Participation oils the wheels of fisheries management |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participatory fisheries monitoring: transparency, sustainability and empowerment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Simple ways of collecting and sharing data and information are helping improve management of small fisheries. These fisheries make important contributions to national economies and exports, and provide a living for over 200 million people in Africa and Asia. Previously, poor fishers - and other stakeholders - weren't consulted on decisions that affected them, often with unfortunate results. It's proved invaluable for fisheries departments and fishers to get together to gather and use information to help manage these fisheries better. Getting stakeholders to participate means their interests are taken into account and they don't lose out. Step-by-step guidelines are already widely used in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Thailand, and organisations in Bangladesh, Uganda, Barbados, Cambodia and Tanzania are customising the approach for their own needs. Project Ref: FMSP04:
Research Programmes: Fisheries Management Science Programme Relevant Research Projects:
Small-scale fisheries in developing countries provide livelihoods to over with an estimated that 200 million people especially in Africa and Asia, and significant contributions to economies and trade exports. Despite their complex nature (dispersed communities, multiple species, and multiple techniques) it is still important for these fisheries to be actively and participatory managed so that they are sustainable and benefits are equitably shared. Data and information are essential for active management and important to give visibility to fisher communities. These communities are among the most vulnerable and often lack social services, infrastructure and a voice in governance structures.
These questions are addressed in set of guidelines answer this question by providing technical and practical direction on participatory approaches for data collection and information sharing relevant to the co-management of artisanal fisheries (published as FAO technical papers in 2005). The technical guidelines aretargeted at fisheries departments (FAO Serial No. 494/1) and reflect on: 1) Who needs data collection systems? 2) Why are they needed? 3) What information does and does not need to be collected? and 4) How can you design a cost-effective system which is tailored to meet local needs and capacity? The practical guidelines (FAO: Serial No. 494/2) provide an eight step approach for designing participatory data collection and information sharing systems, and provide examples from a series of case studies (carried out between 2003 and 2005). Policy messages illustrate the role of a participatory monitoring approach in ensuring co-management1 achieves its goals of sustainable fisheries and poverty reduction (summarised in a policy brief published by FMSP in 2005). The essential role of data and information includes contributions to:
Related to the guidelines is a software package, specifically designed to record information relevant to the co-management of artisanal fisheries (PICES - Providing Information for Socio-Economic Catch and Effort Fisheries Surveys completed in 2000).
Small-scale artisanal coastal and inland fisheries
There are a number of fisheries related outputs that are mutually supportive. In particular the guidelines, policy messages and software illustrated here are able to support other fisheries management project clusters by providing guidance on data collection and information sharing. This is particularly relevant to the cluster on 'Fisheries stock assessment and management' which covers the requirement for well functioning information flows for management to be successful. In particular, the Participatory Fisheries Stock Assessment approach (ParFish) (R7947 & R8397) has many shared goals in supporting fisher communities to engage in monitoring and managing their resource. There are also other integrated management processes for other natural resources which may benefit from considering the step-approach presented in the participatory fisheries monitoring approach. These include:
Lastly, there are other project clusters that directly address information and data management related to the management of other resources. These systems could be compared to determine the shared lessons learned on the importance of information, the best way of designing systems and implementing them in practice. These project clusters fall under the Crop Production, Crop Post Harvest, Animal Health Programme and Aquaculture and fish genetics research programme, and are listed below. Crop Production Programme:
Crop Post Harvest Programme
Animal Health Programme
Aquaculture and fish genetics research programme
How the outputs were validated: The guidelines and participatory approachfor data collection and information sharing were validated through a four step process involving:
In Thailand the guidelines and approach were tested and evaluated through a participatory planning and design exercise, led by the MRC's Fisheries Programme. A two-stage workshop was implemented involving 55 representatives of user groups; other local and national stakeholders; and administrative levels of government. A data collection and information system was agreed and has been running in 10 villages since October 2005 with quarterly feedback between user groups and fisheries departments1. The guidelines have also applied by project collaborators to develop field manuals for fisheries co-management in Cambodia and Thailand2. In Bangladesh the guidelines and approach were tested at eight different locations. At five of the water bodies, testing took place in collaboration with FFP, and the others with the CBFM project coordinated by the WorldFish Centre. A series of workshops were held representing members of the fisheries management committees, general professional fishers, subsistence fishers, and local Department of Fisheries staff. Community-based data collection and sharing systems were designed and a number of these on closed water bodies are continuing to successfully monitor their resources. Validation is also illustrated through adoption of the approach by a related project (MACH: Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through community Husbandry) to design systems with fishing communities to assess water quality and monitor the accountability of co-management systems. The PICES software was validated through a demonstration to the Department for Environment and Coastal Resources in the Turks and Caicos Islands, and has since been adopted by the Department of Fisheries for routine storage and processing of catch and effort data for the conch and lobster fisheries. It is too early in the process to see any direct increases in productivity of fisheries as a result of these outputs, but potential and future impacts on the beneficiaries are discussed below.
