Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


1. Introduction


1.1 Fisheries management in Asia-Pacific

Fisheries management involving fishers and fishery resources is a historical practice in the Asia-Pacific region. In Japan, for example, the earliest legislation relating to management of coastal resources dates from AD 701, stating that these were "common use" and managed by local communities (Box 1).

Box 1 The history of fisheries management in Japan

Japan has one of the oldest and most successful fishery co-management regimes. The key points in the evolution of current fisheries institutions and management include:-

  • The early feudal era (1603-1700): communities controlled adjacent coasts and were responsible for establishing rules for exploitation. The offshore areas were open access.

  • Late feudal era (1700-1886): Fisheries became labour intensive and controlled by a few wealthy operators. Large scale operators exploited offshore areas.

  • Modernisation (1868-1901): Government attempted to introduce top down management systems (and fails). Returned to customary arrangements with communities controlling adjacent coast.

  • Meiji fisheries law (1901-1945): Fishing rights granted to local societies and individuals. Offshore licenses given to both individuals and representatives.

  • Current fisheries law: Fishing rights granted to both cooperatives and associations to exploit coastal areas. Licenses granted to individuals for exploiting offshore areas.

(Makino and Matsuda, 2005)

In Cambodia (Box 2), indigenous systems were used to manage the Tonle Sap legislation dividing the Tonle Sap into lots. Records from Kerala, India from the 12th century refer to fishing methods and the "arts and sciences" of fishing in what was considered a plentiful resource. Traditional institutional arrangements for defining access called "courts of the sea" (kadakodi) have also had "long histories" in that area (Kurien, 2001).

Box 2 The history of fisheries management in Cambodia (Tonle Sap)

In Cambodia, the resources of the Tonle Sap have been harvested to provide fish and forest products for many thousands of years. Seasonal migrations of lake dwellers were recorded as early as 1296. The key points during the evolution of the lake management systems include:-

  • Khmer empire (Angkor) to AD 1500: Seasonal migration of lake dwellers occurred to exploit fisheries and forestry resources along with rain-fed agriculture.

  • Colonisation (1859-1975): The lake was divided into fishing lots. These lots were auctioned to generate income for the government.

  • 1975-1985: Management of fisheries resources neglected in favour of agriculture. Fishing lots operated on communist development principles.

  • 1980-1999: Returned to auctioned "lot" system.

  • 1999-present: Policy changed dividing up the lots and allowing management by local communities

(Evans et al., 2004)

Extensive evidence exists of centuries-old community-based management systems in the Pacific islands (Johannes, 2002; MRAG, 2005), where traditional management systems have also been in place for many generations. Examples include qoliqoli (traditional fishing areas) in Fiji, village fono (council) rules in Samoa and what is referred to as the Samoan way (Fa’a Samoa), founded on custom, and the traditional form of community management initiated by the Island Councils in the Cook Islands known as the Ra’ui.

The earliest examples of fisheries management indicate that it emerged as a collective decision-making process at the community level. Allocation or access to resources tended to be more directed at reducing conflicts than management of the resource. As societies have changed, so have their abilities to cooperate and manage resources (Richerson et al., 2002). How, when and where fisheries management emerged in different countries has depended on the historical and societal context of each particular situation. However, the emergence of fishery management institutions has nearly always been as a response to a crisis and the recognition that there was a problem with the exploitation of the resource (e.g. reduced stocks or need for revenue). In San Salvador Island in the Philippines, for example, there was no history of traditional fisheries management amongst the initial migrants prior to 1960, and the fishery was effectively an "open access" system. Increasing migration to the island coupled with destructive fishing practices led to severe degradation of the fishery resource that eventuated in the initiation of fisheries co-management through a marine conservation project (Katon et al., 1997).

The adoption of western management concepts has also played a major part in changing fisheries management practices. These were introduced during the colonialization period or in the subsequent era of modernization/industrialization (Makino and Matsuda, 2005; MRAG, 2005). Colonial era fishery institutions were centralized to improve taxation or rent extraction from fisheries, but this was often coupled to an emphasis on management of the resource for future use. An important feature of the western management paradigm was the concept of "public trust", where the government or State was considered to be responsible for the management of common resources such as forests, seas and rivers, on behalf of the owners of the resource - the people. During the postwar period many national and international agencies emerged with the mandate for management of fisheries resources, based on sectoral models derived from western countries (Tietenberg, 2002).

A key aspect in this paradigm was that a top-down government driven scientific/economic approach provides better management of resources than the seemingly chaotic/ad hoc local management approaches. However, this was also during a period where marine resources were considered impossible to overexploit. The theory of open access to the resource and the tragedy of the commons that predicted that unregulated access to a common resource would lead to its overexploitation came at a stage when fisheries had already developed to the point of unsustainability (Hardin, 1968). Even as late as the 1980s and 1990s (and in some countries even up to the present), governments and their policies were still pushing for increased capture fishery production and fishery development.

