Mary Power[99]
and
Liz
Dovey[100]
ABSTRACT
The coastal area - the interface between the land and the sea, brings together two very different, complex and yet highly interrelated ecosystems that together produce and maintain the natural resource benefits upon which much of our island communities depend. Unfortunately, these ecosystems are increasingly subject to a range of human activities that pose very significant threats to their long-term sustainability. The marine and coastal environmental issues facing the Pacific Region are similar to other parts of the world. The most serious of these issues are the loss of biodiversity, solid and liquid waste management, over-exploitation of living resources and destructive harvesting practices, introduction of alien species and destruction of habitat and coastal degradation due to poor land practices that lead to pollution and siltation. Other driving forces throughout the region include high population growth generally but specifically in urban areas due to urban drift, and a shift from subsistence to cash economies.
Globally, overfishing has led to dramatic declines in coastal fish stocks. The picture in the Pacific is less clear but it is clear that there has been little focus on the status and management of inshore fisheries at the national level until quite recently as attention in the fisheries sector has been focused on expanding foreign income earnings from the lucrative oceanic tuna fisheries.
Maintaining the integrity of coastal ecosystems and protection of biodiversity in these ecosystems is challenging because of the great range of biological, physical and socio-economic pressures involved, as well as the complexity of sectoral and institutional arrangements. ICM is a comprehensive, multi-sectoral and integrated approach to the planning and management of coastal areas. Article 10 concerns the Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Management in order to assist in achieving the rational and sustainable use of scarce coastal resources. It addresses the issue of how the fisheries sector can be integrated into integrated coastal management planning so that interactions between the fisheries sector and other sectors can be taken into account in the establishment of management policy and practice with regard to the sustainable use of coastal resources.
This paper provides an overview of the broad principles of ICM and Article 10 of the Code of Conduct, takes a look at the status of ICM and coastal fisheries management in the Pacific currently and explores how coastal fisheries management in the Pacific can be integrated into broader management and planning for sustainable use of Pacific island coastal resources, in line with the principles enshrined in Article 10.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The coastal area - the interface between the land and the sea, brings together two very different, complex and yet highly interrelated ecosystems. Together they form the coastal ecosystem that produces and maintains a huge number of natural resource benefits upon which much of our island communities depend. Unfortunately, these ecosystems are increasingly subject to a range of human activities that pose very significant threats to their long-term sustainability. The marine and coastal environmental issues facing the Pacific Region are similar to other parts of the world. The most serious of these issues are the loss of biodiversity, solid and liquid waste management, over-exploitation of living resources and destructive harvesting practices, introduction of alien species and destruction of habitat and coastal degradation due to poor land practices that lead to pollution and siltation. Other driving forces throughout the region include high population growth generally but specifically in urban areas due to urban drift, and a shift from subsistence to cash economies.
Marine fisheries are one of the remaining examples of human economic activities involving the direct exploitation of wild animal populations. Globally, poorly planned use of coastal resources is perhaps most apparent in the fishing sector, where overfishing due to perverse incentives stemming from ill-defined ownership rights has led to dramatic declines in coastal fish stocks. In the Gulf of Thailand, for example, the biomass of valuable demersal species is now only 10% of original unfished levels. A 50% reduction in fishing effort, and the passage of many years, is required to rehabilitate these stocks to optimum productive levels (Pauly et al. 1998, 2000). The picture in the Pacific is less clear. There has been little focus on the status and management of inshore fisheries at the national level until quite recently as all attention in the fisheries sector has been focused on managing to expand the foreign earnings export dollars from the lucrative oceanic tuna fisheries
Fisheries are dependent on the productivity of the marine ecosystem, and fisheries have an effect on, and are affected by, the supporting ecosystem of the target species. It therefore follows that prudent and responsible fisheries management should take account of the interactions between fisheries and their supporting ecosystem. There is an obvious need therefore to consider the development and management of the coastal fisheries sector within the context of management and development planning for the broader coastal ecosystem, i.e., in the context of the protection and management of the resources, the environment and the activities of the coastal area.
