as manganese and iron nodules, in the future. In a few Caribbean countries private sector entrepreneurs from the tourist sector have requested from governments the leasing of marine space to be managed as marine parks, exclusively for tourism purposes. The concept of private sector involvement is also contained in the harmonised legislation of the OECS countries which has made provision for the leasing of marine space (mainly for mariculture). However, no attempts have been made to implement this aspect of the legislation. Private sector institutions can be grouped into two categories: those that have a stake in the marine and coastal area, such as tourism, oil and gas, ports, and fish processors, and whose activities may impact negatively on the state of fisheries resources, and those whose who do not have a stake in the marine and coastal area, such as manufacturing and agriculture, but whose activities may also have a negative impact on the fisheries resources. Different levels of partnerships and collaboration involving both categories of private sector institutions are necessary for the sustained production of the fisheries sector. Within CARIFORUM countries there is little private sector consulting expertise which specialises in fisheries. National governments and regional organisations have placed little or no emphasis on developing partnership with, or enhancing the capability of, private sector consulting expertise. The availability of such expertise can play a role in offsetting deficiencies in state fisheries administrations. It can also play a useful role in providing technical support for community NGOs including fisherfolk organisations. It is recommended that state and regional organisations explore innovative approaches to enhancing private sector fisheries consulting capacity. 3.7

Monitoring, control and surveillance

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) concerns governance at all levels, but can conveniently be examined in two parts: local and foreign fishing. The regulation of local fishers is usually effected by fishery officers, coast guard, police, and other officers of the peace, often ashore. One of the common ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 171

reasons for the failure of fishery controls to prevent overfishing is that it is not feasible to implement the monitoring requirements with the resources available. Many countries lack the capability for extensive enforcement of fishery regulations. Widely scattered, small-scale rural fisheries are particularly difficult to monitor, and regulations are usually ignored. This has led to the recent upsurge of interest in co-management and community-based management discussed above. In the Caribbean, the alternative of establishing special enforcement units may not be sustainable except for the most valuable resources since governance includes the responsibility for ensuring that costs do not outweigh benefits. The responsibility for enforcement of fishery regulations usually lies with agencies that are also responsible for enforcing other laws, e.g. narcotics smuggling, immigration, criminal violations. In comparison to these, fisheries violations may be perceived as insignificant. Part of the solution lies in educating the agencies with responsibility for enforcement as to the need for, and potential benefits of, fisheries enforcement. It is recommended that research be carried out into mechanisms for sharing the expenses and responsibilities of MCS and management in general among stakeholders. This is an area with potential for participatory research. MCS is also aimed at curtailing illegal foreign fishing. This usually requires seagoing capability, and is often the mandate of the coast guard. This capability is minimal in most small or less developed Caribbean countries. Problems with illegal foreign fishing vary among countries and resource types. For most countries with 200 mile EEZs, except OECS countries where there is a programme of surveillance and enforcement, illegal foreign fishing for large pelagics is essentially unaddressed. In Surinam, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, deep-slope resources are fished extensively by snapper boats from neighbouring countries. A variety of more localised problems occur wherever there is easy access to the EEZ of one country from the fishing communities of another. One of the difficulties in evaluating the potential for cost recovery from fines and forfeitures is a lack of quantitative information on the types and numbers of vessels actually present in the EEZs of Caribbean countries. Fishers could be involved in programmes to acquire information on the presence of foreign vessels in national waters. It is recommended that interactions between foreign and local vessels and the relationships between fishers and enforcement agencies be investigated. This would provide information useful for management. Given the proximity of Caribbean states to each other, a regional perspective could be advantageous. This would include the potential for inter-governmental collective action in MCS through regional organisations or arrangements. The OECS Common Fishery Zones and the CFRAMP Regional Mechanism are useful starting points.

4.

Promotion and Dissemination of Research Results

The success of governance in the fisheries sector rests on the availability of data and information, and in effective communication between the stakeholders and partners involved in the management of the fishery. One of the main purposes of fisheries research is to seek out information for management and decision-making purposes. In pursuit of good governance, Caribbean fisheries administrations have begun to tap into local knowledge and involve the fishing industry in research. They have also accepted the need to monitor and inform stakeholders about relevant research done in the region or elsewhere, and the effects management decisions have on fishing industries and fisheries resources. Widely disseminating research results and obtaining feedback is part of this process of information exchange. There are, however, serious constraints that Caribbean states share with other developing countries, and small island developing states (SIDS) in particular. Technical information of all types is often inaccessible to small fisheries departments. This includes, scientific literature, trade literature, information on workshops and meetings, and their results. Few fisheries departments have means for monitoring the myriad of publications, and budgets to acquire technical and scientific literature are typically small. There is a variety of useful low cost or free newsletters within the region at present (FAO Artisanal Fisheries Network Newsletter, CFRAMP Newsnet, CEPNEWS, Caribbean Park and Protected Area Bulletin) and many more from outside the ACP - EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 172

region. However, several of these only occasionally have relevant information, or have information which may only be needed in special circumstances (e.g. NOAA's Earth System Monitor). Two exemplary sources of fisheries information relevant to the region are ICLARM's newsletter, and the various interest group Information Bulletins of the Pacific Islands Marine Resources Information System (PIMRIS). There is at present no organisation to which a Caribbean fisheries department or other stakeholder can direct a request for information on a particular topic. It is recommended that an information service review fisheries literature for information of probable interest to Caribbean clients and communicate it in a regular newsletter or have it available through a database. In the Caribbean, the extension arms of the fisheries administration and the government information service are normally used as tools for communicating with stakeholders and the public. These systems for information dissemination are inadequate for achieving good fisheries governance. If the knowledge gained from research is to be used effectively in the management of the fishery it has to be imparted interactively to the stakeholders and partners. The best way to achieve this in a cost-effective manner is through their involvement in the research activity. Fishers, for example, can be effective allies in research in providing data or in using their time and gear in research, for which they must be compensated. Inter-regional linkages or South/South sharing of information between fisheries administrations and research institutions is also necessary to avoid duplication. It is recommended that collaborative mechanisms for conducting and evaluating research, and disseminating research results, be employed wherever feasible. Fisheries research in the Caribbean is frequently crisis motivated. Recent research on the sea urchin (Tripneustes ventricosus) fishery in Barbados is one such example. Strategic proactive research is usually absent since most governments of the region are reluctant to expend scarce funds on such research. Despite the constraints, it is more common to continuously monitor research and developments taking place elsewhere or to set up a local monitoring programme which is reactive. These approaches are not suited to the project type of research normally sponsored by external aid agencies. It is recommended that long term research on Caribbean fisheries be sponsored and promoted principally by government, academic/research institutions and the stakeholders. Some types of fisheries, for example for straddling stocks and highly migratory species, will require a sustained regional or international collaborative approach to research. In the Caribbean the most of the valuable fisheries resources are thought to be either fully exploited or overexploited. So a critical question concerns whether fisheries research should focus on the stock assessment, biology and ecology of the species or species groups, or on the fisherfolk, communities, co-operatives, etc. with regard to their opportunities and successes, problems and failures. Currently, fisherfolk play only a minor role in management or setting research priorities and in evaluating or using research results. If the emphasis is going to be placed on involving the stakeholders in the management of fisheries, then priority should be given to the organisational and socio-economic aspects of the primary stakeholders, the fishers. It is recommended that research priorities be set on the basis of the information fisheries administrations must seek to receive from fisherfolk in the exercise of good governance.

5.

Recommendations

Many of the research recommendations provided in this document would be most appropriately implemented as pilot projects, provided that the results are properly documented and disseminated. There is a total of 20 recommendations included throughout the text. These have been brought together in Appendix 2. There is an overall emphasis on institutional reform which builds a broader base for resource management than has been common in the past. Most of the recommendations can be allocated to one of two groups, which correspond closely to the two prongs of the approach described for African and southern Indian Ocean ACP states (Nauen, 1995).


One group addresses the need for fisheries administrations to develop partnerships with nongovernmental organisations, particularly fisherfolk organisations. This includes strengthening the capacity of those organisations to participate in the management process. The second group addresses the need to strengthen regional organisations within the Caribbean, in order that they may better manage shared resources within the region as well as participate in international management initiatives. Capacity building at the regional level includes strengthening linkages with international organisations and with similar organisations in other parts of the world. The lack of emphasis on strengthening national fisheries administrations is not intended to suggest a lack of need in this area. It more reflects the view that the public sector has been the focus of strengthening in the past, and that there is need to give equal priority to other areas. Similarly, the lack of emphasis on research aimed at acquiring biological scientific information for management, does not indicate that it is not perceived as important. Instead, it reflects the view that institutional arrangements and processes may be the limiting factor for fishery governance at this time.

6. References Brown, D.N., 1996. Fishermen as co-managers of communal property in the CARICOM region. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, 5-9 June 1996, University of California, Berkeley. Caddy, J.F. and R. Mahon, 1995. Reference points for fisheries management. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., 347:83 p. CANARI, 1992. Community institutions and marine resource development in the Caribbean - A survey of the current and potential involvement of non-governmental (NGOs) and community-based organizations CBOs) in marine resource development in the eastern Caribbean, Jamaica and Belize. St. Lucia, Caribbean Natural Resources Institute. Chakalall, B., 1986. Alternatives and perspectives for fisheries development in the Lesser Antilles. Proc. Gulf Carib.Fish.Inst, 37:154-165 Chakalall, B., 1995. Fisheries management in the Lesser Antilles. In South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Fisheries, Noumea, New Caledonia. SCP Tech.Doc., 12(2). FAO (ed.), 1993. Marine fishery resources of the Antilles. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., 326:235 p. FAO, 1994. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., 335: 136 p. FAO, 1995a. Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part 1: Guidelines on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., 350 (Part 1):47 p. FAO, 1995b. Draft Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (revised version). CL 108/20, April 1995, 28 p. FAO, 1995c. Directory of fisheries research and development institutions in the Caribbean. Santiago, Chile, FAO-RLAC, 68 p. Freon, P., B. Gobert and R. Mahon. 1991. La recherche halieutique et les pêcheries artisanales dans la Caraibe insulaire. pp. 195-222 In J.R. Durand, J. Lemoalle and J. Weber (eds.). La Recherche Face à la Pêche Artisanale. International Symposium, ORSTOM-IFREMER, Montpellier, France, July 3-7, 1989.


Hannesson, R. and J. Kurien, 1988. Studies on the role of fishermen's organizations in fisheries management. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., 300: 48 p. Jentoft, S., 1989. Fisheries co-management: Delegating government responsibility to fishermen's organizations. Marine Policy, April: 137-154 Jentoft, S. and H.T. Sandersen, 1993. Co-management in tropical fisheries: the case of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Nordland Research Institute, Norway, 29 p. Mahon, R. (ed.), 1987. Report and Proceedings of the Expert Consultation on Shared Fishery Resources of the Lesser Antilles. FAO Fish.Rep., 383:278 p. Mahon, R., 1996. Fisheries and research for tunas and tuna-like species in the Western Central Atlantic: Implications of the International Agreement on Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., 357:72 p. McConney, P.A., 1995. Fishery planning in Barbados: the implications of social strategies for coping with uncertainty. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia. McGlade, J., 1994. Governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Keynote address to the 1994 Statutory Meeting of ICES. Nauen, C.E., 1995. Governance of fisheries and aquaculture in southern and eastern Africa and in the southern Indian Ocean. A short review and related considerations on flows and communication of resesarch results. ACP-EU Fish.Res.Rep., (1):125-144 SEFSC, 1993. Status of fishery resources off the southeastern United States for 1992. Miami, NMFSSEFSC, NOAA Technical Memorandum, 73 p. Smith, A.H. and F. Berkes, 1991. Solutions to the `tragedy of the commons': Sea-urchin management in St. Lucia, West Indies. Environmental Conservation, 18(2):131-136 United Nations, 1983. The Law of the Sea. Official text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with Annexes and Tables. United Nations, New York, 224 p. United Nations, 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. United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, Sixth Session, New York, 24 July - 4 August 1995, A/CONF.164/37. 40 p. World Bank, UNDP, CEC and FAO (comps), 1992. A study of international fisheries research. Washington, DC, World Bank Policy & Research Series, 19:103 p.


Table 1. The relative importance of various fisheries to Caribbean countries and their state of exploitation (see text for description of each fishery type). Illegal foreign fishing is indicated by shading.

