eafm berbasis masyarakat

8/9/2019 EAFM berbasis masyarakat

1/65


2/65

A community-based

ecosystem approach tofisheries management:

guidelines for

Pacific Island countries

Secretariat of the Paci c CommunityNoumea, New Caledonia2010

Compiled by

the Secretariat of the Paci c Community


3/65community-based ecosystem approach to sheries management: guidelines for Pacic Island countries

ii

Copyright Secretariat of the Paci c Community (SPC) 2010

All rights for commercial / for pro t reproduc on or transla on, in any form, reserved. SPC authorises thepar al reproduc on or transla on of this material for scien c, educa onal or research purposes, provided

SPC and the source document are properly acknowledged. Permission to reproduce the document and/ortranslate in whole, in any form, whether for commercial / for pro t or non-pro t purposes, must be requestedin wri ng. Original SPC artwork may not be altered or separately published without permission.

Original text: English

Secretariat of the Paci c Community Cataloguing-in-publica on data

A community-based ecosystem approach to sheries management: guidelines for Paci c Island Countries /compiled by the Secretariat of the Paci c Community

1. Fishery management Oceania.2. Marine ecosystem management Oceania.

I. Title II. Secretariat of the Paci c Community.

639.20995 AACR2

ISBN: 978-982-00-0407-8

Secretariat of the Paci c CommunityBP D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex, New Caledonia

Tel: +687 26.20.00, Fax: +687 26.38.18www.spc.int [email protected]

Prepared for publica on atSecretariat of the Paci c Community, Noumea, New Caledonia, 2010and printed by Stredder Print Ltd. New Zealand


4/65 A community-based ecosystem approach to sheries management: guidelines for Pacic Island countries

ivTABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements v

Summary viiAcronyms ix

1. Background 1 1.1 The purpose of these guidelines 2 1.2 A community-based ecosystem approach to sheries management 2 1.2.1 Community-based sheries management 2 1.2.2 An ecosystem approach to sheries 2 1.2.3 Combining the ecosystem approach with CBFM 4 1.3 Coastal ecosystem issues of concern for PICs 4 1.3.1 Issues related to shing 4

Direct impacts on ecosystems from shing 4 Indirect impacts on ecosystems from shing 7 1.3.2 Issues related to other ac vi es (external impacts) 8 1.3.3 Issues rela ng to governance and social well-being 112. Implemen ng a community-based ecosystem approach to sheries management 15 2.1 Set-up tasks for the promo ng agency 18 2.1.1 De ne broad goals and strategies 18 2.1.2 Raise public awareness of the need to protect ecosystems 18 2.1.3 Review the work of other groups working in communi es 19 2.1.4 Establish a consulta ve mul disciplinary group 19 2.1.5 Establish a formal or legal basis for CEAFM 19 2.1.6 Provide community facilitators with appropriate skills 20 2.1.7 Develop a culturally appropriate process 20 2.2 The community involvement process 21 2.2.1 Assess community requests 21 2.2.2 De ne the scope 21 2.2.3 Iden fy and priori se key issues 22 2.2.4 Develop community goals and objec ves 29 2.2.5 Determine management ac ons and responsibili es 31 2.2.6 De ne indicators and performance measures 34 2.2.7 Produce a community-owned management plan 36

2.3 Formalising and implemen ng a community management plan 38 2.4 Monitoring performance; reviewing and adap ng the plan 383. Requirements for the e ec ve implementa on of CEAFM 41 3.1 An apprecia on of the vital role of marine ecosystems 42 3.2 The enforcement of exis ng regula ons 42

3.3 Con nuing community commitment 42 3.4 Coopera on between government agencies and other partners 42 3.5 Funding and sta requirements 43

References and further reading 44Appendices

A. Useful websites 49 B. Glossary of terms 51



v



viACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

These guidelines have been developed to meet the aspira ons of Paci c Island countries as stated in the

Paci c Islands regional coastal sheries management policy and strategic ac ons (known as the Apia Policy)in which authori es agreed to take steps to achieve healthy ecosystems and sustainable stock of sh. It hasalso been developed in response to the recommenda ons of the 2008 ecosystem approach to sheries (EAF)regional workshop in Nadi, Fiji Islands, and a subregional workshop held in Guam.

Gabriella Bianchi (Senior Fishery Resources O cer, Marine and Inland Fisheries Service, Food and AgricultureOrganiza on of the United Na ons FAO) and Rebecca Metzner (Fishery Analyst, Policy, Economics andIns tu on Services, FAO) provided useful comments on an early dra of this document.

The document was prepared by Michael King ( shery consultant) and was revised and improved by UetaFaasili (Secretariat of the Paci c Communi es SPC), Andrew Smith (The Nature Conservancy TNC), Etua

Rope (SPC), Marcelo Vasconcellos (FAO consultant), Masanami Izumi (FAO Subregional O ce for the Paci cIslands SAPA) and Steven Victor (TNC) at a workshop in Brisbane, Australia.



ii



viiiSUMMARY

These guidelines have been produced to describe how an EAF can be merged with community-based sheries

management (CBFM) in PICs.

This merger of approaches is referred to in these guidelines as the community-based ecosystem approach tosheries management (CEAFM), and represents a combina on of three di erent perspec ves; namely, sher-

ies management, ecosystem management and community-based management. CEAFM is the managementof sheries, within an ecosystem context, by local communi es working with government and other partners.

The main requirement for such a merger is the involvement of a broader range of stakeholders and accessto the exper se and experience of several government agencies in addi on to a sheries agency. CEAFM isnot seen as a replacement for current sheries management but an extension that combines a high degreeof community and other stakeholder par cipa on to minimise the impacts of shing and other ac vi es

on ecosystems. In addi on to shing ac vi es, coastal ecosystems in many PICs are a ected by excessiveshoreline development and by coastal waters that contain high levels of nutrients and silt.

CEAFM aims to involve the par cipa on of community stakeholders to ensure that future genera ons ofPaci c Island people will con nue to have access to the bene ts associated with sustainable sheries andhealthy ecosystems.



x



xACRONYMS

CEAFM community-based ecosystem approach to sheries management

CBFM community-based sheries management

CFMP community sheries management plan

EAF ecosystem approach to sheries

E-MAG ecosystem management advisory group

FAO Food and Agriculture Organiza on of the United Na ons

HABs harmful algal blooms (including those responsible for ciguatera)

LMMA Locally-Managed Marine Area

NGO non-government organisa on

PICs Paci c Island countries

SPC Secretariat of the Paci c Community

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UVC underwater visual census (to es mate the abundance of sh, corals etc)



xi



1.BACKGROUND



2

1. BAC KGROUND

1.1 The purpose of these guidelines

These guidelines are intended to help communi es, government agencies and non-governmental organisa ons

(NGOs) in Paci c Islands countries (PICs) work together to develop and implement community-owned sheriesmanagement plans for a designated area. Although these guidelines are par cularly designed to enablea government sheries agency to work with communi es to manage coastal areas, they may be used by anygroup, including community leaders, an environmental agency or an NGO, for the same purpose. In theseguidelines, the agency or group ini a ng the work with communi es is referred to as the promo ng agency .

Sec on 1 gives some background, including a summary of the key issues in coastal ecosystems of Paci c Islandcountries and territories. Sec on 2 presents step-by-step guidelines and simple tools to assist communi esand their partners in crea ng and implemen ng community plans that reduce human impacts on ecosystemsand ensure that catches of seafood species are sustainable. Sec on 3 provides some basic requirementsfor implementa on.

1.2 A community-based ecosystem approach to sheriesmanagement (CEAFM)

1.2.1 Community-based fisheries management (CBFM)

CBFM refers to a management system under which communi es take a leading role in managing sheries andadjacent coastal areas in partnership with, or with support from, a promo ng agency.

Communi es in the Paci c Islands have been involved in managing and protec ng their coastal ecosystemsand sh stocks for many hundreds of years. And now, many government and NGOs are ac vely encouragingcommuni es to take on more management responsibili es under CBFM projects. Many PICs have been as-sisted in establishing CBFM by SPC a regional organisa on based in New Caledonia, as well as several NGOs.

1.2.2 An ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF)

An ecosystem can be de ned as a rela vely self-contained system that contains plants, animals (includinghumans), micro-organisms and non-living components of the environment as well as the interac onsbetween them.

