Regional workshop on Approaches to the implementation and monitoring of community-based ecosystem approach to fisheries management (CEAFM): finding common ground between the coastal fisheries and conservation approaches in the Pacific (Noumea, 29 November to 3 December 2010)

Day two summary Day two focused on key approaches to EAFM with two presentations on fisheries and conservation management respectively, to set the scene and describe what has been tried. Highlighting successes, challenges and lessons learned. Participants then divided into groups to discuss fisheries management and governance issues with the results of the discussion presented back in plenary at the end of the day.

Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3 Key similarities and differences fisheries management (FM) and marine biodiversity conservation (MBC) approaches Many fundamental similarities, including: converging on an ecosystem based approach; communities and governance structures ; inadequate resources; regulating and constraining activities; restraints of budgets and capacity. Differences tended to be related to: local (FM) vs global effects and obligations (MBC); FM uses a wider range of tools and tends to be single sector; differing value systems (MBC less $$$) ; different ‘connections’ with communities; scales – MBC tends to be bigger scale; MBC still tarred with ‘lock it up’ approaches

Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3 What management approaches are common to both and could be standardized? How? Groups Struggled with this question – one group did not tackle it. Again noted may similarities/ commonalities – see previous slide Some suggestions: – field trips/questionnaires could be common/coordinated – community consultation and planning process could be better integrated – spatial management, focusing on restricting activities needs to take account of both FM and DDM issues – principles and action plans could be developed for both, or at least with recognition of respective goals and objectives

Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3 How can these common management approaches best incorporate climate change issues and effects. Both require risk/vulnerability and adaptation assessments and consider/wish to build resilience – building resilient communities Differing approaches to climate change – some mainly at at national level/mainstreaming and others making limited specific reference to coastal community impacts and engagement Awareness-raise and put issues faced by communities into the climate change context Strength in common voice

Day 2 summary - Groups 1 and 3 Which of these management approaches are particularly appropriate for CEAFM? Biodiversity and Fisheries approaches are both appropriate- take into account species, habitats/ecosystems and people Biodiversity approach offers more opportunities for a holistic approach Fisheries generally has more comprehensive governance and legal frameworks Fisheries a domestic issue more so than biodiversity / conservation (local actions/local benefits) FM tends to be more ccommunity driven and smaller scales and based on food security, with local priorities, aactions, results and respect/support

Day 2 Summary – Groups 1 and 3 How can CEAFM be made sustainable (at the government and community level) in the medium to long-term. Define and make ‘sustainability’ operational and long-term National / government level Enshrined in legislation, (may need development) secure funding /other support and plan on available resources Increase effectiveness of inter-agency cooperation, define roles, be adaptive Provide education and awarness programmes Build profile of coastal fisheries Reduce/manage costs Community Attention to community governance/empowerment and plan according to resources Generate and maintain community support – manage expectations Consider alternative/more diversified community opportunities Rewards…/ incentives; not just penalties Connectivity and expansion

Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4 What role should the various institutions have in CEAFM? Government Mostly policy and regulatory frameworks, monitoring, enforcement (some), and coordination (between agencies) Devolve appropriate roles to the communities with legislative support. Bring whole of government approach. Increase approaches incorporating appropriate economic analysis NGOs Less restricted funding Direct provision of services including education and awareness Promotion of wider EAF/integrated approaches (ridges to reef) Linking community and government and identify problems from communities Assist government in formulating policy; Can be a controversial role

Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4 CROP Agencies Countries not fully aware what CROP agencies can provide: e.g. GIS training; habitat mapping, imagery Others Universities - Research and baseline information, capacity building/training at all levels need to improve linkages with ink better to CROP + NGOs to deliver/apply results/outputs Graduates and research into fisheries management Getting the research out to the communities and being used Increasing role for Philanthropic institutions; now starting to influence polices and directions Communities

Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4 What legislative or policy actions are required to effectively support CEAFM (e.g. integrated coastal management, etc)? More effective enforcement of rules and regulations including land based activities/planning Review of legislation to ensure relevance Policies/approaches that look at cumulative impacts Trade-based measures Adopt ‘conservation’ as a policy priority Better integration with management plans and other sectors Empower communities to be able to determine and enforce local fishing laws

Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4 What is management effectiveness and how can it be evaluated? Definition depends on management objectives Important to distinguish between outcomes (no of meetings/plans) and what they achieved on the reefs and in the communities Plans need inbuilt, indicative measures and low cost, low tech ways to monitor performance Anecdotal vs empirical evidence Role of communities – fit for purpose Important to assess real success of different approaches.

Day 2 Summary – Groups 3 and 4 When is community-based management of fisheries most successful and why? True collaboration/engagement with defined goals for govt., communities and NGOs Effective legislative/governance framework leading to compliance (rather than enforcement where possible) Involvement of all stakeholders and common/agreed goals and with a shared vision and understanding of community needs Demand driven and owned by communities Communication, including feedback (vital) Communities taking responsibility Benefit from both traditional + legal systems Realistic, cost-effective and responsive programmes

Day 3 Day three will focus on monitoring (for fisheries and conservation purposes), with a presentations to set the scene on what has been tried with successes, challenges and lessons learned. Participants will then stay in their same group as the previous day to discuss specific issues regarding monitoring (community-based and national), with the results of the discussion presented back in plenary at the end of the day.

Questions for Day 3 First set (groups 1 and 3) on Data Needs and Collection. Second set(groups 2 and 4) on Data Analysis Storage, and Use