This evaluation can be made by comparing achievements in management with the objectives defined in the Terms of Reference of the Committee and its Subsidiary Bodies.
The mandate of the Committee shows (Appendix 1) that its aim in this domain is to assist Member Countries in establishing the scientific basis for regulatory measures with the purpose of conserving and improving the sea fishery resources. The first subsidiary bodies were instructed to carry out a variety of tasks and to4 “assess the state of the stocks, evaluate the effects of changes in the mesh size and a possible regulation of effort, prepare recommendations which would then be adopted by the Committee and applied by the Governments, and advise on all matters related to data and assessment.” This mandate closely linked statistics, assessment and management, and stressed the consultative role of the Working Group, but it assumed that the measures adopted by the Committee would be applied by the Governments. Then the Second and Third Sessions of the Committee set up the Working Party on Resources Evaluation in May 1971 and the Sub-Committee on the Management of Resources Within the Limits of National Jurisdiction, December 1972, separating and giving greater importance to the functions of assessment and the functions of management. The Sub-Committee on Management, however, has always played a major role concerning statistics and stock assessment by monitoring the results obtained on these matters and by proposing to the Committee the actions that it considered appropriate.
The results achieved by the Committee on Management should, therefore, be evaluated in relation to these two essential functions which summarize its activity1.
Check on progress with regard to statistics and the assessment of resources. Liaison between the Working Party and the Committee.
Analysis of results and preparation of proposals for recommendations (consultative function) with regard to management and enforcement (surveillance, controls, etc.).
Chapters 3 and 4 summarize the evolution of the knowledge and understanding of the phenomena involved, of the problems met and the solutions searched for in the period from 1967 to 1982. On examining, with a minimum of objectivity, the results that have been achieved through this work in less than 10 years, and making a comparison on the progress achieved in other comparable sectors of the developing world, one can only reach the conclusion that the work has been generally positive (even if the present situation is not yet satisfactory), when considering the new responsibilities now incumbent on the coastal countries.
Of course, credit should not be given to CECAF alone for what has been achieved as it would be very difficult to decide how much was due to the contribution of the Committee, the national laboratories, their bilateral components, the FAO Projects and other actions. The Proceedings of the Working Parties have been coherent and adapted to the realities of the region but such progress was quite clearly the result of a continuous interaction between the Sub-Committee and the various coastal and non-coastal components of the Committee, and any success should be equally shared.
As regards the regional development of knowledge, the establishing of basic principles of management, and the diffusion of information and coordination, paragraphs 3 and 4 (as well as Tables 1 and 3) should be sufficient to demonstrate that the CECAF Bodies concerned with management, supported by the “CECAF Project” since 1974 and with the help of the inore developed coastal laboratories, have worked towards the assigned objectives with indubitable success if referring strictly to their mandates. They have greatly contributed to an awareness of the problems raised by the old and new Law of the Sea and, quite rightly, the new Law of the Sea has gradually been reflected in their thinking over the years.
It is clear, however, that the problems of management are far from being settled in CECAF and that important questions remain outstanding, particularly at the level of the implementation of regulations, and the acquisition of adequate structures and trained personnel.
It is also necessary to note, in order to obtain a closer assessment of the achievements, that only a part of the actions undertaken by the coastal countries are discussed at the regional level and thus come within the domain of CECAF. A large part, and sometimes the greatest part of actions undertaken, occur outside the regional mechanisms within a purely national context, very often with an international or bilateral component. It is significant in this connection that the CECAF coastal countries have rarely informed the Committee of the results of identification and evaluation missions (such as those of the World Bank and others) or of support missions for planning development (e.g., within the framework of the Exclusive Economic Zone Programme of FAO).