However, maintaining the integrity of coastal ecosystems and protection of biodiversity in these ecosystems is challenging because of the great range of biological, physical and socio-economic pressures involved. Management is further complicated because of the numerous institutions (or in some instances, the lack of) and interests that are interconnected and must be considered during the problem solving process. Responsibility for managing the many relevant activities is frequently divided among different national and local institutions. Often this occurs along sectoral lines. The result is that one institution's actions may have significant adverse impacts on the resources of another. Thus in addition to the problem of remote causes and effects, there may be little opportunity or incentive for inter-agency cooperation that could avoid or minimize the externalities.
These ecological, social and institutional complexities and the multifaceted character of many of the issues that need to be dealt with to ensure the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources demands we adopt an holistic approach to management. The term originally usually used to describe such an approach was ´integrated coastal zone management' (ICZM) but the terms integrated coastal management (ICM) and "integrated coastal area management (ICAM) are also commonly used depending on the legal and institutional frameworks in place.
All these terms refer to essentially the same thing: a comprehensive, multi-sectoral, integrated approach to the planning and management of coastal areas. The use of "zone", and more recently "area", were developed for the continental situation, such as in the United States and Europe, with large landmasses, where their legislative systems define their coasts as a distinct area. In the small island situation like the Pacific, this description is generally inappropriate as usually the whole island, in environmental terms, is coastal, so we generally refer to "Integrated Coastal Management".
Article 10 in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries concerns the Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Management in order to assist in achieving the rational and sustainable use of scarce coastal resources (FAO 1995, pp26-27 & 2001). It addresses the issue of how the fisheries sector can be integrated into integrated coastal management planning so that interactions between the fisheries sector and other sectors can be taken into account in the establishment of management policy and practice with regard to the sustainable use of coastal resources.
This paper provides an overview of the broad principles of ICM and Article 10 of the Code of Conduct, takes a look at the status of ICM and coastal fisheries management in the Pacific currently and explores how coastal fisheries management in the Pacific can be integrated into broader management and planning for sustainable use of Pacific island coastal resources, in line with the principles enshrined in Article 10.
INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) is a participatory and integrated planning process for addressing complex issues of conserving biological diversity in coastal and marine ecosystems. This approach was first formally recognized globally in Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit on Environment and Development 1992. Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 provides a prescription for improved management and protection of ocean and marine space including:
17.10. The role of international cooperation and coordination on a bilateral basis and, where applicable, within a subregional, interregional, regional or global framework, is to support and supplement national efforts of coastal States to promote integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas.
17.22 © Integrate protection of the marine environment into relevant general environmental, social and economic development policies;
The Conference of Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity at their second meeting in Jakarta in November 1995, acknowledged "integrated coastal and marine management as the most suitable strategy for strategic management of human impacts on marine and coastal biological diversity and for promoting conservation and sustainable use of this biological diversity". The Subsidiary Body (of the CBD) for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) defines ICM as:
".. the participatory process for decision making to prevent, control, or mitigate adverse impacts from human activities in the marine and coastal environment, and to contribute to the restoration of degraded coastal areas. It involves all stakeholders, including: decision makers in the public and private sectors; resource owners, managers and users; non-governmental organizations; and the general public."
More recently, at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the issue of the need to adopt an ecosystem approach to oceans management and to establish networks of marine protected areas was added to the agenda but without superceding Agenda 21. Chapter 7 of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation addresses specifically sustainable development of Small Island Developing States, including includes target dates for waste and pollution prevention, community based initiatives, environmentally sound energy supply and services, and a focus on fisheries, fresh water, pollution prevention, tourism, disaster preparedness, vulnerability, climate change, community development. In the Pacific Small Island context all of these issues pertain to the coast and can only be address through the adoption of an ICM approach. The Plan identified a number of actions in the area of institutional policies that would bolster its implementation, and highlighted the strengthening of national and regional capacity in marine science and management, as required action.
ICM involves planning for multiple uses based on the precautionary approach and ecosystem management principles. It tries to respond to the reality that terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems and human impacts on them are intricately inter-woven (Clark 1992). Ideally, ICM extends from the upper reaches of coastal watersheds to adjacent offshore systems and thus is related to the ecosystem-based concepts of integrated coastal watershed management and large marine ecosystem management and ecosystem-based fisheries management generally.
