Purwito Martosubroto: Towards strengthening coastal fisheries management in South and Southeast Asia
Rebecca Metzner: Ecosystem-based management and small-scale fisheries: Thinking globally, acting locally
Heiko Seilert: Regional synthesis on the current status of small-scale fisheries management in Asia
Fisheries resources Division
Fisheries Department
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations
Introduction
Marine capture fisheries in many countries in the South and Southeast Asian region showed a rapid development in the 1970s and 1980s. The use of nylon material and the adoption of new fishing gear (e.g. trawls, purse seines) increased the catch. Many governments in boosting the development of fisheries introduced subsidy programmes through various means such as soft loans for boat purchase and reduced fuel prices. Motorization programmes were common in many countries to enable traditional fisherfolk to fish farther offshore. Meanwhile, national and foreign investment has contributed to the construction of infrastructures such as fishing ports and facilities such as ice plants, cold storage facilities, canneries and other processing plants. The entrance of fish and fisheries products from Asia into the global market has also played an important role as a driving force for further development. By the 1980s certain resources in the coastal areas started showing signs of overexploitation. Conflicts among fisherfolk with different gear became common news in the media, especially the conflict between trawlers and operators of other gear such as gillnets, trammel nets and other static types of gear.
The emergence of conflicts among fisherfolk prompted countries to develop rules and regulations as part of their fisheries management. Zoning schemes in the coastal areas had been common practice in the region for area allocation of fishing gear. Area and season closures were also introduced in some countries. Another management tool which emerged in the region was the introduction of licensing, especially for industrial fisheries. Law enforcement was stepped up through the strengthening of monitoring, control and surveillance programmes.
The development of fisheries in the region has resulted in the expansion of fishing operations further offshore, in particular for the fleets targeting pelagic resources. Some countries, especially those with a large exclusive economic zone such as India and Indonesia, offered licenses for foreign vessels through various bilateral arrangements. Joint venture in fishing through shared capital or vessel charters appeared even among developing countries in Asia (e.g. Bangladesh and Thailand, Indonesia and Thailand) or between developing and developed countries (e.g. Indonesia-Japan, India-Korea Rep., Indonesia-Taiwan).
Status and trend of fisheries
Developing countries in South and Southeast Asia border the two main oceans, the Eastern Indian Ocean (FAO statistical area-57, see Figure 1) with three countries in South Asia, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and four countries in Southeast Asia, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. The developing countries in Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam, border the Western Central Pacific Ocean (FAO statistical area-71).
Figure 1. FAO statistical area: Eastern Indian Ocean (area-57) and Western Central Pacific (area-71)
Eastern Indian Ocean
Since 1970 the total catch from developing countries in the Eastern Indian Ocean has shown a steady increase from 1.0 million tonnes to 4.3 million tonnes in 1999 with an average annual increase of 5.1 percent (Figure 2). The total catch had increased more than fourfold during the last three decades. The main contributors for the total catch in 1999 were Thailand with 20.2 percent followed by India with 19.5 percent, Indonesia with 18.2 percent and Myanmar with 16.9 percent.
In terms of species-group composition, the small-pelagic fish catch contributed 28 percent, the demersal group 12 percent and the tuna group 8 percent (Figure 3). The high proportion of miscellaneous fish, i.e. 40 percent, was due to the coarse breakdown of species groups in Bangladesh and Myanmar. Trawl fishing was common in the eastern part of India, Myanmar and the west coast of Thailand. Purse seine fishing targeting pelagic fish is common in the eastern part of India and in the west coast of Thailand. Gillnet fishing for tuna is common in Sri Lanka while long-line fishing is popular in Indonesia.
Western Central Pacific Ocean
Catches in the developing countries facing the Western Central Pacific Ocean grew from 3.5 million tonnes in 1970 to 8.5 million tonnes in 1999, with an average annual increase of 3 percent, compared to 5 percent in the Eastern Indian Ocean. During the past three decades the catch hardly more than doubled (Figure 2). Trawl fishing concentrated in the shelf area from Viet Nam down to the Gulf of Thailand, the coastal waters of Malaysia and the Java and Arafura seas of Indonesia. Trawl fishing in the western part of Indonesia (including the Java Sea) came to an end in 1980 with the imposition of the trawl ban by the government. The main contributors to the total catch of the region in 1999 were Indonesia with 34.9 percent, Thailand with 22.1 percent and the Philippines with 20.3 percent.
In terms of catch composition small-pelagic fish contributed 36 percent, the tuna group 14 percent and the demersal group 12 percent (Figure 3). The contribution of miscellaneous fish was 26 percent, much less than in the Eastern Indian Ocean. Trawl and purse seine fishing played a significant role in coastal waters of the countries bordering the Western Central Pacific Ocean. Coastal purse seining mostly targets small-pelagic fish (mackerels, sardines and scads), while purse seining in offshore waters aims for tuna. Tuna purse seining is common in the Philippines and Thailand, while pole-and-line and long-line fishing as well as gill-netting are commonly practised in Indonesia.
Distant-water fishing fleets
The fleets of distant-water fishing nations have fished in the Eastern Indian Ocean and in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (Figure 4). In the case of the Eastern Indian Ocean, the fleets from Japan, Korea (Republic of) and Taiwan have been active since early years. Meanwhile, with the fall of the communist regime in the Soviet Union, the Soviet fleets stopped their operations in 1985. China and the Philippines were latecomers, in 1995 for China and 1998 for the Philippines. The Philippine fleets were likely composed of re-flagged vessels from other countries as was the case for the Iran-flagged vessels.
The distant-water fleets were mostly fishing for tuna and the total catch in 1999 amounted to 61 300 tonnes for the Eastern Indian Ocean. Purse seine fleets of France and Spain have also expanded their operations from the Western Indian Ocean (FAO statistical area-51) to the Eastern Indian Ocean since 1996, although their 1999 catch was still below Taiwan’s. The distant-water fleets fishing in the Western Indian Ocean caught slightly more than 800 000 tonnes in 1999 of which Taiwan contributed 33 percent, Japan 25 percent and the United States 22 percent.
