Pre-planning includes all functions that must be carried out before actual decision-making. More specifically, pre-planning (a more precise term would be ‘pre-plan-preparation’) focuses on: (1) establishing contact with sources of information and agencies of potential influence or assistance in plan implementation; (2) acquiring and analyzing information; and (3) acquainting oneself with elements (in the spheres of fisheries biology, technology, and socio-economics) to be taken into account in fisheries development planning as well as their relationships to each other. The quality of the final product, i.e. the plan, will depend on how much information and knowledge has been, and how well it has been, assembled.
In the following, pre-planning work is discussed in terms of: (1) relationship to the entire planning exercise; (2) manner of implementation; and (3) the use to be made of the information assembled.
Gaining an understanding of what has gone on in the past is an essential prerequisite for making preparations for the future. Historical information must be studied with an analytical mind if the exercise is to be of practical value for planning. The aim will be to discover the reasons for missed opportunities and failures in the past. The exercise should help avoiding repetition of past mistakes.
Care should be taken against regarding the study of history as part of a salvage operation whose aim it would be to resuscitate programmes that had not worked in the past. Plans are made to show how best to meet future development needs, not how mistakes of the past may be remedied.
Among the best sources of historical information on the fisheries of coastal developing countries are reports by sectoral review missions that have been mounted in recent decades by international and bilateral technical cooperation agencies. Most of these reports have an analytical chapter containing an appraisal of accomplishments to date and of future needs. The information in these reports may be cross-checked and updated through interviews with selected members of the fisheries industry and administration as well as with fishery executives, fishermen and other industry operatives (who may, in the future, be concerned with day-to-day execution of plan directives). ‘Historical’ research may obviate the need for a good deal of basic fact-finding in the drawing up of plans.
3.3.1 Primary and secondary research
A good data base is the basic requirement for drawing up realistic and soundly constructed plans.
As indicated above, a substantial amount of data may have already become available in the course of research on the history of the country's fisheries. Bringing information on past trends up to date may, in some circumstances, involve additional survey work. Because of cost and time limitations, however, primary research for the sole sake of plan formulation should be, wherever possible, avoided. The exceptions to this rule are situations where data on the indicators in question have never been collected to date, where it proves impossible to extrapolate from historical data, and where the available information is considered too unreliable for planning purposes.
3.3.2 Completeness and accuracy
Decisions on what, and how much, information should be collected, and how accurate such information should be, must be taken by the planner with a view on specific requirements in the case at hand. Striving for completeness and an exaggerated degree of accuracy may hold up plan preparation and the start of operational programmes. On the other hand, treating the data assembly phase in nonchalant fashion may make a mockery of the entire planning exercise.
The following quotation from the conclusions of a fisheries planning mission expresses the compromise that should be striven for: “while the data were, in some respects, incomplete, they were, on the whole, considered adequate for an appraisal with only a moderate risk factor. The main problem was to make valid deductions from disparate and often contradictory information. The present report is thus … the result of a concerted exercise in professional judgment by the members of the mission … to reach those conclusions and recommendations most reasonable in the light of available information” (FAO, 1981a).
Special problems may arise in connection with suspected unreliability of data. Administrators may have intentionally inflated production data - possibly to make claims for higher budget allocations; entrepreneurs may have understated figures in reports submitted to government to reduce their tax liabilities; inaccuracies may result from inadequate staff forces or lack of training of field personnel, etc. The planner must try to discover the fissures in the data base, search for their causes, and - by interviewing suspected ‘culprits’ or by checking data questioned with other sources of information - seek to make appropriate corrections.
3.3.3 Kinds of data needed
In broad terms, the data to be assembled may be classified according to whether they pertain to input or output factors. On the input side, information is necessary, first of all, on potential and on total allowable catches, and actual landings, per species and geographic area (also, if available, by season, by gear employed). On material inputs, data are required on the size of fishing fleets, on fishing gear and fishing aids; landing, port, processing and marketing facilities, with indication, in each instance, of capacities and capacity utilization, as well as on supply sources for, and prices of, material inputs. A distinction should be made between foreign and domestic sources of supply in order to identify relative shares in total supply and to compare costs of procurement. Data assembly for planning should cover, in addition, age of fleets and major land installations, degree of obsolescence, and replacement costs. Data on manpower should be broken down by occupational specialty and, as far as this is ascertainable, skill levels. In the latter connection, there is a need also to obtain a picture of existing training facilities in the country.