ICM requires an institutional framework that provides the appropriate linkages between national, regional and local authorities. There is a spectrum of approaches that can be adopted to deliver ICM. In the simplest form, an existing agency may be given a mandate to initiate cross-sectoral coastal planning but with no additional responsibilities or powers. Further along the spectrum, a framework could be established under which the different agencies involved in coastal management retain all their responsibilities but co-ordinate their planning and actions through a central body of some sort, such as a Coastal Advisory Committee. Finally, countries may adopt a truly integrated approach within which much of the responsibility for planning and the allocation of coastal resources is undertaken by an integrated institution such as a Coastal Management Division or Unit operating under specific Coastal Management legislation. This integration of management and decision-making processes is what defines ICM from other sectoral strategies for natural resource management.
Pacific Island countries have also all ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (UNEP 1991) which in turn reflects the integrated, ecosystems management approach put forward in Agenda 21 and reinforced in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation from the WSSD in 2002.
FAO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES AS IT RELATES TO ICM
The Code of Conduct per se will have been introduced to you in great detail at this meeting by now so the following will explore only Article 10. Article 10 concerns the Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Management in order to "assist in achieving the rational use of scarce coastal resources" (FAO 1995).
Article 10 of the Code has four main component areas as describe below:
10.1 Institutional frameworks: The Code stresses the need for appropriate institutional arrangements to: achieve the sustainable and integrated use of resources taking into account the fragility and finite nature of coastal ecosystems; take account of the interests of the fishing sector; adopt fisheries practices that avoid or minimize conflicts with other users in the coastal zone and to put conflict resolution arrangements in place. States are also urged to determine the range of possible uses of coastal resources and to govern access to them taking into consideration the rights of local fishing communities and customary practices.
10.2 Policy measures: States are encouraged to create public awareness about the need for integrated management in the coastal zone taking account of relevant economic, social and cultural factors. Risks and uncertainties should be identified and assessed, monitoring systems adopted, and multidisciplinary research facilitated.
10.3 Regional cooperation: The Code supports regionalisation and encourages States to cooperate regionally and sub-regionally in the management of the coastal zone to take into account the transboundary nature of some of the impacts. Information sharing on a timely basis and notification of events is considered a key factor in this cooperative arrangement.
10.4 Implementation: Appropriate national mechanisms should be established to facilitate effective coastal zone planning and that fisheries interests are adequately represented. A key factor is to ensure that national agencies, and the fisheries sector in particular, must have appropriate technical capabilities.
FAO has developed a set of comprehensive guidelines for Article 10, FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries - Integration of fisheries into coastal area management, No. 3. (FAO 1996) which you have in your workshop papers and which should be read in conjunction with this paper. These guidelines provide detailed discussion on the above four areas of Article 10, providing suggestions and guidance on how States may generically approach the implementation of this Article of the Code.
However, for the purpose of this meeting it would be more beneficial to look at the state of ICM and coastal fisheries management in Pacific Island Countries and, in the context of Article 10, the integration of fisheries management into ICM in the context of Pacific Small Island Developing States.
STATUS OF ICM AND OF COASTAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION
Coastal Fisheries Management
A main characteristic of the coastal fisheries sector in the Pacific islands is that it is mainly small scale and localized, pursued by Pacific Islanders using subsistence, artisanal, or small-scale fishing methods within the nearshore. The fishery is generally characterized by:
Multispecies reef and lagoon food fisheries for domestic, mainly subsistence consumption;
Small-scale commercial fisheries outside the reef, either for deep-slope demersal species or for larger pelagic species, including tuna, and mainly for export;
Narrowly-targeted reef fisheries for high-value exports (e.g. sea-cucumber)(SPC 1999)
While the absolute value of landings from the Pacific Islands coastal fisheries sector is small comparative to the oceanic fisheries sector, it is the coastal fisheries nonetheless which underpin current livelihoods and continued food security in most Pacific Island countries. Unlike the tuna fisheries, almost the entire value of the coastal fishery accrues to Pacific Islanders themselves, and is the main source of cash and subsistence for many rural communities. Apart from the significance to the rural economy, coastal fisheries are also the main source of protein nutrition and underpin many aspects of society and culture (Dalzell et al 1996).
