Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Dear colleagues,

I noted that a key element in recording SSF catches was not mentioned. The Sea Around Us (www.seaaroundus.org) is the one place where independent scientists in countries all over the globe have painstakingly researched and shared the currently best available estimates about SSF, subsistance and recreational marine catches. Using this resource systematically and encouraging and engaging in research in more countries to improve on the first 20 ys of efforts could much improve the conditions of fisheries management not only in Asian, African and Latin America countries. This is where most women and men in SSF live and work (almost 99% by FAO estimates in the SOFIA 2018 report - you must be working on an update even if COFI 2020 may not happen as usual). Taking inthese estimates as a starting point for further improvement could help government administrations and others to beef up their efforts for the implementation of the guidelines and revalue the importance of their domestic and regional SSF.

I would like to add an experience from the efforts since the 60s to integrate environmental concerns into policy framing and the civil society movement to add criteria of social justice since the 70s. There has since been much talk about integrated water resources management, rural development programmes and the need to blend natural resources analyses in fisheries with social science understanding, something strongly expressed in the consultative process that led up to the Guidelines and the defence of their grounding in human rights approaches.

Despite all the efforts that allowed us to learn a lot in these decades, the nexus between marine ecosystems, water, energy, food, social organisation and other dimensions playing out at local level in people's lives is fiendishly difficult to put into practice. Sectoral government silos remain strong and many well-intended processes even among a diversity of experts can not quite deliver on what's needed.

It always boils down to the two questions: (1) who asks the questions and who's heard, (2) what is the process and how is it set up?

While we know how important governments are in these processes, we also know that they can't do it alone, not even the ones well-endowed with resources.

While people at local level have no choice but juggle with the many challenges and opportunities to make a living, the higher up the ranks of formalisation and institutions you get, the more difficult it is to bring this rich and often contradictory tissue of experiences and knowledges to bear on processes, especially under conditions where key interlocuteurs are located in a mono-purpose agency or similar. Such configurations are not amenable to creating knowledge ecologies for robust solutions based on dialogue and negotiations.

The spatial marine planning approaches that are spreading in many places may well fall victim to such shortcomings and not deliver despite significant resources allocated.

That is a key motivation that led to our support for developing a small-scale fisheries academy to empower men and women in SSF to exchange among themselves in families, neighbourhoods, communities, along value chains to be empowered to speak for themselves. As you know we are early days with testing the methodology for training trainers. The covid-19 pandemic has forced us to postpone the next round of training and stalled progress momentarily, just as it's spanners in the work of key international negotiations.

At the same time, the experience that measures thought unthinkable before have been taken, may embolden efforts to seize opportunities not to go back to the utterly unsustainable state before and join forces for more experiementation of alternatives.

Please bear with me for condensing big concepts into a short text and refraining from explaining more of the background and theoretical and empirical underpinning.

But I wanted at least to flag the issues and stakes and express our interest to contribute to the implementation of the SSF Guidelines in whatever way we can, preferably in a strong collaborative mode.

Kind regards,

Cornelia

Dr. Cornelia E Nauen

President

Mundus maris - Sciences and Arts for Sustainability asbl

www.mundusmaris.org

As our work focuses on supporting countries in developing and implementing agriculture sector National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), we think our recommendations would in general be well-suited to monitoring of activities implemented under the “disaster risks and climate change” thematic area of the SSF Guidelines.

Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

We would like to point you to our upcoming knowledge product – “Addressing Fisheries in NAPs - Supplementary Guidelines to the UNFCCC NAP Technical Guidelines”. This is to be published in the following months, and includes a chapter on the fourth and final Element D of the National Adaptation Planning process which is “Reporting, monitoring and review”.  This chapter provides guidance on how the fisheries sector could formulate a specific plan for monitoring and evaluating sector activities targeted by the NAP which enable greater adaptation outcomes for the systems and people of the fisheries and aquaculture sector. It also highlights principals for choosing M&E indicators for implementation of any sectoral NAP. We would be glad to share this publication with you once it is finalized.

Meaningful and feasible indicators: How can we measure progress?

Once again, under the disaster risks and climate change theme, we would suggest the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Indicator C-2 on reducing direct agricultural loss attributed to disasters (https://www.preventionweb.net/files/55594_session4faomarkovaandkhim.pdf). It assesses the damage and loss in agriculture by agriculture subsector, including fisheries. There are two subcomponents worth highlighting here;

The “production loss” subcomponent captures the decline in production of each subsector that is irreversibly lost due to disaster. In the case of production loss in aquaculture and fisheries, indicators include the difference between expected and actual value of fisheries/aquaculture capture in disaster year. In the case of aquaculture the pre-disaster value of production lost in fully damaged aquaculture areas can be a useful indicator.

The “asset damage” sub-component measures disaster impact on facilities, machinery, tools, and key infrastructure related to agricultural production. Fisheries assets include ponds, hatcheries, freezers and storage buildings, engines and boats, fisheries equipment; forestry assets include, among others, standing timber, firebreaks and watch towers, forestry equipment and machinery, fire management equipment. The monetary value of (fully or partially) damaged assets is calculated using the replacement or repair/rehabilitation cost, and accounted under damage.

Furthermore, on the question of any monitoring and evaluation frameworks and data sources that we are aware of that could be drawn upon, we suggest the Uganda Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for National Adaptation Plan for Agriculture and the performance indicators for the Fishery component (document attached).

Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences

The work is in progress in some NAP-Ag countries, so experiences will be shareable in the future.

Dear online consultation contributors, 

The online consultation is now concluded. We thank all contributors for taking the time to share your perspective, thoughts, and valuable insights. Your inputs are extremely useful to us as we conceptualize and design guidance for monitoring the implementation of the SSF Guidelines. We hope you have enjoyed reading the contributions, making connections, and learning from others about small-scale fisheries around the world. A full summary of the contributions will be available shortly via this webpage. Please feel free to contact us again directly at [email protected], and be sure to watch the SSF Guidelines website and Twitter (@FAOfish) for updates on this work. 

With gratitude and best wishes, 

Katy Dalton for The FAO SSF Guidelines Secretariat 

Chers contributeurs à la consultation électronique,

La consultation électronique est maintenant terminée. Nous remercions tous les contributeurs d'avoir pris le temps de partager votre point de vue, vos réflexions et vos précieuses idées. Vos contributions nous sont extrêmement utiles car nous conceptualisons et concevons des orientations pour le suivi de la mise en œuvre des directives SSF. Nous espérons que vous avez apprécié lire les contributions, établir des liens et apprendre des autres sur la pêche artisanale dans le monde. Un résumé complet des contributions sera disponible sous peu sur cette page Web. N'hésitez pas à nous contacter à nouveau directement à [email protected], et assurez-vous de regarder le site Web des directives SSF et Twitter (@FAOfish) pour les mises à jour sur ce travail.

Avec gratitude et meilleurs vœux,

Katy Dalton pour le Secrétariat des directives FSS de la FAO

Estimados colaboradores de la consulta electronica,

La consulta electrónica ya ha concluido. Agradecemos a todos los contribuyentes el haber dedicado su tiempo a compartir sus perspectivas, opiniones y sus valiosos conocimientos. Sus aportaciones son extremadamente útiles para nosotros a la hora de conceptualizar y diseñar guías para vigilar la implementación de las Directrices PPE. Esperamos que hayan disfrutado leyendo las contribuciones, estableciendo relaciones y aprendiendo de otros sobre la pesca en pequeña escala en todo el mundo. En breve estará disponible un resumen completo de las contribuciones a través de esta página web. No duden en contactarnos directamente en [email protected], y asegúrense de visitar el sitio web de las Directrices PPE y Twitter (@FAOfish) para obtener actualizaciones sobre esta iniciativa.

Con gratitud y mis mejores deseos,

Katy Dalton,  Secretaría de la FAO para las Directrices PPE

This response is from the Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section (GAFS) of the Asian Fisheries Society (https://www.genderaquafish.org/). Hence, our suggestions relate to the gender elements of the SSF-VG. We also draw your attention to Quist (2016) [LINK – “A Gender Analysis of the Adopted Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication: Constraints and Opportunities” Asian Fisheries Science, 29:149-160.]