Decifiencies can be quite clearly seen in those sectors relating to the Management Sub-Committee, such as statistics (small-scale fisheries, foreign fleets, biological data, socio-economic data, etc.); and the assessment of resources (stagnation and even regression in research work in certain countries, especially but not exclusively in the Gulf of Guinea, the “drain” of trained staff away from the research/administrative sector of fisheries, insufficient number of jobs being created). As regards management proper, there are also deficiencies at the level of training decision-makers as well as at the level of applying the management principles developed within the Committee. Examples can be found in connection with the two main management issues currently contemplated by the Committee: mesh size and regulation of fishing effort.
1 Page 5 of the Report on the Third CECAF Session, Tenerife, 1972.
The coastal countries have readily agreed to apply this measure to the foreign fleets but on the whole they have been reluctant to apply it to national fleets (and to the small-scale fisheries) in spite of a unanimous agreement to accept a specific recommendation which took into account all the available results and the difficulties of enforcement. The result is that the coastal countries have had difficulties in implementing a management technique even though they recognize its utility. The difficulties are of two types:
In the case of foreign fleets: The main difficulty lies in control, whether on land or at sea, of the mesh size being used. The single mesh size of 60 mm was aimed, in part, at reducing these difficulties of control. It seems that at the present time some countries are in a position ot carry out some control while others appear to have difficulty in exercising their authority in this matter. At the Third Session of the Committee in 1972 (Paragraphs 19 to 23 of the Report) the coastal countries reaffirmed their responsbility as regards application of manage- ment measures in the waters under their jurisdiction and stressed that the extension of their jurisdiction would greatly increase their control over the resources.
Starting from this date the problem of implementing mesh size regulations was only considered from the point of view of the responsibility of the coastal countries and their ability to exercise it in an adequate manner.
In the case of national fleets: Prior to the work of CECAF, laws that had been inherited from the past were more often than not established on limited biological evidence. The problem of control here is theoretically easier since it is possible to carry out control on land, especially if only one single mesh size is authorized. Again, however, the practical results from the point of view of implementation have, on the whole, been negligible. In some countries where competent laboratories exist, attempts have been made to refine the regulation by authorizing several different mesh sizes on multi-species fisheries, making control difficult, costly, not to say impossible in practical terms. In countries where the personnel have little competence on the subject, and are over-burdened with administrative work, the authorities do not know how to deal with the inevitable recriminations (and pressures) of the fishermen. No experimental trawl survey for demonstrative purposes has been undertaken, no information campaigns have been carried out and, in order to avoid a major conflict as well because of a lack of conviction or argumentation (as the subject is not yet mastered), the implementation of the regulation is inefficient or even non-existent.
Conclusion. In all cases the problem of implementing regulations on mesh size depends on the national capacity for real control, and thus on the ability of the coastal country to exert its authority. The limiting factors are:
the lack or insufficiency of laboratories and competent personnel;
the inability of such personnel, when they exist and can draw up regulations to foresee the difficulties in their application;
finally, the lack of determination at the upper levels of administration, which may largely be a consequence of the two previously stated factors, and sometimes a lack of efficient liaison between the national laboratories and the authorities.
It must be recognized, however, that in certain cases (e.g. the hake fishery in Morocco) greater economic problems exist that are difficult to resolve in the short-term, regardless of the efficiency of the means available for implementation (see Paragraph 4.2).
Paragraph 4.3 summarises developments in this domain within CECAF, regarding the understanding of the problems and the solutions proposed. It must be recognized that for many countries in the Gulf of Guinea which do not have the expertise (or sufficient expertise), the information on the state of marine resources is not sufficiently accurate to bring about an awareness of the problem and initiate a process of regulation that sometimes does not, in fact, seem very urgent. The recent rise in the price of fuel has often resulted in a reduction of the fishing effort to a point where some sectors seemed underexploited. On the other hand, serious problems exist in some lagoons (in the Ivory Coast) and a system of regulation of the fishing effort by licensing is contemplated for the small-scale fishery.