On the output side, the planner must assemble data on quantities and sales prices, at the primary and at subsequent levels of distribution, by species and product, and - where appropriate - quality characteristics. These data should be obtained separately for products for domestic and for export markets. Where possible, price information should refer to principal market destinations. To round out this part of the data-gathering exercise, the planner has to collect also information on the distribution and market infrastructure.
For countries with a sizeable domestic market for fish and fishery products, a valid picture of the consumption scene, including particulars on consumption centres, consumer habits, preferences, etc., has to be obtained. Much of the latter information will not be obtainable from the fisheries agency but from ministries of agriculture, nutritional studies, and general census sources.
Not to be neglected in creating an adequate basis for planning are the various supporting services essential for the rational management and development of fisheries. This part of the survey must extend to administrative and institutional structures and staffing, financial (subsidies, taxes, and fees applicable to fisheries operations), research, scientific and technological facilities, and should cover also components of the general infrastructure of the economy, e.g. road and transport and water and fuel supply facilities essential for the realization of development opportunities in the fisheries sector.
No information should be collected, it must be emphasized, that is not needed for specific purposes, i.e. for outlining development programmes or for instituting measures for rational management of resources of facilities. In connection with the collection of cost data - needed for making decisions on input use, and for the acquisition of material inputs, also for choosing between alternative sources of supply - foreign exchange implications are a special consideration.
Output information provides necessary guidelines for market orientation and development.
Cost and price data are essential for choosing between alternatively feasible strategies as well as in the budgeting of programmes.
3.4.1 Knowledge of qualitative factors that have a bearing on fisheries management and development.
A good data base will be of little use to the planner as long as he is not sufficiently familiar with the fisheries environment to be able to correctly interpret the data he has assembled.
If there is reluctance to entrust the task of plan formulation to a planning specialist, it usually derives from a suspicion that he may not know the sector well enough. On the other hand, where a fisheries specialist has been given the responsibility for planning, it is sometimes feared that the overall sectoral interest may be slighted, since the specialist may be conversant only with problems in the scientific or technical speciality in which he has received his training.
If a professional planner is appointed to head the planning unit, he has to work very hard to obtain a qualitative as well as a quantitative appreciation of fisheries problems. Getting to know the principal characteristics of material and human input, and of output, factors is the first step toward bridging the information gap. The other essential part of his instruction concerns familiarization with characteristic relationships that obtain between the individual factors.
Starting with the resource base, the planner must acquire at least a basic knowledge of elements that impact on cost and earnings. In this connection, he should gain a general acquaintance with determinants of stock abundance, climatic and migratory patterns affecting fish availability and fishing effort, distances from port facilities, density of schools, physical and chemical characteristics of the resources such as age, size colour, appearance, taste, fat content, quality of flesh, boniness, feeding patterns (including dependence for food on other species of commercial significance, instances of cannibalism), also effects of pollution, parasitism, etc. It is important that the planner recognizes the limits of his own expertise in this sphere, and that he knows when the right time has come to call for advice on scientists specialized in resources management and development.
For fisheries management purposes, the following aspects will require special attention (MacKenzie, 1983):
magnitude and behavioral characteristics, i.e. seasonal concentration, migratory patterns, etc., of a given species stock or stocks (biomass) including multi-species (intermingled stocks);
the way in which the stock(s) vary in response to natural (environmental) forces and to alternative levels of exploitative intensity, i.e. fishing pressure;
manner in which the exploitation of a particular stock interacts with that of others in the same ecosystem;
optimal catch rate and level, hence size and density of biomass, for the fish-harvesting identity;
effect of alternative allocations of access to a particular stock, among competing user groups, on the total quantity harvested, the catch rate and the unit size (age of individuals of the species) caught;
possible trade-offs among total catch, catch rate, catch stability and unit size;
maximum yield (catch) from a biomass, i.e. stocks in an ecosystem, that is sustainable over time (MSY).