Managing a resource species or sh stock in isola on from its ecosystem ignores the fact that sh speciesdepend on ecosystems that are being a ected by the shing ac vity itself and by other human ac vi es.Fishing can a ect other components of the ecosystem by: catching unwanted species, causing physicaldamage to habitats, disrup ng food chains and causing changes in biodiversity. Other human ac vi esunrelated to shing, such as agriculture, forestry and development, can also a ect marine ecosystems,including the species that are part of them. The human impacts on ecosystems are o en being exacerbatedby the e ects of climate change.

It is pointless to address the problem of depleted sh stocks merely by placing controls on shing ac vi esif the key threats to their recovery are related to other human ac vi es and natural factors that are causing

the degrada on of ecosystems. For these reasons, sheries authori es are replacing narrow, target speciesbased sheries management with a broader approach that a empts to manage sh stocks as components



3

1. BACKGROUND

of marine ecosystems. Under an EAF, the usual concern of sheries managers the sustainability of targetedspecies is extended to address the sustainability of ecosystems upon which the sheries depend, whichinclude people and sh stocks. EAF addresses both human and ecological well-being and merges twoparadigms: protec ng and conserving ecosystem structure and func oning; and sheries management

that focuses on providing food, income and livelihoods for humans.

As the objec ve of EAF is the sustainable use of en re ecosystems as well as targeted species, it impliesthat non- sheries ac vi es that impact marine ecosystems must also be managed, even though theseac vi es may be outside of the responsibili es of sheries authori es. In addi on to shing, target stocksare a ected by non- shing issues including climate change, coastal development, pollu on and the loss ofcri cal habitats by reclama on. (See Box 1 for more informa on about EAF.) Because of the broad issuesinvolved, the full implementa on of EAF requires collabora on and coopera on between communi es anda range of government agencies responsible for managing ac vi es that impact on marine ecosystems .

SPC and TNC have produced a booklet that presents key informa on on aspects of the ecosystem approachto coastal sheries and aquaculture in the Paci c (see websites in Appendix A).

BOX 1: Questions about EAF

We have a government sheries agency to manage sh stocks. Why cant we leave it to them toensure that sh stocks are sustainable?

A government sheries agency cannot manage the complex marine ecosystems that support sheries

on its own. The involvement of local communi es and the exper se of people in other governmentagencies, regional organisa ons and NGOs are required for such a task.

How can we apply EAF when we dont have enough informa on about local marine ecosystems?

EAF involves making decisions to achieve objec ves based on the best available knowledge, whetherit is scien c or tradi onal. Urgent ac ons are required now and there is no me to wait to collectextensive scien c informa on. In any case, local communi es are repositories of much informa onon local ecosystems.

Would the applica on of EAF involve banning shing in large areas? And, if so, how are local peoplegoing to have access to seafood?

EAF does not necessarily involve the use of no-take areas, which represent just one of several possiblesheries management tools. Other management tools include restric ng damaging shing methods

and preven ng damage to ecosystems. It should be remembered that the ul mate objec ve of EAFis to ensure that ecosystems are healthy, sh stocks are sustainable and that the well-being of thecommuni es and stakeholders depending on them is safeguarded.



4

1. BAC KGROUND

1.2.3 Combining the ecosystem approach with CEAFM

In many instances where communi es are involved in managing sheries, ac ons are already being taken toprotect key ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangrove areas. In other words, addressing human impacts

on ecosystems is not a new concept in CBFM.

Combining the two concepts can be regarded as an e ort to formalise a process under which community-owned sheries management plans include measures to protect not only sh stocks but the ecosystems onwhich they depend. This broader view of sheries management by communi es has been referred to asa CEAFM.

CEAFM represents a combina on of three di erent perspec ves; namely, sheries management, ecosystemmanagement and community-based management. An appropriate de ni on of CEAFM is therefore themanagement of sheries, within an ecosystem context, by local communi es working with government andother partners. The close involvement of communi es accentuates that humans are also an integral part ofecosystems and their needs must be addressed.

1.3. Coastal ecosystem issues of concern for PICs

1.3.1 Issues related to fishing

Direct impacts on ecosystems from fishing

The direct e ects of shing include impacts on target species, bycatch species and habitats. Many sheriesauthori es in PICs are concerned about excessive shing on a number of sh species. When a species is shedat a sustainable level, the number of individuals caught and dying is balanced, on average, by gains throughthe addi on of young (recruitment) resul ng from reproduc on. If this is the case, stock abundance will

uctuate, o en considerably, around an average number. However, if a sh stock is heavily shed, the numberof mature sh may be reduced to a level where reproduc on and recruitment are unable to replace losses.In these condi ons, referred to as over shing or overexploita on, stock numbers will con nually decrease.

Fisheries authori es in Paci c Islands believe that many important sh stocks have been over shed in coastalareas. Much e ort has been spent on conven onal stock assessment and in es ma ng the op mum yieldthat can be taken from a stock. But obtaining and using such es mates can be very di cult in the mul species

sheries that are common on tropical coasts, where the species diversity within catches is very high.

There are several aspects of target species that result in them being par cularly vulnerable. Many speciesneed to be part of a rela vely large popula on in order to reproduce successfully (known as the Allee e ect).If the popula on is shed down to low numbers, the chances of dri ing sperm and eggs mee ng are greatlyreduced and the species may become locally ex nct; this has been the fate of giant clam species in manyareas of the Paci c.

Some target species of sh gather in large aggrega ons at certain mes of the year and in speci c places toreproduce and this makes them par cularly vulnerable. These spawning aggrega ons involve species such asgroupers and snappers that, while normally living apart, make extended migra ons to reach spawning areas.

The sites and ming of aggrega ons are o en well known to tradi onal shers who target the sh millingabout in dense aggrega ons as they release sperm and eggs. There is some concern that even moderate

shing may break up aggrega ons and thus a ect the overall reproduc ve success of the spawning stock.



5

1. BACKGROUND

Some communi es and countries are banning shing either in the spawning sites or during the me offorming aggrega ons.

In addi on to reducing the abundance of a target species, over shing will also a ect other characteris cs

of the stock, including its size structure and gene c composi on. Most shing selec vely removes largerindividuals from the shed area. And it is the largest female sh that produce the greatest number of eggsand therefore contribute most to the next genera on. This is one of the reasons that some sheries managershave placed maximum size limits on the capture of some species.

It should be noted that adop ng a broader ecosystem approach to sheries management does not diminishthe need for managing target species. Some sheries in PICs are based on a single species or a small groupof species which makes them suitable for conven onal resource assessment. Such species groups includelobsters, sea cucumbers (beche-de-mer), deepwater bo om- sh, trochus and mullet. Studies directed towardtarget species are needed not only to predict how stocks will respond to di erent levels of shing e ort but toelucidate the basic biology, distribu on and life-cycle of the species, including its place in marine ecosystemsand the habitats that are crucial for its survival.

Excessive levels of shing that result in over shing or overexploita on, as well as damage to marine ecosystemsand the destruc on of sh habitats, have all been implicated in the poor condi on of sh stocks aroundthe world.

In addi on to the target species, most types of shing gear catch other species, collec vely known as bycatch.In world sheries, bycatch species from shing opera ons are of great concern because of wastage as well asthe e ects on biodiversity and marine ecosystems. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organiza on of theUnited Na ons (FAO) suggest that prawn trawls, tuna longlines, dredges and traps account for most of the

bycatch in world sheries.

Most of the shing methods that result in high levels of waste are not used in Paci c Island countries. Prawntrawling is limited to Papua New Guinea and there are no dredging opera ons in the region. Although tunalonglining is widespread in the Paci c, it is not relevant to this document on coastal sheries. Traps are usedin many Paci c Island countries but shing gear such as fence or maze traps (Figure 1) and loosely hung gillnets may be the main offenders as they appear to catch indiscriminately. Some fisheries agencies andlocal communities have restricted the number, or mesh sizes, of gill nets and fence traps allowed inparticular areas.

Figure 1: A fence or maze

trap. Similar traps are

used in several PICs



6

1. BAC KGROUND

However, in many ar sanal sheries very few caught species are discarded. In many coastal sheries intropical areas, where a large variety of marine species are u lised and can be found in local markets, onlyabout 5% of the total catch is discarded. Fence traps, for example, are usually family or clan owned and usedto catch a wide variety of species, only some of which, such as toad shes and box shes (Tetraodon dae), are

not kept as food.