Fishery type Caribbean State Lobster

Antigua/Barbuda

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

British Virgin Islands

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Grenada

Conch

Reef fish

Slope/

Jamaica

Montserrat

St. Kitts/Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent/Grenadines

Flyingfish

Coastal pelagic

√√√

√√

√√√

√

√

√

f

o

f

u

u

f

√√√

√√

√

√

√

f

f

u

u

u

√

√

√

√√√

√√√

√

f

f

f

u

u

f

Shrimp

Groundfish

Coastal demersal

√√

√√√

√√√

√√

√

√

f

o

u

u

u

uk

√√

√√

√√

√

√

√

o

o

f

u

u

u

√

√

√√

√√

√√√

√

√

o

o

o

u

u

u

f

√√

√√

√√√

√

√

√

√√

o

o

o

u

u

uk

o

√√

√√

√√

√

√√√

√

√√

o

o

o

u

u

u

f

√√

√

√

√√√

√√

√√

f

u

u

o

o

uk

Guyana

Haiti

Bank

Large pelagic

f

√√

√√

√√√

√

√

√√

√

o

o

o

u

u

f

o

√√√

√√√

√√√

√

√

√

o

o

o

f

u

u

√

√

√√√

√

√√

√

o

o

o

u

u

f

√√

√√

√√√

√

√

√√

o

o

o

u

u

f

√

√√

√√√

√√

√√√

√√

√

o

o

o

u

u

u

f

√√

√

√√√

√

√√√

√√

o

o

o

u

u

f


Surinam

Trinidad/Tobago

√√

√

√

√√√

√√

√√

f

u

u

o

o

f

√

√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√

√

f

f

o

u

f

u

u

o

f

f

√√√ = Extremely important, f = Fully exploited, Illegal foreign fishing:

√√ = Important,

o = Overexploited,

Extensive problem

√ = Significant

u = Underexploited,

uk = unknown

Problem in certain areas

1. The indication that large pelagics are underexploited means that the country is not taking a share which would be expected on the basis of the size of its EEZ. If all countries develop the relevant capacity to exploit, the resources will certainly become overfished. 2. Resource status is largely based on circumstantial evidence


Table 2. The social and economic value of fisheries in selected Caribbean countries Employment

Vessels

Landings

Exports (mil. US$)

Caribbean State Fishers

Secondary

Artisanal

Small

Large commercial

commercial Antigua & Barbuda

569

140

57

0

Quantity

Value

(mt)

(mil. US$)

% GDP

4890

40.3

3 1.9

255

24,295

240.0

9 4.5

180

500

39,100

17.0

Bahamas

2,500

200

Barbados

1,600

1,200

Belize

2,300

450

450

1

1636

15.0

3 2.2

276

120

15

0

3836

1.7

3 2.2 32

British Virgin Islands

Imports (mil. US$)

Dominica

1,103

?

630

4

0

2711

1.4

Dominican Republic

8,000

2,000

52,760

35

0

69,530

19.2

Grenada

1,749

120

600

25

1

12,111

12.9

Guyana

4,500

5,500

900

500

120

40,000

Haiti

10,000

5 3,500

Jamaica

12,000

24,000

2,000

20

Montserrat

174

?

62

St. Kitts & Nevis

650

?

St. Lucia

2,100

St. Vincent & Grenadines

5 1.4 236.3

8 0.3 112.4

3 1.7

14.8

40.95 7 1.6

78.5

2 1.3

21.4

3 8.3

0

67,500

8.1

1.2

70.6

718.1

15

810,500

815.5

0.9

81.3

817.2

8

0

5115

3 0.4

409

5

0

31,500

3 1.7

80.6

?

483

5

0

11,115

21.7

3 0.9

41.4

6,000

1,020

393

10

0

11,222

12.2

3 0.2

20.2

30.6

Surinam

2,550

?

100

100

150

9,800

22.2

10 3.8

1025.4

0.1

Trinidad & Tobago

7,300

4,400

1,350

20

14

73,200

78.2

0.3

72.0

79.4


OECS country data taken from FISHERIES STATISTICAL DIGEST, Number 1, OECS Fisheries Unit, St. Vincent, 1993 Bahamas data taken from Department of Fisheries Annual Report 1992, Statistical Abstract Superscripts: 1983 = 11, 1984 = 10, 1985 = 9, 1986 = 8, 1987 = 7, 1988 = 6, 1989 = 5, 1990 = 4, 1991 = 3, 1992 = 2, 1993 = 1 Other data from FAO country Profiles


Table 3 - Summary of recommendations organised according to the sections in the paper There are two main groups of recommendations : 1. Need for fisheries administrations to develop partnerships with : • non-governmental organisations generally • fisherfolk organisations particularly 2. Need to strengthen regional organisations within the Caribbean to : • better manage shared resources within the region • participate in international management initiatives. Proposed action strategy is : Implement recommendations as pilot projects where possible. STATE INSTITUTIONS

Inadequate capacity to undertake full range of fishery management functions 1. Address deficiencies by : • building of partnerships with other governmental and non-governmental organisations; • using outside expertise on a project basis • sharing regional expertise 2. Explore management approaches which : • are less demanding of data and expertise; • rely more on agreement among stakeholders; • incorporate the precautionary principle and responsible fishing. INTER-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

Need to manage shared, straddling and highly migratory stocks. Need for responsible/precautionary expansion as per HMS/SS Agreement and Code of Conduct. 1. Pursue inter-state co-operation for management of shared, highly migratory and straddling stocks by : • promoting and supporting multi- or bilateral co-operation for management of specific resources, e.g. flyingfish; • promoting and supporting regional and subregional organisations as fora • for co-operative management of some stocks • for collective representations at international fora and in the activities of international fishery management organisations. ACADEMIC & OTHER RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS


Little emphasis on any aspect of fisheries, and limited research capacity in areas other than fisheries biology. Need to encourage : 1. University faculty from all relevant disciplines to take an interest in fisheries problems. 2. CARIFORUM countries to establish an organisation or institutional arrangement to compile, synthesise, evaluate and share fishery information. 3. Increased south/south co-operation (e.g. Caribbean/Pacific). PRIVATE SECTOR INSTITUTIONS

1. Minimal involvement in fisheries management, but have impacts on management and development. Explore innovative approaches to enhancing private sector fisheries consulting capacity.


o

o

o

90 W

100W

o

80 W

o

70 W

60 W o

30 N

ATLANTIC OCEAN

GULF OF MEXICO

o

20 N

CARIBBEAN SEA o

10 N

PACIFIC OCEAN

Figure 1. The Exclusive Economic Zones of Caribbean countries (after Mahon 1996).

USA, Brazil Japan

WECAFC ACS *Cayman I.

*Turks & Caicos I.

*Aruba

CARIFORUM

Colombia

Dominican Republic

Haiti

Honduras

Guatemala Nicaragua Panama

WECAFC LAC

Barbados

Belize

OECS

Jamaica

*British Virgin I. Mexico

Bahamas

Cuba

Trinidad & Tobago Guyana

Ghana

France

Senegal

Venezuela

Spain

Ivory Coast

*French Guiana***

Portugal

Angola

*Puerto Rico**

USSR

Gabon

Morrocco

Benin

Korea

Sao Tome & Principe

Uruguay

South Africa

CARICOM

Costa Rica

ICCAT Canada

*USVI** *Martinique***

Cape Verde *Guadeloupe***

St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda Dominica St. Lucia

*Netherlands Antilles *Anguilla

St. Vincent & Grenadines Suriname Grenada *Montserrat

* Associate States of ACS (see text) **in ICCAT as USA ***as French Departments

Figure 2. The membership of regional and international organisations with responsibility for fisheries management and development in the wider Caribbean (WECAFC = FAO West Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, ACS = Association of Caribbean States, CARICOM = Caribbean Community and Common Market, OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, LAC = Lesser Antilles Committee, ICCAT = International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas)(after Mahon 1996).


Appendix 1. An overview of fisheries research and governance organisations in or relevant to CARIFORUM countries. This appendix provides a brief overview of institutions and organisations involved in fisheries research and governance in the Caribbean ACP countries. The institutions and organisations are grouped according to their scope, e.g. international, regional, national, etc. Fisher co-operatives and associations are included in view of their emerging role. Additional information is available in the FAO, Directory of Fisheries Research and Development Institutions in the Caribbean, and in the1 Island Resources Foundation compilation of NGOs involved in environmental conservation in the Caribbean.

1.

International organisations directly involved in, or with programmes in, fisheries.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) ICCAT was established in 1969, with the following responsibility. "... for the study of the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of the families Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organisation. Such study shall include research on the abundance, biometry and ecology of the fishes; the oceanography of their environment; and the effects of natural and human factors on their abundance"2. The following excerpts from the Basic Texts of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) indicate its scope and mode of operation. "Article IV 1. In order to carry out the objectives of this Convention the Commission shall be responsible for the study of the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of the families Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organisation. Such study shall include research on the abundance, biometry and ecology of the fishes; the oceanography of their environment; and the effects of natural and human factors upon their abundance. Article VIII 1. (a) The Commission may, on the basis of scientific evidence, make recommendations designed to maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes that may be taken in the Convention area at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch. These recommendations shall be applicable to the Contracting Parties under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. Article IX 1. The Contracting Parties agree to take all action necessary to ensure the enforcement of this Convention. Each Contracting Party shall transmit to the Commission, biennially or at such other times as may be required by the Commission, a statement of the action taken by it for these purposes."

Although ICCAT was responsible for large pelagic fish resources in the WECAFC Region, until recently only three countries from the region have been involved in ICCAT activities: the USA (since

1

Prepared by and available from the Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources, St. Clair Circle, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

2

ICCAT, 1985. Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, Spain


1967), Cuba (from 1975 to 1991), and Venezuela (since 1983). Despite continuous efforts by ICCAT to acquire data and information from, and to encourage participation of, countries in the Western Central Atlantic, it was only in 1991, that CARICOM Member States began sending observers to ICCAT meetings. Mexico became an observer in 1994. Thus, the ICCAT focus has been on stocks important to fleets operating in the Eastern Central Atlantic, on the High Seas, and in the North Atlantic. ICCAT's greatest impact in the Western Central Atlantic has been through its Billfish Program, which started in 1989. Eventually, recognising the need for special attention to the Western Atlantic, ICCAT established a Working Group on Western Atlantic Tropical Tunas (WATT) in 1990, which met in Florida in 1991. Even with the WATT Working Group, participation in ICCAT by WECAFC countries has not been sufficient to significantly influence the amount of attention paid to species and stocks of primary importance to the majority of countries in the WECAFC Region.

2.

Regional organisations directly involved in, or with programmes in, fisheries.

Bellairs Research Institute, St. James, Barbados BRI is a non-profit research station affiliated with McGill University and UWI. It offers facilities for field work and has consistently contributed to fisheries research on large pelagics, reef fishes and flyingfish. Other research relevant to fisheries is also carried out there, for example on reef and sea turtle conservation, marine reserves, and marine ecology in general. The permanent professional staff includes the Director and two part-time research associates. The majority of research there is carried out by visiting scientists and graduate students.

Caribbean Fisheries Training Development Institute, Trinidad The Caribbean Fisheries Training & Development Institute (CTDI) was founded in 1974 as a joint project of the governments of Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados, Guyana, the Food & Agriculture Organization and the United Nations Development Programme. From 1975 to 1977 the Institute was involved in training captains, mates and crew members for demersal trawlers, chiefly to exploit the shrimp resources of the continental shelf of north-east South America. In 1978, the Institute was reoriented on a national basis with the Government of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago taking necessary steps to re-organise it, with greater emphasis being placed on development of artisanal fisheries. It currently offers a wide range of course in seamanship, fishing technology and small-scale processing3.

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI), St. Lucia The Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) is a regional non-governmental organisation concerned with issues of conservation, environment, and development in the insular Caribbean. CANARI's mission is to strengthen the capacity of Caribbean communities and their institutions to manage the natural resources critical to their development. It has offices in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), and St. Lucia. CANARI has over fifteen years of experience in the implementation of programmes and field projects, with a special expertise in community-based, participatory, and

3

CFTDI. 1996. Course profiles 1995/96. Caribbean Fisheries Training & Development Institute, 28 p. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 5

collaborative approaches to the management of natural resources4.

Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), Puerto Rico The CFMC is responsible for fisheries management planning and plan implementation in the US Caribbean waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. CFMC has prepared reviews, management plans and impact statements for all the fishery resources in those waters (reef fishes, lobster, conch, coastal pelagics, etc.). Its staff have been active participants in all regional fisheries management activities. The CFMC has always been responsive to requests for information and assistance from other Caribbean countries. Linkages with CFMC will be an important component of any regional fisheries activity.

CARICOM Fishery Resources Assessment and Management Program (CFRAMP) This regional programme, designed to be implemented over eight years through the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), has been developed to address these problems and to help maximise the long-term productivity of fisheries resources. This programme is not intended to address all components of fisheries management, but to complement on-going activities and initiatives within CARICOM and thereby establish the basis for a complete regional programme. Some ongoing initiatives include: monitoring, control and surveillance, fish production and marketing. This ongoing programme is also the basis of a proposal to provide similar institutional strengthening support to CARIFORUM countries which are not participating in CFRAMP The programme targets fisheries management institutions of the CARICOM region: national fisheries divisions; and regional research and management institutions such as the CARICOM Secretariat, the University of the West Indies and the Fisheries Unit of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). Primary beneficiaries of the programme are fishing communities of CARICOM, which will obtain maximal long-term benefits from fishery resources through improved resource management. National economies of CARICOM Member States are expected to benefit from related improvements in socio-economic conditions in fishing communities, from stability in the supply of fish to local consumers and the tourist industry, from reduced foreign expenditure on fish imports, and from increased exports of fishery products. Countries and territories participating in the Project are: Belize; Jamaica; Antigua and Barbuda; St. Kitts and Nevis; Montserrat; Dominica; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Grenada; Barbados; Trinidad and Tobago; and Guyana. Other countries with independent funding may be included at CARICOM's request, subject to review by the CEA and approval by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The goal of the programme is to promote the management and conservation of fishery resources of CARICOM countries, and to permit exploitation of these resources on the basis of sustainable yield. The purpose of the programme is to enhance the basic information and institutional capacity necessary to manage and develop fishery resources in the CARICOM region. Specifically the Project will: • Strengthen fisheries management structures and improve management capabilities and technical expertise within CARICOM through training and advisory assistance; • Provide information on fishery resource abundance and availability for management purposes within CARICOM;

4

CANARI, 1994. Report on activities Jan. 91 - June 93.


• Define and establish a suitable regional fisheries management advisory mechanism. The programme consists of a number of linked activities, divided into four major Projects: (a) National Fishery Management Systems, (b) Training, (c) Fisheries Resource Assessment and (d) Regional Fisheries Management Mechanism. a) National Fishery Management Systems Project - activities designed to provide strengthened fishery management capabilities in the region (apart from resource assessment). The following subprojects are included: • National Fisheries Management Plans • Fisheries Data and Information Systems • Community Participation/Education • Licensing and Registration Systems • National Advisory and Decision-Making Mechanisms b) Training Project - activities designed to strengthen human resources involved in fisheries management will be approached through a series of discrete training subprojects, commencing with a training needs survey to gather information for use in the development of a long-term human resources development strategy for participating countries. The following subprojects are included: Graduate Academic Studies, Attachments, Short Courses. c) Fisheries Management Information Project - activities designed to provide improved/expanded data and information for developing management advice related to the major fishery resources in the Caribbean. The following resource assessment subprojects are included: lobster, conch, shallowshelf reef fishes, deep-slope fishes, large pelagic fishes, coastal pelagic fishes, flyingfish, shrimp and groundfish. d) Regional Fisheries Management Mechanisms Project - activities designed to study options available and establish a regional mechanism to address co-operative regional management of fishery resources and provide technical, advisory and consultative services to national fishery divisions and other regional institutions. The Project is being implemented by the CARICOM Fisheries Unit in Belize, which was established by and for this project, but which has the mandate to develop, seek funding for, and execute other projects on behalf of CARICOM Member States. Canada's contribution to the project is managed by a Canadian Executing Agency contracted by CIDA for that purpose. The CARICOM Fisheries Unit is a permanent organisation. Three temporary Resource Assessment Units have been established, one in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, for reef, deep-slope and pelagic fishes, one in Trinidad and Tobago for shrimp and demersal finfish of the continental shelf, and the third in Belize for lobster and conch.

FAO, Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission The Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), includes all the countries of the wider Caribbean Region. Since its inception in 1975, WECAFC has primarily been a forum for fisheries personnel to exchange technical information. It has held biennial meetings of its Working Parties on Marine Resource Assessment, Statistics, and Policy and Planning. Similarly, the Lesser Antilles Committee meets every two years. It has also held several meetings of the Guyanas-Brazil Working Group and various Expert Consultations (e.g. shared fishery resources of the Lesser Antilles, microcomputers, length based assessment, and sustainable ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 7

development). There has been no attempt to use WECAFC as a fishery management advisory or decision-making making body, as has been the case in FAO commissions in other parts of the world. WECAFC operates according to the following TORs. The terms of reference of the commission shall be: (a) to promote and assist in the collection of national statistics and biological data relating to fisheries in general, and the shrimp fisheries in particular; and to provide for the compilation and dissemination of these data on a regional basis, (b) to facilitate the co-ordination of national research programmes and to promote, where appropriate, the standardisation of research methods, (c) to promote the interchange of information relating to the fisheries of the region, (d) to promote and co-ordinate, on a national and regional basis, studies of the effect of the environment and of pollution on fisheries, and studies of appropriate methods of control and improvement, (e) to promote and assist the development of aquaculture and stock improvement (f) to encourage education and training through the establishment of improvement of national and regional institutions and by the organisation of training centres and seminars (g) to assist Member Governments in establishing rational policies for the development and utilisation of the resources consistent with national objectives and the conservation and improvement of the resources; and (h) to promote and co-ordinate international aid to further the achievement of the objectives referred to in the preceding sub-paragraphs. At the eighth session of the WECAF Commission in 1995, it was recommended that FAO conduct a comprehensive assessment of the future role of the Commission and the prospects of enhancing regional co-operation (FAO, in press). The findings of this study will be considered at the next WECAF Commission meeting, should the countries of the WECAFC area agree to amend the rules and statutes of the Commission to enable it to adopt a management approach.

Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI), USA Since its inauguration in 1949 the GCFI has provided an annual forum for exchange of information on fisheries and related research in the wider Caribbean. The proceedings of the annual meeting are an important source of Caribbean fishery information. Over the years, GCFI has made special efforts to ensure the participation of fisheries officers and other individuals from developing countries of the Caribbean. Most recently, there has been an emphasis on including persons from Spanish speaking countries.

The French Institute for Research on the Sea (IFREMER) IFREMER has stations in Martinique and Guyana. Scientists at these stations have carried out a variety of research on Caribbean fishery resources. Their publications and staff are a good source of information on these resources. They have always been involved in regional fisheries activities, and have frequently developed collaborative activities with neighbouring countries (St. Lucia, Dominica, and the countries of the Guyanas-Brazil shrimp working Group).


Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA), Trinidad The Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) is a multi-disciplinary organisation which was established by an Act of Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, in 1980 following negotiations for an agreement signed in 1974 between the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The Institute was mandated to collect, analyse and disseminate data relating to the economic, technological, environmental, social and legal developments in marine affairs generally and to formulate and implement specific programmes/projects to achieve the overall objectives. the Act also gave the IMA a regional mandate. The Institute’s objectives and functions were revised in 1990 in order to better enable it to attain its goals and carry out its mission. The new functions stressed the Caribbean mandate and stressed that IMA's work was both in the marine and coastal areas. These functions are: a) to conduct research and development on the marine and related resources of Trinidad and Tobago, the Caribbean and adjacent regions; b) to conduct research and development on the marine environment and other areas that impact upon the environment of Trinidad and Tobago, the Caribbean and adjacent regions; c) to study the multiple uses of the sea and coastal zones, their resources and use potential in Trinidad and Tobago, the Caribbean and adjacent regions and to evaluate and promote such studies with a view to minimising possible conflicts which may result from such uses; d) to establish at the Institute an information centre for collection and dissemination of information relating to economic, social, technological, scientific, environmental and legal developments in the marine areas and coastal zones of the Caribbean and adjacent regions; e) to respond to technical enquiries and questions made by policy-making organs of the Government, private sector organisations and individuals; f) to organise training courses and projects that foster and encourage regional and international collaboration in exploitation of the marine and other related aspects of the environment; g) to advise on the development and optimum utilisation of the marine and coastal resource potential of Trinidad and Tobago; h) to take such action as may be necessary or expedient for the proper performance of its functions. Research is conducted under four programmes which reflect specific tasks and activities related to the systematic investigations of the coastal zone, inland waterways and rivers, the near-shore waters of Trinidad and Tobago, and its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The research programmes at IMA are: Fisheries and Aquaculture, Environmental Research, Legal Research, Technical Advisory Services.

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS SEFSC) The Southeast Fisheries Science Center is comprised of six laboratories and a headquarters office in Miami, Florida. Scientists within the laboratories collect data, conduct research, and provide scientific information concerning the status and well being of living marine resources of south-eastern United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and in the open Atlantic Ocean for large pelagic species. Scientists at the Galveston Laboratory investigate fisheries of shrimp and demersal fish. The SEFSC has generally been willing to participate in regional activities and to share its expertise at various regional fora.


UNESCO, International Oceanographic Commission, IOCARIBE, Colombia The Sub-Commissions of IOC, including IOCARIBE, are created to promote, develop and co-ordinate marine scientific research programmes, ocean services and capacity building, in their respective regions. Therefore, the regional strategy of IOCARIBE must contribute to the implementation of global strategies of IOC. However, the IOC's programme actions should be both global and regional. The latter address the regional priorities as identified by regional subsidiary bodies, and are therefore not merely mirror images of the global programmes. Therefore IOCARIBE, in establishing its regional strategies and programmes, should take into account the specific interests and needs of the Member State in the region. The major objectives identified for IOCARIBE to focus on are: a) develop, promote and facilitate international oceanographic programmes to improve our understanding of critical regional ocean processes and their relationship to the stewardship of marine resources in the region and their exploitation, and also to contribute to the understanding of global ocean processes; b) ensure effective planning for the establishment, and subsequently the co-ordination, of an operational regional observing system which will provide the information needed for oceanic and atmospheric forecasting, and for ocean and coastal management of these and resources by regional Member States, and furthermore to serve the needs of international global environment change research; c) provide international leadership for the development of education and training programs and technical assistance essential to ocean and coastal monitoring and associated oceanographic research, with a view to increase the national capacity of less developed countries in the region. d) ensure that ocean data, knowledge and information obtained through research, observation and monitoring are efficiently husbanded, interpreted and made available to end users, such as decision makers and industry for application and solution of identified problems and needs, with a view to sustainable socio-economic development. These objectives include the traditional goals of IOC concerning scientific research programmes, systematic observation systems and related services and capacity building, and marine information management, but they reflect the point of view of IOCARIBE region as a contribution to the global objective of IOC5. IOCARIBE is in the process of defining its programmes for the future and seeking funding for them.

University of the West Indies, Mona, Cave Hill and St. Augustine campuses UWI deals with fisheries and marine sciences to varying degrees on all three campuses, but there is no critical mass for fisheries on any campus. Fisheries biology and management are taught at all three, with the emphasis being primarily on biology and biological inputs to management. At Mona the Center for Marine Sciences brings together faculty from various departments as a multidisciplinary group to focus on coastal and marine resources. The main areas of activity are: Ecosystem Studies, especially coral reefs (CMS is the data management centre for UNESCO's Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program (CARICOMP) and is active in the International Coral Reef Initiative); Pollution and mitigation; and, Fisheries and mariculture, notably the community based Fisheries

5

Draft IOCARIBE medium term strategy and action plan.


Improvement Programme in Discovery Bay. Graduate training is provided in all these areas. There are two marine laboratories within the CMS: Discovery Bay and Port Royal. The UWI Center for Environment and Development is also involved in coastal area management. At Cave Hill, fisheries is taught in the Marine Resource and Environmental Management Program (MAREMP) which is a Masters Degree programme based on course work and thesis. Fisheries students carry out a variety of short-term projects each year. Graduate research degree studies in fisheries are also carried out at Cave Hill. At St. Augustine, the emphasis appears to be primarily on fish biology and fisheries in fresh waters and coastal wetlands. UWI has consistently been involved in fisheries and fisheries related research. However, its capability to meet the needs of its contributing countries in this area are severely limited by staff, financial resources, and the extent to which staff are co-ordinated to address fisheries issues.

