SOE 2008 Policy Brief - Coastal Fishery Sector

Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka Sri Lanka: State of the Economy 2008 Political Economy Dilemma of Reforms
free download | e-version
12. Co-management for Sustainability of Coastal Fishery Sector

12.1 Introduction Coastal fisheries in Sri Lanka are generally open access except a few traditional, community based fishing operations such as beach seine and stake net fisheries. Therefore, coastal fisheries share the two main characteristics of a common property resource; non-excludability (difficulty in exclusion of potential users accessing the resource) and substractability (consumption of the resource by one user reduces its availability for other users). Coastal fishing in Sri Lanka is a small scale industry which is characterized by multi-species and multi-gear fishing. The sector has been experiencing an increase in fishing pressure due to several reasons such as population growth, and lack of alternative income generating activities in coastal areas. This situation, together with unregulated open access conditions, has inevitably led to an increase in total fishing effort that threatens certain vulnerable fisheries with depletion of stocks. From a resource management point of view, the unmanaged open access condition has the potential to cause permanent damages to fisheries with limited opportunity of a recovery. The main challenge the coastal fishery sector is currently facing is low catch per unit effort and low profits.
There are three main types of management regimes that exist globally to address resource management and socio-economic issues in the fisheries sector. They are centralized (command and control) management, community based management, and comanagement. Apart from a few instances, a centralized (top-down) approach has been used to manage fishery resources in Sri Lanka. This method, however, has not been able to meet growing challenges impacting the sector such as reversing stock depletion, solving conflicts among resource users, and increasing profitability due to implementation and enforcement difficulties. Evidences from different countries suggest similar problems, with the underlying causes having social, economic, institutional and political origins. This implies that the management of fishery resources and policy interventions should focus mainly on the relationship of fishery resources to human welfare, and the conservation of such resources for the use of future generations. The
For a full version of Sri Lanka: State of the Economy 2008 and other publications of the IPS contact publications@ips.lk , or visit www.ips.lk
241
current management regime provides very limited (or no room) for the participation of fishers, thereby sidelining the wealth of local and indigenous knowledge available to supplement scientific information in order to improve overall management. A centralized management regime often fails to address core concerns of the fishing communities, is insensitive to local conditions, and lacks backing from fisher communities. It can also be inefficient in achieving its own set of development objectives. Thus, fishery experts, particularly in South Asia, recognize that the cooperation of fishers/ local community as a necessary condition for effective sustainable fishery management.
Community based management has gained greater attention as a mean of a sustainable approach to coastal resource management. In this instance, the local community has the ability to manage fishery resources in a sustainable manner, regulating access and enforcing rules through community institutions and social practices. However, except for a few traditional long-enduring arrangements, community based management has not been always successful in addressing broader issues over which the community has very little control.
Co-management is focused not only on community participation but also on the active participation of governments. Therefore, the concept of co-management of fisheries is seen as the most appropriate management tool as it provides a strong institutional structure to address fisheries and other coastal resource management issues.
12.2 What is Fisheries Co-management? Co-management has been widely accepted as an evolutionary tool for participatory fishery management by several governments, development agencies, and researchers. It is essentially a partnership arrangement to share the responsibility and authority between the government and local resource users. The underlying hypothesis in co-management is that the involvement of local resource user groups creates incentives for cooperation in order to formulate and implement efficient and sustainable resource management schemes. This management regime provides some sense of ownership to the fishery resource as user groups are involved actively in decision making and implementation of
242
fishery management. The emergence of co-management has been based on concerns of both democracy and efficacy. Democracy refers to the involvement of local fishers into the decision making process of fishery management, and efficacy refers to the expected reduction in implementation cost and improvements in compliance with resource management rules.
Figure 12.1 shows different types of co-management arrangements. There can be five broad categories instructive, consultative, cooperative, advisory and informative depending on the degree of partnership between the government and resource users. The instructive type involves a minimum exchange of information between the government and user group. In the case of consultative, the government consults more actively with the fisher group, but keeps the responsibility of decision making. The cooperative management occurs where the government and fisher group equally share power in decision making processes. The advisory type is found where the user group advises the government of decisions to be taken and seeks the governments approval of their own decisions. The informative type occurs when the government delegates the authority to make decisions to the fisher group and the fisher group is responsible in informing these decisions to the government.