An addi onal problem is that some shing gear con nues to catch marine species a er being lost or aban-doned. Several types of shing gear have been implicated in this phenomenon, known as ghost shing, in thePaci c Islands and these include traps, fence or maze traps and gill nets.

Many di erent types of shing gear and shing methods cause direct physical damage to nearby areas,habitats and ecosystems. Table 1, which was compiled during SPC workshops in PICs, shows issues with targetspecies, shing gear and methods that impact on coastal ecosystems.

Table 1: Issues with target species, shing gear and methods that impact on coastal ecosystems in PICs.

Target species issues Impacts

Selec vely targe ng a single species Imbalance in food webs/ecosystems

Targe ng spawning aggrega ons Overexploita on; disrupted spawning; changes in sex ra os

Catching threatened/protected species Further reduc on in size of threatened popula ons

Targe ng large individuals Loss of large egg-bearing females; changes in sex ra os

Damaging gear and methods Impacts

Explosives, commercial poisons, plant poisons Collateral damage to corals and wider ecosystem

Intensive gleaning, sh drives Physical damage to fringing reef corals

Gear that makes contact with the sea oor Habitat damage

Gear that requires se ng by walking on reefs Coral damage

Breaking corals to catch sheltering species Collateral damage to corals

Overly e cient gear and methods Impacts

Gill nets Excessive catches and ghost shing when lost

Seine nets Excessive catches of schooling species

Barrier nets (set across passages and channels) Excessive catches of schooling species

Fence traps Excessive catches; bycatch issues; ghost shing

Scuba gear Overexploita on of lobsters; trochus; sea cucumber

Fish traps Habitat damage; bycatch species

Throw nets Habitat damage; bycatch species

Underwater lights, night spear shing Devasta on of large key reef species

Source: Surveys and feedback from in-country workshops.

Destruc ve shing methods used in some Islands of the Paci c include the use of explosives (o en obtainedfrom mining opera ons, road works and even the police) and commercial bleaches (sodium hypochlorite).

Bleach may be poured into pools isolated at low de and explosives are either thrown from a canoe or seton coral where sh have been encouraged to gather by se ng bait. Explosives and severe poisons are more


18/65



8

1. BAC KGROUND

1.3.2 Issues related to other activities (external impacts)

In addi on to threats from excessive shing ac vi es, marine ecosystems are threatened by many non- shingac vi es on coastlines and further inland. Sources of damaging impacts from many non- shing sources havebeen iden ed by sheries authori es in PICs through interviews and ques onnaires (Figure 3).

Other than over shing, the most common human (or anthropogenic) impacts on marine ecosystemsand sh stocks appear to be related to sewage and nutrients in coastal waters, garbage dumps located atthe seas edge, excessive coastal development, silt entering the sea and the loss of beaches due to sandmining (see Box 3 on silt and sewage). The high level of concern over eutrophic condi ons, o en caused bythe inadequate treatment of sewage, seems to be jus ed considering the increasing occurrence of harmfulalgal blooms (HABs; Box 4), including those responsible for ciguatera (a foodborne illness caused by ea ngreef shes; see Box 4). Thirty-eight percent of PICs responding to a ques onnaire believe that there has beenat least some increase in the occurrence of HABs.

Outbreaks of crown-of-thorns sea stars, Acanthaster planci , were also reported by sheries authori es; these

outbreaks may be associated with the overharves ng of its predators (including the giant Paci c triton) andhigh nutrient loads resul ng in algal blooms that may supply predators of the crown-of-thorns larvae withalterna ve food sources.

BOX 2: Bioerosion

Bioerosion is the breaking down of substrates, usually coral, by the ac ons of various organismsreferred to as bioeroders. Some sponges, bivalve molluscs and worms are internal bioeroders andbore into, and live in, the coral structure. External bioeroders, including some sh and sea urchins,feed on the surface of the coral. Two important bioeroders of corals are the colourful parro ishes(family Scaridae) and sea urchins (Figure 2).

Parro ishes have massive fused teeth with which they scrape coral to feed on algae and symbio czooxanthellae within the coral polyps. The shes have to graze large quan es of coral to gain a smallamount of organic material and they appear to be con nually evacua ng clouds of ne coral par cles.As each adult parro ish produces about one tonne of par culate ma er each year, the contribu on

to the sand of lagoons and beaches is considerable. Some sea urchins, such as various species ofDiadema , are among the most common invertebrate bioeroders on coral reefs around the world.

Figure 2: Common bioeroders of coralinclude sea urchins, such as Diadema sp. (le ), and parro ishes (family Scaridae) (right).



9

1. BACKGROUND

Figure 3: Sources of damagingimpacts iden ed by sheriesmanagers in PICs.

Mean scores from 0%(no e ect) through to 100%(severe e ect).

Source: Survey responses from21 PICs.

It is noteworthy that most of the environmental impacts summarised in Figure 3 are caused by ac vi es that arebeyond the usual responsibili es of sheries agencies. This reinforces the view that the management base foran ecosystems-based approach to sheries must be broadened to include other relevant government agencies.

BOX 3: Silt and sewage

Most tropical waters contain very low levels of nutrients that are taken up by microscopic planktonicalgae or phytoplankton. A healthy coral reef supports a very large biomass and produc vity by recyclingvery small amounts of nutrients in the surrounding water. Corals are adapted to clear water with low

nutrient levels and are therefore badly a ected by light-reducing silt and terrestrial (land-based) sourcesof nutrients.

In PICs, the major sources of silt appear to be erosion, dredging, reclama on, coastal developmentand the removal of trees. Nutrients are mainly derived from poor or non-existent sewerage systems.Although coral reefs are the most nutrient-sensi ve of all ecosystems, larger quan es of nutrients canresult in many other deleterious e ects including the overgrowth of algae and permanent phytoplanktonblooms that change water from clear blue to turbid green.

It has been suggested that nutrientconcentra ons in seawater needto be many mes lower than thestandards used for drinking water(1 to 10 parts per million) in order forcoral reefs to remain intact. There is astrong rela onship between nutrientlevels (causing eutrophica on) andhuman popula on density. If sewageis secondary treated, it appears thatpopula on density should be lessthan 5000 people per kilometre

of coastline if coral reefs are to beuna ected.

Overfishing of inshore species

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 (%)

Sewage/nutrients entering seaGarbage dumps on coast

Silt entering sea

Excessive coastal developmentLoss of beaches from sand mining

Pollutants, including oil from boatsDestructive fishing methods

Coral loss people gleaning etc.Coral loss through bleaching

Reclamation of land; habitat lossPollutants, fertiliser (agriculture)

Pollutants (industry)

Alien and invasive species

Coral loss (cement/buildings)


21/65



11

1. BACKGROUND

1.3.3 Issues relating to governance and social well-being

To e ec vely manage a shery, it is essen al to understand not only the shery, but also its natural andhuman environment. All sheries, and especially community-based sheries, occur within the context of

the community, and re ect the economic and social goals and values of that community. In general, peoplein Paci c Island communi es rely on healthy ecosystems and sustainable shing for food, employment andincome. Iden fying and understanding the social, economic and governance (some mes referred to asins tu onal) forces are central to achieving e ec ve sheries management. For example, FAO notes that:

1. social, economic and ins tu onal objec ves and factors may be driving forces behind the need forsheries management;

2. the sheries costs and bene ts, whether to individuals or to society, have social, economic andins tu onal impacts and implica ons;

3. social, economic and ins tu onal processes are all crucial for successful implementa on of sheriesmanagement; and

4. social, economic and ins tu onal factors can play either suppor ng or constraining roles in whethermanagement is e ec ve or not.

The management of sheries is really the management of people. Understanding the social, economic andgovernance issues associated with marine resource use is just as important as understanding the ecologicalor environmental components of a shery. In iden fying the socio-economic issues, it is useful to considerthe following sectors:

shers

local community

general community

industry (where commercial shing is occurring)

na onal

The governance, or ins tu onal, issues relate to the ability to achieve. Governance includes both tradi onaland government systems. Issues that might be constraining e ec ve sheries management and factors that

might support e ec ve management include: ins tu ons

legal frameworks

tenure and use-rights systems

enforcement and compliance

capacity human and nancial

informa on and awareness

external factors market forces, climate change, natural disasters (storms, tsunamis), development

A range of issues to be taken into account in the implementa on of EAF is provided in Table 3.