OECS, Natural Resources Management Unit (NRMU), St. Lucia The main purpose of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) is to promote co-operation, to seek to achieve the fullest possible harmonisation of foreign policy, and to promote economic integration among Member States. Member States are Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines; the British Virgin Islands has Associated Status and Anguilla, Observer Status. The OECS Fishery Unit was formed in 1986 to co-ordinate fisheries management and development affairs among OECS countries. It has carried out a variety of activities in the areas of MCS, data collection and management, information dissemination, management planning, etc. The Fishery Unit was merged with the NRMU in January 1996. This was done to provide a more integrated approach to coastal resource and environmental management.

OLDEPESCA The Latin American Organization for Fishery Development (OLDEPESCA) is the successor to the SELA Action Committee on Seafood and Freshwater Products. It was formed in 1982 with the following objectives for Regional Co-operation: Research, Exploitation, Industrialisation, and Physical Support Infrastructure, Aquaculture, Technological Development, Marketing, Training and International Co-operation. Two ACP States - Jamaica and Guyana attended its meetings for a period. The Headquarters are in Lima, Peru. the following excerpt from its articles indicates its purpose and scope. Article 4 The main purpose of the Organization is to meet Latin American food requirements adequately, making use of Latin American fishery resource potential for the benefit of Latin American peoples, by concerted action in promoting the constant development of the countries and the permanent strengthening of regional co-operation in this sector. To this end, the objectives of OLDEPESCA are as follows: a) To promote adequate utilisation of fishery resources, preserving the marine and freshwater environment through the application of rational policies for the conservation of resources. b) To encourage and strengthen the Latin American co-operation in the development of the rational exploitation of sea and freshwater fishery resources, for the benefit of the peoples in the region. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 11

c) To increase substantially a food supply of sufficient nutritional value, the prices, preparation and presentation of which are in keeping with the needs of the low income inhabitants of the region. d) To increase in the same manner, consumption of marine and freshwater products in the region. e) To encourage, similarly, export diversification and expansion. f) To promote marketing systems to expand the regional exchange of products of the sector. g) To promote generation of jobs and improvement of incomes, through greater social and economic development of the communities related to the fishery activity of the region. h) To improve and strengthen the productive, institutional organisational and human resources capacity of the sector. i) To promote and organise utilisation of the joint negotiating capacity of the Latin American region, as well as to determine, identify and channel international, technical and financial co-operation through concrete regional co-ordination and co-operation within the scope of the sector. Article 5 Regional co-operation shall concentrate mainly on the following areas: a) Research on Fishery Resources b) Exploitation of Fishery Resources, Industrialisation and Physical Support Infrastructure. c) Aquaculture d) Technological Development e) Marketing f) Training g) International Co-operation.

3.

Regional organisations with related activities.

Caribbean Conference of Churches, P.O. Box 616, Bridgetown, Barbados. Tel: 246/427-2681/4, Fax: 246/429-2075.

Caribbean Conservation Association (CCA), Barbados The CCA was established in 1967 as a regional, non-profit, umbrella, membership organisation. It comprises governments, non-governmental organisations, and individuals involved with the initiation and promotion of environmentally sound activities which will promote the wise and safe management of the Caribbean's natural and cultural resources. The affairs of the CCA are managed by a Secretariat, with guidance from a Board of Directors. The Board comprises a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and eight other members. The Secretariat is headed by an Executive Director, who is responsible for the implementation of the policies and programmes of the Association. The Executive Director is assisted by professional, administrative, and clerical staff.


As a regional organisation, CCA covers the English, Dutch, French, and Spanish speaking countries. Its membership categories include full, associate, sponsoring, and student members. According to its strategic plan it will be focusing on the following initiatives6. 1. To heighten CCA's profile and improve its credibility. 2. To become the leading source for environmental information and services in the Caribbean. 3. To support policy formulation in the area of environment and development. 4. To facilitate the understanding and participation of the public in conservation, environmental, and developmental issues. CCA's main activities relating to fisheries have been on marine parks and protected areas, and coral reef conservation in general.

Caribbean Network for Integrated Rural Development (CNIRD), 40 Eastern Main Road, St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago

Caribbean People's Development Agency (CARIPEDA), P.O. Box 1132, Kingstown, St. Vincent & the Grenadines. Tel: 809/457-2953, Fax: 809/457-2445. Eastern Caribbean Organization of Development Foundation (ECODEV), P.O. Box 313, Roseau, Dominica. Tel: 809/448-3240; 8631, Fax: 809/448-4368.

United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) UNECLAC secretariat carries out a variety of functions related to fisheries. For example, the compilation of data on agriculture and trade which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the value of fisheries. At present, ECLAC is the focal point for implementation of the SIDS Programme of Action (PoA). On the basis of recommendations from a meeting of experts in May 1995 and a Working Group in November 1995, it is pursuing, in collaboration with CARICOM, the establishment of a mechanism to support and facilitate the SIDS PoA7 which includes many aspects of fisheries. This will include the establishment of an information network8.

United Nations Environment Programme, Caribbean Environmental Program, Regional Coordinating Unit (UNEP CEP RCU), Kingston, Jamaica

6

Caribbean Conservation Association, Strategic Agenda, 1996-1999

7

UN ECLAC/CDCC, 1996. Activities at the subregional level in relation to the World Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Sixteenth Session of CDCC, St. John's, Antigua & Barbuda, 5-8 February 1996, General LC/CAR/G 467, 18 p. 8

Gumbs, B. and E. Blommestein, 1996. Environmental information management in the Caribbean. ECLAC, UNEP/IDRC, Draft WP/95/8: 27 p. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 13

The UNEP CEP RCU is responsible for implementing UNEP's Regional Seas Programme in the Caribbean. Its activities have been primarily in the area of marine pollution and coastal zone management, both highly relevant to fisheries. They recognise that have not tended to include fisheries in their considerations of CZM to the extent that would have liked to. In this regard, and as the implementers of the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife Protocol (SPAW) there could be considerable benefit from close collaboration between this organisation and an RFM.

Latin American Economic System, SELA SELA was established in 1976 with Headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela. All Independent States, Members of CARICOM were members of SELA. SELA worked through various Action Committees. The Action Committee on Seafood and Freshwater Products was the mechanism which addressed fishery concerns in the organisation. That Action Committee was later transformed into OLDEPESCA. In its 1995-96 Programme of Activities for the Caribbean, Fishery is identified as one of the most important sectors for the Caribbean area. At its Eleventh Meeting held in Kingston, Jamaica from 31st July to 2nd August 1990 the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community agreed that Mexico and Venezuela should be granted Observer Status on a number of Standing Committees of CARICOM among them, the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Agriculture.

Association of Caribbean States (ACS), Trinidad and Tobago This body was established in July 1994 and comprised all CARICOM Member States and the States of Latin America whose shores are washed by the Caribbean Sea together with Associate Membership for other Caribbean Territories. The Association has as one of its purposes, "to develop the potential of the Caribbean Sea through interaction among Member States and with third parties". Among the activities it would undertake are "the preservation of the environment and conservation of the natural resources of the region, and especially of the Caribbean Sea". Given the embryonic state of this organisation nothing on that front can reasonably be expected from it in the short-term. The following extracts from the Preamble to the Convention for Establishing the Association of Caribbean States indicates the extent to which the Caribbean Sea features in its perceived role, and thus the extent to which it may in due course attempt to become involved in marine affairs. "[...] Convinced of the critical importance of preserving the environment of the region and, in particular, their shared responsibility for the preservation of the environmental integrity of the Caribbean Sea, by deploying the collective capabilities of their peoples in developing and exploiting its resources on an environmentally sound and sustainable basis, in order to enhance the quality of life of present and future generations of Caribbean peoples:

ARTICLE III: Nature, Purposes and Functions 1. The Association is an organisation for consultation, co-operation and concerted action, whose purpose is to identify and promote the implementation of policies and programmes designed to: [...] (b) develop the potential of the Caribbean Sea through interaction among Member States and with third parties:


(c) promote an enhanced economic space for trade and investment with opportunities for co-operation and concerted action, in order to increase the benefits which accrue to the peoples of the Caribbean from their resources and assets, including the Caribbean Sea; 2. In pursuit and fulfilment of the purposes set out in paragraph I of this Article, the Association shall promote gradually and progressively among its members the following activities: [...] (d) the preservation of the environment and conservation of the natural resources of the region and especially of the Caribbean Sea; [...]".

4.

National Fisheries Departments

A full review of national fisheries departments is beyond the scope of this review. The most recent attempt was for CFRAMP participating countries (Mahon and Boyce, 1992). As stated in the main report, fisheries departments vary widely in size and expertise. Few have any extensive research capacity. Several operate primarily through the implementation of externally funded projects.

5.

National level community organisations

These organisations include fisher co-operatives and associations, umbrella organisations for such organisations, and facilitatory organisations. The following list is incomplete. There are also many community organisations which are involved in community building and development, commerce and environmental conservation which can play an role in research and management. Some of these are included below.

Antigua and Barbuda The Land Development Foundation of Antigua & Barbuda (NDF), P.O. Box 502, Long Street, St. Johns, Antigua. Tel: 809/462-1704;4441, Fax: 809/462-0342. Organization for Agricultural Development (OAD), P.O. Box 846, The Mutual Building, St. Johns, Antigua. Tel/Fax: 809/462-4372.

Bahamas Barbados Barbados United Fishers Association (BUFA), Mr. Rupert Dowridge, Vice-President, Mr. Clifton Ifill, Secretary Barbados National Development Foundation (BNDF), Wildey Place, St. Michael, Barbados. Tel: 246/436-2056.

Belize Belize Fisheries Cooperative Association (Umbrella organisation), Mr. Alan Bevens Green, Chairman, Mr. Manuel Heredia, Vice Chairman, Mr. Carlton Young, Honorary Secretary Treasurer Northern Fishermen Cooperative Society, Ltd. 49 North Front St., P.O. Box 647, Belize City, Mr. Robert Usher, Executive Secretary/Manager


Association of National Development Agencies (ANDA), No. 20 Starcreek St., P.O. Box 175, Belmopan, Belize. Tel/Fax: 501/ 08 23383. Belize Organization for Women and Development (BOWAND), P.O. Box 1243, Belize City, Belize. Tel: 501/ 02 45196. Council of Voluntary social Services (CVSS), 14 Cemetery Road, Belize City, Belize. Tel: 501/ 02 31474, Fax: 501/ 02 274803.

Dominica Fond-St.-Jean Fishermen’s Cooperative New Town Fisheries Cooperative Small Projects Assistance Team (SPAT), P.O. Box 268, Roseau, Dominica. Tel: 809/448-4377; 3877, Fax: 809/448-2308.

Dominican Republic Centro de Investigación Mejoramiento de la Producción Animal (CIMPA), Calle General Lopez No. 32, Apartado 762, Santiago (Phone 809-223-0532, fax 971-0181) Ing. Dario A. Vargas, Administrator — This is a rural development research and training organisation with aquaculture activities.

Grenada Agency for Rural Transformation Ltd. (ART), Lucas Street, St. George's, Grenada. Tel: 809/440-3340, Fax: 809/440-1000.

Guyana Greater Georgetown Fisheries Cooperative, Lambert St., Georgetown, and Fish Landing Complex, Mr Mohammed Khan, Manager

Haiti Jamaica Jamaica Cooperative Union Ltd (Umbrella Organisation), 44 Beechwood Ave, Kingston, phone 9680411, Ms Vinette Foster, Secretary. Old Harbour Bay Fishermen’s Cooperative, Mr Denzil Simms, President. Gillings Gully Fishermen's Cooperative, Mr H. Honeyghan, President. South Coast Conservation Foundation (Facilitatory organisation), Mr Peter Espeut, Director — This is a non-profit organisation which has undertaken to co-ordinate integrated participatory management of a substantial area on the south coast of Jamaica which includes two major fishery landing sites. Association for Development Agency (ADA), 14 South Ave, Kingston 10, Jamaica. Tel: 809/9267114; 7007, Fax: 926-6990. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 16

Harbour View Community Environment Resource Centre, 38 Orion Avenue, Harbour View, Kingston 17, Jamaica. Projects for People Ltd. P.O. Box 326, Kingston 10, Jamaica. Tel: 809/929-7356; 2304, Fax: 926-6990. Social Action Centre, 56 Old Hope Road, Kingston 5, Jamaica. Tel: 809/978-1646, Fax: 809/9279363.