During this modernization period, large-scale industrial fishing and motorisation of small-scale fisheries was also encouraged and expanded rapidly. Competition for resources and market driven development occurred to such an extent that one of the main management issues became the conflict between artisanal small-scale fishers and larger-scale fishers/fishing enterprises. Other "non-fisheries" uses for the resource, such as agriculture and aquaculture, have led to further depletion of production (WorldFish Center, 2003).

It is now generally accepted that both the local traditionally managed and the top-down government-managed models of fisheries management have in many cases failed, resulting in a worldwide crisis in fisheries (although some notable exceptions have been documented, e.g. Cunningham and

Bostock, 2005). Increasing competition for fisheries resources has resulted in reduced yields and unsustainable fishing practices. Especially in developing countries, there is clear evidence to show that although the total catch from fisheries may have increased, the value and productivity of the resource has declined. In demersal fisheries, the trend has been to fish down the food chain targeting smaller "trash fish" species for production of animal feeds (Sugiyama et al., 2005; Funge-Smith, Lindebo and Staples, in press). In pelagic fisheries, heavy fishing combined with fluctuating environmental conditions have often led to dramatic declines in catch. In many fisheries, both small-scale and large-scale, a common trend of a decline in catch per unit of effort has occurred.

As a result of these failures, there has been a recent trend for governments to move back to incorporating communities and resource users in the management of fisheries - a system now recognized as co-management. This acknowledges that both governments and stakeholders have a role to play. However, because of the large perceived costs involved and insufficient human capacity in many developing countries, co-management approaches have largely been undertaken as pilot level activities by donors and governments. Whilst there have been some localized successes, there have been problems with upscaling and all too frequently success has not been sustained after project funds have been removed. Whilst it is often necessary to develop approaches through pilot activities, this also emphasizes the need to work in a realistic environment with the resources actually available and to avoid creation of artificial (or "subsidized" systems) that cannot be sustained.

The introduction of decentralized policies in many countries has provided the opportunity to "mainstream[1]" co-management away from local, pilot-scale activities and the potential for national programmes with full-scale involvement across broad geographic areas (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997; WorldFish Center, 2003).

1.2 What do we mean by co-management?

Co-management is the sharing of decision-making and responsibility for the management of resources between the community (local fishers) and government centralized management.

Figure 1. The relationship between co-management, community-based management and government-based management (adapted from Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997)

Co-management describes the spectrum of shared management between the extremes of full community-based management (with full devolution of responsibility to communities/fishers) through to government-based management (with full responsibility controlled by government) (Figure 1). In this review, the terms "community-based management" and "government-based management" refer to the two extreme ends of the spectrum, recognizing that these extremes rarely exist in reality and that typically there is some form of intervening arrangement. The term co-management therefore represents the varying degrees of involvement/interaction of government and fishers between these two extremes.

Although the principles for co-management are essentially the same within large-scale industrial fisheries and in small-scale artisanal fisheries, the policies and modalities for implementing them may differ. Co-management is not just a concept that involves the rural poor and local communities, but must incorporate all types of fishing and impacts on the resources. Having good stewardship of coastal resources by local communities that are then exploited by larger vessels from other localities is counterproductive and will inevitably lead to the breakdown of the system.

1.3 Who are the major players in co-management?

Governments, as major players in co-management, must be involved at all levels - national, "district" and local. The main government player is often the Ministry responsible for fisheries (often part of a larger Ministry of Agriculture) with links from the Minister - Ministry - Department - District office etc. as well as other relevant Ministries, such as the Environment Ministry. The other major players are, of course, the fishery stakeholders, especially those involved in the harvesting of the fish. Other partners working with fishery stakeholders such as Civil Society Organizations (e.g. NGOs, fisher’s organizations and federations) also play an important role. Co-management may also involve other users of the fisheries resource or environment (such as the tourism/industry). In many industrialized countries there have been attempts to involve large-scale fishers in management, through organizations representing their interests being involved in dialogue with governments. In countries with significant artisanal or small-scale fisheries, there are a greater number of organizations which may in turn increase the complexity of the co-management system. Co-management describes the spectrum of shared management between the extremes of full community-based management (with full devolution of responsibility to communities/fishers) through to government-based management (with full responsibility controlled by government) (Figure 1). In this review, the terms "community-based management" and "government-based management" refer to the two extreme ends of the spectrum, recognizing that these extremes rarely exist in reality and that typically there is some form of intervening arrangement. The term co-management therefore represents the varying degrees of involvement/interaction of government and fishers between these two extremes.