12

1. BAC KGROUND

Table 3: Possible categories of issues to consider under an EAF.

Ecosystem issues

Target species Bycatch species

o Retainedo Discarded

Special species (protected species;vulnerable species)

Fish community structureo Trophic structure changes

Ecosystem/habitato Habitat damage from equipmento Spawning aggrega onso Water quality changeso Land-based impactso Natural impacts (bleaching, earthquakes,

storms, etc.)o Man-made impacts (dredging, sediment, etc.)

Socio-economic issues: community well-being

Fisherso Incomeo Work-related injurieso Foodo Well-being

Communityo Employmento Foodo Feeso Cost to alterna ve ac vi es or

opportuni eso Social disputes resource

ownership, equity, bene tso Fuel, boatso Trainingo Cultural values and issueso Climate changeo Natural disasters

Small-scale commercial sectoro Income, pro to Work-related injurieso Risk storage, shippingo Community rela onso Fuel, supplieso Fees and licenseso Trainingo Market price variabilityo Demand uctua onso Infrastructure

Na onalo Management capacityo Export incomeo License feeso Na onal social and economic planso Food securityo Market forceso Development

Governance

Ability to achieve (governance)

Ins tu onal Legal framework

o Na onalo Provincial/stateo Localo Other

Management plan Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Research Community leadership and structures Resources to manage at na onal,

provincial and community levelso Sta capacityo Financial resources

Consulta ono Communityo Industryo Provinces / stateso Interagencyo NGOs

Repor ng Informa on and awareness Interagency coopera on and coordina on Community na onal agency coopera on

External factors (natural and human induced)

External drivers a ec ng governance ( sheries andnon- sheries sources)

o Climate change impacts (bleaching, etc.)o Development (e.g. tourism related)o Market forces



13

1. BACKGROUND

BOX 4: HABs, INCLUDING CIGUATERA

Popula ons of phytoplankton (microscopic plants that dri in the surface layers of the sea) periodically

go through massive increases in abundance, referred to as plankton blooms, and a few species producepotent toxins. Ciguatera poisoning results from the consump on of shes that have accumulated toxinsproduced by several organisms including the benthic dino agellate Gambierdiscus toxicus . Figure 4shows a cartoon used to raise community awareness of ciguatera in PICs. The sequence of events isas follows.

A) The dino agellate Gambierdiscus occurs as a lm on corals and seagrasses. Usually its abundanceis low but numbers increase drama cally when there are high levels of nutrients available.

B) Nutrients increase naturally during the wet season with runo from the land and during cycloneswhen nutrients are released from damaged shorelines and coral reefs. Nutrients also increasewhen sewage and agricultural fer lisers enter coastal waters. Gambierdiscus contains theprecursor to ciguatoxin, to which is it is converted in the livers of small grazing sh.

C) By magni ca on up the food chain, ciguatoxin reaches dangerous levels in top carnivores, such assome emperors, red snappers, barracudas, moray eels and large mackerels.

D) People ea ng these usually edible shes su er from ngling, numbness, muscle pains and acurious reversal of temperature sensa ons (cold objects feel hot to touch). In extreme cases,death occurs through respiratory failure.

Figure 4: A cartoon used to raise community awareness of ciguatera in PICs.

Other harmful algal blooms a ect people in di erent ways. Toxins produced by the dino agellatesKarenia brevis and Gymnodinium breve can become airborne (as toxic aerosols) because of wave ac onand cause people swimming and walking on the shoreline to su er respiratory asthma-like symptomsfrom inhaling the airborne droplets. This e ect has been noted in the Cook Islands where sewage-derived

nutrients are believed to be responsible for the blooms.



14

1. BAC KGROUND



2. IMPLEMENTING A CEAFM




16

This sec on contains a generalised step-by-step process for a promo ng agency to work with a community todevelop a CEAFM plan. Actual steps for community involvement depend on models and prac ces developedby respec ve countries and promo ng agencies. The promo ng agency may be a government sheriesagency but could also be another government agency or NGO.

The merger of CEAFM with conven onal sheries management involves adop ng a comprehensive approachby addressing a broad range of ecosystem, socio-economic and governance issues. Furthermore, communityinvolvement is maximized but addi onal inputs and exper se from a wide range of government or otheragencies is also sought (represented in this document by the ecosystem management advisory group[E-MAG]). The generalised process or framework used by SPC is summarised in Figure 5 and the steps shownare ampli ed in subsequent sec ons. General principles developed by SPC for the process and implementa onof CEAFM are presented in Box 5.

Figure 5: A generalised SPC process for the implementa on of CEAFM.

Promoting agency fisheries agency,

other government agencyor NGO

E-MAGmulti-agency group

to assess broad issues

request for adviceand assistance

request forassistance

meeting with community leaders to discuss programme

assistance withplan preparation

and implementation

strengthenmanagement/

adapt plan

if ineffective if effective

Community workshopsto prioritise issues and define

objectives, performance measuresand management actions

Community fisheries committeeto draft community fisheries management plan

Community leaders meetingto approuve plan and agree on actions to be taken

by community and promoting agency

Plan implementationincluding community and agency

management actions

Assessmentof management effectivenessand performance measures

CEAFM establishedalthough constant monitoring

and reviews are necessary

COMMUNITY

The process starts with a request from a local community to the promo ng agency. The communityis assisted in priori sing issues, se ng goals and objec ves and producing a community sheriesmanagement plan (CFMP). A er implemen ng the plan, the process includes reviewing thee ec veness of management and ac ons taken and strengthening or adap ng the plan as necessary.The inclusion of a mul -agency group to address broad issues is an integral part of the process.



17


Other ways of depic ng the management process shown in Figure 5 include the use of conceptual modelsand results chains. Results chains, which are graphical depic ons of a sequence that links project strategiesto one or more targets, are being increasingly required by donor agencies that support conserva on projects.More details can be found in the Conserva on Measures Partnership (2007) Open standards for the prac ce

of conserva on see the website in Appendix A.

BOX 5: SPC principles for the development of CEAFM

Keep the process simple: The process and reasons for management ac ons, or undertakings, have tobe understood at the community level.

Respect local customs and protocols: The local tradi ons and customs must be respected if the

process to implement CEAFM is to succeed (see Sec on 2.1.7).

Provide mo va on: Most communi es have a good understanding of problems that are a ec ngtheir sheries and the marine environment. The major need is to mo vate communi es to addressthese problems (see Sec on 2.1.1).

Maximise community par cipa on: All sectors of the community, including youths, women, andcommunity leaders should be encouraged to par cipate. Most community members are involved in

shing.

Make use of tradi onal knowledge: The knowledge held by older members of the community is likelyto be valuable in proposing management ac ons in a CFMP.

Use science to support community objec ves: Technical advice and informa on should be madeavailable to community members. Examples include providing recommenda ons on size limits of

sh, advice on the likely source and e ects of exis ng pollutants, and on ways of improving the well-being of community members.

Enlist the support of a broad range of government agencies: Many issues a ec ng a communitywill be beyond the control of the community. The maximum par cipa on of stakeholders, includinga broad range of government agencies, is important in the CEAFM process (see Sec on 2.1.4).

Use a demand-based system: Work with communi es that are aware of their problems and keento take ac ons to resolve them. As the resources of most sheries agencies and other promo ngagencies are limited, it makes sense to work with communi es that are eager to take local ac ons.Less commi ed communi es may eventually see the bene ts and request to join the programme(see Sec on 2.1.1).

Adopt a precau onary approach: Encourage communi es to take precau onary ac ons or undertak-ings without wai ng for scien c con rma on of what is generally known.

