1.�������� INTRODUCTION

1.�������� Closer cooperative arrangements between fisheries industries and scientific research is increasingly advocated in various academic, governmental and international fora.� Such cooperation is judged critical at various stages of the fisheries management planning process, particularly when establishing the scientific basis of regulatory measures.

2.�������� At its Twenty-sixth Session (Ischia, Italy, 2001), the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) emphasized that it �was in agreement that participation of fisheries sector representatives would improve the quality of the work of the Commission and facilitate implementation of its recommendations�[1]. The Commission however recognized that the participatory process might need some time to be achieved, and several delegations acknowledged the need to set up a regional modality that would group together the fish producers and other fishery industry stakeholders in the GFCM area. It was further stated that such an �arrangement would facilitate the participation of the private sector in GFCM meetings and would better reflect the needs of the sector�[2].

3.�������� It can be assumed that the general aim of such an arrangement would be to reinforce GFCM decision-making and implementation processes, governance and efficiency. The Commission did not specify however at which institutional level such an arrangement might be placed, nor did it specify its exact nature.

4.�������� With this assumption in mind, the paper on private sector involvement in GFCM research activities aims at facilitating assessment by the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) on possible approaches to strengthening cooperation between GFCM and the industry[3].

5.�������� The first part of the document reviews the general context of promoting a relationship between research and the industry within the fisheries management planning process at subregional or regional level. The second part provides some considerations on establishing some form of partnership arrangement in the context of Mediterranean fisheries[4].

2.�������� CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

2.1������ Within GFCM

6.�������� GFCM rules of procedure[5] allow, under certain conditions, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or Associations to have an observer status within the Commission. Representatives of the fishing industry have also been able to join national delegations at the Commission�s meetings in the capacity of expert or advisor[6].�� Such a status would apply, mutatis mutandis to subsidiaries as well. Indeed, this was clearly reiterated at the Twenty-sixth Session[7].� It can be noted that, at the Twenty-second Session, some participants had already suggested the possible constitution within GFCM of a consultative committee with representatives from the private sector.� It was further considered that such a committee would be able to provide useful input to the work of GFCM[8].

7.�������� In addition to formal observer status, other experiences with industry participation within the GFCM framework have included the regular participation of the European Federation of Aquaculture Producers (EFAP) as de facto observer at the meetings organized in the framework of the Committee on Aquaculture (COA). Representatives of the industry in their own capacity also participated actively in the Consultation on the adoption of Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean (Rome, 19-23 July 1999).

8.�������� Furthermore, during its Twenty-sixth Session, the Commission acknowledged the �First AdriaMed meeting with the Adriatic Fishery Associations� organised in the framework of the FAO AdriaMed Project activities (Split, Croatia, 17-18 July 2001). The aims of the meeting were to:

�       transfer recent developments and knowledge acquired by AdriaMed to the Adriatic fishery sector;

�       gain a deeper understanding of production in the Adriatic;

�       discuss matters related to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries;

�       create the opportunity for the Adriatic fishery resource users associations (Albania, Croatia, Italy and Slovenia) to gather together for the first time;

�       identify and discuss common and priority issues around the Adriatic basin and possibilities for intervention and support of the AdriaMed Project; and

�       establish a regional (Adriatic) network.

9.�������� The issue of cooperation between scientific research and the production sector was of critical importance during the First AdriaMed meeting[9]. Research priorities relevant for the representatives of the fishing industry were identified and discussed. They mainly focused on areas such as market; gear technology, training which are complementary to current priorities of SAC.� During this meeting representatives of fishing associations also underlined the importance of their participation in international fora such as the GFCM.

2.2������ Guidance from� the Code of conduct for responsible fisheries

10.������� It is widely recognised that industry knowledge is not sufficiently taken into account by scientists and managers and that this is one of the main reasons why technical measures adopted in fisheries are not successfully carried out. Such concern is reflected in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995). For example, Article 6.13 of the Code invites States, �in accordance with appropriate procedures, [to] � facilitate consultation and effective participation of industry, fish workers, environmental and other interested organizations in decision-making with respect to the development of laws and policies related to fisheries management�. Article 6.16 further calls for the involvement of fishers in the policy formulation and implementation process, also with a view to implementing the Code.