More obvious problems exist in the northern CECAF region where enormous resources are sought after and where the risk of already identified major accidents exist. In this sector three basic aspects have to be taken into consideration: functioning of national objectives, the control of access to foreign fleets in the Exclusive Economic Zone (licences), the interaction between these fleets and the national fleets including small-scale fishing.
This is a recent development for CECAF and yet results are by no means negligible. As regards the first point, the planning policies of many countries in the region recognize the limit of the resources and the need to ensure certain profitability by cutting the fishing effort and a transfer of the activities of the foreign fisheries towards national fisheries or to joint ventures. There are policies on licensing and there are some kinds of quota systems. In some cases the quotas or licences are re-discussed every year on the basis of reports from the ad hoc CECAF Working Groups which are considered as objective working documents. The main difficulties lie in controlling the quality of the data furnished to the coastal countries (surveillance), and in the shortage of national personnel (problems of training, recruitment, budgets etc.).
In the case of shared stocks, a sub-regional grouping independent of CECAF (but maintaining relations with it) has been set up in the north of the CECAF region the Interministerial Sub-Regional Conference that links Cape Verde, The Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania and Senegal. This Conference recognized at its Third Meeting at Nouakchott (1980) the principle of limiting catches and of negotiated shared resources between countries in the region, which may be considered as a very positive result. It is important to understand that the problems posed are difficult to resolve and have only been partly, and only recently, solved in the very developed countries which have administrative and research capacities. In the CECAF region the process still has to progress towards the practical application of this concept and the main difficulties lie, once again, in checking the quality of the data (monitoring and surveillance), the number and the competence of available national personnel (training, recruitment), the operational capabilities of the Sub-Regional Bodies at the technical level (lack of infrastructures, expertise, available means, etc.).
The related problem of the allocation of recommended effort (and available resources) betweeen the various sectors of the national fisheries, and particularly between small-scale and industrial fisheries has up to now in the majority of countries, been merely seen as a conflict between fishing gears. The solution to this problem, which has not yet become acute, depends on a change in mentality and habits and a further understanding of new concepts (even if these very often exist in the traditional regulations) for the administration, and the acquisition of a sound socio-economic data base.
Here again the countries involved can only progress slowly in a field where external advice is only rarely useful (positive experience in this field is scarce everywhere), and where the potential political consequences can be serious. At the purely technical level capability to regulate the overall fishing effort in the region varies according to the country concerned and the chosen regulatory procedures (licences or catch quotas, regulation on a yearly basis or for a longer period).
The current procedure in CECAF is the organization of ad hoc Working Groups, of competent scientists, meeting without fixed periodicity and when the data are available. In the case of sardine, for example, three meetings in 16 months have been necessary in order to arrive at the first conclusions because of the quality of the data. These Working Groups lay down the diagnosis concerning the state of the data base, the potential of stocks and their stability, and the present level of exploitation. These results are then transmitted to the permanent Working Party on Resource Evaluation which reports to the Sub-Committee on Management. The latter, in the light of results and proposals made, then draws up, if necessary, draft Recommendations or Resolutions to be submitted to the Committee for approval. The Conclusions of the Committee are then theoretically sent to the Director-General of FAO who passes them on to the Member Countries if the financial consequences of the recommended action are negligible to FAO, otherwise the approval of the FAO Conference is required.
This procedure could take up to 2 years (from the meeting of the ad hoc Working Group to formal receipt of the Session Report by the countries involved). In practice, however, for countries which have suitable structures and personnel, it is obvious that a short circuit had grown up parallel to this procedure and that the reports of the ad hoc Working Groups are being transmitted directly to the ministries concerned and often to serve as a basis for decisions on quotas allocated to authorized foreign fishing fleets. One direct consequence of this practice is that the conclusions of the special working groups as regards management are often already being considered by the country concerned before the Sub-Committee on Management has considered them and the Committee is aware of them, i.e. before it can officially endorse them. This is adequate as, in tropical areas where the fish are short-lived, the regulation of fishing effort requires great ability to react quickly to events affecting the stocks.