As far as the capital equipment used by the industry is concerned, ‘quality’ considerations which the planner should take into account includes, among other factors, the following: age, serviceability and obsolescence criteria, possibilities of introducing modifications, versatility in employment, etc. Whereever a more than surface knowledge of technological matter is required for intelligent decision-making, the planner must consult experts in boat-building, fishing gear, port construction, processing, market facilities, etc.
Experience shows that socio-economic considerations are the most frequently neglected elements in fisheries development planning. Yet, inadequate attention to producer and consumer attitudes and needs has taught planners many a bitter lesson.
The following (among many, many other) examples might be cited from the fisheries literature: (1) artisanal fisheries development projects have experienced failure because of attempts to induce groups with little acquaintance of sea life to take up fishing operations; (2) plans to modernize fisheries have been stalled, because fishermen could not be persuaded to fish in the open sea; (3) fishermen used to a particular kind of craft, particular patterns of fishing, certain fishing methods, have resisted efforts to have them shift to alternative operations (for example, new, more efficient and more stable boats proposed by technical assistance experts were rejected by fishermen because they did not give employment, as the craft they replaced did, to all of the members of a fisherman's family. The earnings gain achievable with the new craft did not seem to make up for the circumstance that some members of the family would not have been able to find alternative employment on shore; (4) unemployment fears and/or competition between industrial and artisanal fisheries have, at times, been at the root of opposition to introduction of trawl fishing in near-shore fisheries; (5) mobility out of the industry has been affected in some instances by stubborn attachment to a family tradition; (6) failure to take account of local fishermen's haphazard attitude toward boat and gear maintenance or of neglect of hygiene and quality standards has, on occasions, frustrated implementation of otherwise very carefully drawn up plans; (7) work and spending habits of fishermen (the tendency among some fishermen, for example, to spend cash earnings immediately on alcoholic beverages and consequent idleness) also have influenced planning, since related discontinuities in work patterns may be difficult to allow for in the preparation of work schedules.
On the marketing side, planning problems may arise due to difficulties in assessing consumer habits and taboos. These may have a significant bearing on regional or local development prospects and with which the planner at the macro-economic level may be unfamiliar.
3.4.2 Understanding relationships between different input, different output, and between input and output factors
A knowledge of how the data obtained during information-gathering relate to each other is as important as the quantity and quality as such of the information collected. For this reason, the planner must be thoroughly acquainted with the factors that affect fish production, processing, and distribution, and the relationships of these factors to each other. Only thus can he be able to make informed choices between alternatively employable strategies.
For more detailed knowledge of the industry, the planner must rely on specialized scientific and technological advice. To be able to ask the right questions, however, he must have a good general understanding of fisheries resources, technology and economics. Information obtained from specialists may be cross-checked and supplemented by perusal of research and feasibility studies and reports on investigations of productivity and on costs and earnings in the industry.
The planner should develop the habit of examining individual input and output factors for the impact that changes in their magnitude or quality might have on production processes as well as on physical output and earnings.
He will have to be aware, to take only one example, that a decision to fish at greater distance from shore (following extension of fishing limits) will have manpower implications (the fishermen may lack necessary skills or may be unwilling to engage in such operations, their socio-economic organization may be affected, they may have to be remunerated in different fashion, etc.); will influence size, construction and equipment specifications for fishing craft (which, in turn, will influence crew specifications); will require special arrangements for preservation of catches on board; will necessitate changes in size and character of landing and shore, as well as in distribution and market facilities and procedures, etc.). Detailed implications on costs and earnings must, in each instance, be worked out with the specialists.
The planner also will have to know that a fish stock of a given variety of - for instance, pelagic - fish may be taken, depending on whether encountered in concentrations of greater or lesser density, by mass fishing gear, which may contribute to cost reduction and make possible a different type of utilization as well as the reaching of different markets than if the fish concentrations had been less dense. On the utilization side, for some species, there may be “a single end use, as in the case of lobsters which are generally sold fresh or frozen for human consumption, while for others, e.g. species in the herring group, there may be a variety of uses” (FAO, 1981).
