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 Three summary
• Day three focused on monitoring (for
fisheries and conservation purposes), with a
presentation to set the scene on what has
been tried with successes, challenges and
lessons learned.
• Participants broke into working groups and
results of the discussion were presented
back in plenary in two reporting sessions.
Monitoring challenges
• Considerable expenditure on monitoring of LMMAs and other
similar initiatives ( up to 60% of project budgets).
• In many cases, biological analysis not sufficiently robust to
inform management decisions
• Very little data collection and analysis of social and economic
aspects or wider ecosystem/cumulative effects
• Communities often do not understand the results of
monitoring analysis
• Consequently, monitoring data and analysis not widely used
• BUT adaptive management has continued to occur – but more
on the basis of ‘learning by doing’ rather than being driven by
the results of monitoring
Where to from here
• Major re-think is occurring
• Information and monitoring needs for EAFM
go well beyond expensive and limited UVC and
various transect methods
• Not every site requires the same monitoring;
all need some form of data/ information to
inform management plans and subsequent
adaptation , others will be monitored/
sampled to address particular issues – a tiered
approach
Some key considerations
• Golden rules for the future seemed to be that
monitoring and information gathering/
dissemination should be:
• driven by CEAFM management objectives, on
the basis of need to know, not nice to know
• based on well defined outcomes and be fit for
purpose (management and stakeholders)
• cost/effective and sustainable
• based on the overall needs of coastal
communities, not just ‘showcase’
communities
Discussion groups
•
•
•
•
•
•
Firstly, looked at data and information needs to
inform CEAFM.
Clear differences between what governments and
coastal communities want/need
Very long lists emerged, with considerable diversity
Deciding on priorities was a hard task hard to do,
given that the process needs to be iterative, and
based on specific needs/ sites/ circumstances
Results confirmed the need for ‘fit for purpose’ and
alignment with objectives and outcomes of the
specific CEAFM undertaking
One size will not fit all
Day 3 summary – All GroupsGovernment Needs
Vulnerability of communities and fisheries;
the management needs
Structure of the community, governance and
traditional systems)
Biodiversity values / ecosystem service
Dependency on fisheries resources
Catch and effort
Compliance
Site locations –physical and biological
characteristics
Baselines; stocks, communities, infrastructure
Water quality
Reports of problems – early warning and
planning for follow-up and priority research
Broader ecosystem impacts e.g. watershed
management issues
Outside issues e.g. watershed management
issues sedimentation etc
Compliance
Baselines; stocks, communities, infrastructure
Fish species of high importance to community
Water quality
Habitats
Emerging problems – early warning to plan
mitigation/adaptation
Catch and other fisheries data including
trends, seasonality etc
General data on fish and invertebrates
Site locations - physical and biological
characteristics
Day 3 summary – All Groups
Communities
Enough info to get indicators (what species are
being exploited)
Perception of stock status and trends
Fishing pressure/ levels of harvesting
Description of outside influences (e.g. rivers,
catchment etc, emerging issues (CC?), Ciguatera
Traditional / cultural uses of resources
Status of target/key species
What fish are being caught and trends (recorded
by local fishermen eg markets, CPUE surveys )
Economic opportunities
Recovery time for depleted species
Info on closures – when can I harvest
again?
Aquaculture
Site information - boundaries and key
features (e.g. mangroves, coral cover,
invertebrates etc)
Compliance
What is the management / action plan –
(situation, problems, action needed)
Threats (local and global AND possible
solutions; research, experiences and
findings elsewhere)
“Sustainable Yield”
PM Questions
Made progress on:
• The key elements for a data and information
strategy system
• Data and information storage, security, access
and use
• Evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of
monitoring and information
• The use of monitoring information and data to
influence and inform CEAFM decision making
processes
Day 4
• Day four will focus on collaborations and how we can all
work closer together, with two presentations (one from a
management perspective, the second from a conservation
perspective 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
collaborations (at the national level including assistance
from CROP agencies, NGOs etc), with the results of the
discussion presented back in plenary at the end of the day.
Questions for Day 4
Groups 1 and 3 – Developing Collaboration and
Communication
• What are the barriers to collaboration/communication
and how can they be broken down by working closer
together?
• What are the key collaboration/ communication
strengths of the main players (CROP agencies,
communities, national departments, universities etc) in
relation to CEAFM?
• How can national cooperation, including i) between
government departments and ii) between
governments and NGOs to improve CEAFM outcomes?
• How can current approaches to climate change
(include funding) be harnessed to achieve better
CEAFM outcomes
Questions for Day 4
Groups 2 and 4 – Implementing and maintaining
collaboration
• How best to maintain and extend communication
tools and networks?
• How to collaborate effectively, by drawing on the
strengths of the key players, to deliver CEAFM?
• What are the key principles/considerations that
should drive a standardised approach to EAFM,
ensuring a common message is delivered to
communities?
• How to address the long term sustainable
funding/resourcing of CEAFM initiatives?