Despite the enormous importance of the coastal fishery sector to the well-being of Pacific Island communities, the sector is characterized by a remarkable lack of information necessary for governments and communities to make decisions about the management and state of the reef fisheries under their control (SPC 1991). Consequently there have been little or no direct management interventions at either the local or national level until quite recently.
An international law specialist[101] and regional agency legal advisor based in the region, quoted in Connell (2003), summed it up very succinctly:
"It is not necessary for everyone to fully appreciate the significance of any activity in the economy. However, when that lack of appreciation extends to policymakers, planners, and development agencies, it can mean that fisheries development (and management one would also assume) receives lower priority than it deserves".
And
"Any discussion of fisheries resource management in the Pacific Islands region cannot be insulated from the larger issue of resource management generally because of the nexus between the two..... It has long been recognized that it is not enough to simply manage the fisheries resources without endeavouring to also take care of the environment that the fisheries resources inhabit. This calls for integrated management, which encompasses proper controls over activities, such as those that are land-based but which nonetheless impact on the fisheries resource.
And
Thus, the exploitation of fisheries resources is the only significant economic activity common throughout the region. Its proper management is not only crucial to particular sectors of communities within the islands; in some cases, it is vital to the wellbeing of the entire nation.
This lack of information and associated lack of awareness by decision and policy makers is now being addressed by the EU funded PORCFISH program being undertaken by SPC and there are an increasing number of local, community-based fisheries management projects appearing in country. This will have implications for future management.
As the total Pacific Island human population has doubled in size over the last 30 years, requiring more food and producing more pollution, and as the cash economy breaks down the traditional fabric of community life, reef and lagoon fisheries are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain at sustainable levels, either by governments or communities. If sustainable, long-term benefit is to be ensured, Pacific Island countries will need to adopt socially and biologically-appropriate mechanisms for managing existing nearshore (mainly coral reef) fisheries and this can only be achieved by the adoption of an integrated management approach underpinned by ecosystem based principles. In this context the fisheries sector is really no different to any other sector relying on access to and use of coastal resources.
ICM in the Pacific
Despite numerous regional and national initiatives targeting coastal resource management, the situation with regard to integrated coastal management in many Pacific Island countries is not encouraging. The management responses from Pacific Island Countries have been hampered by an overall lack of appropriate legislation for ICM, and in many cases, insufficient capacity to implement existing sectoral management strategies (SPREP 1995).
Responsibility for management of human interaction with the coastal environment is still predominantly sectorally based. Few, if any, countries outside of the US territories have specific Coastal Management Legislation or Integrated Coastal Management Plans. In many instances, there is not just a lack of cooperation between the agencies traditionally responsible for management of activities in the coastal area such as Fisheries, Environment, Board of Works and Planning Departments, but often active competition for both financial resources and management roles, complicated further by overlapping and sometimes conflicting legislation.
In general, this has led to the inability of governing institutions to identify the multiple problems prevailing in the coastal environment and to provide an integrated solution, particularly at the local level. The principal causes of institutional failure are: 1) inadequate legal and policy support; 2) lack of technical 'know-how' on the part of managers; 3) poor co-ordination among sectoral agencies, often exacerbated by lack of political will to make the necessary reforms and 4) inadequate or non-existent involvement of other stakeholders and local community in the decision making process.
WHAT CAN WE DO TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION?
The Pacific Islands have a unique social fabric that puts us in a strong position in terms of our capacity to effectively achieve integrated management of our fragile coastal ecosystems. Fortunately, traditional marine tenure is still strong in most PICs. This can be an immense advantage if these traditional systems are integrated, where appropriate, into ICM activities as it aids in developing ownership and thereby ensuring sustainability of management interventions (Huber & McGregor 2001).