Issues confronting fisheries management in Asia
The fisheries sector plays an important role in Asia as a source of protein. In some coastal communities it is the only cheap source of animal protein. The sector also provides employment opportunities and foreign exchange earnings. Asia is one of the main suppliers of the global fish market and one of the main fish importers, to Japan and Korea in particular. Thailand has been the leader in fish export in Asia and the number one world exporter for a number of years. The amount of export from the developing countries in South and Southeast Asia bordering the Eastern Indian and Western Central Pacific oceans has steadily increased in the last three decades. The export value had increased from US$0.2 billion in 1976 to nearly US$9 billion in 1998, a 45-fold increase in two and a half decades (Figure 5). This extraordinary increase is largely due to the rapid rise of shrimp exports as a result of the fast development of the shrimp culture sector in the region.
Despite the impressive figures of catch and export of the developing countries in South and Southeast Asia, the sector faces serious challenges in the management of fisheries. Overexploitation of coastal resources has been reported in various regional and international forums (IPFC 1987; 1994); the problem still persists. In addressing fisheries management in the developing countries of the region one should not disregard the general constraints confronting the region. They include:
Figure 5. Trend of export of the developing coastal states in South and Southeast Asia
The status of fisheries management in the region is, to a large extent, conditioned by the above constraints. Countries are still struggling in building up fisheries management systems. Various management tools have been introduced and applied, some with successful results while others still face failures. In the end, sustainability of fisheries is measured by the performance of fisheries management. Problems in fisheries management in the region relate very much to the following issues:
Though a limited-entry policy has been applied in several countries, in most cases that policy only deals with industrial fisheries. Licensing has been granted but in many cases the attached conditions and requirements have not been duly observed. The requirement to provide catch information to the Department of Fisheries has not been strictly applied. This obviously constrains any effort in monitoring fish stocks. Development of gear and other appliances in vessels have not been well monitored and this has constrained fishing effort measurements. In most cases the management of fisheries is centralized, although very often it lacks systematic management planning. The absence of management planning hampers any effort to assess the impact of management on fisheries.
In the case of small-scale fisheries, a limited-entry policy is by and large absent. Although the fishing efficiency of traditional gear may be inferior to that of the industrial fisheries, the enormous number of fleets in a relatively limited area forms a magnified fishing effort leading to heavy fishing pressure.
For some countries, the existing fisheries management system is still weak. The lack of power in fisheries departments to control or influence vessel construction hinders their ability to control the entrance of new fishing vessels. In other countries, permits for the construction of fish processing plants, i.e. canning factories and fishmeal processors, are delivered by other departments. Cooperation and integrated efforts are very much needed to prevent overinvestment in boat or processing plant construction, which leads to overfishing.
A similar situation occurs in the law enforcement system. In some countries, the fisheries department is not even the leading institution in this matter. Without good cooperation with other enforcement agencies, i.e. navy and police, effective law enforcement becomes remote. Law breaking in the ocean generally takes place out of sight and law enforcement is much more costly than on land and requires integrated efforts among the law enforcing agencies.
Multi-species and multi-gear fisheries have a special bearing on the collection of fisheries statistics. The high catch of miscellaneous fish in the statistics reflects the problem to analyse the species composition in the catch. In a limited number of countries the simple categorization of the catch, broken down into only four or five species groups, leads to the inclusion of unidentified fishes into the “miscellaneous fish” category. This results in the high catch of miscellaneous fish as appears in Figure 3. Multi-species and multi-gear fisheries also provide a special challenge for scientists to analyse potential species and technological interactions, which are important parameters in stock assessment.
How to strengthen management in the small-scale fisheries sector
There is no standard definition of small-scale fisheries (Panayotou, 1988). Is ‘small scale’ what is not ‘large scale’, but there is no exact boundary between the two. Other terms used include ‘traditional sector’ as opposed to ‘modern sector’, while the term ‘subsistence sector’ has the connotation that fishing is solely for the support of daily life. The Philippines uses the term ‘municipal’ as opposed to ‘commercial’ fishing. In trying to distinguish between the two groups of these various definitions, some countries use size of boat or type of motor, whether outboard or inboard engine, while some use the depth of water.
Regardless of the definition, small-scale fisheries, to a large extent, enjoy temporarily the absence of limited entry. This privilege, however, has its cost as it crowds fishing fleets in coastal waters, which leads eventually to overfishing. In addition, shrimp being the most expensive species group living in coastal waters, trawlers often invade the area and conflicts with these intruders cannot be avoided.
To address the management issues in small-scale fisheries, various elements need to be brought up. These include a code of conduct for responsible fisheries, a proper legal framework, fisherfolk’s organizations, and the geographical area.
Code of conduct for responsible fisheries
Although a guideline for fisheries management is available, the code of conduct for responsible fisheries does not offer special guidelines for the management of small-scale fisheries. The general guidelines of fisheries management, however, mention the importance of community-based fisheries management when addressing small-scale fisheries. Some types of community-based fisheries management exist in several countries of Asia. Through a long process, community-based management has been well established in Japan (Yamamoto, 1998). In other countries, similar types of management exist in some selected fisheries, such as beach seine fisheries in Sri Lanka (Dayaratne and Attapatu, 1992) and inland fisheries in South Sumatra (Naamin and Badrudin, 1992). It is disheartening to witness, in the process of governance evolution, failures of appreciating customary law in the new legislation of some countries (Panayotou; 1988; Zerner, 1992). The code of conduct for responsible fisheries recognizes the needs to respect customary law.
Legal framework
In many countries the management of marine capture fisheries rests with the central government. However, some sort of delegation of authority is given to state or provincial level and in some cases to district level. In Indonesia, the authority to license fishing boats of less than 30 GT has been given to the provincial governments. In the Philippines, with the 1998 fisheries code, the power of managing municipal waters has been delegated to the district governments. This type of legal provision when applied to other sectors may not have much constraint, but in the fisheries sector it could cause complications due to the mobility of resources and of the fishing fleets. Limiting the capacity of the central government to manage the fishing activities of the entire country, especially for the larger countries, might be useful. On the other hand, it could cause problems for the local governments when the latter are not yet ready to take the necessary action, including law enforcement.