Manage human ac vi es: Most management is about regula ng human ac vi es ac vi es that are

reducing stocks of sh and pollu ng coastal ecosystems need to be regulated.( Box 5 con uned )




18

2.1 Set-up tasks for the promo ng agency

2.1.1 Define broad goals and strategies

The objec ve of CEAFM is to work with communi es to develop and implement their own plans to managesheries within an ecosystem context. Each par cipa ng community is encouraged to analyse its shing

prac ces and develop a community-owned plan with undertakings to introduce appropriate regula ons andpursue other conserva on measures. Reciprocally, the promo ng agency provides undertakings to supportthe community by providing advice and assistance. Ideally, the project strategy is based on three principles:

a) Maximum community par cipa on involves mobilising each community through direct contactwith key groups. These include womens groups and mens groups to ensure the widest communitypar cipa on and eventual ownership of the CEAFM plan.

b) Mo va on rather than educa on takes into account the knowledge of island and coastal peopleregarding the marine environment. Most coastal communi es have an awareness of, and concern for,their marine environment. Although public awareness-raising ac vi es may be needed, the primeneed is not for educa on, but for mo va on and support. A key task is to convince communi es thatthey, not the government, have the primary responsibility to manage their marine environment.

c) A process that is demand-based requires focusing on communi es that have a concern for the marineenvironment and are prepared to take ac on in nding solu ons to problems. For reasons of e ciencyand sustainability, this requires priori sa on by selec vely working with communi es that are eager to

par cipate in the programme.

2.1.2 Raise public awareness of the need to protect ecosystems

The knowledge of island and coastal people regarding the marine environment has o en been underes mated.Most coastal communi es have an acute awareness of, and concern for, the marine environment. However,there may s ll be a need to provide technical informa on on marine species and ecosystems, includingcoral reefs and mangroves. Many sheries agencies, environmental agencies and NGOs have raised publicawareness by producing and distribu ng printed informa on, fact sheets and producing a range of othermedia containing technical informa on on various topics.

The provision of awareness-raising materials will place members of communi es in a be er posi on to assessproblems with sheries resources and marine ecosystems through CEAFM.

Suggest alterna ves to the overexploita on of resources: Wherever possible, suggest alterna ves to theoverexploita on of resources. These may include the diversion of shing pressure from lagoons to o shore

areas by the installa on of sh aggrega ng devices (FADs) and developing aquaculture or agriculture.

Develop suppor ng legisla on for CEAFM: For e ec ve management under CEAFM, it is desirable thatlocal communi es are legally provided with the authority to manage their management areas and sheriesresources (see Sec on 2.1.5).

( Box 5 con uned )



19


2.1.3 Review work of other groups working in communities

Many groups including government agencies, regional agencies and NGOs are also working closely withcommuni es on a range of complementary issues (conserva on, agriculture, health, etc.). It is necessary

to nd out which groups are working in the target communi es for two reasons. First, it may be possible tocombine approaches and save on costs and me by working collabora vely. Second, the presence of di erentgroups using di erent methods in the same area can o en lead to community confusion and disenchantment.

2.1.4 Establish a consultative multidisciplinary group

Iden fying and addressing threats from non- shing ac vi es (such as reclama on and development) aswell as social well-being issues will require the collabora on and coopera on of a wide range of authori es,experts and agencies responsible for managing the ac vi es that impact on the marine ecosystem. This groupof people is referred to as E-MAG in these guidelines.

In some countries, there may be an exis ng group of people from various government agencies that has theresponsibility to address broad environmental issues and this group may be used to perform the func ons ofthe suggested E-MAG.

The membership of E-MAG will depend on local circumstances, but should include representa ves fromthe local community, the sheries agency and environmental authori es. Depending on the range of issuesa ec ng marine ecosystems, membership could also include representa ves from authori es responsiblefor coastal development, road works, agriculture, forestry, sewerage systems, waste disposal, sand mining,water supply, community a airs and planning. An alterna ve is to have a core E-MAG membership (saywith community, sheries and environmental members) with the ability to ask representa ves from otherauthori es to a end relevant mee ngs. E-MAG should be chaired by a person with su cient authority toensure that ac ons are taken.

2.1.5 Establish a formal or legal basis for CEAFM

In many PICs, the tradi onal ownership of lagoons and reefs is claimed by adjacent coastal communi es.For e ec ve management under CEAFM, it is desirable that local communi es are legally provided with theauthority to manage their marine management areas and sheries resources. The development of sherieslegisla on should therefore provide this authority. In some countries, the development of community sheriesby-laws or sheries management ordinances includes provisions to allocate this authority.

E-MAG should preferably have some legal legi macy, but at a minimum be formalised in some way. Things toconsider are whether E-MAG can be established under exis ng policy, or whether new policy or legisla onis required. In some cases, E-MAG can be established under a cabinet direc ve or even under the exis ngpowers of government ministers. In some countries, a government minister has the ability to appoint acommi ee or board to address complex issues and provide solu ons that are beyond the mandate of a singlegovernment agency.

Although establishing a legal basis for CEAFM is desirable, the lack of appropriate exis ng legisla on shouldnot be used as a reason to delay beginning the process.




0

2.1.6 Provide community facilitators with appropriate skills

Many sheries agencies have used their exis ng extension sta to work with communi es. However, theac vi es of sheries extension sta have conven onally focused on development and they may not have the

community engagement skills required for the task.

In working with communi es, facilita on skills are most important. The word facilitate means to make easy in other words, the extension o cer (best described as a facilitator) makes it easier for a mee ng or acommunity to achieve its own objec ves by its own ac ons. In this role, the facilitator is more of a listenerthan a teacher. A facilitator needs to unobtrusively encourage groups to de ne problems and to propose theirown solu ons without imposing their own views on the proceedings. Previous experience with problem-solving techniques would be an advantage.

Some of the most successful facilitators are con dent people, both men and women, who like people and aregood at encouraging all individuals in a group to give their opinions. This may (depending on local custom)involve joking and friendly cajoling. However, what is not required is an ego s cal bully who is likely toembarrass people and impose their own opinions on the group.

Many younger people require training in cultural skills in order to address groups that include communityelders. It should also be taken into account that having female facilitators o en makes it easier, or culturallymore acceptable, to facilitate community mee ngs involving women. Women not only make up an importantand in uen al part of the community, but they are also involved in catching shoreline sh and invertebratesas well as being responsible for most seafood prepara on and marke ng.

2.1.7 Develop a culturally appropriate processPrepara on for working with communi es consists of designing a culturally appropriate process. Under SPCmethodology, the process or model results in the development of a CFMP. The process has to be adapted tosuit the tradi onal and cultural systems in each country. In most countries, the process will involve workingwith, or through, tradi onal community leaders or ins tu ons while s ll allowing ample opportuni es forother community groups to par cipate. Examples of tradi onal hierarchies include the chie y system in FijiIslands, the te kao bwai in Kiriba , the matai in Samoa, the raui in Cook Islands and the falekaupule in Tuvalu.Hierarchical community structures have weakened in some PICs and governments have had to provideexclusive access rights to local communi es (e.g. the special management areas in the Kingdom of Tonga).Whatever process is developed, the end result should be a CFMP that is owned by the broader community.



21


2.2 The community involvement process

2.2.1 Assess community requests

Following an ini al expression of interest by members of a community, facilitators must assess whether thecommunity as a whole is ready to commit to the process. The three key components are: a) an awareness ofproblems with sheries and the marine environment; b) a concern for these problems; and c) a willingnessto take ac ons to solve these problems. It should also be determined if the community is cohesive that is,there are no intractable internal disputes that would render community-based management di cult. If thisassessment is posi ve, it is usually culturally appropriate to arrange a mee ng with community leaders.

2.2.2 Define the scope

During ini al contact with a target community, facilitators and community members should jointly de nethe scope of the intended project. A projects scope sets the broad parameters of what will be involved, whowill be a ected and what can be accomplished. The scoping process should be conducted with communitymembers who are familiar with the area and community issues. A scoping report should contain a descrip onof the geographical area to be managed, the stakeholders, the main sheries and species of concern and thekey issues which the project must address.

In the case of CEAFM, the area of concern (referred to here as the managed area ) is usually the area (ora subset of the area) under the legal or tradi onal control of the target community. The scoping team shouldmake themselves aware of key characteris cs of the managed area and record these in the scoping report.A sketch map similar to that shown in Figure 6, which includes signi cant ecosystem characteris cs and

sheries, can be prepared at this stage. Two important ques ons to be answered are:

Do ecosystem boundaries extend beyond the managed area?

For example, a con nuous area of mangroves may extend beyond the managed area and, therefore, bebeyond the target communitys control.

Is the area a ected by human ac vi es outside the managed area?

For example, coral reefs in the managed area may be adversely a ected by silt from a reclama on

opera on some distance away.

Figure 6: Example of a sketch map of a managed area or area of concern.