St. Kitts and Nevis St. Kitts Foundation for National Development (FND), P.O. Box 507, #38, Canyon Street, Basseterre, St. Kitts. Tel: 809/465-2576, Fax: 809/465-9187.

St. Lucia Castries Fishermen’s Cooperative, Mr Marcel Thomas, President, Soufriere Fishermen’s Cooperative, Mr Elwin Mongroo, President, Fishermen’s Cooperative, Vieux Fort, Mr Lambert Vittiles, President, Mr Peter Francis, Secretary and Manager National Research and Development Foundation (NRDF), P.O. Box 1097, Castries, St. Lucia, Tel: 809/452-4253; 6627, Fax: 809/453-6289. St. Lucia National Youth Council, P.O. Box 1232, Castries, St. Lucia. Tel: 809/452-2626, Fax: 809/4452-5313.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Goodwill Fishermen’s Cooperative, Kingstown, St. Vincent Organization for Rural Development (ORD), P.O. Box 827, Kingstown, St. Vincent & the Grenadines. Tel: 809/457-1298; 2310. Project Preservation Ltd., P.O. Box 1443, Grenville St. Kingstown, St. Vincent & the Grenadines. Tel: 809/457-2604, Fax: 809/457-2245.

Surinam The Snappers Fishery Cooperative, Paramaribo, Mr Ro Kalaykhan, President, Mr Anwar S. Lall Mohamed, Treasurer, Mr Deryk J. H. Ferrier, Technical Advisor (Center for Economic and Social Scientific Studies)

Trinidad and Tobago NOFAC (Umbrella organisation),Mr Cyril Rogers, President Blancheseuse Fishermen’s Cooperative, Mr Justin LaQuai, President CEDRAS Fishermen’s Cooperative, Mr Cyril Rogers, Secretary


Appendix 2. Summary list of recommendations appearing in the text 1.

It is recommended that the implementation of governance be initiated through civil service reform and the development of new partnerships between stakeholders, local government, central government and the international community and institutions.

2.

It is recommended that the deficiencies in expertise in state fisheries administrations be addressed using innovative approaches, such as the building of partnerships with other governmental and non-governmental organisations, using outside expertise on a project basis, and the sharing of regional expertise.

3.

Given the relative importance of fisheries in most countries, it is recommended that fisheries administrations proactively establish collaborative relationships with other institutions, especially those whose activities also impact on the health of the coastal and marine environment and thus the fisheries resources.

4.

It is recommended that fishery managers explore management approaches which are less demanding of data and expertise and which rely to a greater extent on management reference points based on agreement among stakeholders, the precautionary principle and the guidelines for responsible fishing .

5.

It is recommended that inter-state co-operation for management of shared, highly migratory and straddling stocks be pursued on several fronts:

5.1. The promotion and support multi- or bilateral initiatives to co-operate in management of specific resources, e.g. flyingfish; 5.2. The promotion and support of regional and subregional organisations that can provide a forum for co-operative management of some stocks and which can provide collective representation at international fora; and 5.3. Support for participation of countries and regional organisations in the activities of international fishery management organisations. 6.

It is recommended that the barriers to effective and sustainable collective grassroots action be researched in collaboration with the fisherfolk so as to inform which approaches to management are most feasible.

7.

It is recommended that determining the most effective approaches to reorienting and building the capacity of fisherfolk organisations for fisheries management be a priority for action research.

8.

It is recommended that research on the ways Caribbean states and fishing industries may arrive at mutually acceptable arrangements for governance within the contexts of their various resources, cultures and socio-economic situations be carried out.

9.

It is recommended that integration of fisheries into coastal area management be pursued in the form of pilot projects in participatory coastal planning and management.

10.

It is recommended that research on ways to improve communication among stakeholders be carried out with emphasis on dialogue on management reference points and fisheries advice


based on local knowledge. Particular attention should be paid to the role of facilitatory NGOs in this process. 11.

It is recommended that fisheries organisations and administrations explore ways of encouraging university faculty from all relevant disciplines to take an interest in fisheries problems.

12.

It is recommended that CARIFORUM countries establish an organisation or institutional arrangement which will routinely compile, synthesise, evaluate and share fishery information required for ongoing management advice.

13.

It is recommended that increased south/south co-operation be promoted among research institutions, including liaison of CARIFORUM institutions with institutions such as ICLARM, the Forum Fisheries Agency and the various Fishery Commissions in the eastern Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans.

14.

It is recommended that state and regional organisations explore innovative approaches to enhancing private sector fisheries consulting capacity

15.

It is recommended that research be carried out into mechanisms for sharing the expenses and responsibilities of MCS and management in general among stakeholders. This is an area with potential for participatory research.

16.

It is recommended that interactions between foreign and local vessels and the relationships between fishers and enforcement agencies be investigated.

17.

It is recommended that an information service review fisheries literature for information of probable interest to Caribbean clients and communicate it in a regular newsletter or have it available through a database.

18.

It is recommended that collaborative mechanisms for conducting and evaluating research, and disseminating research results, be employed wherever feasible.

19.

It is recommended that long term research on Caribbean fisheries be sponsored and promoted principally by government, academic/research institutions and the stakeholders.

20.

It is recommended that research priorities be set on the basis of the information fisheries administrations must seek to receive from fisherfolk in the exercise of good governance.


Annex 12 - Governance of fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific Islands region by Dr Tim J.H. Adams Fisheries Resource Adviser South Pacific Commission Noumea

Introduction In any fisheries review involving the term governance, recent experience suggests that is still necessary to define what the word actually means. As with many words and phrases adapted by policy analysts to describe broad concepts, such as “bio-diversity” and “sustainable”, there are a variety of shades of meaning, many of which are some way removed from the original intention. To most people, “governance” is what governments do. This impression is unfortunate when the very reason that the word is being brought to the forefront is to try and describe a process which emphasises non-governmental levels of action. The trick to conveying understanding is perhaps always to give “governance” an object. For example, the governance of a country is the way in which a country is governed (which process is often led by a body elected for this purpose, called a government). However, governance under government is only one of the forms of governance. Governance of a company is the way in which it is managed or administered (Sinclair, 1995). Governance of a fishery then must be the way in which the fishery is managed, by whoever is managing it. But we already know that fisheries management action can be carried out across a whole spectrum of levels and societal interactions, from the individual, through the community and national government, to the international organisation (Adams, 1996). So why do we have two words relating to fisheries management and governance - covering essentially the same process? Obviously, the word governance has come to have a special meaning in political science, and comes with a whole evolving set of principles attached (McGlade, 1994; UNDP, 1996a & b). But the term fisheries management already encompasses these principles, in some of its many incarnations. Should we use the terms fisheries management and fisheries governance interchangeably? Perhaps not. The word governance is intended to make people stop and think about non-governmental roles in fora where the word management is too often taken to refer to purely governmental action or, as Nauen (1996) suggests, technocratic and narrowly science-based expressions of fisheries management. The term co-management (e.g. Pomeroy & Williams, 1994) was adapted with a similar aim in mind - to express the need for non-governmental involvement in management, and for a management mechanism that takes people (particularly, in the North American context, indigenous people) into account as well as resource stock dynamics. The very fact that these altered wordings keep arising suggests that there is a continued need to consciously bear in mind the broader aspects of fisheries management. In fisheries research, assessment of the dynamics and interactions of populations is important, but it is not always remembered that one of those populations is always Homo sapiens. The term fisheries governance, in the context of this review, then is a particular type of fisheries management which, to paraphrase Nauen (1995), acknowledges the importance of societal interaction, reciprocity between government and governed, and the normalisation of only those rules meeting a high degree of social consensus. For example, it side-steps the conventional fisheries management


approach that “measures that are good for the fish stock must be for the long-term good of the fishers” with the pragmatic view that “management rules that are difficult to comply with will not be much practical use in sustaining the resource”. Under most of the definitions recently put forward, good governance is not so much a term used to describe a broad concept, like “management”, but more to describe a particular philosophy of management, like “democracy”, “communism”, “anarchy”, or even “quality circles”. It is a management philosophy that is not purely “top-down”, it emphasises the word “community” and, like all good management approaches, makes extensive use of dialogue and mutual agreement before taking action. The Pacific Islands region has had considerable and varied experience of fisheries governance mechanisms, both good and bad. However, as with the commonly-protested scarcity of “conventional” fisheries research in support of management, there has also been very little societal research relating to the practical consequences of fisheries management in the region. This review of governance will thus of necessity consist mainly of anecdote and opinion. Pacific Island governments have been eloquent in support of implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) over oceanic fisheries, but they have not been as quick to try and take over comprehensive control of coastal fisheries management, as has been suggested by McGlade (1994) to be the case by other governments. This has been because most Pacific Islands already have a strong tradition of local-area fishing rights ownership, wielded by communities and local chiefs. In the Pacific Islands, almost all the voters, and certainly most of the traditional power brokers, live in the coastal zone, and the majority of them make full use of their fisheries, and resist attempts to abrogate their authority. There are of course exceptions and differences across such a heterogeneous mix of societies, but in general, the Pacific Islands seem to have retained more of a “governance” component in their coastal fisheries management measures than other regions, and are actually sitting a considerable way along McGlade’s (1994) recommended path towards local property rights, community management regimes and broad recognition of the complex nature of resources. Even though the Pacific Islands may have retained enough of a traditional infrastructure to be a relatively good foundation for the application of good governance principles, most governments have not until recently given active encouragement to community or traditional participation in coastal fisheries management. In a few cases there has been active discouragement, but the majority, until recently, have not pursued any policy at all and have been restricted to crisis management (usually involving an export commodity). Also, the Pacific Islands traditional philosophy of restricted use-rights over marine resources that was so enthusiastically extended to 200 miles from shore under UNCLOS, is not completely identical to a philosophy of governance that seeks consensual acceptance of all rules between government and governed. Instead, like most societies, it can be rather authoritarian when it comes to listening to the views of resource-users from outside the system. Indeed, the offshore is perhaps one area where the concept of governance needs some clarification in relation to fisheries management. “Fisheries governance” is generally taken to apply to the relationship between those in authority over a fishery and those who participate in a fishery or otherwise use a resource. But how exactly should governance principles apply to the international and transboundary relationships that are so important in certain aspects of highly migratory fisheries management, where “authority” is currently more nominal than actual? Just what do “local property rights” and “community management regimes” mean in this context? Adams (1996) points out that each fishery in each society has its own different “balance point” on the scale of management intervention. Some fisheries are more effectively managed by governments or intergovernmental bodies and some are more effectively managed by local communities and nongovernment bodies, with various mixtures in between. There is no universal fisheries management panacea, neither the Individual Transferable Quota quoted by the economist, nor the Marine Protected Area quoted by the conservationist, nor the Traditional Usage Right over Fisheries quoted by the anthropologist, nor even perhaps the Good Governance system quoted by the political scientist. There


must be a careful consideration of all the options and, above all, strong dialogue and feedback between all participants. However, it is clear that more emphasis on socially-appropriate fisheries governance systems is very desirable, and probably long overdue in most countries, and this is an area which the Pacific Islands region can perhaps hope to help illuminate for the benefit of the rest of the world. And not only the rest of the world, but also for certain governments and community leaders within the region itself. There are a multitude of lessons being learned but, unfortunately, not many of them are being recorded or remembered.