In Japan, the provision of fishing rights to fishermen’s associations plays an important role in the devolution of authority to fishing communities, which are represented by their associations. A community bound by customary laws is a potential candidate for the implementation of community-based management with fishing rights attached to it. It often happens, though, that fisheries legislation does not take into account the existing customary laws, which leads to direct conflicts with the locals.
Fishermen’s organizations
Fisherfolk are important stakeholders of the fisheries sector and their participation in fisheries management is of importance. To be strong stakeholders, fisherfolk need to form organizations that represent them.
Illiteracy among fisherfolk is generally high. However, very often they have informal leaders, who could represent them. In some countries the government encourages fishing communities to establish fishermen’s associations, with mixed results. In some countries, non-governmental organizations play a role in the formation of fishermen’s associations. Such associations should participate actively in any management-related training that the government may initiate. A responsible association should take care of the property right delegated to the community or association.
In the absence of local organizations and despite the presence of fishing communities, local governments could play a role in the formation of community organizations through social mobilization as a part of project activities. Education is one of the most important components of project activities. Though in most cases it could be informal, it should be done continuously and sometimes facilitated on a one-on-one basis. White (1997) summarized lessons learned in a USAID project in the Philippines and Sri Lanka for the development of community-based management in a coral reef environment. Among the lessons learned, formation of capable and respected community groups was considered critical for the successful implementation of community resource management projects.
Geographical area
An important condition for community-based management is a defined geographical area for which the community will have the responsibility. If the resources are sedentary species, their geographical distribution could easily be observed and a boundary delineated. The geographical area may also be based on the depth of water where certain types of gear could operate. Consensus building is commonly used to delineate boundaries between communities. Without proper boundaries, it would be troublesome to implement any fisheries management and this may eventually contribute problems to the overall management planning. The geographical area of management should be linked to the distribution of the community. For a start, the larger the area the more chances for having problems in fisheries management. Normally one should start with a small area which may, in time, evolve to the agreed size.
Community-based management could also apply to small islands whose communities tend to be homogeneous. In the tropics, where coral reefs are common in association with islands, the geographical base for the establishment of community-based management could be the island itself. White (1997) summarized the successful development of community-based management in the reef islands of the Philippines and Sri Lanka.
Discussion
Small-scale fisheries play a significant role by contributing catch to the national production. With the continuously growing numbers of small-scale fisherfolk in developing countries, fishing becomes increasingly heavy in the coastal waters and eventually leads to conflicts among fisherfolk.
Related to the problems described above, many developing countries have embarked on projects addressing small-scale fisheries. Some donors have also supported regional projects in this regard such as the Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP). The Asian Development Bank has financially assisted projects in the Philippines and Indonesia addressing coastal management issues. These projects encourage the promotion of community-based management and some lessons have been learned from them.
Important ingredients for the formation of community-based management in Japan have been described by Yamamoto (1998). The two principal elements are: the legal framework and the fisheries association. The legal provision gives the property right to the community through its association. Therefore, the property right issue becomes an important element as well. Thailand promoted a project of this kind in the Phang-nga bay which was also supported by BOBP (Nickerson, 1998). The results were encouraging. The success of the project was to a large extent related to the deployment of artificial reefs. The reefs served as communal property and every member of the community was responsible for their wellbeing. Through the process of building ownership in this regard, the fisherfolk developed communal responsibility for the wellbeing of the fisheries resources in the bay. This shows that the property right issue is important for the promotion of community-based management. The candidates for this type of management could be sedentary species but they could also be the immobile types of gear.
Fisheries management requires good planning. Through the FISHCODE project funded by Norway, FAO has promoted training workshops on management planning in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Two workshops were organized in Indonesia, Denpasar, 1999 and Banyuwangi, 2001, on the management of sardine fisheries in the Bali Strait (FISHCODE, 1999a; 2001b). One workshop was organized in Thailand, at Cha-am, to discuss the management of anchovy fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand (FISHCODE, 2000a). In the meantime three workshops were conducted in Malaysia, Penang, 1999, Lumut, 2000 and Penang, 2001, to discuss and develop a management plan of small-pelagic fisheries on the west coast of Malaysia (FISHCODE, 1999b; 2000b; 2001a).
This project has promoted close cooperation among stakeholders through a series of discussions aiming at formulating the management plan for a concerned fishery. Anchovy fisheries in Thailand are highly developed and conflicts between fisherfolk using purse seine and those using other types of gear have been severe. The workshop did not produce the anticipated results as representatives of purse seine users did attend but those of other types of gear failed to show up. Nonetheless, the workshop was able to present the concept of fisheries management planning, a forefront element in the overall process of fisheries management. Malaysia, on the other hand, benefited from the three workshops and is currently preparing for a fourth workshop to further contribute to the elaboration of the draft management plan. The workshop will be supported by the remaining funds of BOBP. Understanding the concept of management planning is a prerequisite for a better formulation of a management regime. A management plan is not static and will evolve with time in line with the development and condition of the fisheries.
The establishment of community-based fisheries management demands an active role on the part of the local government in nurturing and promoting the need to manage the fisheries resources that the members of the community are concerned with. Time and effort are needed before the community is convinced of the need for collective action in management. Education and public awareness form the basic part of the process in which the government should work hand in hand with the community. Management planning could only be introduced at a later date in simple terms that the community can understand. A management plan is never perfect and always needs updating. Only when the community becomes mature can the adoption of a management plan become easy. Establishing community-based management normally takes time, but as a concept it seems to offer a good option for preventing overfishing and degradation in many coastal areas of the developing countries. As community-based management is locally specific, success and failure of its development need to be documented to enable one to learn from the lessons generated.
