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

1
Regional workshop onApproaches 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)
2
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.

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3

• Which of these management approaches are
  particularly appropriate for CEAFM?
• Biodiversity and Fisheries approaches are both
  appropriate- take 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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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.

12
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

13
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.

14
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