Although the principles for co-management are essentially the same within large-scale industrial fisheries and in small-scale artisanal fisheries, the policies and modalities for implementing them may differ. Co-management is not just a concept that involves the rural poor and local communities, but must incorporate all types of fishing and impacts on the resources. Having good stewardship of coastal resources by local communities that are then exploited by larger vessels from other localities is counterproductive and will inevitably lead to the breakdown of the system.

1.3 Who are the major players in co-management?

Governments, as major players in co-management, must be involved at all levels - national, "district" and local. The main government player is often the Ministry responsible for fisheries (often part of a larger Ministry of Agriculture) with links from the Minister - Ministry - Department - District office etc. as well as other relevant Ministries, such as the Environment Ministry. The other major players are, of course, the fishery stakeholders, especially those involved in the harvesting of the fish. Other partners working with fishery stakeholders such as Civil Society Organizations (e.g. NGOs, fisher’s organizations and federations) also play an important role. Co-management may also involve other users of the fisheries resource or environment (such as the tourism/industry). In many industrialized countries there have been attempts to involve large-scale fishers in management, through organizations representing their interests being involved in dialogue with governments. In countries with significant artisanal or small-scale fisheries, there are a greater number of organizations which may in turn increase the complexity of the co-management system.

The typical major players who have a stake in decision-making on matters that relate to fisheries resources are shown diagrammatically in Figure 2. This has been further elaborated during the recent Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC) workshop on "Mainstreaming fishery co-management" (FAO, 2005).

Figure 2. Key players in co-management (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997)

1.4 Roles and responsibilities of major players

The roles and responsibilities of the major players, as identified above, are often not clearly defined or understood by the players themselves. As part of the co-management process, it is essential that the major players sit down regularly and define their and other’s roles and responsibilities. As a guide, the Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC) Workshop on "Mainstreaming fishery co-management" (FAO, 2005) developed roles and responsibilities for seven groups of major players (Table 1).

Table 1. Co-management players: roles and responsibilities

Players

Role and responsibilities

GOVERNMENT AND ITS INSTITUTIONS

- Central/national/federal
- Provincial/regional/state/local

At the national level:

- Provide an enabling environment through the specification of policy and legislation

- Technical support/advice/human resource development

- Empowerment, incentives, equity

- Facilitate a participatory process/partnership

- Ensure linkages

- Standard-setting

- Quality control, trade and market support

At the local level:

- Execute policy; implement management plan and measures; issue local administrative rules, regulations and ordinances; coordinate with other sectors; local project planning

FISHER INSTITUTIONS

- Communities
- Groups
- Organizations etc.

- Local planning and implementation
- Custodian/stewardship over resources
- Sustainable exploitation of resources
- Formulation/observance of local rules and regulations
- Conservation and resource enhancement
- Participation in objective-setting and planning
- Facilitate participatory process/partnership
- Involvement in national/regional processes

INDIVIDUAL FISHERS
(not included above)

- Individuals
- Groups outside formal systems
- Migrants
- Etc.

- Stakeholders in that they use the resources and are expected to follow management interventions,

- Maybe "outside" formal arrangements but still need to be considered/involved

PRIVATE SECTOR

- Small-scale entrepreneurs
- Larger-scale/industrial

- Involvement in terms of upstream and downstream linkages

FACILITATORS AND SUPPORT

- Financial support and pilot implementation of projects

GROUPS

- IGOs and international agencies
- NGOs-international, local
- Trade unions
- Advocacy groups

- Capacity building
- Advocacy
- Linkages
- Extension and pilots
- Standard-setting

MEDIA

- Means of awareness, information flows/exchange

At the national level, the role of government was seen as one of providing an enabling environment through broad specification of policy and legislation, and the provision of technical support, advice and human capacity development. These policies are then to be implemented at the local level through management plans, local administrative rules, regulations and ordinances. It was also felt the central government had a major role to play in supporting empowerment of the resource users, promoting equity and providing incentives to implement policies.

The role that fisher communities, groups and organizations play was also highlighted. As a major partner they are also responsible for participating in local planning and implementation (especially the setting of management objectives), formulating and observing local rules and regulations and be able to represent their institutions at the national/regional level. The role of individual fishers (not included in the role of fisher institutions), the private sector, facilitators and support groups, media and academic/research/training instates are also laid out in Table 1.

The table also gives a good guide on the skills and human capacity needed by each of the major players. It is important to note the number of roles that require good interpersonal skills and conflict resolution abilities, as well as the more traditional skills and experiences often associated with training in the more government-based fishery management regimes in the past.


[1] In the sense that co-management moves from pilot projects to becoming the main form of fisheries management in a country

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page