This example concerning an apparently minor aspect of the regional activities illustrates: on the one hand the gap that exists between the theoretical functioning of the Committee and the reality; and on the other, it shows that the meetings of the Sub-Committee on Management and the Committee are deprived of some of their substance while the numerous ad hoc working groups not formally part of the original mechanism and supported by ad hoc sources of funding have become more and more important for its functioning.
The deficiencies that have been noted are at the implementation level of management and not at the problems identification and analysis level. At the beginning, implementation has been hindered by the unfavourable situation of the coastal countries under the old Law of the Sea but these countries now have an opportunity of progressing more rapidly. The limiting factors on this progress are diverse and they vary according to the management problem involved. In reality, whether they are derived from the lack of control of foreign fleets, of national expertise, of pertinent data or the apparent lack of a desire to enforce the regulations at a national level, they all reflect, in most cases, the inadequacy of the available means at the national level1 to exert the authority implied in implementing management measures drawn up both at the national level and within the framework of CECAF activities.
It seems, therefore, that the reason for concern felt by the Management Sub-Committee at its Fourth Session in Dakar, 1982 and which has given rise to this present review, is to be found at the national level because of the relative inadequacy of the structures which have to handle the new responsibilities created by the new Law of the Sea. It is evident that more working groups, seminars, training courses would be useful but these would not solve the basic problem which has emerged, i.e., the creation of suitable structures at the national level.
This is no surprise to anyone who has followed the debates in CECAF that from the very first sessions the coastal countries were careful to stress their exclusive prerogatives as regards the implementation of management measures in the waters under their jurisdiction, thus underlining the purely consultative role of the Committee, and this in spite of the understandable weakness of some national structures. Very early on, the African countries had themselves stressed that the coastal countries should basically “concern themselves with what they were able to do by themselves and not with what FAO could do for them” (e.g., the Opening Speech by Mr. E.O. Bayagbona at the Fourth Session of CECAF, Rome, 19742). For its part, the Committee has frequently stressed the need for the coastal countries to strengthen their structures and capabilities (see the Report of the Fifth Session, 1977, Paragraphs 15 and 23; and the Seventh Session, Paragraphs 81 and 82).
At the regional level, this reinforcement was foreseen in the project to set up a regional fisheries research institute (see Report of the Sixth Session, Agadir, 1981), in the creation of a computerized regional data centre available to all the states (see Reports of the Sixth and Seventh Sessions), and the setting up of a particular “CECAF Project” for the Gulf of Guinea. One of the essential objectives of these activities would have been the reinforcement of national capacities, but for various reasons, mostly financial, they were not implemented.
At the national level this reinforcement has taken place quite quickly in certain countries such as Senegal, Nigeria, Ivory Coast and Morocco. It is developing in other countries such as Mauritania and it is still not sufficient for most of the other countries which is why Paragraph 3.3 referred to the “two speed” development of CECAF. One must, however, make a distinction between the countries where the development of an important national structure seems to be justified by the available fish resource (Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, Guinea) and those whose marine resources which would reach only with difficulty the level of infrastructure needed at national level for such development (e.g., Benin, Togo, Zaire).
2 A point taken up by Mr Ansa Emmim in his Opening Speech at the Fifth Session.
In addition, it appears that in some CECAF coastal countries those in charge of the fisheries administration change very often and do not have the necessary authority to effectively deal with fisheries problems, decisions often being taken “from above” on the basis of wider socio-economic considerations largely outweighing the strict point of view of fisheries.
Many participants in the Seventh Session of CECAF at Lagos have touched on this problem and regretted the failure to take concrete action at the national level on certain CECAF Recommendations. They expressed regret that the CECAF organisms did not provide them with the means of acting in their own country to arrive at basic decisions (concerning recruitment and statutes of personnel, research structures) which would have enabled them to increase their operational capacities in assessment, monitoring, control, etc.
