MANAGERS’ MEETING, 26-28 MARCH 2001

Status of shrimp and groundfish stocks and proposed management options
Modalities of co-operation
Improving the effectiveness of the Ad Hoc Working Group
Priority areas for future work

Opening of the Meeting

1. The Meeting was held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, from 26 to 29 March 2001, at the kind invitation of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

2. Fisheries Managers from Brazil, French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela and observers from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) attended the meeting. The list of participants is given in Appendix A of the report.

3. The Secretary of WECAFC, Mr Bisessar Chakalall, welcomed the participants on behalf of FAO and expressed FAO’s appreciation to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago for hosting the meeting. He emphasised the important role the WECAFC Ad Hoc Working Group on Shrimp and Groundfish Resources in the Brazil-Guianas Shelf¹ could play in promoting responsible and sustainable fisheries in the sub-region.

4. The participants were welcomed to Trinidad and Tobago by Mr Carlisle Jordan, Director of Fisheries. He pointed out that the meeting provided a unique opportunity for the countries of the Brazil-Guianas shelf to collaborate in determining the future of the fisheries of the region, using the best available information generated by the Ad Hoc Working Group over the past five years.

Election of Chairman

5. The proposal of the delegate from Guyana, that Trinidad and Tobago be elected Chairman and Venezuela Vice-Chairman, was unanimously accepted.

Adoption of the Agenda

6. The meeting adopted the Agenda that is given in Appendix B. The documents presented to the meeting are listed in Appendix C.

Objectives of the Meeting

7. The Secretariat referred to document WECAFC/B-G/MAN/01/2, Background Information and Objectives of the Meeting, which contained the following main objectives of the meeting:

• Review the results of the stock assessment and bio-economic analyses obtained by the Ad Hoc Working Group over the past five years;
• Inform decision makers on the status of shrimp and groundfish resources of the Brazil-Guianas shelf;
• Consider management measures to address the sustainable utilisation of the fishery resources of the Brazil-Guianas shelf; and
• Identify an appropriate strategy or strategies for the implementation of effective co-operation in fisheries research and management of the Brazil-Guianas shelf.

Status of shrimp and groundfish stocks and proposed management options

8. Delegates presented their national fishery management reports, which were prepared by national scientists at the Fourth Workshop on the Assessment of Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries on the Brazil-Guianas Shelf, which was held in Cumaná, Venezuela, from 2 to 13 October 2000². These national reports and regional reviews, which were contained in document WECAFC/B-G/MAN/01/3, represented a summary of the results and conclusions from the work undertaken by the Ad Hoc Working Group over the last five years on the provision and use of scientific advice in responsible fisheries management. The Ad Hoc Working Group followed the principles of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, especially Article 7- Fisheries Management, as the basic guide for its work.

9. The meeting reviewed the reports and based on the management recommendations of the delegations prepared management reports, outlining the more important management issues and options for improvement, for consideration by the ministers. These management reports are found in Appendix D.

Modalities of co-operation

10. The Secretariat introduced document WECAFC/B-G/MAN/01/4, Modalities of Co-operation: the future work of the Ad Hoc Working Group, which contained the conclusions and recommendations on the subject prepared at the Fourth Workshop on the Assessment of Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries on the Brazil-Guianas Shelf, Cumaná, Venezuela, 2-13 October 2000³.

11. The delegates noted the significant achievements and direct benefits generated by the Ad Hoc Working Group and agreed that it was essential for the group to continue its work in order to maintain and increase the momentum generated over the last five years. The group had contributed significantly to capacity building, the development of standardised stock assessment methodologies and fisheries assessment for management purposes.

12. The meeting agreed that the Ad Hoc Working Group should continue its work and agreed to support an Electronic Workshop, involving the Group, tentatively scheduled for 2001 and a Workshop of the Ad Hoc Working Group in 2002, which Brazil offered to host.