The key messages from our detailed response (attached) are:

• Women are vital to SSF: Women are a large, important but poorly documented part of SSF, creating monitoring problems within the overall SSF Guidelines monitoring challenge. Many local and national fisheries officials have a very low awareness of the gender provisions in the SSF Guidelines. This could lead to women’s status and engagement diminishing, in spite of efforts to improve SSF. Monitoring should be sensitive to the possibility of negative as well as positive change in gender equality.
• Local scale monitoring is key: The scale of monitoring should primarily be local due to the diverse forms of SSF. Progress measured at the local level would then be collated for the regional/national levels where progress would be measured in terms of policies and programmes in line with the Guidelines, including special programs addressing women. Empirical studies are needed to work through model approaches, at the national level, for collecting sex-disaggregated data.
• Adapt SDG gender targets: The SSF monitoring programme could adapt selected gender targets from relevant SDGs (UN Women, 2018). An annex of suggested targets is provided for consideration. Unfortunately, SDG 14 (Life Under Water) is one of the few SDGs to contain no gender-specific targets, but other SDGs contain relevant targets.
• In depth gender analysis needed: To help overcome gender blindness, in depth gender analysis is needed to establish the fisheries (resources and value chain) and the policies, institutions and organizations that specially affect women of fishing communities.
• First raise community awareness of SSF Guidelines: Greater awareness among SSF communities on the Guidelines is the essential first step for participatory monitoring. Capacity building is needed to educate women and men on the ground that the SSF Guidelines is an exclusive instrument that can be used to ensure their livelihoods including their access to their resources and all other aspects encompassing it.
• Combine participatory monitoring with social change: Nurturing social change is entwined with participatory monitoring. Participants will be the fishers, the local governments, fishers’ organisations, CSOs, researchers (especially those working in SSF and gender). Government agencies will have to cede some control and work in a collaborative rather than top-down manner.

What incredible timing, and with the extension and all!

Small fisheries are a great solution to issues surrounding general poverty, food supply, special preservation, and fertilization of permaculture. 

Also what a pleasure to see the statement as bold as "2020 The Year of Artisanal Aquaculture & Fisheries," to fuel the science into a great movement.

Especially in times of serious flu scare amidst the COVID-19 emergence. After reading all related material, I still can't stop thinking of the plethora of herbal solutions that are passed on and never even mentioned. Immunity and robust strong immune systems should be the primary focus. I would think. But that is me.

1. Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

Sustainable living systems all by themselves feature so many benefits it would be foolish for an impoverished person to ignore. Yet, I would say it is the main reason we are still so far out of balance and more of these systems are not in play.

The second reason this concept is will be hard to achieve is government policy.

Jokingly we can say both the stupid people and the government policy have to go.

2. Meaningful and feasible indicators: How can we measure progress?

When people get into stuff like this, they get into it, I have noticed learning from one another in farming usually runs pretty well. With the internet, even better such as here.

3. Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences.

Same answer as to #2. Maybe an app that is can help keep data including fish populations census.

I would like to work more on the small fishery idea myself.

I think now knowing 2022 will be the world year for it I am motivated to get in the groove!

The only thing that makes it more motivating is considering the idea that your hand would be in a bit of karmic reforestation.

I think this also a great addition to the Poverty Nexus work a few months back.

Considering what is happening to our waters everywhere, I am very thankful for your focus on this as a committee!

Some sort of marketing for this 2022 Small Fisheries campaign could be really motivating also.

A Decade of Farming for Families is also an excellent motivation for the next 9 years of concentrated family farming.

As they say when I was growing up " Rock & Roll." They also said, "take it easy."

1. Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

• What do you think are the 5 most relevant chapters, paragraphs, and/or topics of the SSF Guidelines for assessing progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries?
• Please describe why you believe these chapters, paragraphs, and/or topics are most relevant.

Although Sustainable Natural Resource use/management should more generally be seen as a priority for meeting SSF guidelines and more generally the ‘Code’, there are sections that should be considered “priorities” but specifically with reference to “most relevant” for “assessing progress”, might not be. The following fall under the remit specifically of being “most relevant for assessing progress”:

1)  5b Natural Resource Management, specifically: 5.13 States and all those engaged in fisheries management should adopt measures for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources and to secure the ecological foundation for food production. They should promote and implement appropriate management systems, consistent with their existing obligations under national and international law and voluntary commitments, including the Code, that give due recognition to the requirements and opportunities of small scale fisheries.

Rationale:

The rationale for identifying 5b and in particular 5.13 is as follows: Part 2, describes governance requirements, which are an essential enabling condition; employment, gender equality and value chains etc. are essential for securing the value of the SSF and ensuring it is shared equitably; whilst risk and climate are all concerned with mitigating potential threats. Fundamental to the maintenance of SSF is the availability of resources to exploit – without which all other elements become irrelevant – therefore the assessment of Sustainable natural resource use (sustainable harvest, EAFM, etc.) is key to ensuring that resources are maintained, harvested sustainably and remain available for future SSF.

2) 13 Implementation and Monitoring: specifically, “13.4 States should recognize the importance of monitoring systems that allow their institutions to assess progress towards implementation of the objectives and recommendations in these Guidelines. Assessments of the impact on the enjoyment of the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security and on poverty eradication should be included. Mechanisms allowing the results of monitoring to feed back into policy formulation and implementation should be included. Gender should be taken into consideration in monitoring by using gender-sensitive approaches, indicators and data. States and all parties should elaborate participatory assessment methodologies that allow a better understanding and documentation of the true contribution of small-scale fisheries to sustainable resource management for food security and poverty eradication including both men and women.” AND 5.16 States should ensure the establishment of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems or promote the application of existing ones applicable to and suitable for small-scale fisheries.

Rationale:

13 is obviously important for assessing progress as it encompasses the implementation and monitoring elements, without which it is not possible to know if progress is being made even if all other guidance is being followed and all elements are being successfully implemented.

As such – tracking progress specifically on implementation and developing suitable monitoring approaches is essential for determining impact of the SSF guidelines and progress in meeting objectives.

3) Meeting the objectives of the SSF 1.1, and 1.2 (and Guiding Principles), more specifically: 1.1 c) to achieve the sustainable utilization, prudent and responsible management and conservation of fisheries resources consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code) and related instruments,

Rationale:

Outlining the Objectives is essential for supporting progress assessment as it frames “the what” for assessment (i.e. what is the goal and how will we know when we have reached it) and helps to identify how you can define the indicators of progress towards the goals. Thus, the Objectives should be used to create indicators with benchmarks for framing progress on whether these stated objectives have been achieved. The Guiding Principles are also important because they also represent the conditions by which the objectives should be met and should thus be used to ensure that meeting the objectives is not negatively impact any of the principles.

4) Governance (and enabling conditions, rights and responsibility), specifically 1.1 c) to achieve the sustainable utilization, prudent and responsible management and conservation of fisheries resources consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code) and related instruments, AND 5.20 States should avoid policies and financial measures that may contribute to fishing overcapacity and, hence, overexploitation of resources that have an adverse impact on small-scale fisheries AND 5.14 All parties should recognize that rights and responsibilities come together; tenure rights are balanced by duties, and support the long-term conservation and sustainable use of resources and the maintenance of the ecological foundation for food production.

Rationale:

Enabling conditions in the form of governance and tenure are essential for enabling SSF and as such these sections should be used to benchmark progress towards the enabling conditions that are essential for meeting the objectives. Equally a clear objective is to generate the revenues from fisheries for SSF, thus tracking progress in enabling conditions for securing revenues is also important for meeting the objectives.

5) Links to the CODE: ensuring that actions for meeting SSF guidelines are in-line with meeting the CODE. Specifically, Objective 1.1 c) to achieve the sustainable utilization, prudent and responsible management and conservation of fisheries resources consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code) and related instruments, AND 5.13 They should promote and implement appropriate management systems, consistent with their existing obligations under national and international law and voluntary commitments, including the Code, that give due recognition to the requirements and opportunities of small-scale fisheries.

Rationale:

The links to the “CODE” in the Preface (and mentioned elsewhere) is important and also represents an important section relevant for assessment because ultimately the SSF objectives and guidelines should meet the CODE and if progress tracked against the SSF objectives is not consistent with meeting the CODE, this should be highlighted and addressed.

• At what geographical scale should progress be measured (e.g. local, national)?

A combination of scales. Ideally the scale should allow monitoring at the local level that can be aggregated to something meaningful at the national level and comparable between nations – in order to do this a certain amount of bespoke decision-making around monitoring is need whilst making sure that indicators (or at least some of them) can be comparable between nations. Examples of such are creating milestones that ask whether planning / strategy documents have been prepared and identifying key items that all strategies should include such as enabling instruments, whilst including additional elements that countries will develop for tracking progress specific to each countries specific requirements

2. Meaningful and feasible indicators: How can we measure progress?

• Do you have suggestions for indicators that could be used to assess progress towards the priorities you identified under part 1? Please discuss whether you consider these indicators mandatory versus “nice to have.”

1) Sustainability of natural resource use

Tracking against benchmarks and milestones towards meeting sustainability of resource use, such as,

- Measures for the long-term “conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources and to secure the

ecological foundation for food production” have been defined

- Measures have been tested and adapted to the local context

- Legal frameworks exist for the measures to be implemented

- Stakeholders have rights over resources and consider themselves responsible for conservation and sustainable use

- Measures are being implemented

- Effectiveness of measures are being evaluated for their impact on the goal of conservation and sustainable use

- Benchmarks for sustainable use have been defined

- Evaluation of impact of management measures on resources show positive impacts – requiring the addition of a specific series of indicators:

NB – the series of benchmarks and steps would also provide a system for tracking progress towards other key elements, such as the governance needs, legal frameworks, rights and responsibilities. Therefore, addressing the fundamental inter-connectedness of the SSF guidelines and their relationship to the CODE.