References
Atapattu A.R. & Dayaratne P. 1992: Case studies of community-based approaches to resource management in Sri Lanka. In: FAO/Japan Expert Consultation on the Development of Community-based Coastal Fisheries management System for Asia and the Pacific. Kobe, Japan, 8-12 June 1992, Vol.1: 205-210
FAO, 1995: Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome, FAO, 1995:41p.
FAO, 2001: FAO/FISHSTAT database at the FAO website <http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp>
FISHCODE, 1999a: Report of a workshop on the fisheries and management of Bali sardinella (Sardinella lemuru) in the Bali Strait. GCP/INT/648/NOR, Field Report F-3; 30p
FISHCODE, 1999b: Report of a workshop on the fisheries and management of short mackerel (Rastrelliger spp.) on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. GCP/INT/648/NOR. Field Report F-4; 25p
FISHCODE, 2000a: Report of a workshop on the fisheries and management of anchovies in the Gulf of Thailand. Field Report F-6; 24p
FISHCODE, 2000b: Report of the workshop on the fisheries management plan for the small-pelagic fisheries of the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, Lumut 7-10 August 2000. GCP/INT/648/NOR, Field Report F-13; 38p
FISHCODE, 2001a: Report on a consultation with stakeholders on the fisheries management plan for small-pelagic fisheries of the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, Penang 19-20 February 2001. GCP/INT/648/NOR, Field Report F-17: 34p
FISHCODE, 2001b: Report on a workshop to refine the draft management plan for the Bali Strait sardine (lemuru) fisheries, Banyuwangi 15-17 May 2001. GCP/INT/648/NOR, Field Report F-18; 33p
IPFC, 1987: Symposium on the exploitation and management of marine fisheries resources in Southeast Asia, Darwin (Australia), 16-19 February 1987. FAO/RAP. RAPA Report 1987/10; 552p
IPFC, 1994: Symposium on socioeconomic issues in coastal fisheries management. Proceedings of the IPFC symposium held in conjunction with the twenty-fourth session of IPFC, Bangkok, 23-26 November 1993. RAPA Publ. No. 1994/8; 448p
Naamin N. and Badrudin M. 1992: The role of village communities and fishermen’s organizations in the management of coastal fisheries resources in Indonesia. In: FAO/Japan Expert Consultation on the Development of a Community-based Coastal Fisheries management System for Asia and the Pacific, Kobe, Japan, 8-12 June 1992, Vol. 2: 490-497
Nickerson D.J. (Ed.). 1998: Community-based fisheries management in the Phang-nga Bay, Thailand. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Community-based Fisheries management organized by the Department of Fisheries of Thailand, FAO and the Bay of Bengal Programme, Phuket, Thailand, 14-16 February 1996. FAO/RAP, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publ. 1998/3 (BOBP Report No.78); 227p
Panayotou T. 1988: Management concepts for small-scale fisheries. Economic and social aspects. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper No. 228; 53p
White A.T. 1997: Collaborative and community-based management of coral reef resources: lessons from Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Workshop on Integrated Reef Resource Management in the Maldives. Male, Maldives 16-20 March 1996, BOBP, Madras (India), 1997: 253-274
Yamamoto T. 1998: Community-based fisheries management in Japan. In: Nickerson D.J. (Ed.) (1998): Community-based Fisheries management in the Phang-nga Bay, Thailand. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Community-based Fisheries management organized by the Department of Fisheries of Thailand, FAO and the Bay of Bengal Programme, 14-16 February 1996: 209-227.
Zerner C. 1992: Community management of marine resources in the Maluku Islands. In: FAO/Japan Expert Consultation on the Development of a Community-based Coastal Fisheries management System for Asia and the Pacific, Kobe, 8-12 June 1992, Vol.1: 127-142.
Fisheries Policy & Planning Division
Fisheries Department, FAO
Introduction
“Responsible fisheries management should consider the impact of fisheries on the ecosystem as a whole, including its biodiversity, and should strive for sustainable use of whole ecosystems and biological communities...Harvesting any one species is almost certain to impact others...
[T]he impact of ecological linkages (e.g. through the trophic chain) between species may lead to changes in species dominance and affect the dynamic equilibriums of the resource system, potentially affecting future options.
These multi-species effects need to be considered in responsible fishing, which should aim to ensure that no species, whether targeted, by-catch or indirectly affected by fishing, is reduced to below sustainable levels” (FAO, 1997).
Trying to create a linkage between the local realities of small-scale fisheries and the grand concept of ecosystems is like trying to describe the linkage between an artist’s paintbrush, the many brushes that the painter uses, the elements of a painting and the finished picture. Even if each paintbrush is carefully described, analysed and closely studied, it may not necessarily reveal how each one contributes to the total picture, even though we do know that the total picture could not have been without them. But how does this relate to fisheries, the management of people fishing them (especially in small-scale fisheries), and the ecosystem?
An overview of the GESAMP (2001) report provides a succinct summary of things that are currently affecting ecosystems:
Indeed, it is not difficult to see that three of these things are directly related to humans’ fishing activities. Thus, in responding to the question of how ecosystems and fishing activities (especially small scale fishing activities) are related, the response has several parts.
First, it is difficult to unequivocally determine when human fishing activities are the sole cause of impacts on the ecosystem. Despite this, however, it is clear that fisheries do have indirect effects caused by overfishing, modifying species composition, and genetic diversity. In addition, there are direct effects such as the physical impacts caused by dredging and trawling on the seabed, bycatch, and the use of destructive illegal techniques such as the use of dynamite and poisons.
Thus, small-scale fishing activities, depending on how they are carried out and the extent to which fish are caught, are part of the set of things that can impact ecosystems. The people engaging in small-scale fishing activities make up our fisheries paintbrushes and, together, they are an important part of the painting of fisheries and the greater ecosystem.
Describing ecosystems: issues of scope and purpose
There are many levels at which to describe ecosystems, thus it is important to determine the scope at which ecosystems are described and considered for management purposes. For example, large marine ecosystems (LMEs) are a very extensive and inclusive way of describing ecosystems. These are relatively large (200 000 km2 or more) regions of ocean space. They encompass coastal areas from river basins and estuaries all the way out to the seaward boundaries of continental shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current systems.