Where the Outputs were Validated: The guidelines and approach, as described above, were validated following a four-step process.
In Thailand, the participatory monitoring guidelines and approach were tested and validated at Huay Luang Reservoir in the Udon Thani Province of Thailand, during 2005. This involved two participatory workshops:
In Bangladesh, the participatory monitoring guidelines and approach were tested between April and June 2005 on eight different locations chosen to represent all the types of water bodies: river, large open water body, and small semi-closed water body. These covered seven districts including Thakurgaon, Rangpur, Narail, Mymensingh, Jessore, Tangail and Sunamganj. The reach of the validation was global as it involved a range of international and regional institutions, although specific case studies focused on fishing communities located in Asia. The case studies worked directly with the fisher communities (the extreme vulnerable poor) through their representative fisheries management committees. The PICES software was demonstration to and validated by the Department for Environment and Coastal Resources in the Turks and Caicos Islands at a workshop held from 11th to 19th December 2000. Who are the Users? At an international level, the guidelines and approach are being used regularly by the FAO, including by their Inland Water Resources and Aquatic Service, and the Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit. At the regional level the Mekong River Commission, which has the remit to support national countries in the management of the Lower Mekong River Basin, is using the guidelines both as a general resource and specifically to prepare field manuals for fisheries co-management in Cambodia and Thailand1. The guidelines have been distributed to national governments and it appears that they are being used by Departments of Fisheries, and slowly by co-management institutions. In Bangladesh, the guidelines and approach have been used by a range of facilitating programmes (e.g. FFP, CBFM-2, MACH and Center for Natural Resource Studies: CNRS) when setting up co-management arrangements. The approach has been applied to:
In Thailand, the guidelines have been used by the Department of Fisheries and community fisheries organisations to design and set up a data collection and information system at one case study site, which has continued running without external assistance since October 20052. The PICES software is currently being used by the Fisheries Department in the Turks and Caicos. Fourteen fisheries officers in Bangladesh were trained in the PICES software. Requests were made for the software from the NGO CARE Bangladesh and Fisheries Departments of Uganda, Barbados and Cambodia. PICES assisted development of a custom based database for the Tanzania Fisheries Department, and informed DFID's Regional Fisheries Information Systems (RFIS) with the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
Where the outputs have been used: Internationally the guidelines and approach are being used by the Inland Water Resources and Aquatic Service, and the Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit of the FAO based in Rome, Italy. The Mekong River Commission, currently with its headquarters in Vientiane, Lao PDR, is making use of the guidelines in a general sense, but has also integrated the approach into field manuals on co-management specifically for Cambodia and Thailand. The MRC Fisheries Programme is a key user and in particular their governance and fisheries management components. It has facilitated distribution of the guidelines to Department of Fisheries in Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. In Bangladesh, the current use for collecting and sharing fisheries related data covers the following eight fisher communities or districts:
The use of the guidelines to develop a participatory monitoring programme for water quality has been running at Kalaikoir in the district of Gazipur, and monitoring systems for the transparency and operational effectiveness of co-management institutions are planned for 43 communities in the districts of Kishorganj, Magura, Moulvi Bazar Sunmaganj and Tangail. In Thailand the use of the guidelines is taking place by the reservoir management committee at Huay Luang Reservoir in the North-East Udon Thani Province. The PICES software is currently being used by the Fisheries Department in the Turks and Caicos for routine data collection related to their lobster and conch fisheries. Scale of Current Use: The scale of use is local, national, regional and international, but also patchy. The use was quickly established with international and regional collaborating organisations who were involved in developing and testing the guidelines. At the local level, use was also quickly established where there was a facilitating process in place. For example through the institutional channels already set up through the co-management programmes in Bangladesh (FFP & CBFM-2) and in Thailand (The Mekong River Commissions fisheries programme component on fisheries management). Strong links with collaborators in Bangladesh, and cross-learning between programmes, will also see the use of the guidelines spread to a further 43 communities outside the initial remit of the project. This is through a related programme, which shares technical expertise involved in developing these outputs. The mainstream use of these guidelines and approach within the institutions (fisheries departments) in the target countries (Thailand and Bangladesh) has also been relatively slow, and has not passed much beyond individuals involved in the development, testing or training of the guidelines. However promotion of the guidelines has increased awareness among the Department of Fisheries in Bangladesh of the concept of participatory monitoring and data sharing in co-management, and the need for monitoring and evaluation for the long-term success of co-management1. The spread of use of the guidelines and approach to other countries has also been slow. A number of countries have expressed interest in the guidelines (for example the Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project, FAO/ADB may be considering using the data collection guidelines2) but they have not been available long enough to start using them. Further reasons are given in the section on "Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs".
Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: Co-management structures and institutions: One of the most important features of adoption of the outputs at the local level was having co-management structures and institutions already in place. This allowed for there already to be a mechanism for the representation of fisher communities and therefore streamlined their involvement in testing and using the guidelines. Facilitation: An important part of the success of using the guidelines and approach in Thailand and Bangladesh was the existence of facilitation programmes which could provide the support and channels for the testing process and for follow-up. The facilitation provided by the Mekong River Commission supports promotion through long-term relationships and interactions within target institutions (i.e. fisheries departments)1. The programmes in Bangladesh were also able to support staff from fisheries department to engage with fisher communities to undertake this relatively new participatory exercise. Case Studies: Case studies were the most direct way of achieving adoption of the outputs. Since the data collection guidelines are written material, the most effective way of illustrating their benefits to target institutions and user groups was through participatory exercises. In these exercises the approach, tools and diagrams were all taken from the guidelines but could be clearly explained and illustrated with locally relevant examples. In the same way, adoption of the PICES software was only successful where a facilitated case study took place. Involving collaborators: A very successful means of promoting uptake was through the involvement of a wide range of collaborators2, representing both intermediary organisations (who have the scope to further promote the outputs) and the direct end-users (fisheries departments and fisher communities represented within co-management arrangements). Individual champions: It is very important to have local and national 'champions' to promote an idea and mainstream it into general activities. Individuals at the local level in Thailand were highly instrumental in making the case study work and ensure that data collection systems are ongoing. This heightens the importance of regular feedback and communication with local 'champions' to ensure that the incentive remains. Time and opportunities: Progress in development takes time and also relies on the right opportunities to integrate new approaches or methods into existing activities. To an extent this requires a certain amount of flexibility to ensure that the project can respond to demand and change direction when an opportunity arises.
Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: The data and information collection guidelines have been promoted through a series of communications materials including newsletter articles, posters, flyers and websites throughout 2005. In Bangladesh, the Department of Fisheries (DoF) has promoted the guidelines and policy messages during the Bangladesh Fisheries Fortnight in September 2005. With support of the DFID-funded Fourth Fisheries Programme (FFP) the DoF gave the data collection guidelines and short training sessions to 45 district fisheries officers and the associated community based organisations. Individuals in the fisheries department are discussing policy options to use the guidelines within sites where co-management systems have been set up (200 in total)1. In Mekong Region, the Mekong River Commission (MRC) has sent the guidelines to all the National River Commission Committees2. The Thailand case study was presented at the 7th and 8th Technical Symposium on Mekong fisheries. The guidelines are included as downloads on the MRC website http://www.mekonginfo.org/. Lastly, the May 2006 edition of MRC's 'Catch & Culture' newsletter (with over 650 subscribers) published an article on the Thailand case study and key policy messages. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) sent the guidelines to all UN member Directors of Fisheries, Regional Fisheries Officers and Fisheries Departments. The guidelines are also available through the FAO website. They are also planning to use the guidelines within a Dutch partnership programme on Lake Victoria (Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania); forthcoming co-management projects in Brazil; and fisheries management workshops in the South Pacific3. Additional channels of promotion have been through a policy brief sent to 60 identified policy makers, and websites including Stream Initiative (http://www.streaminitiative.org/), Fisheries Management Science Programme (http://www.fmsp.org.uk/) and International Development 21 websites (http://www.id21.org/nr/n3sw1g1.html).
Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: Lack of active fisheries management: one of the main barriers to the use of the data collection and information sharing guidelines (and also the PICES software) is the lack of active fisheries management. Given the complex nature of artisanal fisheries in many developing countries (highly dispersed communities, multiple fishing gears, and multiple fish species) there are a high number of places where there is no management therefore no monitoring data, or any mechanism to share information. For example, in Cambodia there is a very low level or even absence of active management of fisheries and data collection is inexistent for 90% of fishing activities1. Language and capacity barriers: at the current time the finalised data collection and information guidelines are only available in English, although draft versions were translated into local languages for use in Bangladesh and Thailand. The language is therefore a barrier for use and uptake by target institutions and user-groups. However, written material is also a significant barrier for those who do not have the time or capacity to read through the material and develop tailored materials suitable to the context2. Lack of facilitation for change management: where systems already exist for data collection and information sharing, it requires considerable investment to institutionalise the new systems and approaches3. Some countries may not yet fully subscribe to ideas of participatory data collection, which may be seen to compromise the quality of the data.