2) Development of monitoring systems and capacity

- Measures for M&E of each critical component (against each objective) have been defined / designed / developed, incorporating benchmarks, milestones and intermediate goals.

- Measures for M&E have been piloted/ tested for their effectiveness

- Measures for M&E are consistently being implemented

- M&E measures are demonstrating target impacts

3) Objectives

Generation of specific indicators under each objectives could be used to frame the way that progress is measured/monitored.

4) Governance, Tenure / ownership / responsibility, Revenue

e.g. Extent of ownership and responsibility, revenue generation from SSF, Legal instruments in place.

- Extent of participation, (and break down by gender, indigenous people’s etc.), in planning

- Integration into law

- Extent of co-management

- Measures have been designed – track progress against general measures of design appropriate for all in management designs (e.g. protected areas, forest management, etc.) and context/country-specific ones select

- Measures have been designed - track progress against general measures of implementation appropriate for all in management designs (e.g. protected areas, forest management, etc.) and context/country-specific ones select

5) Alignment of SSF achievements with the CODE

Integration of monitoring framework with progress to meet the code.

• If possible, please provide examples of where the indicators you suggest have been used successfully, including in data- and capacity-limited contexts.

The majority of the recommended indicators are related to process and, as such are easy to measure in a ‘done/not done’ approach, providing important information on progress but not necessarily meeting the objective of evaluating impact of implementing the guidelines.

Many of the specific indicators of impact of following the SSF guidelines can also focus on each of the enabling conditions in a ‘completed/not completed’ manner. E.g. Are the appropriate legislations in place to allow SSF rights of access? In other cases, progress can be tracked in a similar way but will need to be evaluated against a defined framework of benchmarks or acceptable targets. For example, 5.14 recognizing rights and responsibilities – defining the target is necessary to describe when this ‘target’ has been achieved. A starting point for tracking progress would therefore be to assess whether a country has defined these targets, the enabling conditions are in place to reach the targets, planning process designed, etc. A similar process can be used to track progress for gender equality. I.e. Are men and women equally represented in dialogues? Are indigenous people’s represented in decision-making processes? Etc. Likewise, for revenue generation. What is the target for SSF to contribute to economies? Are the enabling conditions in place (legal frameworks, rights, etc.?) Are those targets being met? With regard to the sustainable management aims of the SSF, ultimately, all processes can be achieved successfully but not necessarily be meeting the goal of whether the SSF are being managed sustainably. To measure the impact it is necessary to start measuring natural resource availability, starting by defining what ‘sustainable harvest’ would mean for a given system and what the targets need to be. Again application of steps would look something like – Has sustainability been defined (in whatever way possible – based on the data and information available for the system (see below for examples)? Are the enabling conditions in place to regulate harvest to meet these yields (e.g. laws, regulations, gear restrictions, management units, etc.? Are the regulations being implemented?

 

Adopting a similar framework across the objectives makes progress tracking more coherent, consistent and measurable: setting stepwise and timebound priorities, objectives and benchmarks within each of the objectives of the SSF; providing guidelines for measures but remaining flexible for selection of indicators to allow both consistency and relevance; defining and tracking progress in the enabling conditions for meeting targets; and remaining flexible to update as relevant.

 

The greatest challenge is determining whether implementation of the SSF guidelines are having the impact intended/expected? (requiring measuring the fishery resources themselves in some capacity). A number of tools are suggested below for assessing resource availability and tracking sustainability in SSF.

 

• Please describe any monitoring and evaluation frameworks and data sources you are aware of that could be drawn on to measure these indicators.

Examples:

http://fishe.edf.org/get-started

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122809&type=printable

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165783615000065

https://snappartnership.net/teams/data-limited-fisheries/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165783617300243

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00127/full

A Handbook prepared by Fishbio for evaluating impact of conservation interventions is a useful reference: https://www.mekongfishnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Guidebook-for-Assessing-FCZs-in-Lao-PDR_FISHBIO-1.pdf.

My own publication, describes experiences and an effective system for “Monitoring of tropical freshwater fish resources for sustainable use” Elliott et al. 2018

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jfb.13974

And the following as a specific technical guide: https://www.worldfishcenter.org/content/developing-methodology-standardized-fish-monitoring-mekong-basin-0 Boon, L., Elliott, V., Phauk, S., Pheng, S., Souter, N., Payooha, K., Jutagate, T., Duong, V.N. (2016). Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (Fisheries Administration) and WorldFish. Phnom Penh, Cambodia

3. Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences

• What do you think are key elements of successful participatory monitoring?

Legal / jurisdictional and a feeling of ownership of the monitoring by the participants

Engaging the most relevant stakeholders and ensuring they have jurisdiction to carry out the monitoring (usually community partnerships with government and commerce)

Ensuring that the participants are interested in collecting the results and have the capacity to use them to inform their actions.

Supportive networks of communities

Trust among stakeholders

• What are your experiences with participatory monitoring?

I have set-up 3 different systems of participatory monitoring in the Mekong: 1) for measuring inland fisheries resource availability, working with community members serving as citizen-scientists, 2) a voluntary network of inland fishers for monitoring fishery harvest, and 3) local community monitoring for determining impacts of conservation and fisheries management interventions.

Application of the WorldFish “salapoum” approach of engaging communities in local monitoring supports the key need of participants engaged in monitoring having a heightened awareness of the purpose and outcomes of monitoring and how they can be applied to adaptive management and implementing community led EAFM:

http://pubs.iclarm.net/resource_centre/WF_2787.pdf

• Who should be the key actors involved in or responsible for the design and implementation of a monitoring system for the SSF Guidelines?

National and International Scientists

Local stakeholders – particularly for feasibility

National and local government (and regional if transboundary issues are relevant)

(NB – to include government representatives of fisheries and the environment, but also representatives of Ministries responsible for labour, revenue, value-chains, etc. in order to meet relevant targets outside

Independent experts to potentially act as mediators / provide overall perspective to the process AND FAO representatives that can support consistency among countries.

Comments on behalf of TNI and FIAN.

What do you think are the 5 most relevant chapters, paragraphs, and/or topics of the SSF Guidelines for assessing progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries? 

Guiding Principles

Chapter 5. Governance of Tenure in SSF and Resource Management 

Chapter 6. Social Development, Employment and Decent Work

Chapter 7. Value Chains, Post-Harvest, and Trade 

Chapter 8. Gender Equality 

Chapter 9. Disaster Risks and Climate Change

The order of the chapters does not imply any prioritized order, as all principles are important and interconnected.

Please describe why you believe these chapters, paragraphs, and/or topics are most relevant. 

Guiding Principles are relevant as they reaffirm international human rights standard as well as principles of human rights (e.g. human rights and dignity, non-discrimination, rule of law, accountability, etc.) which provide the basis for the SSF Guidelines. These should inform all implementation measures and therefore need to be a central part of monitoring as well.

Responsible Governance of Tenure is a crucial element because it determines if and how SSF communities have control over and access to access natural resources (both land and water), indispensable for the realization of the right to food and nutrition and many other related human rights. 

Social Development, Employment and Decent work are important components as they affect a significant proportion of small-scale fishers. Social development includes access to social services and is a crucial dimension of SSF. Also, SSF is an important source of employment and income indispensable for the realization of human rights of small-scale fishers. Due to several challenges faced by SSF worldwide (e.g. expropriation due to port developments, urban development, nature conservation, oil and gas exploration, mining, privatisation of fisheries and climate change impacts),

SSF are threatened with dispossessions from their fishing grounds, losing thus their main source of livelihood. Also, decent work must be ensured so safety and security of SSF is endured, social protection is provided, and participation in decision making, as well as equal treatment for women and men SFF, are ensured.  

Value chain, post-harvest and trade: The expansion of the globalised food systems and increased export orientation negatively affect SSFs in the entire value chain. Despite differences in cultures and national practices, the general tendency is that often small-scale fishers involved in post-harvest activities (processing and trade) are expropriated from the sector. Women, who in most countries play a key role in post-harvest activities, are often the first to lose their livelihood because of privatisation and export orientation of fisheries. 

The principle of Gender Equality and the realization of women’s rights is of immense importance in SSF for several reasons: 1) women play a key role in particular in the pre- and post-harvest activities; 2) women continue to be politically marginalised in most countries where SSF play an important role in terms of culture, providing healthy food and nutrition for the majority of the population, and the numbers of people involved; 3) women often also carry the double burden of having to maintain the households and families, with an immense amount of unpaid care work.  

Disaster risk and climate change: It is well documented that coastal communities, in particular, are among the most affected by climate change and specifically in tropical regions (some of the countries with the largest numbers of SSF communities). It is also well documented that SSF  communities – using low impact fishing gears and supplying local markets which both have a very limited carbon footprint – contribute very little to global warming. Furthermore, small-scale fishing communities play a critical role in preserving and sustainably managing marine and freshwater ecosystems, thus being essential for the conservation of biodiversity and the resilience of such ecosystems.