Certain characteristics of some fish species, notably size, consistency of flesh, boniness, fat content, will have a decisive bearing on utilization and will influence production costs and market opportunities. Other characteristics, e.g. general appearance, colour, may have a direct impact on consumer acceptance of a species. One species may be the major source of food for another species found on the same ground requiring a careful cost and earnings evaluation in the two fisheries to arrive at decisions on what to fish and in what quantities.
Some types of boats may be unserviceable for harvesting certain types of fish, and some fishing boats may not be to the liking of the fishermen.
Consumers may prefer certain species and product types and reject others and may make specific demands in regard to processing, packaging and presentation. The planner, therefore, will do well to get to know consumer habits and purchase expenditure patterns to forestall that development will not be hampered by snags on the market side.
Two considerations the fisheries planner should never lose sight of are that: (1) development resources are scarce; and (2) both in factor and product markets, fisheries are in competition with other industries.
On the input side, there may be rival claims in the exploitation of marine waters by commercial and sport fisheries or by commercial fisheries and/or pleasure boat operations. Development in other sectors of the economy may have a positive or negative impact on fisheries and fisheries operations may, under circumstances, be beneficial for - or cause damage to - other operations. Destruction of marshes, pollution of eatuaries, construction of dams with resultant interruption of flow of nutrients to marine waters, can lower yields or even destroy fisheries in limited areas. Conversely, pollution attributable to fisheries operations may cause economic damage to other industries. On land, odour-producing fish plants may jeopardize development of a promising tourist business.
Fisheries may be in competition with other sectors also in the procurement of inputs, e.g. where shipyards are constructing vessels for both fishing and commercial enterprises or where a limited number of skilled crew members are in demand by both fisheries and other marine operations.
On the market side, fish is in direct competition with other animal protein food, in some countries in particular with poultry products. More indirectly in many countries, but most certainly in the least developed countries with very limited economic resources, fish will compete will all other food categories. If there is to be any kind of market for fish in these countries, prices cannot be allowed to exceed by much those of other staple varieties of food.
Problems likely to arise because of competition between fisheries and other sectors of the economy in input and/or output markets should be taken into account as risk factors in fisheries planning. At the same time, thought should be given to possible measures for strengthening the position of fisheries in competitive situations.
Furthermore, in the interest of avoiding undesirable consequences of intersectoral competition, liaison should be established, inter alia, with: (1) government departments known to want to launch engineering projects in areas with fishery resources which might come under jeopardy as the result of their implementation; (2) industrial enterprises with plant operations that discharge pollutants into fishable waters; and (3) sport fishing and tourist promotion agencies interested in water bodies where commercial fisheries are operated; with the object of achieving a mutually satisfactory modus vivendi between the operations involved.
Sectoral plans of any single country should take account of what is being planned or undertaken by other countries (especially neighbouring countries in the region) that might impact on them. In this connection, development plans of such countries should be carefully studied, and draft programmes eventually adjusted, to cope with opportunities or constraints that may arise for the country's fisheries industry. Also, efforts should be made to coordinate plans and activities with those of the countries concerned and to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements to avoid future conflicts over resources exploitation or market operations.
Where other countries intend to start or expand operations similar in character to those contemplated by the developing coastal country under its new plan, and where the production of these fisheries is destined for international markets, consequences on absorption capacity, and price developments in, these markets must be clearly understood and assessed. In the latter connection, it may be necessary to keep in mind, for instance, that today a number of countries are envisaging development of small pelagic fish resources in their EEZs, with the object of marketing future production in coastal developing countries with severe animal protein food shortages. Competition between these countries conceivably could result in reduction of market prices for supplies of such fish to levels where the products become accessible to a fair proportion - though hardly to those who are experiencing the most serious problems - of the population of the coastal developing country which is trying to develop its own fisheries. This may mean that, in the absence of trade barriers, the country's domestic markets may be conquered by imports of inexpensive fish and/or, if the country's development is to be export-oriented, that revenues - as the result of increased competition in foreign markets - should be expected to be much lower than if the other countries had not made similar plans.