11.������� With regard in particular to fisheries management at sub-regional level, Article 7.1.6 recommends that:

�Representatives from relevant organizations, both governmental and non-governmental, concerned with fisheries should be afforded the opportunity to take part in meetings of sub-regional and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements as observers, or otherwise, as appropriate, in accordance with the procedures of the organization or arrangement concerned. Such representatives should be given timely access to the records and reports of such meetings, subject to the procedural rules on access to them�.

12.������� Moreover, in accordance with Article 12 of the Code, appropriate research should be conducted in all aspects of fisheries including biology, ecology, technology, environmental science, economics, social science, aquaculture and nutritional science.� Article 12.13 specifically points out that the State should promote the use of research results as a basis for the setting of management objectives, reference points and performance criteria, as well as for ensuring adequate linkages between applied research and fisheries management.

13.������� The Code does not formally provide specific guidance on how to tackle the issue of participation of the industry in research activities at sub-regional or regional level, as this is a matter to be dealt with within each regional fisheries management body (RFMB) or arrangement.

14.������� It can also be noted that the need for a more efficient and systematic approach to include traditional/local knowledge in research and management systems was also underlined during the Third Session of the FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (FAO, Rome, December 2000), particularly with regard to developing collaborative research projects.

2.3������ Experiences from other Regional fisheries body or arrangements

15.������� The spirit of the FAO Code of conduct on promoting cooperative linkages between research and industry seems to be increasingly reflected in some sub-regional or regional fisheries related institutions. This is, for example apparent within the frame of the European Union (E.U), particularly in the �Green Paper on the future of the Common Fishery Policy�. The section of this policy document dedicated to �Improving governance foresees the �establishment of regional advisory committees to involve more effectively the stakeholders in policy-making�[10]. The instrument suggested is a network of regional advisory committees on fisheries, including representatives of the industry.� The view is taken that industry representatives should be involved more and involved earlier in policy-making discussions, before proposals on management measures are made. The document further suggests that transparency could be promoted by facilitating closer links between fishers and scientists.

16.������� Following a series of sub-regional meetings[11] for exchanging ideas on fisheries management with the involvement of industry representatives, the Commission of the E.U (E.C) adopted in 1999 an action plan aimed at creating the conditions needed for effective consultation and communication between all stakeholders involved with the �Common Fisheries Policy�. As a consequence, and notwistanding the work performed by its Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), which is composed only of scientists, the E.C restructured[12] its Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA)[13]. Representatives of various sectoral interests were introduced within ACFA.� These included professional organizations representing fishing, processing and marketing enterprises as well as consumer, environmental and development organizations. The ACFA was further backed with a Regulation �on closer dialogue with the fishing sector and groups affected by the common fisheries policy[14]�. It can be noted, however, that the relationship between research and the private sector is not specifically referred to in this instrument.

17.������� With a view towards involving interested private sector groups (mainly fisher associations and environmental NGO�s) in its work, the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) has in recent years held several �Open Meetings� to discuss the status of stocks, research needs and necessary protection measures.

18.������� In the Inter-American Atlantic Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), industry concerns are usually taking into consideration at the earliest stage of negotiating processes. Finally, it can also be noted that some Regional Economic Integration Organizations are sensitive to the issue. For example, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) recently adopted a Protocol on fisheries to the SADC Treaty which envisaged the participation of all stakeholders in the promotion of SADC fisheries policy[15].

3.������� BASIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPECIFYING THE EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT BETWEEN FISHERY RESEARCH
AND THE FISHING INDUSTRY WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS

19.������� The topic of research is wide and touches various levels of discussion. Fisheries research is a primary means for addressing knowledge gaps that are important for guiding fisheries management decisions.

20.������� The private sector usually takes care of its own direct research needs, such as those related to technical innovations or market structure.� There is reliance on public research to deal with issues that lie beyond the scope of industry action capacity or priority.� This may occur, for example, when certain stakeholder knowledge is excluded or when disciplinary or geographical boundaries constrain the analysis. Fishing associations may cooperate among themselves as well.� It was reported[16] for example that fishing associations from nine Mediterranean countries entered into an agreement focusing on exchange of information and increased collaboration on Mediterranean fishery issues, including scientific research, regardless of national boundaries and differing statutes.