Types of fishery within the Pacific Islands region In terms of their management, there are three main types of fishery in the Pacific Islands region:1. Oceanic fisheries: fisheries for tropical tuna, which are carried out mainly by distant-water fishing vessels of non-Pacific Island nations, within the EEZ’s of, and high seas adjacent to, Pacific Island nations. Within the SPC Fisheries Statistical Area (see Fig. 1), excluding Philippines and Indonesian waters, this fishery currently catches around 1 million tonnes per year whole weight of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) (SPC, 1996). 2. Coastal fisheries for domestic consumption: multispecies, mainly reef and lagoon, fisheries carried out mainly by Pacific Island nationals in the small-scale commercial and artisanal sectors, using hook and line, net, spear, traditional trap or weir and hand-collection. This interlinked series of fisheries takes around 90,000 tonnes per year, of several hundred species of fish and invertebrates, within the territorial waters of SPC Island member countries and territories (Dalzell et al., 1996). 3. Coastal fisheries for export: a more limited range of species, generally those which are not consumed locally and/or which obtain a high price overseas, are exported, mainly to Chinesespeaking areas of the world. These fisheries are carried out mainly by Pacific Islanders and are relatively low in total volume: probably less than 10,000 tonnes per year exported weight, within the territorial waters of SPC Island member countries and territories (Dalzell et al., 1996). (Note: the products of these fisheries are often subject to considerable processing whereas the products of the domestic food fishery are generally marketed fresh, although live export is becoming more common). (There are other fisheries that can be distinguished as a management class, notably the tourist game sport-fishery, but they are of minor importance across the region as a whole. There are also distinct sub-sets of the classes described above, notably the small-scale Pacific Island-owned longline oceanic fishery and the aquarium fish coastal export fishery, but it is probably not useful to separate these out in this brief discussion of general principles.)


Figure 1. SPC fisheries statistical area Governance aspects of the management of these three main fishery types are considered under each heading as follows:-

Oceanic Fisheries The management of western tropical Pacific tuna fisheries has long been a major item on the regional political agenda. Indeed, it is perhaps one of the few major unifying influences on the heterogeneous mixture of communities that make up the Pacific Islands region. This is both because the fishery is seen as very important in the future economic development of all of these otherwise resource-poor islands, and because the fishery has, until recently, been almost entirely carried out by distant-water fishing nations, thus promoting internal regional unity in the face of external interests. [B2] As more commercial oceanic fishery capacity is taken up by Pacific Islanders themselves, and more Pacific Island nations become “fishing nations” as well as “coastal States”, this solidarity is expected to erode. But in the first decade and a half of its life, as a result of that solidarity, the Forum Fisheries Agency has been able to promote surprising progress for an under-developed region in the implementation of certain international fisheries governance principles. Other regional ocean fisheries management bodies tend to have had more of a mixture of opposing interests amongst their membership.


“Governance”, in the context of transboundary, oceanic, commercial fisheries obviously has a different scope from that of national and community fisheries. For example, the fact that national interests are clearly identifiable tends to bring government even more to the fore, and several nations are primarily represented on the Forum Fisheries Committee not by fisheries managers but by foreign affairs officials, without thinking this at all remarkable. Only two Pacific island nations, Fiji and Solomon Islands, currently have a significant national capacity in the industrial-scale fishery, landing tuna to domestic canneries. This capacity has been fairly static for some time, and the ownership of the industry is overwhelmingly governmental (or domestic government-foreign joint-venture). As a consequence, there has been little scope for nongovernmental involvement in the Pacific Islands side of the management of oceanic fisheries, even if such had been considered possible given the sovereignty issues that the international consideration of these fisheries always raises. But with the recent increasing involvement of private sector small-scale longlining in several Pacific Island countries, some means of taking non-governmental fishing industry views into account will have to be developed. In Fiji, for example, this has been through attempts to set up fishing industry advisory councils and the development of lobbying associations. So far, the utility of such associations has been greatly diminished by internal rivalry, particularly the competition for government concessions and incentives, and so far there has been no external challenge strong enough to draw the private-sector operators into accord for long. Although the independent nations of the Pacific Islands region have been able to implement some comparatively decisive and conservation-oriented international tuna fishery management interventions through the Forum Fisheries Agency this has, as mentioned, been largely as a result of the convergence of views possible within the limited scope of the membership, which involves only coastal States. From some distant-water fishing fleet points of view, this restricted dialogue falls well short of the principles of good governance. The Pacific Island nations have been seriously considering the potentials and pitfalls of more formal and open tuna fishery management arrangements both amongst themselves and with distant-water fishing nations for some time, starting with the conferences that led to the establishment of the Forum Fisheries Agency in 1978 (see Herr, 1990), followed by the inconclusive consultations towards a management arrangement for South Pacific albacore fisheries (see Adams, 1990) that were sparked by the “long driftnets” controversy in 1988/9, and interspersed throughout by meetings of the countries party to the Nauru Agreement to discuss the allocation of licences for purse-seining in the western tropical Pacific. It would be futile to go into detail about the international management of Pacific Island oceanic fisheries here, since circumstances are changing so rapidly as a result of the long-delayed coming into force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. A series of international consultations involving major stakeholders in the Western tropical Pacific tuna fishery is taking place with a view to reaching agreement on the form that the future management regime will take (see SPC/FFA, 1996). However, it is a general principle (and one of the principles behind certain government’s espousal of ITQ systems (Kearney, 1996)) that resource owners tend, on average, to be more conservationoriented than unenfranchised resource users. Some Pacific Island fisheries managers feel worried, not just by the diminution of sovereignty implied by the admittance of distant-water fishing nations into the Pacific Islands region tuna fishery decision-making process, but that the balance of decisionmaking may tip too far in favour of purely exploitative interests. Taking these worries into account, and building in mechanisms to address them, has become a major item on the agenda of the facilitators of this international consultative process. The Pacific Islands region is by no means homogeneous either in its tuna fisheries or in its political approach to the management of these fisheries. There are definite sub-regional interests and rivalries that have often threatened to jeopardise the solidarity that provided the economic bargaining platform for the small islands of the region in the past. The “western tropical Pacific” tuna fishery is traditionally the major factor in all regional deliberations, but this fishery for surface-swimming skipjack and yellowfin, caught mainly by purse-seiners and destined for canneries, is most prolific ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 24

from 10°N to 10°S and towards the western margin of the Pacific. The FFA subgroup of “parties to the Nauru Agreement” that was self-convened to consider this fishery excludes a large number of Pacific Island countries, amongst them most of the Polynesian islands, and this has been an occasional cause of tension. The large-scale longline and troll (and, for a short time, driftnet) fishery for southern albacore, although this is a much smaller fishery, concerns mainly the countries to the south of the region, and does not significantly involve any of the parties to the Nauru Agreement. The small-scale longline fishery for yellowfin and bigeye “sashimi” tuna is much broader in geographical scope than both of the other two major fisheries, with Pacific Island vessels active in all corners of the region, but with a high level of distant-water fleet activity in Micronesia. Balancing these various factors, and building mechanisms to account for inevitable future changes in the balance and type of oceanic fisheries, will also be a major concern for all participants in the continuing consultative process. Finally, regarding governance mechanisms, it should perhaps be noted that Pacific Island nations have already delegated many aspects of the management of tuna fisheries to the regional level, and make most decisions collectively through the Forum Fisheries Committee, guided by the scientific advice of the South Pacific Commission. Virtually all tuna fishery data-processing is done at regional level (and national databases are now satellites of the regional database, rather than being the fundamental database building blocks of the early 1980s), whilst virtually all bilateral access agreement negotiations involve the advisory services of the Forum Fisheries Agency. A significant part of the regional tuna fishery is now managed entirely at the regional level, through the multilateral Pacific Island - USA access agreement administered by the Forum Fisheries Agency. (It is perhaps notable that the “fishing community”, in the form of private-sector US fishing industry representatives, has a substantial voice in the regular consultations that occur between the national parties to this treaty).

Coastal food fisheries At the government level, small-scale fisheries for domestic consumption tend to be managed mainly by inertia. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In general, there has never been much need for government coastal fishery management intervention because of the continuing tradition in most areas of community marine tenure, and of management at the local level. Most governments maintain a basic set of “passive” legal measures, set in place some years ago by colonial governments to help in mitigating major damage to resources. These include minimum size limits that can be applied particularly at the point of sale, and limitations on the type of gear that can be used for commercial fishing, such as minimum mesh sizes. In most countries, any legal measures do not apply to subsistence fisheries. Active measures such as quotas, that would require continuous monitoring or feedback to adjust and apply, are virtually non-existent (see Campbell & Lodge, 1994) and would be almost impossible to apply, using purely governmental action, to this type of diffuse, multispecies, artisanal fishery (although they have been applied to single-species commercial export fisheries (see later), particularly trochus fisheries in countries where the shell has been introduced outside its natural range (Clarke et al., 1995). Although active management by Government is limited, these food fisheries are usually subject to active governance by local communities. In the Pacific Islands, a large proportion of the people fish regularly themselves, and the state of fisheries and the state of the lagoon are major topics of everyday conversation. Information and action can be very closely linked at the community level. However, the strength of the community-government linkage and feedback mechanism varies greatly from place to place, and it is usually weaker than it should be for a healthy governance system. There has been great variation across different Pacific Island countries in the way that governments approach the issue of managing community linkages. Although a long tradition of marine tenure is a fairly common characteristic across different Pacific Island societies (perhaps enhanced in comparison to prehistoric continental coastal societies because the prospects for a nomadic lifestyle are limited on a small island), modern government approaches to community tenure have ranged from acceptance and support, to attempts to extirpate it entirely.


As an example of “nationalisation” of fishing rights, the declaration of what was arguably the world’s major national “exclusive economic zone” (a geographical box from 15°S to 25.3°S and from 173°W to 177°W) by Tonga in 1887 (Petelo et al., 1995), also signalled the formal take-over of all local fishing rights by the Tongan Crown. But although the decision-making responsibility of local communities is legally eroded, they still have influence. For example, the circles of giant clams that have been gathered on the lagoon floor by the Ministry of Fisheries in an attempt to improve the prospects for density-dependent fertilisation in these endangered molluscs, only survive human predation when they are within waters controlled by villages. In some other countries, the denial of village-level responsibility has been less formal, but more of a long-standing policy, justified by over-exploitation problems that are commonly experienced in entrepreneurial export commodity fisheries (see later), or by the use of destructive fishing methods (such as dynamite) by an irresponsible minority (although the latter has become gradually less common in most areas since the end of World War II). Or, from even earlier years, the desire by certain colonial governments to exploit marine export commodities to the full, particularly pearl and pearl shell. At the other end of the scale, customary fishing rights have been enshrined in law in several countries with varying degrees of comprehensiveness. Legal recognition of these rights and the role of rightsowners in management, is particularly strong in Fiji, whilst retaining a notable degree of flexibility (including the definition and redefinition of rights by tribunal). At the present time, it would probably be fair to state that traditional fishing rights are increasing in strength across the region generally, not just because fisheries departments are finally realising the problems of trying to actively manage village fisheries themselves, but because of a general groundswell of public opinion in favour of strengthening community values. Bob Johannes’ book “Words of the Lagoon” (Johannes, 1978) has been influential here, bridging, as it does, the worlds of the fisheries biologist and the anthropologist. Some of this new encouragement for community management has reached formal expression, such as the Cook Islands Fisheries Act of 1989 which devolves considerable management responsibility to local Island Councils (although these do not necessarily coincide with traditional leadership). In terms of the maintenance of sustainable food fisheries, the poor formal linkage between Pacific Islands government and community experienced in recent years has not mattered a great deal, since these domestic food fisheries do not appear to have been critically overexploited in most areas, and are generally still capable of sustaining much of the protein nutrition of existing users despite the very high fish-consumption of Pacific Islanders (Adams et al., in press). In addition, the lack of formal government-community interaction is often mitigated by a high level of personal contact between government officers and communities. Indeed, on some small islands, a fisheries officer may be related to a significant number of the inhabitants (pers. obs.). However, these Pacific Island domestic food-fisheries are overwhelmingly subsistence fisheries, and commercialisation is inevitably gaining importance, as has already been happening in some of the more economically developed countries of the region. Commercialisation, at least the type of entrepreneurial venture that is being heavily promoted by most governments of the region, carries with it a strong motivation for constant expansion, and involves only a small number of specialists, which is somewhat at odds with the subsistence approach where a large number of part-time users fish only for long enough to satisfy their immediate requirements. As the western world knows to its cost, the carrying capacity of the natural environment for any one fishery (although it is cyclical in magnitude, as is becoming evident) provides an inevitable limit to commercial growth. The rectification of overcapitalisation is now one of the main problems facing the administration (i.e. the governance) of many modern commercial fisheries (Mace, in press). Pacific Island countries follow events in external fisheries with interest and are prepared to learn from the lessons offered. For example, following the restructuring of the New Zealand and Australian fishing industries (with the removal of excess capacity through the introduction of individual transferable quota systems in the late 1980s), and the saturation of certain fisheries in Hawaii, there was a massive demand for entry into the Fiji deepwater snapper and small-scale tuna longline fisheries by new joint-venture fishing companies. The Fiji Fisheries Division decided to risk the wrath of ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 26