In some coastal developing countries, large-scale development became possible quasi overnight through acquisition of fishing equipment from countries forced to liquidate in the wake of drastic declines in their traditional fisheries. Because this equipment could be acquired at low cost, operations which had heretofore appeared uneconomic suddenly appeared feasible. An uncontrolled expansion which often ensued had adverse consequences on the fishery resources and, ultimately also, on the economics of the countries concerned, and was - at least in part - attributable to the fact that the original capital investment was obtained so cheap. As the industry expanded, some of the oldest and least expensive capital could still be kept in operation; the new, more efficient, but substantially more expensive, replacement equipment acquired during the boom phase had to be abandoned first as yields eventually declined. A drop in output, thus, was accompanied by a rise in costs and the developing countries, in their turn, were facing the need to liquidate some of their equipment.
Before the institution of the EEZs, fishing operations of other countries in waters off the shores of coastal countries, which the latter felt they were entitled to exploit for their own benefit, often gave rise to conflicts, some of which assumed the proportion of regular ‘fishing wars’.
Extension of national jurisdiction has lessened the chances of such conflicts. Foreign participation in fishing within the new limits, where the coastal country is not able or willing to harvest the totality of allowable catches, has become a matter of negotiation and mutually acceptable agreements. Foreign fishing beyond the coastal country's limits which may affect stocks within the EEZ, and exploitation of stocks shared by two or more countries, may be the remaining major sources of conflicts in fishing (not counting disputes connected with the manner in which fishery limits have been drawn).
Fishing beyond the new limits is not likely to lead to major problems in the future, since the bulk of catches of conventional species is taken within the EEZs. Exploitation of shared stocks, in contrast, could, in some instances, cause some unpleasantness between neighbouring countries. “The problems of shared stocks… (can) only be resolved by negotiation among the relevant coastal states. Negotiations would be greatly facilitated if the interests of each state were clearly expressed, preferably in economic values, so that each state can compare its interests to those of the others and also so that a basis for assessing compensation is provided… as states become increasingly aware of the problems of shared stocks and the potential for common losses, they may be increasingly willing to restrain their own fishermen and seek compromises that will be beneficial for all” (FAO, 1981).
Many coastal countries might, indeed, profit from adopting a philosophy of compromise, a philosophy that seeks to achieve a rational division of labour and benefits, by coordinating similar activities so far conducted separately, and by establishing arrangements for informal consultations.
The sometimes encountered “anything you can do, I can do better” (or “as good as you”) policy has, in some instances, encouraged the setting up of similar facilities (each one eventually underutilized and with no hopes of ever becoming economically self-supporting) in neighbouring countries. Much money and effort could have been saved in these cases if the countries had agreed on joint ownership and operation of economically more viable facilities serving their common needs.
In some instances, developing countries were eager to enter into fishery agreements not so much because of benefits they expected from participation in fisheries management and development by another country but because of hoped-for advantages in non-fishery matters. These advantages may be in the sphere of politics or they may accrue to other branches of the country's economy or they may simply represent anticipated gains in goodwill in future relations between the countries concerned.
As far as unforeseeable political and economic developments on the international scene that may affect fisheries are concerned, the most the planner can do is to work out contingency plans to enable fisheries to react speedily to any favourable or unfavourable consequences. In the category of imponderables are, among others, changes in political and economic relationships between countries, changes in foreign exchange ratios affecting markets of capital inputs and changes in trade flow and intensity, changes in international fuel prices likely to impact on the cost of fishing, changes in international credit and technical cooperation policies, etc.
Planning is governed by a policy framework that comprises:
all the laws, institutional arrangements, regulations and procedures governing the management and use of fishing resources, and
governmental activities that affect fisheries indirectly, e.g. those relating to taxation, industrial and trade development and foreign affairs (MacKenzie, 1983).
To the above must be added possible strictures imposed by international law. With the institution of the new regime of the seas, coastal states have received clear directives on the exploitation of their marine fisheries wealth. In addition, fisheries development planning must take due account of the philosophy, guidelines, prescriptions and constraints embodied in national economic plans and in national legislation governing operations in the fisheries sector.