21.������� For fisheries management planning in particular, public research entails a wide range of domains and should involve multiple disciplines. Management planning can be defined as:[17]

�the integrated process of information gathering, analysis, planning, consultation, decision-making, allocation of resources and formulation and implementation, with enforcement as necessary, of regulations or rules which govern fisheries activities in order to ensure the continued productivity of resources and the accomplishment of other fisheries objectives.

22.������� Cooperative research would ideally interact with almost all of these steps,� It should at the very least� entail activities to ensure that fisheries management decisions are based on the �best scientific information available�.

23.������� The involvement of fishing industries in fishery research should be based on an arrangement, wherein each Party unequivocally benefits from the other, either on a short term or long term basis. However, it is observed in general that research expects more from the industry that the reverse (a practical reason is that researchers working on medium term tend to be more available than fishers and fishery operators engrossed in immediate constraints of profitability). It should also be kept in mind that in many cases, the industry has a tendency to underestimate the complexity of fisheries management and external constraints such as international instruments.

24.������� Formal cooperative arrangements between research and various components of the industry have already been established in many Mediterranean countries. In Italy, for example, it is seen within the framework of the preparation and implementation of the triennial fisheries and aquaculture development plan; several committees have been established in which representatives of the various fisheries professional organisations are present, including in the technical Scientic Committee.� In Spain it is seen in the case of the Co-fradias, mainly in relation with trade issues.� In France, it is seen in a number of Fisheries Committees and Prud�homies. Such cooperation is also being built within various types of co-management schemes in countries such as Albania or Morocco. However, based on information available it appears that few Mediterranean countries benefit from a federation arrangement (industry association or the like) which combines various stakeholder interests at the national level and facilitates their participation in research activities for responsible fisheries management. In the short-medium term, this could be seen as a major drawback towards establishing a body with the necessary legitimacy for representing the interests of the industry.

25.������� In other parts of the world, such as in Australia, New-Zealand or Madagascar, decisions on the management of some fisheries are �industry driven�. They are agreed upon through a partnership process involving government, the fishing industry, scientists, environment groups and the broader community. Industry also largely pays for the cost of management and research.

26.������� At sub-regional or regional levels, basic requirements for the management authority would ideally include:

�       evaluating the usual communication environment between research and the industry;

�       identifying the valid interest groups; defining precise responsibilities and terms of reference;

�       identifying the most appropriate institutional structure/subsidiary for discussion and exchange of information;

�       establishing formal communication channels, particularly with regard to adequate dissemination of research results, fisheries statistics, management measures and other material important to ensuring that interest groups are fully informed and in a position to fulfil their responsibilities; and

�       evaluating steps and time frame to operationalize the structure/subsidiary and the likely additional costs incurred.

27.������� From the industry perspective, a preliminary requirement would be to demonstrate ability for establishing a legitimate base for representing the selected interest group at subregional or regional level. It would also be appropriate to demonstrate a willnessness to assume some form of commitment, including eventually with financial implications.

4.�������� CONCLUSION

28.������� It is widely acknowledged that the fishery industry needs support from research and that at the same time, scientists need accurate information from the industry in order to carry out useful and sound research. Until recently, the role of industry in the work of RFMBs has been largely restricted to individual cases of participation through national delegations. There is growing acceptance that, in keeping with the principles of responsible fisheries, much greater formal involvement is called for, including within RFMB research activities. There seems to be a consensus as well that this involvement should be encouraged through a carefully designed process that will require some time to become fully operational.� The design of such a process needs to take into account, over the entire area of competence of the RFMB concerned, the specific circumstances of individual fisheries, management objectives and methods, the socio-economic, commercial and legal contexts within which industry operates.

29.������� Such a process would involve a number of preparatory steps, including multidisciplinary surveys to identify, inter alia, the segments of the industry concerned, the type of information and data which could be collected and exchanged, and more generally the nature, extent and modalities of possible options on approaches for involving the private sector. These latter include questions related to: the most suitable institutional base; geographical scale; technical subject matter priorities; and anticipated time frame and costs.

5.�������� SUGGESTED ACTION BY SAC

30.������� Bearing in mind its mandate, the Scientific Advisory Committee is invited to express its views on the rationale for involving industry representatives in GFCM research activities and possibly to identify the necessary initial steps, approaches and options for launching such a process, including if relevant systems of communications and dissemination of information.