At what geographical scale should progress be measured (e.g. local, national)?

The progress should be first measured at the local and national levels. Given that the SSF Guidelines are based on human rights and focus on small-scale fishing communities, it is critical that monitoring starts at the local level. This is the condition for successful participatory monitoring (see section 3). The national level is of great importance because states are the ones who are required to implement the SSF Guidelines, based on their human rights obligations. To ensure coherence and compliance with the SSF Guidelines' core principles, the GSF, and in particular, its Advisory Group, have been mandated to provide guidance to and oversee monitoring efforts at national and local levels.

2. Meaningful and feasible indicators: How can we measure progress?

Do you have suggestions for indicators that could be used to assess progress towards the priorities you identified under part 1? Please discuss whether you consider these indicators mandatory versus “nice to have.”

Indicators need to be developed according to a consistent monitoring framework, which is in line with the SSF Guidelines and its core principles. It is, therefore, crucial to establish clear principles and objectives of monitoring, before developing indicators. Given that the SSF Guidelines are focused on the rights of SSF communities, the principles and objectives of monitoring, as well as the indicators need to be developed in close cooperation with the organizations that represent them.  

Rather than collecting very specific indicators at this stage, it is important to define a process that will lead to establishing a consistent monitoring framework, based on which appropriate indicators will be developed. 

Please describe any monitoring and evaluation frameworks and data sources you are aware of that could be drawn on to measure these indicators.

It is crucial to ensure that any data gathered can be easily accessed by SSF communities, and data collection must also ensure the participation of SSF communities and communities, thereby also prioritizing qualitative information. “Data” should therefore not be understood in a way that refers only or mainly to quantitative data, such as data from official statistics.

Monitoring of the SSF Guidelines should be based on human rights, which means that indicators should be guided and build upon already existing human rights-based instruments and guidelines, such as those promoted by social movements, indigenous peoples’ organizations and CSOs within the CFS. For example, the right to food guidelines and tenure guidelines, reflecting and linking to SDGs. Human rights-based monitoring of the implementation of the SSF Guidelines should go beyond data collection and specific actions of states, but rather analyse whether or not the states is fulfilling its human rights obligations and tackling structural issues related to small-scale fisheries which lead to violations of human rights, such as the right to food and nutrition. This is the basic framework used by the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition for its alternative monitoring “Peoples Monitoring for the Right to Food and Nutrition”. Some members of the IPC Fisheries Working Group are members of the GNRTFN and already engaged in this people-centred monitoring process.

3. Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences 

What do you think are key elements of successful participatory monitoring? 

• Human rights-based approach (integration of norms, standards and principles of international human rights treaties and instruments in national laws, policies and programs)
• Centred on knowledge and participation of fisher peoples and their organisations
• Respect for freedom of expression and the right to autonomy of fisher peoples and their organizations, and protection against repercussions in cases where fisher people speak truth to power. This is of utmost importance in a serious of countries where authoritarianism is becoming increasingly pronounced. 
• Ensure accountability 
• Transparency 
• Applied and contextualized to the national, regional, and international levels
• Need relevant and appropriate indicators that are constructed by SSF communities and supporting organisations
• Strengthening of the capacity of SSF to claim their rights, and to plan actions in line with their priorities and needs.

What are your experiences with participatory monitoring?  

Through a series of national and regional level workshops on the use of the SSF Guidelines, we have learned some few lessons:

1. Small-scale fishing communities have profound knowledge and understanding of local and national level context relating to the objectives and principles of the SSF Guidelines
2. small-scale fishing communities are knowledgeable well positioned to articulate views on the scale and extend of the implementation of the SSF guidelines. In numerous countries where national and regional workshops have taken place, it is clear that governments are lacking behind on all 5 above-highlighted principles. 
3. loss of tenure rights is a serious threat all over the world: expropriation do provide space for aquaculture and tourism (Honduras), clearing of forests for large-scale agriculture or construction of dams (Brazil), privatisation of fisheries (South Africa), construction of artificial islands (Indonesia) are some of the evidence gathered at national level workshops on SSF guidelines. 

Any monitoring framework should take into account the realities experienced by the SSF communities and their organisations. 

Who should be the key actors involved in or responsible for the design and implementation of a monitoring system for the SSF Guidelines?  

Key actors will differ depending on the levels: 

Global/international: 

Advisory Group (AG) of SSF-GSF plays an essential role in enhancing the monitoring of the implementation of the SSF Guidelines and ensure that this is in line with the human rights-based approach of the SSF Guidelines. The GSF should guide monitoring by developing a consistent monitoring framework that is in line with the core principles of the SSF Guidelines, as well as indicators. These may be adapted at the national level, according to the specific context. 

National and local: 

As monitoring must be a tool to protect the rights of the SSF communities, SSF communities, Indigenous Peoples (and their traditional authorities), and their organisations must be the key actors in designing and monitoring the implementation of SSF Guidelines. As said before, state authorities are required to implement the SSF Guidelines based on their human rights obligations. Consequently, they need to ensure proper monitoring of advances and the human rights situation of small-scale fishers.

There needs to be a clear linkage between the national and international level. For example, the national level monitoring exercises conducted by SSF communities and their organisations, as well as monitoring efforts conducted by states, should contribute to and inform a global/international monitoring process. This means that a clear mechanism needs to be in place that ensures and promotes social movements’ and CSOs' participation in monitoring, for example, by producing  monitoring reports that can feed into the global monitoring process of the implementation of the SSF Guidelines.

English translation below

1. Critères de progrès pour assurer la durabilité de la pêche artisanale

• Quels sont, à votre avis, les 5 chapitres, paragraphes et/ou thèmes les plus pertinents des Directives SSF pour évaluer les progrès réalisés en vue de garantir une pêche artisanale durable?

Pour être le plus synthétique possible en terme de cibles, les 5 paragraphes suivants me semblent prioritaires à conduire simultanément :

     1) Paragraphe 5.3 Droits fonciers des petites pêches (PP)

     2) Paragraphe 5.13 Gestion appropriée

     3) Paragraphe 6.15 Education des enfants

     4) Paragraphe 7.4 Organisations du secteur des PP

     5) Paragraphe 11.9 Recherche collaborative

• Veuillez décrire les raisons pour lesquelles vous estimez que ces chapitres, paragraphes et/ou sujets sont les plus pertinents.

La première raison générale est que ces 5 paragraphes traduisent des faits tangibles et donc l’engagement des parties concernées sur le terrain des PP (et pas seulement des engagements « de papier »).

La seconde raison générale est que chacun de ces paragraphes inclut en fait les préconisations de nombreux autres paragraphes des Directives (cf. ci-dessous), et traduit donc le fait que ces différentes préconisations soient prises en compte ensemble, de manière intégrée, ce qui est me semble-t-il l’objectif des Directives.

Les raisons spécifiques sont décrites ci-dessous.

     1) Paragraphe 5.3 Droits fonciers des petites pêches (PP)

- la sécurisation des droits fonciers est la barrière n°1 contre la pêche industrielle côtière, qui est un facteur d’impact majeur avéré ou potentiel dans la quasi-totalité des PP (même si elle n’est évidemment pas le seul). Elle permet en outre de circonscrire la gestion dans l’espace et les acteurs à mobiliser.

- ce processus inclut les préconisations de nombreux autres paragraphes des Directives, en particulier : §5.4 (législation adéquate), §5.5 (qui est une condition préalable du §5.3), §5.7 (choix des zones, cas particulier permettant d’atteindre §5.3), §5.9 (équivalent au fait d’avoir des droits fonciers), §5.19, §10.2 (inclus dans MSP), §11.6 (prise en compte des savoirs locaux).

     2) Paragraphe 5.13 Gestion appropriée

- ce paragraphe est l’objectif central à atteindre par les Directives car la gestion durable appropriée, formalisée, est à la base de tous les services des PP.

- ce processus inclut les préconisations de nombreux autres paragraphes des Directives, en particulier : §5.14 (modalités), §5.15 (cogestion) lui-même en lien étroit avec les §7.1&7.2 (participation de la filière dont les femmes), 10.7 (gouvernance), §12.4 (capacités des administrations), §5.16 (MSC), §5.17 (base légale), §5.20 (mauvaises pratiques), §7.8 (effet des filières d’exports), §9.2 (prise en compte du changement climatique).

     3) Paragraphe 6.15 Education des enfants

- Ce processus est la base de nombreux autres processus de long terme sur le bien-être et du développement humain, mentionnés par les Directives comme étant une responsabilité des Etats. Le niveau d’éducation des enfants est en effet souvent corrélé à leurs conditions d’existence futures (niveau de revenus, opportunités professionnelles, capacités à se soigner cf. §6.2, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13), et à capacité à leur participation dans les organisations (7.4).

     4) Paragraphe 7.4 Organisations du secteur des PP

- ce paragraphe est une des conditions pour les processus des §5.3, 5.3 et 11.9 ci-dessus.

