Regional workshop on
Approaches to the implementation and
monitoring of community-based ecosystem
approach to fisheries management (CEAFM):
finding common ground between the coastal
fisheries and conservation approaches in the
Pacific
(Noumea, 29 November to 3 December 2010)
Day two summary
Day two focused on key approaches to EAFM
with two presentations on fisheries and
conservation management respectively, to set
the scene and describe what has been tried .
Highlighting successes, challenges and lessons
learned. Participants then divided into groups
to discuss fisheries management and
governance issues with the results of the
discussion presented back in plenary at the end
of the day.
Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3
Key similarities and differences fisheries management (FM)
and marine biodiversity conservation (MBC) approaches
• Many fundamental similarities, including: converging on an
ecosystem based approach; communities and governance
structures ; inadequate resources; regulating and
constraining activities; restraints of budgets and capacity.
• Differences tended to be related to: local (FM) vs global
effects and obligations (MBC); FM uses a wider range of
tools and tends to be single sector; differing value systems
(MBC less $$$) ; different ‘connections’ with communities;
scales – MBC tends to be bigger scale; MBC still tarred with
‘lock it up’ approaches
Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3
What management approaches are common to both and could be
standardized? How?
• Groups Struggled with this question – one group did not tackle it.
• Again noted may similarities/ commonalities – see previous slide
• Some suggestions:
– field trips/questionnaires could be common/coordinated
– community consultation and planning process could be better
integrated
– spatial management, focusing on restricting activities needs to take
account of both FM and DDM issues
– principles and action plans could be developed for both, or at least
with recognition of respective goals and objectives
Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3
•
•
•
•
How can these common management approaches
best incorporate climate change issues and effects.
Both require risk/vulnerability and adaptation
assessments and consider/wish to build resilience –
building resilient communities
Differing approaches to climate change – some mainly
at at national level/mainstreaming and others making
limited specific reference to coastal community
impacts and engagement
Awareness-raise and put issues faced by communities
into the climate change context
Strength in common voice
Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3
•
•
•
•
•
Which of these management approaches are particularly
appropriate for CEAFM?
Biodiversity and Fisheries approaches are both appropriatetake into account species, habitats/ecosystems and people
Biodiversity approach offers more opportunities for a
holistic approach
Fisheries generally has more comprehensive governance
and legal frameworks
Fisheries a domestic issue more so than biodiversity /
conservation (local actions/local benefits)
FM tends to be more ccommunity driven and smaller scales
and based on food security, with local priorities, aactions,
results and respect/support
Day 2 Summary – Groups 1 and 3
How can CEAFM be made sustainable (at the government and community
level) in the medium to long-term.
• Define and make ‘sustainability’ operational and long-term
National / government level
• Enshrined in legislation, (may need development) secure funding /other
support and plan on available resources
• Increase effectiveness of inter-agency cooperation, define roles, be
adaptive
• Provide education and awarness programmes
• Build profile of coastal fisheries
• Reduce/manage costs
Community
• Attention to community governance/empowerment and plan according to
resources
• Generate and maintain community support – manage expectations
• Consider alternative/more diversified community opportunities
• Rewards…/ incentives; not just penalties
• Connectivity and expansion
Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4
What role should the various institutions have in CEAFM?
Government
• Mostly policy and regulatory frameworks, monitoring, enforcement
(some), and coordination (between agencies)
• Devolve appropriate roles to the communities with legislative support.
• Bring whole of government approach.
• Increase approaches incorporating appropriate economic analysis
NGOs
•
•
•
•
Less restricted funding
Direct provision of services including education and awareness
Promotion of wider EAF/integrated approaches (ridges to reef)
Linking community and government and identify problems from
communities
• Assist government in formulating policy;
• Can be a controversial role
Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4
CROP Agencies
• Countries not fully aware what CROP agencies can provide: e.g.
GIS training; habitat mapping, imagery
Others
• Universities - Research and baseline information, capacity
building/training at all levels need to improve linkages with ink
better to CROP + NGOs to deliver/apply results/outputs
• Graduates and research into fisheries management
• Getting the research out to the communities and being used
• Increasing role for Philanthropic institutions; now starting to
influence polices and directions
Communities
Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4
What legislative or policy actions are required to effectively
support CEAFM (e.g. integrated coastal management, etc)?
• More effective enforcement of rules and regulations
including land based activities/planning
• Review of legislation to ensure relevance
• Policies/approaches that look at cumulative impacts
• Trade-based measures
• Adopt ‘conservation’ as a policy priority
• Better integration with management plans and other
sectors
• Empower communities to be able to determine and
enforce local fishing laws
Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4
What is management effectiveness and how can
it be evaluated?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Definition depends on management objectives
Important to distinguish between outcomes (no of
meetings/plans) and what they achieved on the reefs
and in the communities
Plans need inbuilt, indicative measures and low cost,
low tech ways to monitor performance
Anecdotal vs empirical evidence
Role of communities – fit for purpose
Important to assess real success of different
approaches.
Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4
When is community-based management of fisheries
most successful and why?
• True collaboration/engagement with defined goals for
govt., communities and NGOs
• Effective legislative/governance framework leading to
compliance (rather than enforcement where possible)
• Involvement of all stakeholders and common/agreed goals
and with a shared vision and understanding of community
needs
• Demand driven and owned by communities
• Communication, including feedback (vital)
• Communities taking responsibility
• Benefit from both traditional + legal systems
• Realistic, cost-effective and responsive programmes
Day 3
• Day three will focus on monitoring (for fisheries
and conservation purposes), with a
presentations to set the scene on what has been
tried with successes, challenges and lessons
learned.
• Participants will then stay in their same group
as the previous day to discuss specific issues
regarding monitoring (community-based and
national), with the results of the discussion
presented back in plenary at the end of the day.
Questions for Day 3
• First set (groups 1 and 3) on Data Needs and
Collection.
• Second set(groups 2 and 4) on Data Analysis
Storage, and Use