potential investors and national planners alike and erect legislation which would limit the issue of licences in these fisheries in 1990. This decision came under criticism not only from economic development planners, but also from external fishery experts who pointed out that such a restriction was hardly justifiable on biological grounds, given the underexploited state of the western tropical Pacific tuna fishery. However, this management decision was not taken on biological grounds, but on economic grounds, with the main intention being the avoidance of fishery overcapitalisation, and overburdening existing infrastructure. There was a conscious decision that the limits of this fishery ought to be approached asymptotically and not by the usual path of over-investment and retrenchment. It was felt that the possible price to be paid in lost investment opportunity was much less than the price that would otherwise almost certainly be paid in bankruptcy and industry restructuring. This management action was notable not only because it was pre-emptive and non biologically based, but because it was taken with the consensual accord of existing fishers. Indeed, existing fishers were very happy to see further entry into the fishery restricted at the time, and the support of industry was one of the main reasons why the measure could be made into law over the objections of development planners, and why it could be effectively implemented with very little extra overhead on the fisheries department. The subsequent management path of the Fiji small-scale longline fishery has not been completely smooth, of course, but the initial implementation is a good example of how the application of governance principles can assist the task of management in certain fisheries. Measures that have the consent of all parties stand a much smaller risk of either being ignored or flouted. Although this example was from a tuna fishery, the same consensual principles apply to coastal fisheries. To take another example from Fiji, the introduction of a law banning the taking or ownership of triton trumpet shells, Charonia tritonis, in 1976 was based on admirable ecological principles tritons are one of the few predators of the Crown-of-thorns starfish that are occasionally so damaging to coral reefs - but did not take any social factors into account. Triton shells are of major cultural significance in Fijian society and, as a result, this complete ban is unenforceable. Although Pacific Island domestic food-fisheries have been manageable, by and large, at the community level without active Government intervention, inexorable trends of increasing commercialisation and increasing population will require some adaptation. Pacific Islands governments, as well as appreciating that these domestic food fisheries cannot be controlled entirely at the government level, are also coming to appreciate that they cannot continue to leave the entire responsibility within the hands of local communities (in many cases without government even being aware that this is what it is doing). Governments both need to recognise the rôle that communities already play in the management of food fisheries in many islands (to devolve some of the formal responsibility back to the community level and to improve linkages with communities), but also to be able to provide a superstructure to supplement and support community capabilities, particularly when it comes to dealing with outsiders, with entrepreneurial approaches, and facilitating communication and experience-sharing between communities. The other area of fisheries management concern, which will require better linkage between formal and community sectors, is in the governance of fisheries close to urban areas and capital islands. The factors of high population density, the urban drift of large numbers of people unlinked to local fisheries access systems, increased commercial fishing pressure, and even the developed-world concept of sport-fishing, all combine to make fisheries close to urban areas one of the main priority targets for improving the governance aspects of fisheries management in Pacific Island countries. In some urban areas, traditional fishing rights ownership systems may have broken down entirely, and modern co-management mechanisms involving new community associations and special interest groups may be necessary. Thankfully, these urban areas are not hopelessly numerous. Pacific Island urban hierarchies are extremely “macrocephalic”, and there is often only one major population concentration in each country, around the capital city or island (Doumenge, in press). Most Pacific Island fisheries departments are actually very young. Colonial governments did not take much notice of fisheries in the Pacific, concentrating most of their interest on agriculture, and it was recognised early that there was little scope for commercial development of reef and lagoon fisheries (apart from certain specialised export commodities covered in the next section). Fisheries Departments ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 27

as a distinct entity within Pacific Island governments did not start to come into being until the late 1950s. Many countries did not have any governmental administration of fisheries until the 1970s or ‘80s, and this was often driven as much by the need to consider the management of distant water tuna fisheries under the new ownership of EEZs, as to manage domestic fisheries. Nowadays most Pacific Island fisheries departments are administratively mature and, realising that it is impossible to completely manage multispecies subsistence reef fisheries at the government level, feel able to step back and allow local communities more scope to exercise the custodial capabilities that they have long possessed (in western Melanesia, local tenurial traditions may have existed for tens of thousands of years). However, it is apparent that the encroachments of the cash economy, urbanisation, and the subtle destabilising influence of off-island educational systems, mean that traditions of customary fisheries tenure cannot cope alone and that many communities will require a considerable measure of support and co-operation in order to adapt to changing circumstance. In summary, the development of workable systems of fisheries governance, that involve both government and non-government levels of responsibility, and a high level of dialogue, are probably the only realistic way forward. The highest-priority domestic food-fisheries for governance action are likely to be in areas where existing community systems have been perturbed to the greatest extent - in food-fisheries which are becoming highly commercialised, and near urban areas.

Coastal export fisheries Coastal export fisheries are separated here from coastal domestic fisheries because, as well as usually involving different species, they normally involve different types of governance, even though they are both carried out mainly by rural Pacific Islanders. The domestic food fisheries which make up the bulk of day-to-day fishing activities, as mentioned above, tend to require little government interference. By contrast, it is the export fisheries which take up most of the time of government fisheries officers involved in coastal fisheries management, not usually because of a strategic policy decision that these fisheries need more intervention, but because this is where they are most often called in to play a reactive “fire-fighting” role and address urgent problems identified by the fishing community, by politicians, or by the general public. The reasons for this difference may be several:• the marine organisms exploited for export are often not species that are traditionally used for food. Fewer traditional mechanisms controlling their harvest may have evolved, with thus fewer restraints on overexploitation. (This argument is not put forward strongly since traditional governance techniques, where they exist, can also easily be invoked for non-traditional fisheries. It is not the organism that matters so much as the way the fishing is carried out). • because these are species that are not traditionally used for food, the need to harvest is not continuous (as with staple protein sources), and can be carried out as an occasional pulse fishery to suit the availability of marketing opportunities. These pulses can be carried out at a level that would be considered gross overfishing in a regime that aimed to maintain a continuous harvest, but which will enable the population to recover before the next pulse is due. (However, it is unlikely that such strategic decisions to govern a fishery by “pulsed harvesting” are made in all cases, since there is little traditional knowledge about the regeneration time of some of the newer resources. Also, some of the fisheries for organisms which are traditionally known to be slow-maturing (like giant clam) were carried out at levels beyond even the most optimistic hopes of recovery within a reasonable time-frame.) • Organisms that are not used much for food are perhaps not seen as a high priority for maintenance. Where the community has a need for cash (and all Pacific Island communities have a need for cash, if only to pay church tithes and school fees) coastal marine resources are often the only ready source of income, and the small fraction of species that fetch good cash prices are perhaps less


reluctantly overexploited than those that sustain the family. It should be noted that a high price on the export market does not mean that a species is highly valued locally, and the most vigorous local management measures are probably applied to the most locally high-valued species. • Unlike Pacific island food fisheries, where exploitation is spread widely across the whole resourcebase, the opportunities for earning cash in remote island communities are confined to the very narrow range of high value species (and/or non-perishable products) that are economically feasible to export under conditions of high transport costs and minimal economies of scale. Overexploitation is thus much more likely for the narrowly-based cash fisheries than for the widely-based food fisheries. • Export commodity fisheries are always cash fisheries. All exports from the Pacific Islands have to have a fairly high unit value to offset high economic overheads, and high unit value commodities tend to attract the type of investor who is more interested in making a quick profit than maintaining a fishery. The phrases “fly-by-night”, “carpet-bagger” and “reef-rapist” have all been noted in official correspondence about such fisheries by SPC member country fisheries officers. These phrases are perhaps a little unkind. A lot of the investment that is put into Pacific Island export fisheries turns out to be overinvestment because of over-optimism engendered by the sheer lack of information about the prospects for these fisheries, both on the government and the private sector side. Even where information is available, the opportunity for the proper vetting of investment proposals is often not given, particularly where there are pressures for “fast-track” approval and deregulation to “reduce the overhead on the private sector”. This is one aspect of fisheries governance, within the government system itself, that needs attention, although the increasing tendency for private sector lending institutions to consult fisheries administrations before giving loans is welcome. • Although harvesting itself is usually carried out by Pacific Islanders, the commercial side of Pacific Island export fisheries is usually carried out either by foreigners, or by non-traditional entrepreneurs. A major part of the fishery is thus outside the oversight of any traditional or community management mechanism. The constraint that many Pacific Islands nations place on foreign seafood export businesses - that all harvesting be carried out by nationals (and often from their own fishing grounds) - is occasionally a two-edged sword, since traditional marine tenure would usually be well capable of regulating access by outsiders. It is less efficient at restricting access by members of the rights owning group (particularly when - as is often the case - it is a prominent member of the rights-owning group who is sponsoring the exploitation), or in manipulating the external factors of marketing and public opinion. Distilling all these considerations together, the two main factors behind the high level of government “fire-fighting” intervention in Pacific island export fisheries are the fact that these fisheries are usually perceived as being overexploited and that they involve entirely cash-oriented external trade. It would be instructive to perform a time-and-motion study on the activities of the average Pacific Island fisheries department. Most would probably show that the greatest amount of time is spent on export fisheries, including addressing complaints by fishing communities, vetting investment proposals, answering complaints and concerns by the public, and providing information for the Minister and politicians about export fisheries. Most of the official management plans and policies that are drawn up are for these fisheries, since these are where most of the problems are perceived to lie, even though they are usually a small percentage of the overall coastal fishery. How is the governance of these fisheries to be improved? This review will not attempt to provide comprehensive answers, which would inevitably be glib given the amount of consideration that still remains to be given to the topic, and given the different circumstances across the 22 island countries and territories of the region. Improved co-ordination of seafood export investment/development proposal appraisal amongst different government departments has already been mentioned as one major bottleneck in preventing over-, or foolish, investment in many countries. Another major need is


for the development of strategic plans that provide more of a chance for tackling problems at root, rather than the present desperate fighting of continual rearguard actions. Most of the information necessary to address the question of improving the management of Pacific Island export fisheries would have to be drawn out through a coherent in-country review involving interviews with Pacific Island fisheries staff, trade officials, entrepreneurs and the fishing community. However, even here, in completely cash-oriented fisheries, the fact that the communities doing most of the fishing are the same communities that do most of the domestic food fishing means that the governance approach of increased local responsibility, better dialogue, and consensual decisions should carry considerable promise. Community-initiated and enforced moratoria over local trochus fisheries are a traditional tendency in parts of Melanesia and villages have responded remarkably to public education and encouragement from Government fisheries officers in Vanuatu (Jimmy, 1995). Indeed, moratoria and limited commercial fishery openings, proposed and enforced by customary authorities, are probably one the most promising socially-appropriate tools that can be brought to bear on the problem of managing over-exploited Pacific Island export commodity fisheries. “Marine Protected Areas”, provided that ownership is not taken away by the State and that the MPA-owning community has control over the disposition of any harvest (either from “spillover” into surrounding owned areas, or from temporary opening or rotation of the area itself), are another way of describing this tool.