- Promouvoir les organisations a un coût, qui doit être pris en charge par les Etats via différents mécanismes possibles en tant que condition nécessaire aux bonnes pratiques de gouvernance.

- Ce paragraphe permet aussi de faciliter d’autres préconisations formulées dans d’autres paragraphes des Directives : §7.6, 7.10 et 12.1 (capacités) et §8.2 (organisations des femmes).

     5) Paragraphe 11.9 Recherche collaborative

- En tant que responsabilité de toutes les parties, la recherche collaborative (source d’innovation) est un moyen de construire la coopération au sein des PP. Or ce processus de coopération est une condition de la gestion durable des PP (§5.13).

- Ce processus de recherche collaborative, défini par consultation, implique logiquement les préconisations du §11.8 (plateforme et instances de partage de l’information), §11.10 (recherche tournée vers l’action), et §12.3 (capacités locales).

- Ce processus serait le pilier des préconisations des §11.1 (données à collecter), 11.3 (transparence), et 11.5 (type de données particulier), qui est la responsabilité de l’Etat, et inclut le §11.4 & 11.7 (communication des savoirs locaux et de l’information produite, y compris après analyse des données) ;

- Ce type de recherche doit pouvoir contribuer au suivi général de la mise en œuvre des Directives dans les Etats, si cela ressort comme une recommandation des consultations : il peut ainsi mesurer l’appropriation des Directives par les acteurs (§13.4).

• À quelle échelle géographique convient-il de mesurer les progrès (par exemple, locale, nationale)?

Les Directives étant endossées par les Etats, il conviendrait d’en mesurer les progrès à l’échelle nationale. Cette évaluation pourrait prendre la forme d’une synthèse de composantes sectorielles. Suivant la nature des paragraphes ci-dessus, ces composantes seraient des secteurs administratifs (eg, pays, régions, communes) et/ou les secteurs visant les différentes filières des PP à l’échelle nationale, sub-nationale et locale.

2. Des indicateurs significatifs et réalisables: Comment mesurer les progrès en question?

• Avez-vous des suggestions d'indicateurs susceptibles d'être utilisés pour évaluer les progrès accomplis dans la réalisation des priorités que vous avez identifiées dans la première partie ? Veuillez indiquer si vous considérez ces indicateurs comme obligatoires ou simplement « intéressants ».

Tous les indicateurs ci-dessous sont considérés comme obligatoires, puisqu’ils mesurent les processus prioritaires identifiésci-dessus.

     1) Paragraphe 5.3 Droits fonciers des PP : nature et contenu des textes légaux instituant des droits fonciers aux PP.

     2) Paragraphe 5.13 Gestion appropriée : évaluer si la gestion est appropriée requiert d’évaluer deux lots d’indicateurs jugés pertinents :

              i) le plus souvent par les acteurs des filières des PP : souvent ce sont des indicateurs biologiques et socioéconomiques quantitatifs dépendant du contexte considéré (eg, niveau de biomasse des ressources ; tendance du niveau de biomasse des ressources ; quantité et valeur des captures ; tendance de la quantité et de la valeur des captures ; niveau et tendance revenus des ménages issus des PP à l’échelle hebdomadaire, mensuelle et annuelle ; niveau et tendance du partage de la valeur produite au long de la filière) ;

              ii) le plus souvent par les autres acteurs (administrations…) : des indicateurs des bonnes pratiques : indicateurs de gouvernance le plus souvent qualitatif (eg, existence et caractère adaptatif des mesures de gestion dans le temps et l’espace, existence et niveau des sanctions en cas de non respect des règles, existence et fonctionnement d’instances de co-décision des mesures de gestion, production et partage de données pertinentes et d’analyses sur l’état et l’évolution des PP)

     3) Paragraphe 6.15 Education des enfants : niveau scolaire des jeunes < 16 ans dans les ménages de pêcheurs

     4) Paragraphe 7.4 Organisations du secteur des PP : nature, taille (nombre de membres) et capacités (eg, niveau et utilisation du budget, % d’autonomie financière, nombre et qualité du staff) des organisations de PP ; implication dans l’aménagement des PP (suivi des PP, animation interne, processus de décision, échelle d’intervention).

     5) Paragraphe 11.9 Recherche collaborative : nature des projets de recherche sur les PP (questions traitées, stratégie de montage de la recherche, échelle d’intervention, durée), caractère adaptatif des recherches au contexte des PP, articulation avec les parties prenantes du secteur des PP et les administrations (nature des partenariats, responsabilités respectives des acteurs des PP et des chercheurs, échanges de données et d’information, utilisation des résultats des recherches à des fins de gestion), articulation financière et technique avec les autres agences d’intervention sur les PP, origine et pérennité du financement, budget total et budget relatif à la valeur des produits des PP.

• Veuillez, si possible, fournir des exemples de cas où les indicateurs que vous suggérez ont été utilisés avec succès, y compris dans des contextes où les données et les capacités sont limitées.

Mon expérience provient de cas d’étude de certaines pêcheries à l’échelle locale et nationale en Océanie (cf. références ci-dessous).

     Léopold M (2016) Evaluating the harvest and management strategies for the sea cucumber fisheries in Vanuatu. Projects No 4860A1 (BICH2MER) and No CS14-3007-101 (BICHLAMAR). IRD, Nouméa, 64 pp. http://umr-entropie.ird.nc/application/files/7614/7150/3919/Leopold2016_Evaluating_harvest_and_management_strategies_for_sea_cucumber_fisheries_in_Vanuatu

     Léopold M., Ham J., Kaku R., Gereva S., Raubani J., Moenteapo Z. 2015. Spatial sea cucumber management in Vanuatu and New Caledonia. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 35: 3-9.

     Léopold M., Cornuet N., Andréfouët Serge, Moenteapo Z., Duvauchelle C., Raubani J., Ham J., Dumas Pascal (2013). Comanaging small-scale sea cucumber fisheries in New Caledonia and Vanuatu using stock biomass estimates to set spatial catch quotas. Environmental Conservation 40 :367-379.

     Léopold M., Ham J., Kaku R., Kaltavara J., Raubani J., Gereva S., Moenteapo Z., Andréfouët S. and Dumas P. 2013. Towards a new management strategy for Pacific Island sea cucumber fisheries. SPC Information Newsletter 140: 43-48.

• Veuillez décrire les cadres de suivi et d'évaluation et les sources de données dont vous avez connaissance et qui permettraient de mesurer ces indicateurs.

     1) Paragraphe 5.3 Droits fonciers des PP : ce processus peut être évalué simplement par un inventaire et suivi des textes légaux instituant des droits fonciers aux PP.

     2) Paragraphe 5.13 Gestion appropriée :

          - indicateurs biologiques et socioéconomiques : cf. références ci-dessus expliquent les méthodologies utilisées dans certains cas.

Les statistiques de pêche officielles peuvent aussi être utilisées pour reconstruire des estimations plus réalistes de certains des indicateurs économiques, voire biologiques via une collaboration avec la recherche (cf. point 5) ci-dessous)

          - indicateurs de gouvernance : cf. référence ci-dessus et ci-dessous pour la définition d’un cadre d’analyse de la gouvernance :

    Léopold M., Thébaud O., Charles A. (2019). The dynamics of institutional innovation: crafting co-management in small-scale fisheries through action research. Journal of Environmental Management 237: 187-199.

Les sources de données mobilisables proviennent aussi de rapports de projets de recherche correspondant à l’approche transdisciplinaire des PP ou à la démarche de recherche-action (cf. point 5) ci-dessous).

     3) Paragraphe 6.15 Education des enfants : ce processus peut être évalué simplement par des enquêtes auprès des ménages (eg, statistiques officielles par enquêtes socioéconomiques ou enquêtes dédiées), en prenant garde à la représentation de l’échantillon des ménages de PP et des autres secteurs économiques (contrôle)

     4) Paragraphe 7.4 Organisations du secteur des PP : les indicateurs peuvent être évalués à partir d’une compilation de sources de données pertinentes et accessibles, comme les rapports d’activité des organisations des PP, des administrations chargées des pêches et des autres OSCs partenaires, et de projets de recherche correspondant à l’approche transdisciplinaire des PP ou à la démarche de recherche-action (cf. point 5) ci-dessous).

     5) Paragraphe 11.9 Recherche collaborative : Les indicateurs peuvent être simplement mesurés à partir des informations concernant les projets de recherche réalisés. Les sources de données mobilisables proviennent de rapports et publications scientifiques de projets correspondant à l’approche transdisciplinaire des PP ou à la démarche de recherche-action.

3. Planification participative: Éléments clés et expériences

• Quels sont, à votre avis, les éléments clés d'un suivi participatif réussi?