Characterized by distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically dependent populations, fifty such areas have been identified. Several LMEs occupy semi-enclosed areas, such as the Black Sea or the Mediterranean, and can be divided in sub-areas (e.g. the Adriatic Sea). They include soft-bottom continental shelves, up-welling continental shelves, open oceans and polar oceans. Others are limited by open continental margins (e.g. the North-western Australian shelf) where their seaward limit extends beyond the continental shelf.
Defined by natural parameters, LMEs most often straddle political - and, thus, frequently national or other jurisdictional - boundaries. Although identified for the purpose of comprehensive monitoring of their condition, it is not implausible to hope that with increasingly productive regional cooperation they could be used as a basis for ecosystem-based management of any and all shared natural resources.
At the LME level of ecosystems, it may not be clear that there are obvious linkages to small-scale fisheries or their management - even though such linkages are present. However, within LMEs there are smaller systems that can also be considered as sub-sets of large marine ecosystems, and it is these smaller systems which, in fact, correspond to areas commonly used by small-scale fisheries and aquaculture activities.
For example, within a particular LME the scope of a smaller ecosystem can encompass:
¨ seas,Focusing even more, the scope of ecosystems can consist of local areas or systems such as coral reefs or artificial reefs. And, moving beyond the marine environment and onto land, in the context of inland fisheries ecosystems may be described by:
¨ coastal waters,
¨ gulfs,
¨ bays,
¨ lagoons, and
¨ estuaries.
¨ estuarine systems,Clearly, small-scale fisheries are found in these types of systems. Hence, the issue is simply one of scope, of subdividing larger ecosystems into subsets and finding the components of larger ecosystems that correspond to the size of the small-scale fisheries in the area that are under management consideration.
¨ watersheds,
¨ river systems, and
¨ lakes.
Development of ecosystem-related issues
The concept of ecosystems is not a new consideration in fisheries governance, but it is becoming an increasingly explicit component of governance. For example, the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) requires that states ensure that harvested species and species associated with or dependent on harvested species are not overexploited in either of two relatively large ecosystem areas: namely, in national exclusive economic zones (Article 61) and in the high seas (Article 119). This ecosystem concept was strengthened by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and by other international instruments within and outside the fisheries sector.
In addition to the 1995 Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, there is mention of ecosystems and management in:
The Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem that was held 1-4 October 2001 in Reykjavik, Iceland, contained similar references to ecosystems and fisheries management. It was intended as a conference to identify the means by which ecosystem considerations can be included in fisheries management.
The Reykjavik Declaration (Attachment) urges all those involved with fisheries to have an increased awareness of the many interactions in ecosystems as they worked to continue the implementation of:
Perhaps most important, in all of these initiatives there is the recognition that humans cannot manage ecosystems as such and can only try to manage the human activities affecting ecosystems. Thus, the use of the term “ecosystem management” can be somewhat confusing or inaccurate. There is science-based fisheries research that has the task, among other things, of understanding and forecasting the impact of humans’ fishing activities on ecosystems. Similarly, there is the management of humans undertaking fishery-related activities, but this is not management of ecosystems per se. The task of fisheries management is to among other things, take a precautionary approach to trying to design regulatory systems that minimize the impact of humans on fisheries and on the ecosystems of which fisheries is a part.
Creating a bridge between small-scale fisheries management and ecosystems
The bridge between the management of small-scale fisheries and ecosystems involves combining issues of scope with issues of purpose. In other words, there is a need to describe
One of the first steps, therefore, needs to involve identifying and describing the fisheries-related (but not necessarily just fishing) communities in the local area and the different ecosystems and their boundaries. The results of these descriptions then need to be incorporated into the management objectives that the particular small-scale fisherfolk in the community have.
For example, if there is a small-scale fishery on a reef or lagoon that is used by a community, it is useful for the management of that fishery to explicitly recognize the scope of this ecosystem and to incorporate this information when managing the fishing activities. This may involve a combination of training, devolution of powers and the use of management strategies that create positive incentives for people and empower them:
Similarly, if there is a reef or lagoon system that may be negatively affected by local activities, one component of the fishery’s management plan may include maintenance and/or rebuilding strategies. By working to maintain (or rebuild) local ecosystems, habitats and the biodiversity of the area, the community is actively working to obtain optimal benefits - i.e. to help the productivity of their fisheries. In short, they can be working to ensure that they are using the marine ecosystem in a sustainable manner and are also contributing to their:
Another step involves identifying and describing how the various components of an ecosystem should be shared amongst users. If the ecosystem corresponds to a single group of small-scale fishermen, this may involve little more than incorporating existing mechanisms for sharing fisheries resources into a fisheries management plan as a way of reinforcing and strengthening them.
However, if there are overlaps between ecosystems and the communities using them, the process becomes more complex. If this is the situation, the communities need to find and to include mechanisms for cooperating among themselves and for sharing their uses of the overlapping ecosystems. Simply put, for fisheries management purposes - and especially in cases of overlapping communities, resources and/or ecosystems - there is a need to have clearly defined, incorruptible administrative procedures or rights-based allocation systems to determine who gets what or how much and where and when.
Yet another step of building the bridge between the management of small-scale fisheries and ecosystems involves finding a way of coping with the many contradictory objectives regarding the use of fisheries resources. This involves working with stakeholders towards establishing attainable management objectives that reflect a balance among the now-expanded plethora of concerns. This is not a simple task, although in many respects the bridge between these two involves applying the basic principles of fisheries management:
Summary
The bridge between small-scale fisheries management and ecosystems is created by making sure that large-scale inter-relationships and linkages in ecosystems are taken into consideration, even at very local and focused management levels.
Although we simply do not have the ability to manage ecosystems, we do have the capability to manage humans and their activities within marine and inland freshwater ecosystems for fisheries-related purposes and in a manner that is precautionary. Furthermore, we can use the growing amount of information about various ecosystems to support these management policies, structures and plans.