Thanks largely to this strong customary marine tenure, domestic food fisheries in particular are still in good shape compared to reef fisheries in most other parts of the world, but they have little further commercial expansion potential and are facing a potentially bleak future in the absence of effective intervention (SPC 1999). Recent experiences, such as the activities supported under the program of the Locally Managed Marine Area Network of SPREP/USP/FSPI and others in Fiji, Solomons and PNG, the AUSAID Samoa and Tonga fisheries management projects, the Samoa-IUCN-World Bank-MPA program and other national and regional projects suggest that effective action based on the right principles can maintain them that way, for the benefit of subsistence food security and continued rural income generation.
When we consider the factors presented above, fragmented governance, poor legal and institutional frameworks but strong traditional tenure systems, it is obvious that we need to take a "three dimensional or three track" approach to coastal management (and coastal fisheries) in the region if we are to succeed in maintaining healthy coastal environments and sustaining coastal fisheries.
To achieve sustained progress we must simultaneously work at: (1) local-level site based management programs, with full involvement of, and ownership by, local communities and (2) establishing frameworks and a policy environment at the higher levels that forge links between local and national government and (3) bringing about integration at national and regional levels between sectors and disciplines. In other words we need a combination of both "top-down" and "bottom-up" management measures and we need to strive for both "vertical" and "horizontal" integration at the all levels.
The "top-down" approach reflects the usual focus/functioning of national government along with its institutions and procedures. This centralized approach assumes that if the "regulate and control" capacity of central government is properly tuned then proper measures for natural resource management will be successful. A recent comparative study of coastal resource management in the Pacific has shown that this is not the case (World Bank 2000). The study found that "few national regulations were found to be relevant at local level" and therefore to have on impact on the management of local marine resources.
The "bottom-up" approach emphasizes activities at the local community level that engage the local resources owners directly in management, i.e. Community-Based Coastal Resource Management (CB-CRM). However, to be successful it is essential that these activities are truly owned and driven by the community (World Bank 2000, King & Fa'asili 2001). This is especially relevant to coastal fisheries management in the Pacific island context. As Doulman (1993) points out, "the conventional approach to fisheries management usually pits the manager and managed against each other in an adversarial-type relationship". This can be avoided where the fishers are actively involved in the decision making process and are in fact themselves the actual managers of the fishery.
Such community-based activities not only build a stewardship ethic among resource owners but may often also catalyze action within the rest of the system. For instance, the IUCN MPA program in Samoa resulted in the establishment of District Committees to integrate marine resource management across multiple villages. These District Committees have now begun to function as an effective lobby to National Government to secure additional benefits which have relevance at both local and national levels, such as improved roads and new legislation regarding sand mining and other destructive activities in the coastal environment (Sue Miller pers com) and may eventually bring about the banning, under fisheries regulations, of the destructive practice of night scuba fishing which has been banned in the MPAs.
The third dimension is integration between sectors and disciplines and at all levels. The key to marrying these "bottom-up" and "top-down" approaches is to have "vertical" integration from local communities and the associated local (formal and/or informal) governance to the national level governance. To illustrate this, a "surprising" finding of the World Bank study was the "perceived high compliance with national rules adopted locally by traditional leaders" into either formal or informal traditional systems where it was perceived that compliance was much greater than to either purely local or purely national level rules and regulations.
The other form of integration required is "horizontal" integration, i.e. integration between sectors and disciplines. It is unusual for one agency alone to have all the expertise necessary to meet the challenges of complex coastal or aquatic resource management and biodiversity issues given the number of overlying interests and institutional jurisdictions. Success requires collaboration and partnerships between various government institutions, universities, NGOs, and those with the financial and technical assistance.
The three-track strategy combines these approaches by simultaneously and incrementally building awareness, knowledge and capacity both within government (national and local) and at community level sites. Both government and communities then are involved in the systematic analysis of coastal management issues and in planning for implementation of responsible action. This approach creates dialogue that promotes a common vision and shared purpose. Joining the user and the manager provides opportunities for groups to meet face to face and to develop a common respect and understanding. Involving the coastal users and understanding their perception of management actions helps to make the decision-making process more efficient. Engaging local communities gives the community a sense of ownership and provides continuity as on-going activities become is less susceptible to the continuous changes in personnel and political agenda that occur within national governments.
IN THE CONTEXT OF ICM AND ARTICLE 10, WHAT DO WE NEED?