     1) Permettre de collecter des données fiables (suivant un protocole rigoureux), à un coût par unité largement inférieur à celui d’un suivi par une organisation tierce (consultant ou recherche)

     2) Etre en lien avec une organisation / administration capable de gérer, sauvegarder et traiter – analyser les données selon une méthodologie rigoureuse, et d’en restituer les résultats et les indicateurs estimés rapidement (les suivis uniquement gérés par les PP sont rares à moins que les organisations soient suffisamment développées et performantes)

     3) Créer un partenariat entre acteurs des PP, administrations, chercheurs et autres OSCs : les suivis participatifs sont alors par définition une action collective, dont il est attendu (si elle réussit) qu’elle soit poursuivie par d’autres actions collectives (décisionnelles), initiant une logique vertueuse. Je pense que c’est ainsi le meilleur moyen d’initier un processus de cogestion durable.

• Quelles sont vos expériences en matière de suivi participatif?

L’ensemble des données que je collecte ou ai collecté sur les PP sont issues de suivis participatifs (cf. publications http://umr-entropie.ird.nc/index.php/team/marc-leopold). Je considère que toutes les données collectées sur les PP devraient incorporer une participation des PP, certes à un degré divers selon la nature et complexité des données. Pour ma part, cela me semble tout à fait atteignable et pourrait être généralisé.

• Qui devraient être les principaux acteurs impliqués ou responsables de la conception et de la mise en œuvre d'un système de suivi des Directives SSF?

Afin de faire le lien entre les Directives et la gestion et situation des PP au niveau national, les principaux acteurs impliqués ou responsables de la conception et de la mise en œuvre d'un système de suivi des Directives SSF devraient être logiquement les mêmes acteurs que ceux impliqués dans la cogestion des PP : principales organisations de la filière (pêcheurs, transformateurs, exportateurs…), administrations des ministères des pêches et de la recherche (voire de l’environnement, le cas échéant), chercheurs impliqués sur les PP, autres OSCs principales impliquées dans les PP.

1. Criteria for defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

• What do you think are the 5 most relevant chapters, paragraphs, and/or topics of the SSF Guidelines for assessing progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries?

In order to be as concise as possible in terms of targets, the following 5 paragraphs seem to me to have priority and should be carried out simultaneously:

1) Paragraph 5.3 Tenure rights in small-scale fisheries

2) Paragraph 5.13 Appropriate management systems

3) Paragraph 6.15 Children’s education

4) Paragraph 7.4 Organizations of the small-scale fisheries sector

5) Paragraph 11.9 Collaborative research

• Please describe why you believe these chapters, paragraphs, and/or topics are most relevant.

The first general reason is that these 5 paragraphs reflect tangible facts and thus engage stakeholders of the small-scale fisheries on the ground (and not just "paper" commitments).

The second general reason is that each of these paragraphs actually includes recommendations from many other paragraphs of the Guidelines (see below), and therefore reflects that these various recommendations are taken into account jointly, in an integrated manner, which is, in my view, the objective of the Guidelines.

Specific reasons are described below.

1) Paragraph 5.3 Tenure rights in small-scale fisheries

- securing land rights is the main barrier against coastal industrial fishing, which is a major factor of proven or potential impact in almost all small-scale fisheries (even if it is obviously not the only one). It also allows to circumscribe management on a spatial basis and identify the actors to be mobilized.

- This process includes recommendations from many other paragraphs of the Guidelines, in particular: §5.4 (adequate legislation), §5.5 (which is a prerequisite for §5.3), §5.7 ( enforcement of exclusive zones, special case for reaching §5.3), §5.9 (equivalent to having tenure rights), §5.19, §10.2 (included in MSP), §11.6 (taking into account local knowledge).

2) Paragraph 5.13 Appropriate management systems

- This paragraph is the central objective to be achieved by the Guidelines, since an appropriate, formalized sustainable management approach is the cornerstone for all services of the small-scale fisheries.

- This process includes recommendations from many other paragraphs of the Guidelines, in particular: §5.14 (modalities), §5.15 (co-management) itself in close connection with §7.1 and §7.2 (participation of the sector including women), 10.7 (governance), §12.4 ( administrative capacities), §5.16 (MSC), §5.17 (legal basis), §5.20 ( poor practices), §7.8 (effect of export sectors), §9.2 (taking climate change into account).

3) Paragraph 6.15 Children’s education

- This process is the basis for many other long-term processes for human well-being and development, mentioned by the Guidelines as a responsibility of the States. The level of education of children is indeed often correlated to their future living conditions (level of income, professional opportunities, ability to take care of themselves, see §6.2, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13), and their ability to participate in organizations (7.4).

4) Paragraph 7.4 Organization of the small-scale fisheries sector

- this paragraph is one of the requirements for the processes described in §5.3, 5.3 and 11.9 above.

- Promotion of organizations has a cost, which has to be borne by states through different possible mechanisms as a prerequisite for good governance practices.

- This paragraph also facilitates other recommendations expressed in other paragraphs of the Guidelines: §7.6, 7.10 et 12.1 (capacities) et §8.2 (women’s organizations).

5) Paragraph 11.9 Collaborative research

- As a responsibility of all parties, collaborative research (a source of innovation) is a means for building cooperation within the small-scale fisheries. Yet this process of cooperation is a requisite for the sustainable management of small-scale fisheries (§5.13).

- This collaborative research process, defined through consultation, implies naturally recommendations from §11.8 (information sharing platforms and bodies), §11.10 (action-oriented research), and §12.3 (local capacities).

- This process would be the cornerstone of recommendations contained in §11.1 (data to be collected), 11.3 (transparency), and 11.5 (particular type of data), which fall under the responsibility of the State, and would include §11.4 and 11.7 (communication of local knowledge and information produced, including after data analysis).

- This type of research should contribute to the general monitoring of the implementation of the Guidelines in the Member States, as far as this emerges as a recommendation from the consultations: in this way it can measure the ownership of the Guidelines by the stakeholders (§13.4).

• At what geographic scale should progress be measured (e.g., local, national)?

Since the Guidelines are endorsed by States, progress should be measured at national level. This assessment could consist in a summary of sectorial components. According to the nature of the above paragraphs, these components would be administrative sectors (e.g., countries, regions, municipalities) and/or sectors targeting the different branches of small-scale fisheries at national, sub-national and local levels.

2. 2.      Meaningful and feasible indicators:  How can we measure progress?

• Do you have suggestions for indicators that could be used to assess progress towards the priorities you identified under part 1? Please discuss whether you consider these indicators mandatory versus “nice to have.”

All the following indicators are considered mandatory, as they measure the priorities identified above.

1) Paragraph 5.3 Tenure rights in small-scale fisheries:  nature and content of legal texts instituting land rights in small-scale fisheries.

2) Paragraph 5.13 Appropriate management systems: In order to assess the appropriateness of management, two sets of indicators that are considered relevant should be evaluated:

 i) most often by actors involved in small-scale fisheries: these are often quantitative biological and socio-economic indicators depending on the context under consideration (e.g. level of resource biomass; trend in the level of resource biomass; quantity and value of catches; trend in the quantity and value of catches; level and trend in household income from small-scale fisheries on a weekly, monthly and annual scale; level and trend in the sharing of the value produced along the chain);

ii) most often by other actors (administrations...): good practice indicators,  governance indicators that are most generally qualitative (e.g. existence and adaptive nature of management measures in time and space, existence and level of sanctions in case of non-compliance with rules, existence and functioning of co-decision bodies for management measures, production and sharing of relevant data and analyses on the status and evolution of small-scale fisheries).

3) Paragraph 6.15 Children’s education: educational level of young people < 16 years old in fishermen's households;

4) Paragraph 7.4 Organization of the small-scale fisheries sector: nature, size (number of members) and capacities (e.g. level and use of budget, scope of financial autonomy, number and quality of staff) of organizations of small-scale fisheries; involvement in the planning of small-scale fisheries (monitoring of small-scale fisheries, internal animation, decision-making process, scale of intervention).

5) Paragraph 11.9 Collaborative research

nature of small-scale fisheries research projects (issues addressed, research design strategy, scale of intervention, duration), adaptability of research to the small-scale fisheries context, articulation with small-scale fisheries stakeholders and administrations (nature of partnerships, respective responsibilities of small-scale fisheries stakeholders and researchers, data and information exchange, use of research results for management purposes), financial and technical articulation with other small-scale fisheries intervention agencies, origin and sustainability of funding, total budget and budget relative to the value of small-scale fisheries products.

• If possible, please provide examples of where the indicators you suggest have been used successfully, including in data- and capacity-limited contexts.
• My experience is drawn from case studies of some local and national fisheries in Oceania (see references below).

Léopold M (2016) Evaluating the harvest and management strategies for the sea cucumber fisheries in Vanuatu. Projects No 4860A1 (BICH2MER) and No CS14-3007-101 (BICHLAMAR). IRD, Noumea, 64 pp. http://umr-entropie.ird.nc/application/files/7614/7150/3919/Leopold2016_Evaluating_harvest_and_management_strategies_for_sea_cucumber_fisheries_in_Vanuatu

Léopold M., Ham J., Kaku R., Gereva S., Raubani J., Moenteapo Z. 2015. Spatial sea cucumber management in Vanuatu and New Caledonia. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 35: 3-9.