The economic plan of a country should contain a clear expression of national policy goals, with an indication of priority rankings. All sectoral planning must be governed by this statement of national objectives. Since the authors of the economic plan cannot be expected to be familiar with the opportunities in, and needs of, individual sectors, it is incumbent on the sectoral planners to make sure that sectoral interests will be appropriately reflected in the economic plan. In general, the greater the number of intervening steps in the planning hierarchy between the national and the fisheries planning organism (e.g. where, for instance, fisheries planners are subordinated to sub-departmental and departmental organisms in a Ministry of Agriculture or a Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries), the more difficult is the task of bringing sectoral goals into line with national goals and ensuring fair representation of sectoral interests in the overall plan.
The following example shows what may happen if fisheries plans are drawn up in a Ministry with primary responsibility in another sector: fisheries resources, which in principle could have been produced for food fish distribution to consumers, were, in accordance with plan directives, processed into fish meal for poultry feeding. Resulting cost savings, in poultry production were passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices, leading to a substantial expansion in poultry markets. With poultry and fishery products in direct competition in the market, there was little incentive to explore opportunities for fisheries development.
Access to fisheries within national limits has generally remained free for all nationals of the country (although, in some countries, groups of coastal fishermen have, in some instances, been granted so-called territorial use, i.e. exclusive, rights (TURFs) for exploitation. Extension of limits has abolished the privilege of access for foreigners only. To protect the fishery resources and to prevent chaos from arising on the fishing grounds, the state must provide a policing system. Policing may involve issuance of administrative measures or institution of more formal arrangements such as fisheries laws drawn up by legislative bodies. The current trend is toward the enactment of a general fisheries law under which more detailed regulations can be issued: “The general law should not only confer the legal authority to regulate fisheries, but should offer a rationale and a structure for regulation. This will make it easier (for the authority responsible for administering it) to maintain consistency in the regulations and to detect gaps in coverage. It will also make the whole system more comprehensible - and thus more acceptable - to fishermen” (FAO/Norway Cooperative Programme, 1981).
Aside from fisheries laws and administrative measures concerning the sector directly, there is a host of provisions relating to other sectors that affect fisheries either directly or indirectly. Certain fields, in particular company law, investment codes, provisions governing navigation, customs, etc., merit particular attention, because procedures and provisions governing their operations are likely to affect fisheries management and development planning.
To the extent that international and national measures intended to achieve rational management and development of the economy and the fisheries sector are embodied in the law, the fisheries planner's freedom to draw up programmes will be circumscribed. The planner, however, should always lobby for changes where existing statutes seriously impede rational development of the sector.
3.8.1 Principal management and development support needs
Research on management and development support preceding actual preparation of the plan focuses on administrative structures and staff, institutional arrangements, finance, and foreign technical and material cooperation.
At the micro-level, research on additional support sources - such as services in the fields of insurance, training, cooperative promotion - may be necessary.
3.8.2 Administrative structures and cadres
Where planning is (as it should be) treated as a staff function, and where it remains completely separated from operational work, planners will have to prepare at least an informal evaluation of fishery administrative structures and cadres, with the object of convincing themselves that competent management for implementation of the programmes will be available at the time it is needed.
Fact-finding should start with an inventory of existing structures and functions, and should proceed from there to an appraisal, in quantitative and qualitative (skills, competence, initiative) terms, of administrative cadre needs.
In addition to the regular government service responsible for the fisheries sector, some countries have set up parastatal bodies to carry out specified tasks. Also, fishery industry organizations may have established for specific purposes, as part of the services they offer their members, self-administered schemes. In other instances - or for other matters - joint government industry bodies may have been given powers to make - or even enforce - decisions in the sphere of management and development.
Functionally, the services provided may be broadly classified according to whether they are of regulatory, advisory, promotional, or operational character. Discharge of more than one category of these responsibilities, e.g. regulatory and promotional functions, by one and the same agency, may require finding the right balance in the use of the stick and the carrot. The problem is to arrive at a proper mode of instituting and enforcing regulations without losing the confidence and cooperation of the industry which is the beneficiary of development support.