This will enable small-scale (and other) fishing communities to work on securing present and future options by maintaining their ecosystems and the biological diversity within them in a manner that the resources of most interest - as well as other resources in the ecosystem - can be used in a sustainable way and are not significantly perturbed or affected beyond the environment’s natural variability.
References
FAO, 1995: Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome, FAO. 41pp
FAO Fisheries resources Division and Fisheries Policy and Planning Division, 1997: Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4. Rome, FAO. 82pp
FAO, 2001: “Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management” background paper prepared for the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, 1-4 October 2001, Reykjavik, Iceland. hhtp:/www.refisheries2001.org/
FAO, 2001: World Fisheries and Aquaculture Atlas CD-ROM. Rome, FAO
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) and Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea, 2001: A Sea of Troubles. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 70. 35pp
Large Marine Ecosystems Project Website. 2001 LME Poster. Hhtp://www.edc.uri.edu/lme/data.htm.
Vasconcellos M.C., 2001: The complementary roles of single species and ecosystem models in fisheries management. An example from a Southwest Atlantic fishery. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 970. Rome, FAO. 38pp
ATTACHMENT
REYKJAVIK DECLARATION ON RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES IN THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM
Having met at the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem from 1 to 4 October 2001,
Appreciating the initiative taken by the Government of Iceland and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to organize the Conference with the co-sponsorship of the Government of Norway,
Recalling that this initiative was endorsed at the Twenty-fourth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (26 February-2 March 2001) and at the One Hundred and Twentieth Session of the FAO Council (June 2001),
Reaffirming that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) sets out the rights and duties of States with respect to the use and conservation of the ocean and its resources, including the conservation and management of living marine resources,
Recalling that in recent years the world community has agreed on several additional legal and political commitments that supplement the provisions of the Convention, including the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 (Chapter 17),
Reaffirming the principles of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,
Recalling further the four International Plans of Action formulated in accordance with the Code of Conduct, namely for the Management of Fishing Capacity, for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Long-line Fisheries, and to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing,
Reaffirming that the FAO Council during its One Hundred and Twentieth Session recommended that ecosystem-based fisheries management studies to be conducted by FAO as agreed in paragraph 39 of the Report at the Twenty-fourth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries should be balanced and holistic in approach,
Welcoming and taking into account the discussion in the scientific symposium of the Conference,
Recognizing that sustainable fisheries management incorporating ecosystem considerations entails taking into account the impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystem and the impact of the marine ecosystem on fisheries,
Confirming that the objective of including ecosystem considerations in fisheries management is to contribute to long-term food security and to human development and to assure the effective conservation and sustainable use of the ecosystem and its resources,
Appreciating that the Conference represented an important opportunity for all fisheries stakeholders to jointly assess the means for including ecosystem considerations in fisheries management,
Aware that the sustainable use of living marine resources contributes substantially to human food security, as well as dietary variety, provides for the livelihood of millions of people and is a central pillar of many national economies, especially low-income food-deficit countries and small island developing states,
Recognizing the complex interrelationship between fisheries and other components of the marine ecosystems,
Convinced that including ecosystem considerations in fisheries management provides a framework within which states and fisheries management organizations would enhance management performance,
Affirming that incorporation of ecosystem considerations implies more effective conservation of the ecosystem and sustainable use and an increased attention to interactions, such as predator-prey relationships, among different stocks and species of living marine resources; furthermore that it entails an understanding of the impact of human activities on the ecosystem, including the possible structural distortions they can cause in the ecosystem,
Recognizing the need to strengthen and sustain management capacity, including scientific, legal and institutional frameworks with the aim of incorporating among other things ecosystem considerations,
Emphasizing that the scientific basis for including ecosystem considerations in fisheries management needs further development and that there is incomplete scientific knowledge about the structure, functioning, components and properties of the ecosystem as well as about the ecological impact of fishing,
Recognizing that certain non-fisheries activities have an impact on the marine ecosystem and have consequences for management. These include land-based and sea-based activities which affect habitat, water quality, fisheries productivity, and food quality and safety,
Recognizing also that the majority of developing countries face major challenges in incorporating ecosystem considerations into fisheries management and that international cooperation and support are necessary,
Declare that, in an effort to reinforce responsible and sustainable fisheries in the marine ecosystem, we will individually and collectively work on incorporating ecosystem considerations into that management to that aim.
Towards this end, we further declare:
1. Our determination to continue effective implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct, which is our common and agreed guide in strengthening and building fisheries management systems, as well as the International Plans of Action as formulated in accordance with the Code, and the Kyoto Declaration on the Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security.And request that the Government of Iceland convey this Declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Chairman of the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg in September 2002 and relevant fisheries management organizations for their consideration.2. There is a clear need to introduce immediately effective management plans with incentives that encourage responsible fisheries and sustainable use of marine ecosystems, including mechanisms for reducing excessive fishing efforts to sustainable levels.
3. It is important to strengthen, improve and, where appropriate, establish regional and international fisheries management organizations and incorporate in their work ecosystem considerations and improve cooperation between those bodies and regional bodies in charge of managing and conserving the marine environment.
4. Prevention of adverse effects of non-fisheries activities on the marine ecosystems and fisheries requires action by relevant authorities and other stakeholders.
5. While it is necessary to take immediate action to address particularly urgent problems on the basis of the precautionary approach, it is important to advance the scientific basis for incorporating ecosystem considerations, building on existing and future available scientific knowledge. Towards this end we will undertake to:
(a) advance the scientific basis for developing and implementing management strategies that incorporate ecosystem considerations and which will ensure sustainable yields while conserving stocks and maintaining the integrity of ecosystems and habitats on which they depend;6. The interaction between aquaculture development in the marine environment and capture fisheries should be monitored through relevant institutional and regulatory arrangements.(b) identify and describe the structure, components and functioning of relevant marine ecosystems, diet composition and food webs, species interactions and predator-prey relationships, the role of habitat and the biological, physical and oceanographic factors affecting ecosystem stability and resilience;
(c) build or enhance systematic monitoring of natural variability and its relations to ecosystem productivity;
(d) improve the monitoring of by-catch and discards in all fisheries to obtain [a] better knowledge of the amount of fish actually taken;
(e) support research and technology developments of fishing gear and practices to improve gear selectivity and reduce adverse impact of fishing practices on habitat and biological diversity;
(f) assess adverse human impact of non-fisheries activities on the marine environment as well as [its] consequences for sustainable use.