A managed area is an area (o en withtradi onal boundaries) that is managedby a coastal (target) community, usuallyworking in partnership with a promo ng

agency. Key ecosystem a ributes(a mangrove forest, fringing reef anda coral reef) and sheries have been

noted. The managed area may include,although not necessarily, a no-take area.




2

BOX 6: A stroll-through environmental assessment

Some promo ng agencies conduct a stroll-through environmental assessment with knowledgeablemembers of the target community. This involves walking through the managed area, examining andrecording the environmental features on a sketch map and no ng those with which the community isconcerned (Figure 6). The purpose of the assessment is to prompt community discussions of environmentallycri cal areas. The method has also been successful in avoiding was ng me on unrealis c communityundertakings. For example, if the community wants to create a no-take area in a par cular area of barecoral rubble, facilitators could point out that there may be more suitable areas.

SPC methodology involves conduc ng a stroll-through survey to con rm informa on gained throughworkshops with community members. A stroll-through assessment, as described here, is similar to theLocally-Managed Marine Area (LMMA) Networks use of mapping in which par cipants record and

discuss a geographical representa on of the area to be managed with notes iden fying key issues.

2.2.3 Identify and prioritize key issues

There are several tools available for iden fying issues that a ect sheries, communi es and ecosystems.In Sec on 1 of these guidelines, issues were discussed separately as shing, non- shing and social well-beingissues. These issues can be addressed in total (all issues together) or separately. One way of proceeding is to

take a broad approach, encouraging communi es to address all issues, and then proceed to address issuesunder the separate three headings. Many issues of community concern will have been broadly iden edduring the scoping process including stroll-through surveys (Sec on 2.2.2) or by community workshops.

Issues are dealt with at mee ngs between facilitators from the promo ng agency and members of thecommunity (these mee ngs may correspond to the community workshops in the process shown in Figure 5).

Whether addressing all issues together or separately, the tasks of the mee ng are to iden fy and thenpriori se the various issues. Iden ca on involves lis ng of all the key issues and priori sa on involves

judging the severity of threats associated with each. At the iden ca on stage, the mee ng should list allissues. At the priori sa on stage, each issue is given a score in rela on to its rela ve e ect on the community

and marine ecosystems. One way of doing this is by using a pair-wise ranking system, which has been adaptedfrom the one used by the LMMA Network. The procedure is described below.

The facilitators should familiarise themselves with details of the environment and perceived problems oneway of doing this is by comple ng a walk-through survey of the area with some knowledgeable members ofthe community (Box 6).

During the scoping process, it should be determined whether it is more prac cal and e cient to address allecosystem issues combined or split these into shing issues, non- shing issues and social well-being issuesfor the later process of iden ca on, priori sa on and mi ga on (see Sec ons 2.2.3 to 2.2.5). This largelydepends on what the community sees as the most important issues in general terms.



23


1) Break into small groups of about six community members. A facilitator should be with each group toanswer technical ques ons but must not in uence the decisions of the group. Each group is given apiece of butchers paper and some markers.

2) Each small group now creates a ranking table as shown in Figure 7 on their piece of paper with all theiden ed issues repeated as headings for the columns and rows. In Figure 7, only six issues are shownas an example.

Figure 7: A pair-wise ranking table with six community issues entered in both column and row headings.In prac ce, communi es may have more issues than shown in the example.

3) A er checking to ensure that all issues are listed in the same order across the top as down the le -hand

side, the squares in which the row and column headings are the same are blacked out as are all thesquares below them. The completed table should appear as in Figure 7.

4) The paired rankings are now done by comparing the issue listed in the column heading against thatlisted in the row heading for each open box. For example, in the box with the X in Figure 7, thecomparison would be between the impact of issue 4 with the impact of issue 1. In this comparison,each small group asks themselves which of these two issues represents a greater threat in terms of theire ect on sh stocks, marine ecosystems and peoples lives. When the small groups reach agreement onwhich of the two compared threats is more important for their community to address, write the nameof the threat to indicate that it is more important in comparison to the other. If no agreement can bereached, seek the advice of an outsider (from another group) or the facilitator un l a choice can bemade between the two op ons.

5) Repeat these paired comparisons un l all open boxes have been lled in with the selected issues.

6) Once the table is lled in, on a separate sheet of paper list all of the issues and the total number ofmes each was chosen within the table. This is the score for each issue and represents the community

priori sa on of threats.

An example in which the threats associated with shing methods and gear have been assessed separately isshown in Box 7.

Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 Issue 5 Issue 6 etc.

Issue 1 X

Issue 2

Issue 3

Issue 4

Issue 5

Issue 6

etc.




4 BOX 7: Prioritising issues associated with fishing methodsand gear; an example

Each small group listed the shing methods as row headings and repeated them as column headings(Figure 8). They then considered which of the pairs of shing methods or gear represented a greaterthreat in terms of their e ect on sh stocks, marine ecosystems and peoples lives. The following ques-

ons were considered:

What is the impact on the target species? Are catches decreasing?

What propor on of the total catch is thrown away or not used?

What physical damage is caused to habitats such as the sea oor or corals?

What e ects does shing have on food webs? (In general, if the gear/method catches manyindividuals of just a few species, the e ect is likely to be more severe)

All the boxes in Figure 8 were lled in and the total number of mes each shing method was chosen wasrecorded as shown below. These scores for each shing method or gear represented the communitygroups priori sa on of threats. In this example, the use of poisons was iden ed as the most damaging

shing method and line shing was iden ed as the least damaging.

Fishingmethods/gear Gleaning Gill netting Line shing Fence traps Poisons Cast nets etc.

Gleaning gill netting gleaning fence traps poisons gleaning

Gill netting gill netting fence traps poisons gill netting

Line-shing fence traps poisons cast nets

Fence traps poisons fence traps

Poisons poisons

Cast nets

etc.

Poisons Fence traps Gill netting Gleaning Cast nets Line-shing5 4 3 1 1 0

Figure 8: A pair-wise ranking table with six shing methods/gear entered in both column and rowheadings. In prac ce, communi es may iden fy many more shing methods/gear than in this example.

An alterna ve tool to pair-wise ranking is illustrated in Table 4 and based on a method used in SPC workshops.Impacts are scored as either 0 (no impact), 1 (slight impact), 2 (minor impact), 3 (moderate impact), 4 (major

impact) or 5 (severe impact) depending on the severity of their e ects in rela on to the points shown belowthe table. These scores are entered in rows and summed in the nal column of the table.



25


Key non- shing issues and social/economic issues may be iden ed and priori sed in the same way as shownfor shing methods/gear. Either the pair-wise ranking table (Figure 7) or a table based on the SPC method(Table 4) can be used. In the case of non- shing issues, facilitators may be supported by the presence ofsta from other relevant government agencies in order to provide technical advice to the community groupsassessing the threats see E-MAG referred to in Sec on 2.1.4.

When assessing non- shing impacts, rarely will there be any scien c evidence of the severity of the impactsthat are being scored. However, the combined e orts of community shers, sheries agency sta and otheragency sta should allow the group to iden fy threats and make some judgement on their rela ve impacts.Under the precau onary approach, lack of full scien c certainty should not be used as a reason for postponingmeasures to prevent environmental degrada on.

In the iden ca on stage , the group should list all of the ac vi es and agents (some mes called stressors)and sources believed to be impac ng marine ecosystems in the row headings of a table similar to that shownin the example (Table 5). In the context of this assessment, the source is the ac vity or en ty that results in

an agent (pollutant or stressor) which causes an adverse impact or stress on the ecosystem. For example,harbour dredging (the source ) results in silt (the agent ) that causes stress to the ecosystem.

The scores for gleaning (provided as an example in Table 4) were from par cipants at a workshop and applyonly to the par cular area considered. The par cipants decided that there was a major impact on targetedspecies (score 4) but no bycatch issues as people collected only the species that they needed for food (score0). However, there was believed to be a major impact on habitats corals on a fringing reef in this case

(score 4). Ecosystem damage is usually the most di cult to score in the absence of scien c evidence butpar cipants felt that other dependent species were a ected to a minor degree (score 2). The highest impactscores were given for shing using explosives.

Table 4: Fishing impacts on ecosystems.

Fishingmethod/gear

Fisheries impacts on ecosystems scored as either ...0 (zero),1(slight),2(minor),3(moderate),4(major),or 5(severe)

TotalRetained/target

species Bycatch species Habitat damage Ecosystem damage

Gleaning 4 0 4 2 10

Use of explosives 5 5 5 5 20

etc.

