APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A. AGENDA

Monday, 9 February 2004

morning

• Call to order

• Fiji welcome

• Opening prayer

• Introduction of Chairman

• Self-introduction from each participant

• Meeting administration matters: finances, hotel arrangements, hours of meeting, return flight confirmation, office facilities, cocktail party, barbeque

• Words from FAO

• Words from SPC

• Adoption of agenda

• A few words of self-introduction from each participant

• Presentation by chairman: (1) Overview of sea safety work in the region, and (2) Overview of consultation

• Establishment of the four discussion groups

• Discussion of group recording and reporting

afternoon

• Short presentation of the four discussion papers

  1. Appropriate Sea Safety Regulations for Small Fishing Vessels
  2. Improving Small Boat Sea Safety Awareness Programmes
  3. Construction Standards for Small Fibreglass Fishing Vessels
  4. Enhancing Systems for Sea Accident Data Recording

• Break into the four groups for discussion

Tuesday, 10 February

morning

• Discussions in the four groups

• Mid-morning progress reports of the discussion groups to the full group

afternoon

• Discussions in the four groups

• Full group discussion

Wednesday, 11 February 2004

morning

• Group discussions

• Reports of groups to full group

• General full group discussion

afternoon

• General full group discussion

• Other matters

• Summary of first part of the Consultation

Thursday 12 and Friday 13 February 2004

• How to do the follow up work

• Who does the work

• Funding for the work

• Concluding remarks

APPENDIX B. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Mr Ian Cartwright
Director, Thalassa Consulting
31, Devon Hills Rd., Devon Hills
Tasmania 7300
Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 61(3) 63982661
Fax: 61(3) 63982661

Mr Jeremy Turner
Chief, Fishing Technology Service
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (39) 0657056446
Fax: (39) 0657055188

Mr Tim Adams
Director, Marine Resources Division
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
BP D5, 98848 Noumea
CEDEX, New Caledonia
E-mail address: [email protected]
Telephone: (687) 26 2000
Fax: (687) 26 3818

Mr Michel Blanc
SPC Fisheries Training Adviser
Mail Address
SPC, PO Box D5
98848 Noumea, New Caledonia
E-mail address: [email protected]
Telephone: (687) 262000
Fax: (687) 263818

Mr Mike McCoy
Consultant
Gillett Preston & Associates
73-1091 Ahikawa St.
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
USA 96740
E-mail address: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-808-325-6936
Fax: 1-808-325-0720

Mr Peter Watt
Commercial Fisheries Advisor
PO Box 238, Puerto Princesa
Palawan, Philippines
E-mail address: [email protected]
Telephone: (63)-098-341-1959

Mr Soloseni Penitusi
Fisherman
Funafuti, Tuvalu
Telephone: 688-20910
Fax: 688-836

Mr William Aruhane
Fisheries Lecturer
SICHE
School of Maritime
Fisheries Studies
Box R113, Honiara
Solomon Islands
Telephone: 30686

Mr Miguel Palomares
Head Marine Technology
International Maritime Organization
4 Albert Embankment
London SEI 7SR, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 44 20 7587 3218
Fax: 44 20 7587 3344

Mr Viliame Naupoto
Commander Fiji Navy
PO Box 12387, Suva
Fiji
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (679) 3312 585
Fax: (679) 3314 783

Mr Roseti Imo
Senior Fisheries Officer (Research)
Samoa Fisheries Division
PO Box 2166, Apia
Samoa
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (685) 20369
Fax: (685) 24292

Mr Sam Zinck
Fisherman
Box 12162
Suva, Fiji

Mr Bob Gillett
Director
Gillett, Preston and Associates
Box 3344
Lami, Fiji
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (679) 336 2855
Fax: (679) 336 1035

Mr Malakai Tuiloa
Deputy Director Fisheries
Fisheries Department
MFF
Suva, Fiji
E-mail address: mtuiloa.govnet.fj
Telephone: 3361 497, 3361122
Fax: 3361500

Mr Hugh Walton
Team Leader, NFCSP
PO Box 724, Kavieng
New Ireland
Papua New Guinea
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (675) 9842266
Fax: (675) 984 2343

Mr Niumaia Gucake
Assistant Roko Tui Lau
Fijian Affairs Board
Lau Provincial Office
Box 15163
Suva, Fiji
Telephone: 3316801
Fax: 3316801

Mr William Sokimi
Fisheries Development Officer
Mail Address
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
B.P. D5
Noumea, CEDEX
New Caledonia
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (687) 26.20.00

Mr Kolinio Moce
Environment Consultant
PO Box 2041
Government Buildings
Suva, Fiji
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 3383-189/9913-164
Fax: 338 1818

Mr Domonic Venz
Maritime Accident Investigator
PO Box 5015
Port Nelson, New Zealand
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 021 2294833
Fax: 03 5482434

Mr Dan Su'a
Deputy CEO, MAFFM
PO Box 589
Apia, Samoa
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 685-20369/ 23863