13. Some delegates mentioned the difficulties being faced by fisheries administrations in obtaining adequate human and financial resources from central government in support of their fisheries assessment and management programme. Some delegates pointed out that it was necessary to tangibly demonstrate the success of science in influencing fishery management decisions in order to obtain the required support for their activities.

14. The meeting noted the costs and benefits of the modality of operation adopted by the Ad Hoc Working Group and agreed that members would start sharing the responsibilities for future work of the group. This could be initiated by making the activities of the Ad Hoc Working Group an integral part of the regular programme of work and budget of the fisheries administrations.

15. In agreeing to share the responsibilities, the delegates agreed to recommend to their respective governments that they consider covering the costs of their scientists to attend meetings of the group, in the first instance, in the gradual process of accepting more responsibility for the work of the group. At the same time delegates requested FAO to provide them with information to enable them to agree on a cost-sharing formula.

16. In agreeing to the new modality of operation, the meeting emphasised that it would still require the technical assistance of FAO. The delegates sincerely thanked DANIDA, the Government of Norway, FAO/WECAFC and CFRAMP for their support. In this regard, the meeting requested these agencies to seriously consider maintaining the current level of technical support to the Ad Hoc Working Group. The meeting also suggested that the fishing industry could be approached to financially support research for management purposes and the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group. The observer from CARICOM informed the meeting that the CARICOM Fisheries Unit (CFRAMP) would continue to provide support to the CARICOM countries’ participation in the future work of the Ad Hoc Working Group.

17. The meeting agreed that the activities of the Ad Hoc Working Group did not preclude countries from undertaking bilateral or multilateral work through formal or informal agreements and that these activities would complement and support the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group. The delegates encouraged such work especially during the inter-sessional period and agreed that it was essential in cases where the stocks were overlapping.

Improving the effectiveness of the Ad Hoc Working Group

18. The Secretariat introduced this item with reference to document WECAFC/B-G/MAN/01/5, which considered the constraints to effective management of the Brazil-Guianas shrimp and groundfish resources and to what extent the Ad Hoc Working Group could address these concerns. Some of the major constraints identified in WECAFC/B-G/MAN/01/5 were listed as the following:

• The objectives of the Brazil-Guianas fisheries have usually been found to be poorly defined and frequently conflicting, seriously hindering effective management. Therefore, high priority should be given to developing appropriate objectives for the fisheries of the Brazil-Guianas countries, with participation by all legitimate stakeholders;
• The progress made by the Working Group in building capacity in the participating fisheries departments had frequently not been adequately transferred to the national institutions as a whole, thereby limiting the benefits obtained. Achieving such institutionalisation would require stronger involvement of managers and politicians in the activities of the Ad Hoc Working Group and their support for these activities;
• Concerns about the short-term negative social and economic consequences of required management actions frequently contribute to reluctance by political decision makers to take the required decisions and actions. To address this problem it is essential to demonstrate to the decision makers and stakeholders the need for effective management if the benefits are to be sustained in the long term; and
• Document WECAFC/B-G/MAN/01/5 provided an outline of the basic institutional requirements for responsible management. The existing institutional structures can be seen to be lacking in several areas in comparison to this outline. Problems include: insufficient staff to fulfil the essential functions; poor communication between different levels and interest groups; and no clear decision-making procedures and responsibilities. Insufficient funding to the management agency is an important factor in these problems.

19. The meeting supported the conclusions and recommendations contained in WECAFC/B-G/MAN/01/5. Key issues that were raised or re-emphasised in the subsequent discussion included the following:

• Poor, scientific information frequently hindered good management decisions and there was a need to ensure that sufficient financial and human resources were available to conduct the necessary data collection, research and analyses to provide the required information.
• It was recognised that the information that was currently available was frequently not properly used as a result of a lack of experience amongst scientific staff in making the best use of sparse data and information to provide management advice. It was also agreed that while, in general, the Brazil-Guianas fisheries administrations were reasonably advanced in the production of information, they were much less advanced in the use of that information.
• The need to demonstrate the importance of the results of the activities of the Ad Hoc Working Group and other scientific advice to senior management and the political decision makers was stressed. This was particularly important as a result of the low priority given to fisheries in national development plans. Convincing decision makers of the value of fisheries and fisheries management also required that the objectives of the fisheries sector should be consistent with national development objectives and that this was clearly demonstrated to the national leaders.
• It was recognised that the stakeholders were central in responsible fisheries management and that the benefits of good management had to be demonstrated to them and accepted by them. The stakeholders were directly affected by fisheries management decisions. They, thus, have an interest in and an essential role to play in the provision of information, setting objectives and in the implementation of management strategies. In commercial fisheries, stakeholders could also cover some of the expenses associated with fisheries management.

20. The importance of regional co-operation as a means of optimising the use of limited financial resources and human expertise was also emphasised. Many member countries of WECAFC have limited capacity for the difficult and demanding tasks of fisheries assessment and management. This capacity could frequently be used most efficiently through co-operation and sharing between countries within the region. This could include co-operation in research, monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) and training. The greater use of electronic media would substantially enhance the opportunities for such co-operation.

Priority areas for future work

21. The Ad Hoc Working Group should continue to develop the linkages between science and management. This should be done, in particular, by focusing analyses and activities on the issues of greatest relevance to management at the national and regional levels, by ensuring that results and recommendations are formulated in a manner which facilitates their easy transfer to managers and by ensuring on-going dialogue with the management and political decision-making levels within fisheries.

22. The scientists of the Ad Hoc Working Group should work with the managers, decision makers and stakeholders to develop clear objectives for each fishery, taking into account the production potential of the resources and the national and regional development goals.

23. The analyses undertaken by the Ad Hoc Working Group had demonstrated the importance of complete and accurate data on the catch and effort from each fishery and on critical aspects of the biology of the key exploited and affected species. They had also revealed deficiencies in the existing data collection programmes in several cases. The Ad Hoc Working Group should encourage the national agencies to ensure these deficiencies are remedied as far as possible and that effective monitoring and data collection systems are established in all countries and cover all fisheries.

24. While good progress has been made in developing capacity within the national agencies and the Ad Hoc Working Group for processing data and information to generate scientific advice, much remains to be done before the countries and the Ad Hoc Working Group are self-sufficient in these skills. The Ad Hoc Working Group must therefore continue to give attention to capacity building and training to national scientists and institutions.

25. A long-term goal of the Ad Hoc Working Group is to become self-sufficient and this will be facilitated by continuing to foster a participatory and self-help approach within the Group, designed to develop sustainable individual skills and to develop institutions with a broad base, which will become less dependent on a few individuals who subsequently may be lost to the system. This approach would still include formal training, particularly, in analysis and fisheries assessment and management, but would also, whenever possible, encourage the local participants to take control of the activities within the project, under the guidance of the project staff.

26. The Ad Hoc Working Group had provided the initial stimulus to hold six national workshops with stakeholders⁴. It should continue to promote on-going consultation between the different interest groups, levels and units within the management agency and with the highest relevant political authorities to discuss the objectives, rationale and work plan of the Ad Hoc Working Group to ensure it enjoys full support.

27. The scientific priorities for the Ad Hoc Working Group over the next five years should include the following:

• To expand the assessments and analyses undertaken to date so as to include greater consideration of the social implications of different management strategies, as well as their biological and economic implications;
• To continue the bio-economic studies on the shrimp fisheries to cover all countries and fisheries and to consider a wider range of possible economic objectives and measures, as well as to include bio-economic assessments of the groundfish fisheries;
• To undertake basic assessments of the fisheries for seabob and white and pink shrimp in those areas where they are important resources;
• To encourage the collection of essential fisheries and biological information on the regional red snapper fishery and stock or stocks and undertaking regional assessments to guide the management of this important shared resource;
• To promote improved collection of essential data on the groundfish fisheries and the resources on which they depend, so as to enable reliable and informative assessments of the different fisheries and species. These assessments must aim to facilitate the development of comprehensive management plans and strategies for these multi-species, multi-gear and multi-national fisheries; and
• To give greater attention to developing suitable multi-species, multi-fleet assessment methodologies so as to allow the development of management strategies, which reflect the strong linkages between the resources and fisheries for both the shrimp and groundfish resources.