If one agency has, in the same sphere, e.g. fishing, both regulatory and operational responsibilities, fears will tend to arise, often not unjustly so, that the agency will use its powers to promote operations it directly controls at the expense of other operations.
The planner should try to identify overlaps in jurisdiction, duplication of responsibilities, and other sources of conflicts, between administrative bodies or units. The fault may be with lack of clarity in defining jurisdictional limits, inadequate size and/or lack of competence of cadres, gaps in training arrangements. Whatever their origin, such conflicts will result in serious handicaps in plan execution.
The coordination of programmes and administrative support is not an easy matter. Programmes should not be designed with an eye to giving existing structures and cadres ‘something to do’ or, even worse, to create an excuse for their very existence. Arrangements for organization and staffing should not be made before structural and functional needs have been clearly spelled out in the plan.
3.8.3 Institutions and institutional arrangements
In the fields of fisheries science, technology, and socio-economics, expert support for management and development is provided by departments of the fisheries administration, academic institutions, and fishery enterprises. Regional and international research and development institutes frequently are in a position to offer assistance, not only on problems of broader but also of local scope, and should be consulted, as a matter of routine, wherever national facilities are not equipped to provide help. Information exchange arrangements between neighbouring coastal countries are particularly useful, since the countries may be presumed to face similar problems in managing and developing their fisheries.
In addition to special interest groups, i.e. associations of vessel owners, fishermen, industrial labour, traders, etc., a variety of institutional arrangements - advisory groups councils, liaison committees, etc. - will influence, or at least try to influence, fisheries planning. Some of the arrangements in question are of national, others of regional, character, others again cover one species or one product group only. Some of these bodies are no more than disguised industry lobbies, others have been set up with public support and have advisory functions, still others must be consulted de rigore by the fisheries administration in certain specified matters (or liaison may be required as a matter of routine). The contribution to planning and plan implementation of such groups, to the extent they are in a position to provide useful advice or political support for industry causes, should be welcomed. Regular and compulsory consultation and liaison with such groups, on the other hand, may at times hinder decision-making and stifle progress in plan preparation and execution. While the planners should maintain contact to obtain full benefits from the contribution the groups may be able to make, they should not hesitate to point out the consequences of any consultation and liaison arrangements that can be expected to accomplish little and that tend to delay or paralyze decision-making.
3.8.4 Sources of finance
A good knowledge of sources of finance: their capacity and willingness to provide support to the sector, and the purposes for which, and the terms under which, financing is extended, is as essential for the planner as familiarity with the performance and costs of fuel oil and lubricants is for the engineer.
Government budget allocations to the sector should suffice for covering basic needs. Whether the allocations appear, or do not appear, adequate for the fulfillment of plan objectives, in the short run the planner must consider them as given. Should they fall far short of what seem to him basic necessities, he may want to present his arguments for changes to the appropriate authorities to ensure that development planning at some future time at least will not be impeded by excessive financial strictures.
The relationship between fisheries and the banking business can be compared to that of two enamoured persons who assiduously court each other but that may not necessarily succeed in getting together in the end. The banking business tends to be reluctant to give a loan to the fishermen because the would-be partner's economic prospects, as presented in poorly prepared proposals, do not appear bright enough. On the other hand, where a dowry is offered, the fisherman very often feels he is unable to shoulder the interest burdens that have to be assumed with its acceptance.
Match-making tends to be greatly facilitated by good planning, both at the macro- and at the micro-level. International and regional banking institutions, in particular, are constantly searching for soundly conceived and prepared proposals that provide evidence of the existence of biological, technological, and human development resources as well as of satisfactory market opportunities.
Funds of private enterprises, especially those of foreign enterprises wishing to participate in fisheries development in the coastal developing country, constitute a third major source of capital for the industry. Foreign private enterprise may ask even more for its contribution of capital and other inputs than the banks (especially the international or regional development banks, which sometimes will require no more than that there is assurance that project plans are sound, that solid management support is being provided for implementation, and that interest obligations will be met when due). For this reason, all proposals for private foreign participation, whether in the form of part ownership in domestic companies, joint ventures, provision of charter or other services, have to be carefully scrutinized to determine how much actual benefit the developing coastal country is likely to obtain from the foreign enterprise in exchange for the privilege of being able to invest in a branch of its economy.