How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs: Tailor practical guidelines: a major barrier to adoption could be removed if the practical guidelines were tailored to suit different contexts (or countries) and made available in local languages. In some cases the guidelines may need to be adjusted to the reality that very little active management exists1. In other cases providing practical and simple forms for data collection would stream line adoption throughout fisheries systems. Support implementation for two management cycles: Even with tailored guidelines, there is still need for face-to-face events to present ideas and practices, and explain the key points. Extensive training of community and government extension stakeholders provides the base of capacity at the implementation level. This can be built on with support for at least two fisheries management annual cycles2. There are opportunities to share lessons learnt between different community groups. Facilitate change management: facilitation is needed to support the process of institutionalising a new approach within a country. For example in Bangladesh there is an opportunity to integrate the participatory data collection and information sharing approach within the new Inland Fisheries Strategy and thereby mainstream its use in all fisheries3. Involve end users in process: Greater emphasis on involvement of local lead organisations at project conceptualisation, planning and implementation2.
Lessons Learned: Tailoring guidance: Written outputs are not suitable for the majority of poor people, who do not read, even in their local language. These outputs are focused at intermediary organisations with their objective to translate their use in the most appropriate form at the local level. Tailoring the guidelines for use in the local context and in local languages is one of the best ways of getting the outputs used directly by fisher communities. Practical application: The case studies, conducted in Thailand and Bangladesh, were particularly successful means of validating the guidelines and have led to adoption by a number of collaborators and replication (following some adjustments) by other related initiatives. Again written material can only be useful to guide intermediary organisation, but practical case studies are needed to truly engage fisher communities. Co-management structures and institutions: It is important to have co-management structures in place which allow for the representation of all poverty levels and genders within fishing communities. When these institutions and structures are already in place, the process of getting outputs directly to the poor is streamlined. Peer to Peer promotion: Individual local champions allow for peer-to-peer promotion and are one of the most effective means of getting outputs directly to the beneficiaries. Hearing about a new approach or method from someone within your own community and your own context not only increases your understanding, but also increases the likelihood of your trust and willingness to trial or implement the approach. Poverty Impact Studies: There have been no formal poverty impact studies undertaken, however an assessment of the impact of a range of Fisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP) outputs was undertaken in 20051 and a review of the perspectives of key fisheries institutions and researchers completed in March 20062. Both of these impact studies cover the data collection and information sharing approach and obtained feedback from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the Mekong River Commission (MRC) on their perceived impacts to date. Further to this, project R8462 involved monitoring to assess the level of uptake of the guidelines by collaborators and other target institutions3. A number of collaborators considered the guidelines to be too new and embedded in an overall process to be able to measure any direct poverty impacts. Since the completed guidelines have been distributed at the beginning of 2006, it would take at least two cycles of fisheries management to allow for their uptake and a further five to ten years, to assess impact. Even with sufficient time, it would be difficult to determine the specific impact of an improved data collection system, as it is part of the overall co-management process. The effectiveness of co-management in improving sustainable fisheries and reducing poverty of fisher communities can (and needs) to be assessed, and the data collection and information sharing approach is a supporting element in this. Poverty impacts in the long-term need cumulative effects from a number of initiatives delivering improved research, policy linkages and policy implementation.
How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups): The participatory approach to data collection and sharing information is targeted at fisher communities, which are classified as an extreme vulnerable group which often have a low status (owing to their remote or migratory status); are frequently excluded from social services and governance structures; and may be reliant on exploitative relationships within the market chain. This output is applied through co-management structures where all poverty levels and genders should be represented and elected democratically. As indicated above, there have been no specific poverty impact studies undertaken on these outputs, however there are indications that the participatory approach to data collection and information sharing is having some benefits in the places where it has been tested and validated. Increased social assets:
Increased human assets:
Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: The participatory monitoring approach supports the sustainability of fisheries systems by promoting active management. This includes having a clear understanding of the status of the resource and identification of indicators to monitor its status and any impacts of management decisions. Through the participatory design of these monitoring systems, all relevant stakeholders are able to express their priorities. For example, during the participatory design phase of the monitoring system for a reservoir in Thailand, a range of key factors were highlighted for monitoring including water quality, water management as well as fisheries. These can then be included in the overall management plan for their sustainable use in the short and long-term. Adverse Environmental Impacts: There are no adverse environmental impacts related to this output. Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters: Indirectly, this participatory monitoring approach supports poor people to cope with the effects of climate change by giving them the capacity to monitor their resource and other environmental parameters. Fisheries are naturally highly variable and often closely linked to climatic changes, so that a good fisheries management system will be able to track and deal with these variations. Through promoting better management and monitoring in the short-term, and involving fishers in this process through co-management, their capacity to deal with further variation due to climate change in the long-term will be increased. Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information
|