7. Our determination to strengthen international cooperation with the aim of supporting developing countries in incorporating ecosystem considerations into fisheries management, in particular in building their expertise through education and training for collecting and processing the biological, oceanographic, ecological and fisheries data needed for designing, implementing and upgrading management strategies.
8. We resolve to improve the enabling environment by encouraging technology transfer contributing to sustainable management where appropriate, introducing sound regulatory frameworks, examining and where necessary removing trade distortions, and promoting transparency.
9. We urge relevant technical and financial international organizations and the FAO to cooperate in providing states with access to technical advice and information about effective management regimes and about the experience from such arrangements, and other support, devoting special attention to developing countries.
10. We would encourage FAO to work with scientific and technical experts from all regions to develop technical guidelines for best practices with regard to introducing ecosystem considerations into fisheries management. These technical guidelines should be presented at the next session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries.
Fisheries Consultant
FAO RAP
Introduction
Global fisheries production has reached 130 million tonnes in 2000, including 36 million tonnes produced by aquaculture. Fifty percent of the world’s 85 million tonnes of marine fisheries resources are fully exploited, 25 percent are overexploited and only 25 percent could support higher exploitation rates. The reported 11 million tonnes freshwater production is most likely underestimating the total production of these areas several-fold. The Asian region alone is responsible for about 50 percent of the global production, including 90 percent of the total aquaculture production.
For several reasons officially reported fisheries data underestimate fisheries production in the region, particularly from small-scale fisheries. Data from fisheries projects under the Mekong River Commission (MRC) indicate that the total fish production in the Mekong Basin, particularly from small-scale fisheries, is several times higher than that officially reported. Estimates of the total production from small-scale fisheries in coastal waters in the Philippines are three times as high as the officially reported total production. Data from a DANIDA-funded project in Viet Nam sets the production from marine capture fisheries for analysed fishing fleets at 3.5 million tons, compared to 1.3 million tons officially reported. Based on these observations, the real status of the exploitation of the living aquatic resources in the region is even worse than that described by FAO.
Production data alone do not properly reflect the importance of the fisheries sector for the food security and livelihood of millions of mostly rural poor people involved in fisheries. FAO estimates that about 90 percent of the world’s 30 million fisherfolk work in Asia, roughly 80 percent of them as small-scale or artisanal fisherfolk. A careful look at some data from the Philippines shows a more alarming picture. Based on data from the Census of Fisheries (1980) and the Census of Population and Housing (1980) of the National Census and Statistics Office, the province of Cebu alone had 98 commercial fishing enterprises with about 1 427 employees but 54 299 artisanal fisherfolk (ratio 1:38). Half of these artisanal fisherfolk were full-time fishermen. Therefore, Philippine fisheries are characterized by a large number of artisanal and subsistence fisherfolk. Interpolating recent data from 1999, with about 1 million people employed in the fisheries industry (Ganaden, 2001), with the 1:38 ratio of industrial versus artisanal fisherfolk found for Cebu, about half of the whole population in the Philippines is somehow involved in artisanal fisheries. This figure definitely overestimates the total number of people employed in fisheries, but it underlines the importance of artisanal fisheries for the rural poor in the Philippines. Similar calculations, based on employment data or the presence of fishing gear in rural households, can be made for other Asian countries, indicating that the total number of people directly engaged in small-scale fisheries alone is probably several times higher than the officially reported data for the whole fishing sector.
One of the reasons for these discrepancies is the division of Asian fisheries into commercial fisheries and small-scale fisheries. While commercial fisheries, as a source of tax income, is under some control of the state, small-scale fisheries is largely uncontrolled. With a high number of mostly rural poor fisherfolk, a huge diversity of fishing gear and methods and almost no knowledge about the total production or resulting importance of this sub-sector, small-scale fisheries does not receive much public attention. Characterized by open access to the aquatic resources and small investment needed for fishing, small-scale fisheries provide the last livelihood opportunity for millions of poor people. As a result, the total number of small-scale fisherfolk will further increase.
Small-scale fisherfolk face increased competition from commercial fisheries, which moves closer to the shoreline and enters bays and estuaries. In addition, their grounds are under serious stress from pollution due to human and industrial settlements and degradation from the restructuring of waterways, estuaries and bays.
Small-scale fisheries provide employment, household income and food for the rural poor people in the riverine, estuarine and coastal areas in Asia. Although in most cases their fishing grounds are already overexploited and exposed to pollution and environmental degradation, millions of rural poor still see fishing as their only option to earn a living. In such a situation only fisheries management will make it possible to optimize the use of aquatic resources and provide the highest benefits for its users.
Small-scale fisheries management
Several concepts have been developed to manage the living coastal aquatic resources. While environmental projects have focused on manageable areas, as developed in various zoning approaches, fisheries projects focused on resource users, for example in co-management or community-based fisheries management concepts, which have proven to be useful. But only the combination of resource user and environmental management will lead to less destructive fishing and better protected coastal areas. The underlying idea is that local fisherfolk know best about the status of their aquatic resources and are therefore best qualified to make management decisions.
Resource management concepts were implemented through projects using scientific approaches in testing decentralized fisheries or resource management. Very little has been done or developed to implement small-scale fisheries management on the national scale. Some experience is available from the Philippines, where the 1998 fisheries code delegates fisheries management authority of coastal waters to municipalities and their fisherfolk’s organizations.