Figure 12.1 Hierarchy of fishery co-management arrangements
243
Source: Pomeroy, R.S., and R. Rivera-Guieb (2006), Fishery Co-Management: A Practical Handbook, CAB International, IDRC.
It is very important to note that the implementation of co-management is costly, complex and lengthy. A comparison of the transaction cost of centralized management with comanagement regime shows that the cost of co-management is comparatively high in the initial stage of implementation.1 However, over time, these costs tend to decline. 12.3 Fishery Management in Sri Lanka With the promulgation of the Fisheries Ordinance in 1940, fisheries management in Sri Lanka became a centrally controlled top-down approach. During 1940-1996, the objectives of fishery management were development oriented, such as policies to promote fishing by introducing new fishing technologies, providing subsidies to buy fishing equipment, and providing welfare facilities for the fishers. Fishery management during this period had been limited to inquiring into fishing disputes among fishers by retired judges. The demand for a comprehensive legal framework to address the complex needs of the fishery industry was fulfilled in 1996 with the introduction of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Act No.2 of 1996 which is the principal legal Act pertaining to the fishery industry in Sri Lanka. After 1996, fisheries management has been focusing mainly on sustainable resource management. Licensing of fishing operations and registration of boats, prohibition of destructive fishing gear and fishing method were started under the provisions of the Act. However, controlling access to fishery resources or completely preventing illegal fishing has not been successful. The Act also has provisions to make fishery management more community oriented. Development of fishery management areas, establishment of fisheries committees and fisheries management authorities is allowed. This can be viewed as the first initiative towards comanagement. The functions of fishery committees are formulating fisheries programmes for their own areas, assisting members with fishing equipment, and carrying out welfare activities beneficial to the fishing communities. However, the establishment of such
1
Jahan K. M., et. al., (1999), Transaction Cost in Fisheries Co- management at Oxbow Lake in Bangladesh, Proceedings of the international workshop on Fisheries Co-management, Penang, Malaysia.
244
management areas and committees are carried out under the authority of the Minister of Fisheries.
The Ten Year Development Policy Framework (2007-2017) of the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (MFAR) highlights the fact that fisheries management has been weak and that there is an urgent need for an innovative way of managing fisheries to address the current problems. It emphasizes the importance of shifting the current command and control centralized management system to a more fisher oriented comanagement approach.2
12.4 International Experience of Co-management International experience suggests that the main reason behind the change towards a comanagement regime is the recognition of a resource management problem. The problems can be related to deterioration of the resource (e.g., in the Philippines and Tanzanian marine protected areas), conflicts amongst stakeholders such as competition between different fishing gear (Africa), conflicts between management agencies and local fishers (e.g., Atlantic coastal fishery in Canada), problems of exclusion of outsiders (e.g., Laos, Malawi, Thailand , Zambia) and governance problems in general.3
In Southeast Asia, countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam have been moving the fishery management regimes to co-management by raising the commitment of governments to policies and programmes aimed at developing new legal, administrative, and institutional arrangements in varying degrees.4 The Philippines is one of the best examples of a country with a long history of traditional community based fishery management and one that has also been working on co-
Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (2007), Ten Year Development Policy Framework of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Sector,2007-2016, Colombo. Pomeroy, R. S., and F. Berkes (1997), Two to Tango: The Role of Government on Fisheries Comanagement, Marine Policy, Vol 21, No 5, pp 465-480. Pomeroy, R. S., (1995), Community based and Co-management Institutions for Sustainable Coastal Fisheries Management in Southeast Asia, Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol 27, No.3, pp 143-162.
245
management processes for over two decades. In 1991, under the Local Government Code (LGC), the Philippines government recognized the importance of participation of the fisher community and developed a Fisher Sector Programme (FSP) to decentralize authority and simplify procedures for clearance of local fishery management ordinances, strengthen the implementation of national fishery enforcement laws, and promote community based initiatives to conserve, rehabilitate and protect coastal resources, etc. The changes in administrative arrangements that resulted from the LGC created a supportive environment to promote co-management. The FSP was also supported by other national initiatives to promote co-management. Co-management has been embodied in the Philippines development plans and the legislative branch of the Philippines government has made a substantial contribution towards co-management. The integration of national, local level policies and plans enhanced the co-management efforts and was further strengthened by the Fisheries Code of 1998.
Bangladesh also initiated a new Fisheries Management Policy in 1986 aimed at sustaining inland fisheries and improving equity (Beel fisheries). The main policy instrument used was the provision of direct access rights to fishermen instead of the former method of leasing public water bodies. The co-management arrangement between fisher groups and the government was initially instructive rather than cooperative as the user groups were insufficiently prepared, unorganized, poorly educated, etc. The government has since been getting the help of NGOs to take a central role in organizing and representing fishers until the group is sufficiently able to represent themselves.5