Snapper

28. The recommendations from the Ad Hoc Working Group included the need for both coastal states and flag states to co-operate in controlling fishing and in reducing effort to a sustainable level. Until better information is available on the required reduction in effort for the region, it should, as a minimum, be frozen and no additional effort should be allowed into the fishery.

29. In some cases, there is also a need to increase the minimum size of the fish being caught. Adequate monitoring systems need to be implemented with the full participation of both coastal and flag states.

30. Effective management will require the countries to co-operate in combining data and information in order to conduct a regional fisheries assessment as a basis for developing an appropriate management strategy. The data collected should include complete catch and effort information and, at least, information on the size structure of the catches. The Ad Hoc Working Group is the appropriate body to co-ordinate these activities.

Groundfish

31. Despite a desire for sustainable utilisation, management was seriously hindered by a lack of comprehensive and reliable information on many important species. Where information was available, the results of assessments for most species indicated high levels of exploitation with most stocks being fully exploited and frequently over-exploited. As a result, if no remedial management action was taken, the livelihoods of fishers dependent on those resources will deteriorate. An essential first step was to implement limited entry to the affected fisheries and to prevent new fishers from entering them.

32. Capture of under-sized individuals was also a serious problem in all the countries, both as by-catch and in directed fisheries. Gear such as “Chinese seines” (fyke nets), pin seines and shrimp trawls were catching large numbers of undersized fish, resulting in inefficient utilisation and thus making an important contribution to the over-exploitation. The situation needs to be urgently addressed through reduction in effort with these gears, the use of technical measures, such as increases in minimum mesh size, the installation of by-catch reduction devices, time and area closures to minimise catches of undersized fish, or a combination of such measures.

33. Since many of these resources are shared, there is a need to look at co-operation in assessment and management, particularly in areas such as the Gulf of Paria and also along the coast from the Orinoco to the Amazon rivers.

Shrimp

34. The national assessments show a generally consistent picture of decreasing biomass in recent years of brown shrimp and a longer-term decrease in pink spotted shrimp. Factors that are likely to be implicated in this decrease are fishing mortality, increasing fishing close to the shore where immature shrimp are caught and environmental factors possibly linked to rainfall and resulting river flows. The results from the Ad Hoc Working Group showed increasing fishing mortality on both species of shrimp associated with the decreases in biomass and this gives considerable cause for concern. For both species, further bio-economic work was required as the analyses already undertaken gave strong indications that current levels of exploitation were above the economic optimum, meaning that potential revenue was being dissipated.

35. Furthermore, there was a need to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the management tools currently being used in the shrimp fisheries and how they can be improved, including effort controls, closed areas and closed seasons. Basic assessment work also needs to be undertaken on seabob, white and pink shrimp in future activities of the Ad Hoc Working Group.

36. Suriname proposed, and it was agreed, that a meeting be convened of representatives of the fishing industry, fisheries managers and scientists in the region to discuss the status of the shrimp resources of the Brazil-Guianas shelf and other matters of interest to the industry. Suriname agreed to request its industry to convene the meeting, provided that they could receive technical assistance and advice from FAO.

Reporting

37. The delegates agreed on the format and procedure for reporting to the Ministers who were scheduled to meet on 29 March 2001. The format is reflected in the Managers’ Report to the Ministers - Appendix D. The meeting also agreed that each delegation would use its approved report to brief its respective minister prior to the Ministers’ Meeting.

Other Business

38. For the information of the meeting, the observer from CARICOM presented a brief description of the proposed Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) that included its goal, membership, structure and functions. It was pointed out that in January 2001 the CARICOM Ministers responsible for the Council on Trade and Economic Development (COTED) approved the proposal and recommended the preparation of a legal document that would formally establish the CRFM.