Retained/target species What is the impact on retained species? What is the level of exploitation?Bycatch species What proportion of the catch is discarded? Are threatened species caught?Habitat damage What physical damage is the gear/method causing? Is there an issue with lost gear and ghost shing?Ecosystem damage What effects does shing have on food webs and ecosystems? Are dependent species affected? (In general, if large numbers of a single species are caught the impact may be great)

All shing methods are listed in the row headings. Each gear/method is scored from 0 (no impact) to 5 (severe impact)

in rela on to its impact on target species, bycatch, habitat and ecosystem. Scores in this table are from workshop par cipants and relate only to the par cular area considered. Totals in the right-hand column were obtained by addingthe scores across each row.




6

In the priori sa on stage , the impact of each pollutant and its source has to be given a score in rela on to itsrela ve e ect on marine ecosystems. Impacts are scored in Table 5 as either 0 (no impact), 1 (slight impact),2 (minor impact), 3 (moderate impact), 4 (major impact) or 5 (severe impact) depending on the severity oftheir e ects in rela on to points a) to d) below.

a) Spa al exposure:

How much of the coastal ecosystem is a ected by the ac vity or agent? Is the pollutant released from a few (point) sources or di use sources along the en re coast?

The score given depends on the area of the coast that is a ected; from none of the area (score 0), to one or a few speci c areas (score 1,) to en re coastlines (score 5).

b) Temporal exposure:

How long does the ac vity or the agent a ect the coastal ecosystem? Is the ac vity/pollutant present over a short me (say one week) or a long me (en re year)?

The score given depends on the period that the coastal area is a ected; from not at all (score 0), to one or a few weeks in a year (score 1), to the en re year (score 5).

c) Hazard e ects:

How dangerous are the agents? Are toxic pollutants produced?How much is released? Are they toxic, accumula ve, carcinogenic?

The score given depends on the hazards associated with the pollutant; from the release of a non-toxic pollutant (score 0) to large quan es of a toxic pollutant (score 5).

d) Social impacts:

How much are coastal communi es a ected by impacted ecosystems?How much are communi es disadvantaged by the impact?

The score given depends on the impacts on coastal communi es; from no e ect (score 0) to a malignant e ect that devastates ecosystems and a ects the communitys

use of marine resources (score 5).



27


BOX 8: Prioritising threats from non-fishing activities;

an example

The scores for silt from dredging (provided as an example in Table 5) were assigned by par cipants ata workshop, and apply only to the area under considera on. The par cipants decided that dredgingoccurred in only a small area (score 1) but was carried on over more than half of the year (score 3).Silt was believed to have low toxicity (score 1) but have a major e ect on ecosystems, includingcorals, and on community shers ability to catch seafood (score 4). E ects of the ecosystem andcommuni es are usually the most di cult to score in the absence of evidence but par cipants feltthat their assessment was reasonable. It should be noted that if silt was also derived from anothersource, say erosion, this must be listed in another row (with silt/erosion entered in the row heading)and the e ects quan ed separately.

Table 5: Non- shing impacts on ecosystems.

Agent/source

Non- shing impacts on ecosystems scored as:0 (no impact), 1 (slight), 2 (minor), 3 (moderate), 4 (major), or 5 (severe)

Spa alexposure

Temporalexposure

Hazard e ects Social impacts Total

Silt/dredging 1 3 1 4 9

Silt/erosion

etc.

Spa al exposure How much of the coastal area is a ected? Small areas to en re coast?Temporal exposure How long does the impact last; over what me period? One week to en re year?Hazard e ects How dangerous are the impacts on ecosystems? How toxic? How much?Social impacts How much are coastal communi es impacted by degraded ecosystems?

All agents and sources are listed in the row headings. Each agent/source is scored from 0 (no impact) to 5(severe impact) in rela on to temporal exposure, spa al exposure, hazard e ects and social impacts. Scoresa ributed to silt from dredging are from a workshop and relate only to the par cular area considered.

It has o en proved useful to familiarise people with the common types of impacts a ec ng coastal ecosystems.Figure 9 has been used for this purpose and also as an icebreaker at workshops with par cipants froma variety of non-science backgrounds.

There is a range of other iden ca on and priori sa on approaches and tools available. If a communityor promo ng agency is more familiar with a di erent method to those outlined here, then that methodshould be used. For example, the Paci c Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) has used a risk assessmentmethodology for Paci c tuna sheries and FAO also uses this approach for certain sheries. Reference to this

approach is provided in Bibliogrphy and useful resources.




8

Box 9: An ice-breaker recognising andmanaging environmental impacts

Figure 9 may be used as an icebreaker to make par cipants from diverse and non-science back-grounds familiar with common impacts on coastal ecosystems in Paci c Island countries. The g-ure shows one side of a small, hypothe cal island that has forests, a river, an estuary, mangroves,beaches, fringing reefs, a lagoon and a barrier coral reef. There is a community and a small town, inwhich there is rapid development, separated by the river.

Livelihoods and income genera on on this part of the island are based on tourism, forestry, farmingand shing. A large riverside pig farm is based in the hills behind the coast and tree clearing along theriverbank is common. Resorts in the town provide employment for some people from the communityand there are plans to build more resorts. There is also a proposal to construct a solid earthencauseway across the river to connect the village community and the town. The coastal communityrelies on sh stocks associated with the estuary and fringing reef and has been complaining aboutdeclining sh catches. Surveys show that corals on fringing reefs on the le -hand side of the islandare dying.

Par cipants were asked to discuss the issues depicted in Figure 9, decide on the possible causes ofenvironmental degrada on and declining sh catches and suggest how the recognised impacts couldbe managed and controlled.

Figure 9: A hypothe cal island with some sources of agents (stressors; pollutants)a ec ng a fringing reef and sh catches of a coastal community.



29


2.2.4 Develop community goals and objectives

A goal is a formal statement detailing the desired results of a project. For example, the overall goal of a community-based project may be to restore the health of coral reefs and sh stocks in the managed area.

An objec ve is a formal statement detailing the desired outcome of management. The community opera onalobjec ves will be related to the overall goal and will address the key issues iden ed and priori sed bycommunity members (Sec on 2.2.3). For example, if a high silt load in coastal waters was iden ed asa high priority threat to corals and sh stocks, an appropriate objec ve would be to reduce silt in coastalwaters. In general, an objec ve should be achievable within available resources and within a de ned meframe. A later stage would involve determining the management ac ons required (see management ac onsin Sec on 2.2.5) and deciding on ways of measuring progress towards achieving the objec ve (see indicatorsand performance measures in Sec on 2.2.6).

In working with communi es, there are various tools available to encourage community groups to considerthreats and propose mi ga ng ac ons. One such tool is the problemsolu on tree, which has been usedwidely by SPC in promo ng discussions in communi es as part of CBFM programmes. The method involves atrained facilitator recording community views either on a whiteboard (Figure 10), with cards stuck to a sheetof paper or any other method that is easily visible to the par cipants. Par cipants are encouraged to statea key problem, consider its causes and propose mi ga ng solu ons. The procedure, which is similar to theproblem tree used by the LMMA Network is described in Box 10.

This process is also similar to the conceptual models and results chains used by many conserva on groups(see References and further reading). The facilitator and community should use whichever method they aremost familiar and comfortable with.

Figure 10: A facilitator from the promo ng agency uses a whiteboard to construct a problemsolu on treebased on informa on supplied by community members.




0 BOX 10: Using a problem-solution treeto address community issues

The method involves a trained facilitator recording community views. The tasks of community par ci-pants are as follows.

Par cipants decide on a key problem that is a ec ng the adjacent coast, marine ecosystem andsheries. This is entered on the board or sheet a li le way down from the top in row two of the

problem-solu on tree (Figure 11).

Par cipants state the e ects that the problem has on the community. This is entered in row oneat the top of the problem-solu on tree.

Par cipants consider the causes of the problem. There may be several causes and these areentered in row three of the problem-solu on tree.

Par cipants decide on the solu ons for each cause. These are entered in row four of theproblem-solu on tree.

Par cipants discuss what ac ons can be taken to put each solu on into e ect. This may takesome me and more than one mee ng. There may be more than one ac on for each solu onand these are entered in row ve of the problem-solu on tree.

Figure 11: A simpli ed example of a problemsolu on tree completed by a community.

