At this stage of the critical analysis of CECAF achievements and with all the elements at hand, it is necessary for the Sub-Committee on Management, as suggested during the Eighth Session of the Committee (Lome, 1982, Paragraphs 39 to 43 of the report) to think about the “role of the Sub-Committee in the light of the results obtained … and also in the context of the new Law of the Sea and the present capabilities of CECAF coastal countries.”
The Sub-Committee should, in particular “devote attention to the question of regulating effort and also to management techniques such as quotas and Total Allowable Catches (TAC)” (Paragraph 4.2 of the report) and examine in greater depth the question of shared stocks within the sub-region and suggest guidelines on managing and apportioning these stocks Paragraph 63 of the report).
These guidelines given by the Committee to its management subsidiary body raise the essential question of the degree of involvement of CECAF in the management/development of coastal countries' resources.
The answer to that question can certainly not be given here. It will depend on the expectations and will of coastal countries and should be elaborated in close collaboration with all parties concerned. It must be remembered that management involves two main functions:
The advisory function which concerns
The knowledge of resources and state of exploitation.
The knowledge of the economic sector involved.
The identification of management problems and solutions.
The elaboration of management advice following the objectives given at the the decisional level.
The decisional function which concerns
Identification of objectives for management.
Adoption of management measures proposed by the advisory level.
Implementation of the measures.
Control and surveillance.
The essential sets of questions are therefore to be raised at that stage:
Was the advisory function of the Committee satisfactory in the past or should it be extended to cover additional aspects such as TAC and national quotas? If yes, how could this best be done?
Should the Committee be more concerned (even marginally) with steps 5 to 8 as identified above in order to improve the overall management of resources? If yes, how? And how far? Under which conditions? Only on shared stock? Also at national level? If not, is it possible to improve the link between the advisory and the decisional levels? And how best?
The answers to these questions would provide a clearer idea of the expectations of coastal countries regarding the CECAF Sub-Committee on Management and in fact regarding CECAF itself.
Regardless of what the final structures and statutes of CECAF or its equivalent in the future may be, it should be able to play a certain number of essential roles in the development of management and related fields.
Act as a forum. CECAF has always been and should remain a vehicle for the exchange of information, ideas, techniques, solutions and experience; a body which can organize training seminars with conferences and discussions on subjects related to management; a forum where countries who wish to do so can present their specific problems, where constraints can be identified, theoretical solutions sought for in common, and where the general principles of management can be presented and refined; and the organizer of cooperation between countries for scientific work.
Role of coordination. CECAF has an important role to play regarding the identification and distribution of tasks of mutual interest as well as the coordination of the utilization of available means; the improvement, standardization in the collection and processing of biological, technical and economic data; the promotion of assessment surveys, research into the possibility of lending research vessels and the exchange of scientific teams; the organization of the filing and processing of large masses of data at the regional level, the possible joint acquisition of expensive pieces of equipment or the coordination required to make national capabilities available to the region as a whole, the organization of seminars and upgrading courses for administrative, scientific and technical staff.
Regional technical support group. CECAF countries could set up a complete regional team covering more or less all the sectors of expertise required to compile a management dossier, to provide for limited computerized data processing facilities (for modelling, linear programming, data retrieval), to create a nucleus of trained African personnel specialized in management problems which could provide practical support for coastal states which might require help in resolving specific problems. In fact the embryo of such a structure can be found in the present “CECAF Project” which is a temporary structure and may disappear in the future, leaving behind no institution to carry out the work and fulfil its functions, even though its essential role in the region has always been recognized.
Promotion of economic analyses. Most of the research activity in the CECAF region has been related to the biological aspects of stocks. The Chairman of CECAF, however, stated at the Third Session in 1972 that it was necessary to remember that the measures proposed had economic and social implications in the Coastal States that should not be underestimated. He went on to say than in the end the social and economic development should be the central concern and that management was only a means of achieving it. At the instigation of CECAF and some leading laboratories in the region, socio-economic studies have multiplied since 1979. These are, however, still the exception and greater efforts must be made in this sector. Such efforts should be concerned not only with the addition of economic and social parameters to the traditional models used by the biologists, but should also be concerned with the dynamics of fishing systems. This anaysis, albeit difficult, is essential for a correct integration of the management and development processes.
Promotion of “tailored” analyses. The documents produced by the Working Groups of CECAF are sometimes too complex to be correctly interpreted in some of the countries concerned where no suitable expertise is available. Sometimes they are also not precise enough to be useful to the fisheries authority of a given country when the analysis (given the structure of the available data) has been done at the regional or sub-regional level. For these countries, efforts still have to be made to obtain the results presented in understandable terms.
Bearing in mind the existence of the two levels of needs in CECAF (e.g. Paragraph 3.3) the Committee could, therefore, continue to promote monospecific analyses on major stocks by using the sophisticated means appropriate to the quantity and quality of the data collected on the northern CECAF fisheries, while still adopting a more simple and pragmatic approach, or a multispecific and in the end more “tailor-made” approach to the countries where this appears necessary.
It is an illusion to think that it is possible to artificially introduce sophistication into management systems. The actual management implemented will always be at the level of understanding that the people involved have of a problem. The task of the Committe thus lies at two levels:
improving understanding;
adapting the proposed measures to the local conditions.
This approach could lead, for example, to organizing multi-disciplinary groups to provide overall analysis of the fisheries of a given country (or even, if necessary, of a small group of countries with common interests) and providing easily understood advice on the basis of the data the local authorities possess. In this way the mechanism would be obliged to consider the peculiarities of the countries involved and give “tailor-made” advice.
Promotion of fishing effort control. The problem of controlling the fishing effort and the allocation of resources is the keystone of management and the Sub-Committee should intensify its effort in this sense. In keeping with what has been requested by the Committee, the problem of TAC and quotas should be tackled and alternative control solutions should be evaluated. Particular effort should be made with regard to shared stocks.
This list of actions is not exhaustive and it is clear that all efforts of collaboration and imagination from all persons concerned will be necessary in order to further improve the efficiency of the mechanism.