Léopold M., Cornuet N., Andréfouët Serge, Moenteapo Z., Duvauchelle C., Raubani J., Ham J., Dumas Pascal (2013). Comanaging small-scale sea cucumber fisheries in New Caledonia and Vanuatu using stock biomass estimates to set spatial catch quotas. Environmental Conservation 40 :367-379.

Léopold M., Ham J., Kaku R., Kaltavara J., Raubani J., Gereva S., Moenteapo Z., Andréfouët S. and Dumas P. 2013. Towards a new management strategy for Pacific Island sea cucumber fisheries. SPC Information Newsletter 140: 43-48.

• Please describe any monitoring and evaluation frameworks and data sources you are aware of that could be drawn on to measure these indicators.
• 1) Paragraph 5.3 Tenure rights in small-scale fisheries:  This process can be assessed through a simple inventory and monitoring of the legal texts instituting tenure rights for small-scale fisheries.

2) Paragraph 5.13 Appropriate management systems:

- biological and socio-economic indicators ( see above references) explain the methodologies used in some cases.

Official fisheries statistics can also be used to reconstruct more realistic estimates of some economic or even biological indicators through collaborative research (see point 5) below).

- Governance indicators: see reference above and below for the definition of a governance analysis framework:

Léopold M., Thébaud O., Charles A. (2019). The dynamics of institutional innovation: crafting co-management in small-scale fisheries through action research. Journal of Environmental Management 237: 187-199.

The sources of data that can be called upon also stem from reports of research projects corresponding to the trans disciplinary approach of the small-scale fisheries or the action-research approach (see 5) below).

3) Paragraph 6.15 Children’s education: this process can be assessed simply through household surveys (e.g., official statistics through socio-economic surveys or dedicated surveys), being careful to represent the sample of households from the small-scale fisheries and other economic sectors (control).

4) Paragraph 7.4 Organization of the small-scale fisheries sector: Indicators can be assessed on the basis of a compilation of relevant and accessible data sources, such as progress reports from small-scale fisheries' organizations, fisheries administrations and other CSO partners, and research projects corresponding to the trans disciplinary approach of small-scale fisheries or the action-research approach (see point 5) below).

5) Paragraph 11.9 Collaborative research: Indicators can simply be measured using information from completed research projects. The sources of data that can be called upon also stem from reports and scientific publications corresponding to the trans disciplinary approach of the small-scale fisheries or the action-research approach.

3. Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences

• What do you think are key elements of successful participatory monitoring? 1) To allow reliable data to be collected (following a rigorous protocol), at a cost per unit much lower than that of monitoring by a third party (consultant or research).

2) To be connected with an organization/administration capable of managing, saving and processing - analyzing data according to a strict methodology, and to rapidly return results and estimated indicators (monitoring only managed by small-scale fisheries is uncommon unless organizations are sufficiently developed and efficient).

3) Establishing a partnership between small-scale fisheries actors, governments, researchers and other CSOs: participatory monitoring is then by definition a collective action, which is expected (if successful) to be followed by other collective (decision-making) actions, initiating a virtuous logic. I think this is the best way to trigger a sustainable co-management process.

• What are your experiences with participatory monitoring
• - All the data I collect or have collected on small scale fisheries are derived from participatory monitoring (see publications http://umr-entropie.ird.nc/index.php/team/marc-leopold) I consider that all data collected on small-scale fisheries should incorporate the participation of small-scale fisheries stakeholders, albeit to varying degrees depending on the nature and complexity of the data. I think that this is entirely achievable and could be generalized.
• Who should be the key actors involved in or responsible for the design and implementation of a monitoring system for the SSF Guidelines?

In order to relate the Guidelines to the management and situation of small-scale fisheries at national level, the main actors involved in or responsible for the design and implementation of a monitoring system for the SSF Guidelines should logically be the same actors involved in the co-management of small-scale fisheries, that is: the main organizations of the sector (fishermen, processors, exporters...), administrations of fisheries and research ministries (or even of the environment, if applicable), researchers involved in small-scale fisheries, other main CSOs involved in this sector.

 

English translation below

Hola buenas,

Gracias por tenernos en cuenta para dar nuestros conceptos sobre la pesca en pequeña escala, esperamos sea provechoso lo que aquí escribimos, si algo mas estamos atentos.

1) ¿Qué define el progreso hacia la obtención de pesquerías sostenibles en pequeña escala?

Hay que tener mucha claridad en la palabra « Progreso », nuestra comunidad esta convencida que para hablar de progreso en la pesca debemos tener un ambiente sano, donde nuestros ecosistemas le brinden todas las oportunidades a nuestros peces de poder reproducirse, donde abunden los manglares y los juveniles tengan la proteccion necesaria para llegar a ser adultos.

La idea no solo es tener leyes que sus objetivos sean la proteccion de las especies y no permitir la sobre pesca y la pesca ilegal, va mucho mas alla , y es que las autoridades que tienen a su cargo la gobernanza de nuesytrpos mares, la pesca y los ecosistemas, se articulen de verdad y pongan en marcha su verdadero rol, el cual es salvaguardadr esta ancestral actividad y permetir la sostenibilidad del recurso en el tiempo.

El verdadero progreso de nuestras comunidades alrededor de la pesca en pequeña escala esta en la comercializacion y en la explotacion del recurso, si nuestros pescadiores le dan un buen tratamiento al producto, seguro tendremos alimentos saludables y con un muy buen valor de comercializacion, tambien cuando el pescador deje de capturar especies por debajo de la talla minima, hay si estamos hablando de sostenibilidad, las artes no reglamentadas deben dejar de usarse, y las autoridades deben monitorear constantemente como pescas, donde pescas y con que pescas.

Un verdadero conocimiento de como ?, Cuando ? y Donde ? se reproducen nuestros peces, nos permitiria establecer vedas sobre determinadas especies, lo que aumentaria la probabilidad de la sostenibilidad del recurso pesquero.

2) Indicadores significativos y factibles: ¿Cómo podemos medir el progreso?

Teniendo ecosistemas saludables y controlando la explotación pesquera, traería la esperanza a nuestras comunidades y la mejor forma de medir ese progreso es haciendo un monitoreo constante, durante más de 12 meses, así miraríamos el verdadero comportamiento de las especies y tomar mejores decisiones sobre determinadas pesquerías, el monitoreo debe incluir medición de gonodas, medición del pez, donde y como fue capturado, mes en el que fue capturado y cuantos machos y cuantas hembras, esta información nos permitiría establecer vedas en favor de nuestra actividad.

Por otro lado, en mi país, los ODS no se cumplem en nuestra actividad y se lo puedo detallar así: 

1. Objetivo 14 Vida Submarina, este objetivo que nos interesa a todos los que tenemos alguna relación con el mar, al estar vulnerado, nuestras familias pesqueras sufren, y también se afectan los ODS 1. Fin de la Pobreza, 2. Hambre Cero, 8. Buenos empleos y crecimiento económico, 11. Ciudades y comunidades sostenibles, 12. Consumo responsable y 13. Protege el planeta, al estar vulnerados todos estos objetivos lógicamente que nuestras comunidades para poder salir de la pobreza absoluta estamos en una gran desventaja y así Colombia, como país firmante no estaría cumpliendo con el deber con sus connacionales.  
2. Siguiendo con el Objetivo 14, dentro de él hay unos sub objetivos , 14.1 Prevención y reducción de la contaminación marina, 14.2 Gestión arrecifes marinos y costeros, 14.3 Minimización de la acidificación de los océanos, 14.4 regulación y explotación pesquera sostenible, 14.5 Conservación zonas pesqueras y marinas, 14.6 Combatir pesca ilegal y excesiva, 14.7 Beneficios económicos de la pesca sostenible, 14. A Investigación y tecnología marina, 14.B Fomento pesca pequeña pesca y artesanal, 14.C Convención NNUU sobre los derechos del mar. Ni los objetivos, ni los sub objetivos, vemos que se cumplen en nuestras comunidades pesqueras del caribe colombiano, podemos resaltar todos los acontecimientos de contaminación que se han dado en el golfo de morrosquillo por hidrocarburos, aguas servidas de los alcantarillados de los municipios costeros, agroquímicos que con las lluvias caen a los arroyos y ríos y por ende a nuestro mar caribe, como también los desastres de la bahía de Cartagena, también los volcamientos de carbón en Santa Marta y muchas cosas más que no terminaríamos de contar y no solo por hablar de contaminación, también por desplazamiento de nuestros territorios ancestrales por la industria y el mal llamado desarrollo, que contamina y destruye todos nuestros ecosistemas marinos y costeros, y si nos vamos por la sobre pesca y la pesca ilegal, esto terminaría de desestabilizarnos mucho más, hay un control muy pequeño de parte de las autoridades involucradas en estos procesos, las Car no asumen sus responsabilidades, Guarda Costas dicen que no tienen tantas unidades para combatir estos males y la AUNAP carece de herramientas y no hace cumplir las directrices dadas, cada día vemos como nuestra ancestralidad como pescadores artesanales está condenada y nuestras familias cada día carecen más de los servicios básicos y las pocas oportunidades para tener una vida digna, no sin antes mencionar que nosotros como pescadores cumplimos con el deber de llevar pescado a la mesa de muchas personas de este país, que nunca se preguntan ¿Como hicieron los pescadores para capturar  tan rico manjar?, quisiéramos realmente una verdadera directriz desde el gobierno para que muchos de estos males empiecen a acabar, pero mientras La Aunap siga siendo mezquina con sus pescadores no lo vamos a lograr, nuestro deseo como pescadores es sacar adelante el sector y que no nos vean como los parásitos del sector productivo, queremos  una verdadera revolución, donde el gobierno nacional vea en el sector pesquero artesanal una verdadera alternativa de producción y aportantes al PIB, no más acidificación de nuestros mares, no más sobre pesca y pesca ilegal, no más tala de manglares, no más desaparición de ciénagas y humedales, no más vertimientos al mar y al solucionar estos problemas no se estaría haciendo solo a los pescadores artesanales, sino a todo un  país que necesita recuperarse ambientalmente y así cumpliendo con la Constitución Nacional.

