A plan, defined as a scheme for making, doing or arranging something, must be prepared with a specific time frame in mind. Most operational plans cover periods of from five or ten years.
Planning is the process of devising a plan. As already indicated above, the process is dynamic and involves the feeding of information continuously from upper to lower levels (overall economic to sectoral, national to regional, regional to local, and vice versa) of decision-making and vice versa, to ensure that the plan elaborated at the various tiers of the planning hierarchy will harmonize with each other.
The two basic requirements for constructing plans are: (1) assembly of adequate and accurate information, and (2) exchange of information between the various levels of decision-making.
Good planning requires making the right choices of ends and means and the selection of targets that realistically reflect the availability of natural, human, financial and institutional resources necessary for implementation. This ensures that development moves in the desired direction and that no bottlenecks impede the execution of the plan.
Development planning may be organized in any or a combination of three ways: sectorally, areally (e.g., covering specified segments of the coastline), or functionally. From a functional standpoint, four phases may be distinguished: pre-planning, plan preparation, plan implementation, and plan follow-up. Under these phases, the major functional sub-divisions may include the following1:
clarification of development values, goals, and criteria
inventory and assessment of fish and other living aquatic resources
identification and analysis of fisheries development problems and constraints
identification of relevant intersectoral development goals
identification of international aspects related to fisheries planning
formulation of fisheries development goals
translation of fisheries development goals into plan objectives
establishment of priorities
formulation and analysis of alternative strategies
formulation of key management and investment programmes
decision-making on areal, scope and time frames of programmes
allocation of development resources to programmes
preparation of budgets
preparation of schedules
preparation of the fisheries operational plan
setting targets to be attained in the plan period
setting up information systems, including feedback mechanisms
ensuring availability of qualified management for the operational phase of programme implementation
ensuring creation of facilities for servicing on-going operations
Monitoring operations
choosing measures to obtain adherence to plan objectives choosing tools that will encourage compliance with control measures
organization development
evaluation of plan performance.
The above step-by-step outline should not be looked at as a temporal sequence that must be followed in planning, since there are tandem relationships, functions, overlaps, feedbacks and common threads between the various function, the above step-by-step outline should not be looked at as a temporal sequence that must be followed in planning.
An example of how a developing country may organize its fisheries planning operations is shown in the following illustration showing procedures adopted by a country of the Asian region (Fig.1).
The illustration shows the principal components of the system, inputs and outputs, as well as system flow.
Figure 1
The Fisheries Development Planning System
A basic distinction should be made between the body or individual who has to take responsibility for a plan and the staff who are engaged in the actual preparation of the plan. Economic plans are formulated under the aegis of the office of the head of state or government, a central legislative body, or a central planning board or ministry. These plans present the basic guidelines for all sectoral planning. At the sectoral level, responsibility for the plan may rest with a fisheries agency (ministry, bureau, or other specialized body) or with ministries which administer fisheries as well as other branches of the economy, e.g. ministries of agriculture, of natural resources, of tourism, commerce and industry, etc.
A fisheries agency's ability to formulate a plan that is consistent with national goals will depend in large measure on the agency's position in the administrative hierarchy. The greater the number of levels intervening between the agency and the authority in charge of the preparation of the economic plan, the more difficult will be the process of bringing about a speedy and satisfactory alignment.
Where the fisheries agency does not have jurisdiction over matters that ordinarily would come under its administrative purview, obstacles of a different nature might be encountered. This might be the case, for instance, where a link in the distribution chain, e.g. fish transport at sea, is under the jurisdiction of a non-fisheries agency.
In some cases, a division of responsibilities in fisheries matters between different agencies might be defended on economic grounds: “…the Department of Tourism and Foreign Investment… has the better experience and orientation to negotiate the price at which fish is purchased and to evaluate the economic feasibility of foreign investments. As long as the Ministry of Fisheries retains the licensing function, it should welcome the active role of the Department of Tourism and Foreign Investment” (FAO/Norway Cooperative Programme, 1981).
Collaboration with other agencies on matters of primary concern to fisheries may be mandatory for the fisheries agency in some fields: “…enforcement of fisheries legislation will inevitably remain a joint concern of the Department of Public Safety, the Ministry of Fisheries, and local authorities” (FAO/Norway Cooperative Programme, 1981).
As long as the various agencies concerned succeed in reaching agreement on respective responsibilities in administrative matters, prospects for constructive collaboration in the sphere of planning ought to be favourable.
While accountability for a fisheries plan can rest with no one else but the Minister of Fisheries or head of the fisheries agency, the top executive will, as a rule, not be concerned with detailed supervision of planning operations. In a large number of developing countries, the staff charged with planning responsibilities are fisheries line officers rather than planning specialists. The rationale of such a policy may be defended on the following grounds: “…policy-making and planning are not a function of specialists or ‘planners'- the latter perform an analytic and advisory role (a supportive or staff function) in the planning process, but the key role is that of the decision-maker, i.e. the line manager or executive. The latter function extends from the minister of political head of a department or agency downward through subordinate levels of executive responsibility. Planning, as well as the execution of policy, actually is an activity of institutions rather than of individuals” (Mackenzie, 1983).
Where professional planners act as advisers to fishery executives, account is taken of the fact that they usually have a broader perspective of economic and political factors affecting decision-making as well as a better knowledge of planning techniques than the fisheries specialists. To perform effectively, however, the professional planner should have, as a minimum, a general understanding of the fisheries scene and fisheries problems. He also should have a talent for extracting from fisheries specialists the technical information he needs for choosing between alternatively feasible strategies and tactics.
A job description for the head of a sectoral planning unit, it is suggested, might list the following as essential qualifications:
broad understanding of the forces that shape the economy as well as of public policies and objectives,
thorough acquaintance of the fisheries milieu,
ability to extract information from, and to deal effectively, with representatives of government, fisheries staff, fishermen, and members of the public, in general, and
expert knowledge of planning techniques.
A competent planner should be imaginative, able to visualize consequences of action, distinguish between the important and the trivial, and should have the gift of being able to sell his ideas to those who have to approve the plan he has drawn up as well as to those who have to cooperate in its execution.
On determining the appropriate size of a fisheries planning unit, the following factors, inter alia, should be considered: (1) size of the fisheries sector and its contribution to the economy; (2) economic resources available for staffing; (3) variety and difficulty of the problems the fisheries sector presents; (4) number of qualified personnel available. Understaffing may lead to serious dilution of the value of the exercise and, ultimately, to costly mistakes, delays, and non-fulfillment of plan targets. Overstaffing may take away badly needed staff from operational tasks and sometimes may encourage a planning unit to undertake ‘make-work’ studies.
The organization and staffing of planning units, it must be emphasized, should be shaped with an eye to actual programme needs rather than vice versa.