3.8.5 Foreign technical cooperation
What has been said above on the subject of finance applies equally to foreign cooperation in the technical field. The crucial questions very often relate not so much to locating sources of support as such as to correctly assessing the developing country's absorption capacity for support and to choosing the partner who would seem to be best qualified to fill development needs.
Private sources are able to offer invaluable experience in operational management, especially at the micro-level, but their recommendations are often suspected of not being sufficiently disinterested, and trade-offs demanded for their cooperation may appear extravagant. Bilateral, multilateral and international development cooperation, it may be thought are being extended on a less self-interested basis. Such cooperation tends to fucs on management and development planning, technical assistance activities, and a variety of support activities in the spheres of training, institution-building, etc.
Some developing countries have found that, as of late, their search for foreign partners for fisheries development is meeting with a very quick response. This is due largely to the impact of limits extension, with foreigners extending offers of cooperation in the hope of gaining a privileged position in regard to fishing permits in the waters of the country assisted. At times, this trend has had the undesirable consequence of holding back implementation of programmes - as the countries were seeking to obtain second, third, fourth, and more assessments and proposals - from all the parties interested in cooperating. In the end, the developing country is often deluged by an avalanche of recommendations and proposals for development which the planners may find it hard to evaluate against each other.
If, because of the country's eagerness to accept as much help as is being offered, a variety of uncoordinated projects sponsored by different parties are eventually undertaken simultaneously, development progress, more often than not, tends to be disappointing.
Foreign cooperation must be geared very carefully to the country's actual absorption capacity. Should it lead to a proliferation of facilities and operations, economic waste, and “boom and bust” economics, as earlier described, the foreigners ultimately will harvest resentment rather than good will. In its own interest, the foreign country should make sure that the developing country is assisted in instituting firm controls over its development programme including the foreign assistance contribution to its implementation.
Where offers of cooperation for specific programmes have been accepted from a sizeable number of foreign countries, difficulties may be expected with regard to staffing, proccurement, and replacement of equipment and parts, etc. These difficulties are attributable not only to language and cultural factors but also to differences in specifications and quality of material inputs.
The choice of foreign partners for development cooperation often is made on the basis of political considerations leaving fisheries interests little discretion in the matter. The latter, under all circumstances, have the obligation to gauge the developing country's absorption capacity for assistance as well as to bring to alert the appropriate authorities as to undesirable consequences of undue procrastination in the acceptance of offers of cooperation as well as indiscriminent approval of proposals presented by foreign interests.
During the pre-planning phase, the fisheries planner must brief himself exhaustively on all elements that are likely to affect fisheries management and development over the plan period. For these purposes, he has to study historical and statistical records; scientific, technological, and socio-economic aspects of fish production and marketing; linkages to other sectors with programmes likely to affect fisheries; relationships to developments abroad; the legal framework within which fisheries have to operate; management and development support aspects relating to administrative structures and cadres; institutions and institutional arrangements; sources of finance; and foreign technical cooperation.
The planner should not limit himself to making an assessment of the present situation but should enquire also about future intentions and prepare projections on the basis of his findings.
The contacts he makes during the information-gathering phase will enable him to establish liaison and consultation arrangements that will facilitate plan implementation as well as to canvas sources of potential development support.
Finally, the information he has obtained will enable the planner to identify opportunities and constraints to be considered in plan formulation. The planner may have discovered possibilities for utilizing heretofore neglected resources for development of new markets, more efficient use of capacity, improvements in assistance to small-scale fisheries, etc. On the negative side, he may have noted factors which might hold back execution of management and development programmes - such as legal and administrative restrictions which should never have been imposed or which are no longer justifiable, loosely drawn up contracts for foreign participation in development activities, failure to take proper account of the impact of changes in input availability or costs, etc.
What the planner has learnt during pre-planning should provide him with clues on strategies and programmes to be incorporated in the plan he is about to prepare. Equipped with a solid data base and a good knowledge of how to approach the varied problems of fisheries management and development, he should be ready to start work on the decision-making phase of planning.