3. Sistemas de monitoreo participativo: elementos clave y experiencias.

• ¿Cuáles cree usted que son los elementos clave de una vigilancia participativa satisfactoria?

Siempre que se involucre al sector pesquero para la toma de decisiones, vamos a aportar importante información y si nos toca hacerlo desde nuestra posición se entregara en mejor esfuerzo para que la información sea valedera y eficaz, precisa y confiable

• ¿Cuáles son sus experiencias con la vigilancia participativa?

Los monitoreos pesqueros, ellos nos han permitido establecer que especies están más afectadas por la sobre pesca y la pesca ilegal

• ¿Quiénes deberían ser los principales actores que participan o son responsables del diseño y la implementación de un sistema de vigilancia para las Directrices PPE?

Desde la autoridad pesquera se deben diseñar, pero siendo participativos desde los inicios para el empoderamiento de las comunidades, por eso no diría quienes, diríamos que haciendo un equipo de pescadores y gobierno, saldría los mejores sistemas de monitoreo.

First of all, we would like to express our gratitude for giving us the opportunity to share our views on small‑scale fisheries. We look forward to a fruitful discussion and remain available for further contribution.

1) Defining progress towards securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

The term “progress” must be clearly defined. Our community believes that progressing in small-scale fisheries requires a healthy environment in which ecosystems facilitate breeding, mangroves are abundant and juveniles are protected to grow safely.

Our proposed approach goes beyond laws aimed at protecting species and banning overfishing and illegal fishing. Marine and fisheries authorities should be genuinely coordinated and aligned in their efforts to fulfil their primary role: safeguarding this ancestral activity and ensuring the sustainability of fishery resources over time.

The real progress of our small-scale fishing communities lies in the commercialization and exploitation of our resources. Adequate handling will result in healthy and highly marketable fish. Observing minimum size regulations is key to sustainability. Unregulated fishing must be eliminated, whilst fishing gears and fishing areas should be constantly monitored.

A thorough understanding of fish breeding (i.e. knowing how, when and where does it take place) would enable the establishment of specific species closures, enhancing the sustainability of fishery resources as a result.

2) Meaningful and feasible indicators: How can we measure progress?

Keeping ecosystems healthy and controlling fisheries would be a major step forward for our communities. Constantly monitoring our fisheries -for more than 12 months- is the best way of measuring progress. This would expand our knowledge of the actual behaviour of the species and improve decision-making on certain fisheries. The following indicators should be monitored: weight of the gonads; (fork) length and weight; fishing areas and fishing gears; month of capture; number of male/female fish. This information would enable us to establish beneficial closures.

On the other hand, SDGs are far from being achieved in small-scale fisheries in Colombia.

1. SDG 14 (Life below water) is the key goal for all of us who make a living from the sea. When this precious resource is threatened, fishing households suffer the impact and the fulfilment of the following goals is also affected:  SDG 1 (No poverty); SDG 2 (Zero hunger); SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth); SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); SDG 13 (Climate action). Colombia is at great disadvantage in its quest to end poverty and is not fulfilling its duties as signatory country. 
2.  SDG 14 includes several targets: target 14.1 on the prevention and reduction of marine pollution; target 14.2 related to the sustainable management and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems; target 14.3 aimed at minimising ocean acidification; target 14.4 on fishing regulation and sustainable fisheries; target 14.5 regarding the conservation of coastal and marine areas; target 14.6 focused on combating overcapacity and overfishing as well as illegal fishing; target 14.7 aimed at increasing the economic benefits from the sustainable use of marine resources; target 14.A on marine research and technology; target 14.B focused on providing access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets; and target 14.C on UNCLOS.  In the fishing communities of the Colombian Caribbean, we are far from achieving the abovementioned goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Episodes of pollution in the Gulf of Morrosquillo -due to hydrocarbons, sewage from coastal towns, agrochemical spills driven by the rain into streams, rivers and the Caribbean Sea- or Cartagena Bay, or coal spills in Santa Marta are few examples of some the environmental challenges we need to address.  The invasion of our ancestral territories by industry and so-called development -which pollutes and destroys all our marine and coastal ecosystems- is another major issue. The regional autonomous corporations fail to take responsibility, the Coast Guard claims a shortage of units to address this issue, and the National Authority of Aquaculture and Fisheries (known in Spanish as AUNAP) lacks the necessary tools and does not enforce the established guidelines. Every day our ancestral legacy as artisanal fishermen is neglected and our families increasingly lack basic services and limited opportunities to have a dignified life. As fishermen, we fulfil the duty of delivering fish to many people in this country, who never wonder how did we manage to catch the delicious delicacy they have on their dish. We need government guidance to address the abovementioned challenges and more generous support from AUNAP to succeed in our endeavours. Our desire is moving the sector forward: we do not want to be regarded as parasites of the productive sector. We want a real revolution consisting of the following transformations: recognising small-scale fisheries as a real alternative in terms of food production and GDP contribution; halting ocean acidification; eliminating overfishing and illegal fishing; eradicating the clearing of mangroves; preserving marshes and wetlands; and stopping dumping at sea. Solving these problems would not only benefit artisanal fishermen but the entire country -in need of an environmental restoration- whilst complying with the National Constitution.

3) Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences

• What do you think are key elements of successful participatory monitoring?

Involving the fisheries sector in decision-making would make an important difference. We should do our best efforts to provide valid, effective, accurate and reliable information.

• What are your experiences with participatory monitoring?

We have been engaged in fisheries monitoring. As a result, we have been able to identify which species are most affected by overfishing and illegal fishing.

• Who should be the key actors involved in or responsible for the design and implementation of a monitoring system for the SSF Guidelines?

Fisheries authorities shall design the monitoring system with the early -and continuous- participation of fishing communities to strengthen their empowerment. Hence, rather than wondering who should be the key actors, we believe a team of fishermen and government officials would deliver the best monitoring system

Yours sincerely,

Julián Medina Salgado

Confederation of Artisanal Fishermen and Fish Farmers of the Colombian Caribbean (known in Spanish as CONFEPESCAR)

3. Participatory monitoring: Key elements and experiences

Continuous learning and sharing of experiences is crucial for the effective implementation of the SSF Guidelines. Available lessons learned, best practices and tools should be used and reinventing the wheel avoided, but at the same time, the local context may differ to such a degree that specific tools and solutions must be modified or developed. Monitoring of progress will be important to keep track of what is working (and what is not) and participatory monitoring can help making information available and shared.

Please share any experiences, both good and bad, as well as lessons learned related to participatory monitoring.

· What do you think are key elements of successful participatory monitoring?

Key elements are fisher’s knowledge involving the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and local ecological knowledge (LEK). Incorporation of TEK and LEK is relevant in recognizing fisher’s participation and shared decision-making regarding fisheries resources management.

· What are your experiences with participatory monitoring?

Through my career in Fisheries Management I’ve learnt both science and fisher’s knowledge play a major role in fisheries resources management. For instance, Tanzanian coastal communities have long histories of interaction with the marine environment. Their unique customs and taboos have been developed over many centuries and communicated from generation to generation to ensure the sustainability of coral reefs and fishery resources. In early times area-based restrictions were applied in some villages to manage octopus stocks. For example, In Kisimkazi village Mtwara Region, there was a traditional management system which included seasonal closures of octopus fishery, with controls on fishing gear and access to the area by outside fishers. Currently, octopus seasonal fishing closure is practiced in Somanga and Songosongo in Kilwa district and Jojo in Mafia district along the coastal.

Likewise, community-based fisheries management approach such as Beach Management Units (BMU’s) and Collaborative Fisheries Management Areas (CFMA’s) is practiced in Tanzania, as institutional arrangements for sharing responsibilities between government and local communities in managing fisheries resources.

· Who should be the key actors involved in or responsible for the design and implementation of a monitoring system for the SSF Guidelines?

Should involve both local communities, CSO’s, NGO’s, Local Government and Central Government.