The process begins with step 1 (key problem) before proceeding in the numerical order shown.

All informa on is provided by community par cipants, with a facilitator recording the informa on.

LACK OF FISHIN THE LAGOON

2. EFFECTS

1. KEY PROBLEM

4. SOLUTIONS

3. CAUSES

5. ACTIONS

too manypeople fishing

not enough largefish to bred

use of destructivefishing methods

less people fishingin lagoon more fish breedingin largoon less use ofdestructive methods

encourageoffshore fishing

develop aquaculture

set minimumsize limits

establish no-take area

ban use of explosives

reduce numberof fish traps

not enoughseafood

no activitiesfor youths less incomefor families



31


2.2.5 Determine management actions and responsibilities

Once objec ves have been agreed on, there remains the task of deciding what needs to be done. Managementac ons are the measures required to achieve an objec ve; the SPC process uses the term undertakings for

management ac ons and in some conserva on projects one or more management ac ons are referred tocollec vely as a strategy a group of ac ons required to reduce threats. In sheries management, ac onscan include technical measures such as placing restric ons on the type of shing gear used and imposingclosed seasons to protect spawning stocks.

In most cases, there will be several management ac ons that could address a par cular objec ve and alist of these could be assembled through brainstorming sessions with members of the target communityassisted by relevant government agencies. Community engagement tools such as the problem-solu on treecan be used to encourage community members to propose management ac ons that would solve par cularproblems. For each objec ve, it is useful to prepare a list of all possible management ac ons with par culara en on given to their ease of applica on, likelihood of success, feasibility and cost. An example from an SPCworkshop at which community members and other par cipants proposed management ac ons to address anon- shing objec ve is shown in Box 11.

BOX 11: Proposing management actions

In an example used later (in Sec on 2.2.6), a stated objec ve was to reduce silt in coastal waters.Par cipants iden ed the causes of silta on as foreshore erosion, terrestrial runo , sand mining andexcessive coastal development (dredging and reclama on). In the absence of any precise informa on

on which of these causes produced the most silt, they relied on local and anecdotal informa on.They proposed a number of management ac ons that they believed would address these issues andachieve the objec ve. In deciding on management ac ons, the most prac cal, cost-e ec ve and leastdisrup ve measures were listed rst.

The plan ng of trees along hill slopes and the foreshore by the community was chosen as themost acceptable and cost-e ec ve way of preven ng foreshore erosion.

Restric ng sand removal and mining on local beaches was thought to be a more di cultundertaking because of the involvement of community members in the mining opera on.

The nal management ac on was to ask government to place restric ons on foreshoredevelopment by not allowing building projects within 200 metres of the high de mark.

All management ac ons must include reference to those responsible and the me frame required for theirimplementa on. Di erent management ac ons will be the responsibility of the community, the promo ngagency or other agencies.

Many desirable management ac ons will be imprac cal because of the cost. For example, the high level

of sewage-derived nutrients in coastal waters could be dealt with by connec ng all houses to a centralisedtreatment works. However, this ac on would be extremely expensive and cheaper alterna ve managementac ons, such as the use of compos ng toilets or sep c tanks, would have to be considered.




2

Some management ac ons designed to address one objec ve may address other objec ves and may rendersome management ac ons redundant. For example, the management ac ons for an objec ve to allow shstocks to recover may include banning the use of poisons as a shing method. This management ac on wouldalso assist in addressing another objec ve designed to protect coral reefs. The interac ons of management

ac ons can be considered through use of some graphical depic ons including conceptual models and resultschains. More details can be found in Conserva on Measures Partnership (2007) Open standards for the

prac ce of conserva on see References and further reading.

Although many management ac ons will require government support, many others can be applied by thetarget community ac ng on its own. A list of common management ac ons implemented by communi esin Samoa is shown in Table 6. Some of the ac ons require technical advice from government agencies (e.g.on minimum size limits for sh and the placement of community-owned no-take areas) and all depend onthe communitys ability to carry out the ac ons and enforce regula ons. Community sheries by-laws may berequired to allow one communitys management ac ons and regula ons to be applicable to o enders fromoutside the community (see Sec on 2.1.5).

Table 6: Community management ac ons and regula ons in communi es in Samoa.

Management ac on Percentage (%)

Banning the use of chemicals and dynamite to kill sh 100

Banning the use of tradi onal plant-derived sh poisons 100

Establishing community-owned no-take areas 86

Banning tradi onal destruc ve shing methods (e.g, smashing coral) 80

Organising collec ons of crown-of-thorns star sh 80Enforce (na onal) mesh size limits on nets 75

Banning the dumping of rubbish in lagoon waters 71

Banning the commercial collec on of sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea) 41

Banning the capture of sh less than a minimum size 41

Banning removal of mangroves 27

Restric ng the use of underwater torches for spear shing at night 21

Banning the removal of beach sand (sand-mining) 14

Placing controls or limits on the number of sh fences or traps< 10

Prohibi ng the collec on of live corals for the overseas aquarium trade < 10

Banning the coral-damaging collec on of edible anemones (Ac naria) < 10

Protec ng areas in which palolo worms, Eunice sp, are tradi onally gathered < 10

The establishment of no-take areas (in which shing is not allowed) is increasingly being used as a sheriesmanagement tool in Paci c Island countries (Box 12). From a community viewpoint, a key mo va ng factor isthe belief that these areas will result in improved catches of seafood in nearby shing areas. However, no-takeareas must be carefully designed and located to have a chance of achieving this aim. No-take areas that are

posi oned in areas of bare sand and coral rubble, for example, are unlikely to be of much value in terms ofeither conserva on or increased seafood produc on. Generally, no-take areas should be large to be e ec ve,



33


BOX 12: No-take areas

No-take areas are areas in which shing is not allowed. In the Paci c, no-take areas may also be calledsh reserves or marine protected areas. The term no-take area is preferred because its meaning

is clear. In the context of CEAFM, a community-owned no-take area may be established within amanaged area, as shown in Figure 6.

The sheries bene ts of banning shing in an area are usually stated as being related to themaintenance of the natural age structure of the stock and the protec on of the spawning biomass.No-take areas may also encourage the aggrega on of some species, presumably a racted by thegrowth of algae and other food species. The possible movements of individuals out of a no-take areaare summarised in Figure 12. Larvae will dri and may become distributed over an area referredto as the dispersal envelope. Dri ing larvae will be a ected by net current ow across the area,and the dispersal envelope may take up an ellip cal shape. This emphasises the importance ofposi oning a no-take area such that prevailing currents will maximise larval dri and se lement indepleted areas. However, sh larvae may be able to detect the presence of, and to swim towards,reefs several kilometres away and this suggests that larvae from no-take areas may ac vely move to,and repopulate, nearby reefs.

although some smaller and linked no-take areas are believed to enable a signi cant propor on of larvae todisperse to surrounding shed areas. Subsistence shers in Samoa, for example, appear to have bene tedfrom a network of no-take areas managed by individual communi es. However, promo ng agencies shouldavoid raising unreasonable expecta ons in communi es.

Figure 12: Larvae produced in a no-take area (heavy circle) may either se lewithin its boundaries (resul ng in self-recruitment) or dri within a dispersal

envelope stretching away from the no-take area. Areas outside are also enhancedby spillover the net movement of juveniles and adults from the no-take area.


45/65



35


BOX 14: Using indicators and performance measures;a non-fishing example

The indicator chosen was the visibility or turbidity of seawater as it was known that this could be easilyand cheaply measured. (Although reduced visibility in water could have other causes, such as planktonblooms, silt was believed to be the main cause of cloudy water.) The most prac cal way of measuringvisibility in seawater is by using a simple instrument called a Secchi disc, which can be made from weightedmarine plywood in a local workshop (Figure 13, top). The diskis lowered into the water un l it is no longer visible and a rst

depth reading recorded; it is then hauled in un l it becomesvisible and a second depth reading is recorded. The mean ofthese two readings is taken to measure the visibility. Becauseof the lack of technical equipment in most Paci c islandcountries, choosing an indicator that can be measured by usingbasic equipment has much merit.

The problem in this case was in se ng the appropriate targetreference level corresponding to a desirable posi on inthis case, water that is su ciently clear not to reduce

sh numbers, kill coral and have other e ects on theecosystem. In

eafm berbasis masyarakat

Documents