The problems in small-scale fisheries management are related to social, economical, environmental, legal and administrative issues. A short list of the overall problems will describe this:
Small-scale fisheries management, dealing mainly with fishing activities in the near-shore areas, has to include measures assuring the protection and preservation of the coastal aquatic habitats. “A focus on the entire ecosystem and not only on individual stocks is urgently needed to protect and utilize marine resources,” stated Serge Garcia, Director of FAO’s Fisheries resources Division [FAO Press release: PR 01/58e The Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (1-4 October 2001)].
Small-scale fisheries management has to address all these problems and has to implement solutions to these problems. The experience gained in co-management schemes over the last decade shows that decentralization of management authority is an effective tool to optimize resource management. However, for countrywide implementation the level of decentralization has to be identified.
The Philippines has successfully mobilized and organized her fishing communities to get involved in the taking-over of management authority. In other countries the idea is not that far developed. Many countries still lack mobilized and organized local fisherfolk. Depending on history, country-specific approaches have to be developed to involve fisherfolk in small-scale fisheries management. This is the initial step for the implementation of co-management schemes.
Forming communities
A prerequisite for the implementation of decentralized fisheries management is the existence of organized fishing communities. Once identified, the fisherfolk have to be mobilized and organized to form their own organizations to define their needs and demands. In general, it is recommended to use a participatory approach in mobilizing local fisherfolk. However, traditions and the existing political system may prevent people from speaking up and articulating their needs. In addition, in countries under former socialistic control the establishment of cooperatives and people’s organizations may be seen critically. Already at this stage a lot of information exchange and some training will be needed to assure that the importance of the matter and the needs to get organized are fully understood.
Forming communities may be difficult if the fisherfolk in one area come from more than one village or belong to more than one ethnic or religious group. Depending on the given commonalties broad criteria should be chosen to form these communities. Clear and transparent ways of getting organized will help the members to see the advantages of such organization. Rules for members, as well as member exclusion and the way a membership is issued, have to be developed and applied equally to all.
Problems may occur if fisheries have not been properly managed and open access has led to a high number of competing fisherfolk. It might be difficult to find a common understanding for the formation of fisherfolk groups. It should be made clear that the new legal framework provides the opportunity to participate in the management of the near-shore living resources and that this has to result in the organization at the fisherfolk level to make decisions. Non-compliance with the rules established under the new fisheries organization will be a violation of existing national rules and regulations and punishable by law.
Additional problems occur if the local fisherfolk depend on boat owners and middlemen. One strategy is to break the dependence either legally or through financial support. Another strategy might be to involve boat owners and middlemen in the formulation process of communities. Much mobilization and training for the fisherfolk would be needed before such a community has the capacity to make independent decisions. From limited experience in the field, the best way to overcome this problem is to break such dependence.
Informing fishing communities
Any decentralized management scheme is dependent on information exchange. The lowest level of co-management is to inform the local fisherfolk about management decisions that affect their fishing activities. This process needs well-organized channels of communication, the presence of the managing body at the community level and a certain technical background in the community to understand these management decisions.
The example of the Philippines shows that communication between the Bureau of Fisheries, the fisheries agency in the Philippines, and the local communities is inadequate due to the lack of staff in the field. Already at this stage of co-management it becomes clear that decentralized small-scale fisheries management is not a cheap option. Investments will only pay off in the long run; the beneficiaries will be the rural poor.
Listening to communities
Once communication is established, the managing agency must listen to the local fishing communities in regard to development or implementation of local fisheries management decisions. Local communities may have their own views and ideas regarding the use of the living aquatic resources and the outcome of such consultation may influence the decision-making process.
Advising communities
If communities have received rights to manage their living aquatic resources, they may seek advice on fisheries issues from the responsible government agency. Again, this process needs the presence of the government agency at the village level as well as established channels of communication. It also requires well-trained fisheries staff in the government offices responsible for giving such advice. Therefore, training and motivation are needed not only in the communities but also in the relevant government offices.
Cooperating with communities
Cooperation between the government agency and the fishing communities needs fine-tuned mechanisms of communication, well-established personal contacts, and trust in each other. It is a long process to reach this level of decentralized fisheries management. It further depends on input of other agencies to create
This includes cooperation with environmental offices, which have to be present with qualified and trained staff at the grassroots level, and legal assistance from extension workers trained on the legal aspects of fisheries.
Facilitating intercommunity exchange
Although sharing the same coastal resources neighbouring fishing communities may have problems in communicating with each other. This may be related to a different ethnic origin of the two communities, different religions or even different languages. For successful co-management these communities need to establish mechanisms to communicate and to manage their aquatic resources. With the help of extension workers information exchange may be facilitated and a common understanding for management mechanisms for shared resources or fishing grounds may be developed. This has to be done in a, for both sides, transparent and non-discriminatory way.
Empowering communities
The last step in co-management is the empowerment of the communities. Once they have developed rules and regulations to manage their aquatic resources and have agreed with their neighbouring communities on such a regulatory framework, they automatically wish to enforce these rules. Normally, these functions are covered by other government authorities, i.e. police, fisheries department, coastguard, etc. However, in most countries in Asia the presence of these government authorities at sea is limited, mainly due to financial constraints. Fisherfolk might be trained to cover these responsibilities, namely monitoring, control and surveillance, and may take the oath of office to cover these functions. One example from Thailand shows that such empowerment is possible. However, it needs a common agreement not only within the community and neighbouring communities but also with all government authorities concerned. This step needs a well-developed legal framework at the national level, a lot of training not only for the fishing communities but also for cooperating government offices, like police or coastguard. It is the final step in implementing community-based fisheries management.
In community-based fisheries management the fishing community covers all functions regarding the management of living aquatic near-shore resources. Seen as the ultimate goal for small-scale fisheries management, community-based fisheries management needs much communication, training and mobilization. The above drafted strategy to implement such management schemes also shows that implementation is neither easy nor cheap. It needs commitment at all levels and a very careful approach adjusted to local situations. Once successfully implemented, it will benefit the rural poor fishing communities, who will get a better share of the living aquatic resources and have a stronger stake in managing their resources.