Governance of Aquaculture The governance of aquaculture is not a major issue in the Pacific Islands region at present. Aquaculture is of minor importance compared to fisheries, and has not yet led to major contention. However, it is an issue that will need to be increasingly addressed in the future, and the region will need to be prepared to adapt the best of aquaculture governance systems evolved in other regions. That having been said, several issues are perhaps relevant:• Aquaculture projects that are based on trying to produce an exportable commodity generally have not done well in the Pacific Islands, whilst the domestic commercial market for fish is high-priced enough, in relation to the overall cost of production, to make aquaculture for domestic markets an economically sustainable proposition in many countries. The recent growth of Tilapia farming in Fiji seems to bear this out. Another specific market that holds promise is the large demand for bait by expanding Pacific Islands-based small-scale tuna longline fleets. Livebait works well, and aquaculture can ensure a steady supply of hardy species like milkfish, the culture of which has been long-established in Kiribati, and could be expanded in other countries. These are both (tilapia and milkfish) farming systems that can be carried out on a very small-scale, requiring minimal capital investment and providing subsistence nutritional spin-offs. Yet these small-scale diffuse aquaculture activities are not particularly attractive to foreign investment, and may not generate much foreign exchange, so considerable government effort is instead diverted towards trying to develop export-based aquaculture industries that are only sustainable as long as they are propped up by government concessions on taxes or tariffs. • Many Pacific Island countries have no legal or even policy infrastructure to govern aquacultural development. Whilst agricultural norms are often adapted to apply to land-based ponds, cage-, raft, or pen-culture in marine areas has to take into account the whole different set of established values inherent in customary marine tenure. For example, in Fiji, it is technically feasible for the Lands Department to issue a lease over a portion of seabed, but under current law, if that portion of seabed falls within a registered customary fishing rights area (an occurrence which is almost inevitable), the disposition of any organism cultivated there appears to be legally under the control of the registered fishing rights owners, not the cultivator. Indeed, if the cultivator had to use a net to collect these organisms, or if these organisms were to be caught for sale by any other method apart from spear, they would a require an annual fishing licence which would only be issued by the government with the written consent of the traditional custodian. Of course this means in practice


that any potential sea-farmer from outside the system must maintain the goodwill of the customary rights owners, and this in itself is a factor promoting good governance, in the sense of promoting dialogue between stakeholders. However, it does leave potential commercial farmers a little vulnerable to changes in circumstance, and is guaranteed to make lending institutions nervous.. • Aquaculture is a fairly new concept in most Pacific Islands, and even where forms of aquaculture were traditionally practised, they were never widespread. There is thus not the comprehensive base of grassroots tradition and local interest to guide the governance of aquaculture as there is with domestic food fisheries, and a large part of the initial burden will thus fall on government. Although there is little commercial aquaculture in place, Pacific Island fisheries offices are bombarded with a large number of speculative aquaculture proposals from potential investors from all parts of the world, and most of these require a high degree of specialist knowledge to appraise. Many of them contain no details since they involve supposedly proprietary technology. A lot of Pacific Island countries do not have the specialist knowledge nationally available to decide whether a proposal is realistic, or if it is simply a vehicle for a tax write-off, or to access the investment funds that are available only to joint-venture partnerships with indigenous people. • Although aquacultural production is minuscule in relation to coastal fisheries production in the region, and although aquaculture has not yet led to any major governance headaches, aquaculture research and development support actually consumes a major part of the research budget and staff activity of some Pacific Island fisheries departments (Adams et. al., 1995). This is perhaps an appropriate positive strategic response to problems of declining food production from the capture fishery, but it has been alternatively suggested that this is perhaps a good example of large foreign aid projects having an unbalancing influence on the direction of domestic fisheries policy.

Geographical scales of governance In this review so far, we have discussed some of the roles of governments and communities, and the relationship between national and local levels in the governance of Pacific Island fisheries. However, the regional inter-governmental level is a further dimension important to the effective governance of Pacific Island fisheries, at least in the medium-term (and possibly beyond, depending on the future expression of Pacific Islands regionalism). The historical decisions by Pacific Island countries to jointly invest in the governance of the western tropical Pacific tuna fishery (with resource research carried out by the South Pacific Commission and co-ordination, compliance and other advisory functions vested in the Forum Fisheries Agency) have already been mentioned, but the regional “economies of scale” factor also works in favour of coastal fisheries governance. The Pacific Islands adjudicate an enormous area of sea, but their human and financial resources are limited. The pooling of expertise and external assistance through regional organisations is one way of mitigating the need to maintain a cadre of national specialists in every discipline, and also provides a medium for the sharing of experience. The very existence of national fisheries departments in many Pacific Island countries owes much to the co-ordination and advisory efforts of the South Pacific Commission in its early years. The regional level is not a decision-making level in Pacific Island coastal fisheries. Indeed, the only trans-boundary coastal zone within the SPC work-area that might mandate a supra-national focus of governance is the common coast of the Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya mainlands, but these two countries are not even within the same political region. But although they lack sovereign authority, existing regional fishery organisations have important educational, expert advisory and co-ordination rôles to play in the governance of local fisheries, and this rôle becomes proportionally more important for smaller countries. One point made in Adams (1996) is that fisheries management is likely to be most effective if the scale of the management unit approximates the scale of the stock. itself. For extremely highly-migratory species like certain great whales, management decisions are perhaps most effectively based on the global scale and an international organisation with an extremely wide membership.


For highly migratory species like tuna, the region is an appropriate scale for consideration, and this is recognised in the existing institutional structure, in the Law of the Sea and in the increasing emphasis that is now being put into research treating the western tropical Pacific “warm pool” as a Large Marine Ecosystem. This is not to say that decision-making should necessarily rest entirely at the regional level, but that decisions should take into account their likely influence across the effective range of the stock, and involve the stakeholders within that entire range. For domestic fisheries in the Pacific Islands, which are overwhelmingly coral reef-associated fisheries, the main decision-making unit (at least in the governance of locally-recruiting species) is probably be at the scale of the individual reef, or small island. National and regional organisations have an important advisory and co-ordination rôle to play, and there are also special cases to be taken into account. These include fisheries which are producing mainly export commodities or which are promoted by broad-area entrepreneurial buyers, and “crisis fisheries” (such as those involving endangered species, or those where local communities structures have broken down), which require a more national focus for decision-making. Some coastal fisheries involving organisms with long-lived lived, widely-drifting larval or juvenile stages may actually be international or inter-island in scope and require a much broader scale of decision-making. Under prevailing current patterns, certain reefs or islands may be disproportionately important as sources of recruitment for several downstream fisheries. The management of the spawning stock in these “source” reefs will have a great influence on any fisheries carried out on “sink” reefs, even if they are in a different country. Unfortunately, little is yet known about the relative importance of such effects, or how widespread such influences are likely to be in practice, or whether more direct attention needs to be paid to their governance at the regional level. In summary, over the Pacific Island region, there are three main geographical levels of focus for the governance of different fisheries:• Regional:

- tuna fisheries

• National:

- coastal fisheries for export

• Local:

- domestic food fisheries

Again, it is not suggested that decision-making power is, or should be, restricted to these levels, but that these particular fisheries are most effectively considered at these particular scales. The aspect of good governance comes into the mechanisms by which these levels are linked; how institutions at each of these levels interact with each other and with the people who do the fishing, and how both the institutions and the people who do the fishing interact with other “stakeholders” in the marine environment (including the other components of the marine environment).

References Adams, T. J. H., 1990. Chairman’s Report from the SPAR Scientific Advisory Group on Albacore to the 3rd Consultation on Arrangements for South Pacific Albacore Fisheries Management. South Pacific Commission & Forum Fisheries Agency, Noumea, New Caledonia, October 1990. Adams, T.J.H., 1996. Modern Institutional Framework for Reef Fisheries Management. pp. 337-360 IN Polunin, N. & C. Roberts (eds.). Reef Fisheries. London, Chapman & Hall, Fish & Fisheries Series.,. Adams, T. J.H., A. Richards, P.J. Dalzell and L. Bell, 1995. Research on Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region. pp. 87-166 IN Dalzell, P. & T. Adams (eds.). Manuscript Collection of Country Statements and Background Papers of the SPC/FFA Workshop on the Management


of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries: Vol. II. Noumea, South Pacific Commission, UK/SPC Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management Project Tech.Doc., 12. Adams, T.J.H., P.J. Dalzell and R. Farman, in press. Status of Pacific Island Reef Fisheries. Proceedings of the 7th International Coral Reef Symposium. Panama. Clarke, R. and J. Ianelli, 1995. Current paradigms in trochus management. pp. 371-414 In Dalzell, P. & T. Adams (eds.). Manuscript Collection of Country Statements and Background Papers of the SPC/FFA Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries: Vol. I). Noumea, South Pacific Commission, UK/SPC Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management Project Tech.Doc., 11. Campbell, W. and M. Lodge (eds.), 1993. Regional Compendium of Fisheries Legislation (Western Pacific Region). Honiara, Solomon Islands: Forum Fisheries Agency, and Rome, Italy: FAO. (GCP/INT/466/NOR, Field Report 93/31, FL/WPSCS/93/19). 3 vols:1707 p. Dalzell, P.J., T.J. H. Adams and N.V.C. Polunin, 1996. Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 34:395-531 Doumenge, J.P., in prep. Urbanization in the Pacific Islands. In Rapaport, M. (ed.). Geography of the Pacific Islands. Honolulu, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Jimmy, R., 1995. Trochus fishery management in Vanuatu. pp. 221-224 In P. Dalzell and T. Adams (eds.). Manuscript Collection of Country Statements and Background Papers of the SPC/FFA Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries: Vol. II. Noumea, South Pacific Commission. UK/SPC Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management Project Tech.Doc., 12. Johannes, R.E., 1980. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 320 p. Kearney, R., 1996. Resource ownership; customary marine tenure and individual transferable quotas. IN Adams, T. & P. Dalzell (eds.). Report on the SPC/FFA Workshop on the Management of Pacific Island Inshore Fisheries, 1995: Keynote Papers and Discussion. . Manuscript pending publication, at Internet URL http:// www.spc.org.nc/ spc/ programs/ coastalfisheries/ icfmap/ reports/ wshop3.htm Mace, P.M., in press. Developing and sustaining world fisheries resources: the state of the science and management. IN Hancock, D.A. & J.P. Beumer (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd World Fisheries Congress. Brisbane, Australian Society for Fish Biology. McGlade, J., 1994. Governance of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Patterns of interaction between society and government. Keynote address at the 1994 Statutory Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Nauen, C.E., 1995. Governance of fisheries and aquaculture in Southern and Eastern Africa and in the Southern Indian Ocean: A short review, and related considerations on flows and communication of research results. ACP-EU Fish.Res.Rep., (1):125-144 Nauen, C.E., N.S. Bangoura and A. Sall, 1996. Governance of aquatic systems in west and central Africa: Lessons of the past, possibilities for the future. ACP-EU Fish.Res.Rep., (2):147-165. Petelo, A., S.V. Matoto and R. Gillett, 1995. The case for community-based fisheries management in Tonga. Pp. 487-493 IN Dalzell, P. & T. Adams (eds.). Manuscript collection of country statements and background papers of the SPC/FFA workshop on the management of South Pacific inshore fisheries: Vol. II. Noumea, South Pacific Commission, Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management Project Tech.Doc., 12. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 33

Herr, R. (ed.), 1990. The Forum Fisheries Agency: Achievements, Challenges and Prospects. FFA Monograph No 2. Suva, Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific. Pomeroy, R.S. and M.J. Williams, 1994. Fisheries Co-management and Small-scale Fisheries: A Policy Brief. Manila, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, 15 p. Ruddle, K., 1996. Traditional management of reef fishing, pp. 315-335 in Polunin, N. & C. Roberts (eds.). Reef Fisheries. London, Chapman and Hall, Fish & Fisheries Series. Sinclair, J. (ed.), 1995. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. London, Harper Collins. SPC, 1996. Status of Tuna Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Working Paper 3 at the SPC 9th Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish. Noumea, South Pacific Commission. UNDP, 1996a. Introduction to UNDP’s Management Development and Governance Division. Internet Document. URL http://www.undp.org/undp/bpps/mdgd/intro.htm UNDP, 1996b. Governance for sustainable human development. UNDP policy paper. Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support. UNDP.

Appendix: Some regional political sub-groupings of Pacific Island states and territories Pacific Island EU-affiliated (“ACP”) countries Fiji Kiribati Papua New Guinea Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Western Samoa Pacific Island EU-affiliated territories ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report (3) - Page 34

Nouvelle Calédonie (Fr) Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie & Oeno (UK) Polynésie Française (Fr) Wallis et Futuna (Fr) Pacific Island US-affiliated countries Federated States of Micronesia Marshall Islands Palau Pacific Island US territories American Samoa (US) Guam (US) Northern Marianas (US) Pacific Island NZ-affiliated countries Cook Islands Niue Pacific Island NZ territories Tokelau (NZ) Others (The following non-contiguous island territory EEZs are nominally within the geographical scope of SPC fisheries work but are not SPC members in their own right) Minami Tori Shima (JA) Bonin (JA) Midway (US) Howland (US) Baker (US) Wake (US) Palmyra (US) Norfolk (Au)