In the ideal scenario, we need a National Coastal and Ocean Management Plan that integrates all relevant institutions, takes a "ridge-top to EEZ" focus and has full political support and commitment. As impossible as this may seem, it has already been achieved to a degree in American Samoa. In August 2003 the American Sãmoan Governor Togiolo T. A. Tulafono signed Executive Order No. 004-2003, formally establishing the Ocean Resource Management Process and Plan. This document provides a structure for managing American Sãmoa's marine resources in a manner that balances ecological, economic, and cultural needs. It is a living document, in that it is designed to evolve and change with time (Hamnett et al 2003).
I think this extract from the Executive Summary to the Plan brings together perfectly many of the issues discussed above:
"While American Sãmoa shares many of the ocean-related management issues facing the contiguous states, it also has concerns unique to tropical island states and territories. The entire territory is within the coastal zone, and each of its watersheds empties directly into the ocean. ... Population growth and the corresponding development in the coastal zone are also critical issues, Tualauta County in American Sãmoa is expected to more than double its 1990 population of 14,724 by the year 2015...American Sãmoa's fisheries, ... In near-shore waters the subsistence level and traditional fishermen are catching fewer and smaller fish, while on the high seas many nations are reliant on a tuna and albacore stock of unknown size......
It is the strength of fa´asãmoa, however, the traditional Sãmoan way, that truly distinguishes the territory. Villages in American Sãmoa, like other island societies in the Pacific, are based on localized social systems in which family leadership [matai] and village councils [fono-a-matai] manage local resources in a communal manner. But contemporary Sãmoa is a society in transition, and many villages now demonstrate a mix of private property and communal perspectives.
Fa´asãmoa creates a planning context that is unique among the nation's states and territories. On the positive side, the islands have a long history of consensus decision making, a strong village leadership that offers potential for community based resource management, and a culture that nominally espouses an environmental ethos. The culture also presents resource managers with distinctive challenges. Some feel that government-run programs conflict with tradition. In particular, many in the territory view land ownership as absolute - i.e., that no person or agency has the right to tell any family how they can and cannot use their land.
A variety of efforts have been undertaken to better manage American Sãmoa's ocean and ocean-related resources, and many comprehensive resource management plans exist. Significant plans and programs currently include the Coral Reef Management Plan, the Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program, the Watershed Protection Plan, the Port Master Plan, the Five Year Fisheries Management Plan, and the Village Based Community Fisheries Plan.
This proposal outlines a means for integrating existing resource management efforts under a five-year Ocean Resource Management Plan for American Sãmoa. Plan development ..... .... found that American Sãmoa already has a comprehensive set of plans that directly and indirectly protect the marine environment, and that there were very few programmatic gaps in these plans. The weak link was plan implementation. Each agency faced a similar set of difficulties caused by limited funding, personnel, and resources. Enforcing existing regulations was another universal concern ... then decided that the ORMP would not present a new list of programs for each agency to follow, but would rather focus on developing a structure for coordinating and integrating existing resource management plans .....then reviewed existing state and international ocean policy regimes to see if there was a model applicable to American Sãmoa. While many good ideas came out of this, the final model for the Ocean Plan came from the territory itself"
This is obviously what all Pacific SIDS need to be striving for, an integrating mechanism appropriate to the prevailing cultural, socio-economic and environmental conditions prevailing in the particular country.
Integrated coastal management must be seen as a long-term approach in Pacific SIDS. Many of you will consider that true integrated institutional approaches are unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, in the interim, we can take realistic and practical measures. What is needed immediately is improved institutional coordination both horizontally (across sectors) and vertically (local-provincial- national). This can be achieved at relatively low cost and with minimal institutional re-structuring provided there is individual and political will.
In this context, key requirements to create an enabling environment in the shorter term for ICM and CB-CRM (including fisheries) in the Pacific Region includes:
Simple and clear national regulations (fishery and other) that are relevant to communities and can be adopted in local ordinances (A 10.1, A 10.2, 10.4 of the Code).
An integration mechanism (e.g. National Planning Committee, Coastal Advisory Committees, Sustainable Development Committee etc) to coordinate across responsible institutions and multiple legislations (A 10.1, A 10.2, 10.4 of the Code).