Although many countries are keen to adopt co-management, evidence from some other countries indicates a lack of support by governments for co management initiatives. This can be mainly due to lack of adaptation of organizational structures of government departments to cope with a new management regime. On the other hand, efforts by governments to initiate co-management without addressing necessary changes required in the enabling environment, combined with a lack of capacity and lack of empowerment at
5
Ahmed M., A.D. Capistrano and M. Hossain (1997), Experience for Partnership Models for the Comanagement of Bangladesh Fisheries, Fisheries Management and Ecology, Vol. 4, 233-248.
246
community and households levels, have resulted in frustrating local level experiences when expectations created by such initiatives fail to be realized. This, in turn can result in undermining the legitimacy of the management system and thereby lead to a worse situation than in centralized management.6 12.5 Conclusion and Policy Recommendations Shifting from the current management system to a proposed co-management regime demands two main prerequisites. The challenge for any government in implementing the new management regime is related to these two prerequisites; an enabling policy, legal/ regulatory and administrative framework, and empowerment of individuals and communities to participate in fishery management. At the national level, there should be an integrated effort and commitment to facilitate co-management by changing legislation, creating an enabling policy environment, integrating development plans, and making changes in the administrative framework to support the implementation of such management regimes. The Philippines is a good example of where such arrangements at the national level have helped in the successful implementation of co-management. In addition, the role of external change agents such as NGOs, academic or research
institutions, religious organizations, government agencies and project teams is also very important at national level to expedite the co-management process (for e.g., Bangladesh). At the community level, various factors affect the success of co-management. These are local leadership, appropriate scale and defined boundaries of the resource, property rights over the resource, clearly defined user group membership, clear objectives from a well defined set of issues, socio-cultural homogeneity of the user group, active participation of group members, existence of community based organizations, long-term support by local government units, accountability, ability to enforce management rules, mechanisms for conflict management, adequate financial resources, and empowerment of communities. Apart from successful community based arrangements, some local communities lack different factors mentioned above. Therefore, empowerment at the
6
Neilson J. R., et. al., (2002), Fisheries Co-management: An Institutional Innovation, Perspectives and Challenges, Ahead, IIFET, 216.
247
individual and collective level the central element of co-management can be achieved via capacity building through education and various types of targeted training efforts. Sri Lanka has taken an initial step towards co-management of the fishery sector by changing its legislative framework with the introduction of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Act No.2 of 1996. In addition, the current development policy framework related to the sector mentions the importance of changing the central management regime to co-management, especially in the coastal fishery sector. However, apart from the above mentioned Act, there has to be a strong commitment and an integrated effort to make the enabling policy and administrative arrangements for the proper implementation of fishery co-management at the national level. In addition, Sri Lanka has to work on empowerment of communities and individuals in the coastal fishery sector to facilitate the co-management process, and to enable them to participate in the decision making process. Empowerment should be done not only for local communities and individuals, but also for the relevant officials in the fishery authorities. This is needed to change the mind-set from command and control management to accept the fishers right to make decisions on sustainable use of their collectively owned resources. In the case of local communities, certain community based organizations such as some fishery cooperatives in Sri Lanka have been able to perform certain management functions required for the sustainable use of fishery resources. This does not mean that fishery cooperatives alone can mange the fishery resources, but they do show an alternative approach of solving some fishery management problems through collective action with low transaction costs. However, this is not a common feature in all the coastal fishery areas. Areas where such social capital is available have greater potential to be successful in co-management. Therefore, strategies to empower communities should be customized according to the availability of local level capacities. Moreover, the communities that lag behind in terms of collective action towards fishery management need help from change agents such as NGOs to change their attitudes towards a new
248
management regime as well as to develop their capacities to participate effectively in decision making.
249

SOE 2008 Policy Brief - Coastal Fishery Sector

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

SOE 2008 Policy Brief - Coastal Fishery Sector

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka Sri Lanka: State of the Economy 2008 Political Economy Dilemma of Reforms

free download | e-version

12. Co-management for Sustainability of Coastal Fishery Sector

free download | e-version

free download | e-version

free download | e-version

free download | e-version

free download | e-version

free download | e-version

free download | e-version

free download | e-version

También podría gustarte