Conflict resolution and equitable access and allocation arrangements need to be in place where use pressures make spatial separation of users an impossibility (A 10.1, A 10.2).
An enabling a framework/environment that facilitates the adoption and enforcement of local rules (A 10.1, A 10.2, 10.4).
Awareness programs aimed at local and national leaders as well as resource owners and all groups within the community (men, women, school children) (10.2).
Provision of assistance to communities on technical aspects of resource management (10.1, 10.4).
Inter-sectoral collaboration to address land-based threats to coastal habitats (A 10.1, A 10.2, 10.4).
Recognition of MPA as a potential management tool for inshore fisheries (10.2)
Strong commitment to the process by individuals within both community and government and support and commitment from the political system and individual institutions (A 10.1, A 10.2, 10.4).
In the regional context and supporting 10.3 of Article 10, the development and adoption of the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy (PIROP) (CROP MSWG 2002) and its presentation of the at the World Conference on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002 provides a set of guiding principles for countries moving towards development of National Oceans (&Coastal) Management Plans. The vision underlying the principles set out in the Policy speaks of "A healthy Ocean (and Coasts) that sustains the livelihoods and aspirations of the Pacific Island Communities". This should be the vision of all of us who have responsibility for managing the regions valuable marine and coastal resources.
*****
REFERENCES
Campbell J, Townsley P. 1996 Participatory and Integrated Policy. A Framework for Small-Scale Fisheries. Integrated Marine Management UK.
Clark, John R. 1992. Integrated management of coastal zones. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 327. FAO.
Connell M. 2003 Constraints Affecting the Implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Pacific Island States: A Report to the Forum Fisheries Agency and other Pacific Regional Agencies (Internal Report Forum Secretariat).
Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific - Marine Sector Working Group 2002 Pacific Regional Oceans Policy, Forum Secretariat, Suva Fiji.
Dalzell, P., Adams, T.J.H. & Polunin, N.V.C. (1996). Coastal fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 34: 395-531.
Doulman D.J. 1993 Community Based Fishery Management. Towards restoration of traditional practices in the South Pacific. Marine Policy, March 1993 Butterworth-Heinmann Ltd.
Food & Agricultural Organisation 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, FAO Rome
Food & Agricultural Organisation 1996 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries - Integration of fisheries into coastal area management. No. 3. Rome, 17p. FAO Fishery Development Planning Service, Fisheries Department.
Food & Agricultural Organisation 2001 What is the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO Rome
Hamnett M, Anderson C. L., Cain S M 2003, American Sãmoa Ocean Resource Management Plan. The Social Science Research Institute University of Hawai'i at Mãnoa
Huber, M & McGregor, K. 2001 A Synopsis of Information Relating to Marine Protected Areas in the Pacific Islands Region - Review for The Strategic Action Programme for International Waters of the Pacific Islands Region (IWP) SPREP/UNEP.
King M., Fa'asili U 1996 A network of small, community owned marine reserves in Western Samoa. Parks 8 (2)
Secretariat of the Pacific Community 1999 Project proposal - South pacific region comparative assessment of reef Fisheries project. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (marine resources division, coastal fisheries programme) October 1999
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese and F. Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing down the food webs. Science, 279:860-863.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, R. Froese and M.L. Palomares. 2000. Fishing down aquatic food webs. American Scientist, 88:46-51.
South Pacific Regional Environment Program 1995. Report of the Sub-Regional Meetings to Identify Coastal Management Training Needs. Pago-Pago, American Samoa, 18 - 19 July 1994; Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, 25 - 26 July, 1994; Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1 - 2 August, 1994. ii + 53 pp.
United Nations Environment Program 1991 The Law of the Sea and the South Pacific United Nations Environment Program and the International Oceans Institute.
World Bank 1999 Summary Report. Voices from the Village. A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series No: 9A
World Bank 2000 Summary Report. Voices from the Village. A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series No: 9B
|
[99] Coastal Management
Adviser, SPREP. [100] Invasive Species and Bird Conservation Officer, SPREP. [101] Transform Aqorau, (undated version) " Legal and Policy Issues in Fisheries Management in the Pacific Islands Region |