Ms Viti G. Whippy
Manning Agent
PO Box 11021
Laucala Beach Est.
Nasinu, Fiji
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 3316386/ 3311421
Fax: 3316386

Ms Judith Ragg
Fibreglass Boat Manufacturer
PO Box 1365
Suva, Fiji
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (679) 3384 100
Fax: (679) 3370 160

Ms Fatima S Sauafea
NOAA PIRO - Coral Reef Ecologist
PO Box 6651
Pago Pago, AS 96799
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (684) 633-7334
Fax: (684) 633-7355

Mr Masanami Izumi
Fishery Officer
FAO Subregional Office for the Pacific
Islands (SAPA)
Private Mail Bag
Apia, Samoa
Telephone: 685 20710
Fax: 685 22126
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Tatiete Kannangaki
Chief Executive Officer
Abamakoro Trading Ltd
PO Box 492, Betio Tarawa
Kiribati
E-mail [email protected]
Telephone: (686) 26263
Fax: (686) 26415

Mr Maruhisa Ishii
Advisor, Overseas Project Division
Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd.
3380-67, Arai
Hamana Shizuoka
Japan 431-0302
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 81-53-594-8021
Fax: 81-53-594-8004

Mr Manuel P Duenas II
President
Guam Fishermen's Cooperative
PO Box 24023
GMF, Guam 96921
E-mail address: [email protected]
Telephone: (671) 472-6323
Fax: (671) 477-2986

Mr Michael Shawyer
Fishery Consultant (f/v's)
2376 Topsail Road
Topsail.C.B.S, Newfoundland
Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (709) 834 6073
Fax: (709) 834 6647

Mr Tailasa Taka
Small Boat Builder
Telephone: (709) 834 6073
Fax: (709) 834 6647

Mr Peter Heathcote
Regional Maritime Legal Advisor
SPC
Private Mail Bag
Suva, Fiji
E-mail address: [email protected]
Telephone: (679) 337 0952
Fax: (679) 337 0146

Mr Teriihauroa Luciani
SPC Fisheries Training Specialist
PO Box D5
98848 Noumea, New Caledonia
E-mail address: [email protected]
Telephone: (687) 262000
Fax: (687) 263818

Mr David Johnson
GPA Office Assistant
Box 3344
Lami, Fiji Islands
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (w) 336 2855
Fax: 336-1035

APPENDIX C. DISCUSSION PAPERS

DISCUSSION PAPER 1 APPROPRIATE SEA SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR SMALL FISHING VESSELS

Introduction

Small fishing vessels appear to be associated with most of the sea accidents in the Pacific Islands. Despite this situation, in most countries of the region these vessels are usually excluded from the safety requirements of both the shipping legislation and fisheries legislation.

FAO's recent sea safety survey showed that of the five countries covered, in only one country (Samoa) are small fishing vessels covered with appropriate safety regulations. In the other countries, such vessels are either excluded (Kiribati, Tuvalu) or covered by legislation so inappropriate as to be meaningless.

Why are appropriate regulations important?

Appropriate sea safety regulations for small fishing vessels are important for several reasons. These include:

• In countries where there has been a remarkable improvement in sea safety, this can often be attributed to new legislation and associated enforcement. In this region, Samoa serves as a prime example.

• Regulations establish a norm for small boat safety, against which the construction and/or operation of a vessel can be judged. The regulations themselves can be an important awareness tool.

• Although safety awareness certainly has a role, awareness can only go so far to improve safety as some individuals will resist such voluntary measures.

• To some degree, raising safety-awareness is dependent on the concept that safeguarding one's own life at sea is a powerful incentive. This does not apply, however, to the situation where a vessel owner is not the vessel operator, in which case there could be financial incentives against taking safety measures.

Constraints to making progress

The major constraint to making progress in small fishing vessel legislation is the contention that regulations for such vessels cannot be enforced. This is shown in the 1991 McCoy survey report where it is stated: "After visits to the countries and territories and interviewing 169 fishermen and government officials, it was found that most countries do not provide for safety legislation to cover smaller boats or canoes, and officials generally believe that it would be impossible to enforce such regulations if they were introduced".

Another constraint is having vessel safety regulations that are so inappropriate that they encourage non-compliance and deter any interest in improving legislation. As an example, Fiji's Small Craft Code is applicable to all vessels under 10 m (33 ft) trading commercially, but the Code is so extensive (67 pages in length) and the requirements so unreasonable (a 7 m (23 ft) fibreglass fishing boat requires a gangway, liferaft, barometer and six hawsers) that they are universally ignored by the fishing fleets.

Other key constraints to effective small fishing vessel safety legislation include:

• national legal specialists often do not have the technical background or familiarity with small fishing vessels;

• regional assistance in sea safety legislation is oriented toward much larger fishing vessels;

• lack of access to appropriate small fishing vessel safety legislation that could serve as a model.

Associated issues

The types of regulations for a small fishing vessel of 6 m (20 ft) in length would obviously be different from those for a 20 m (66 ft) longliner. Similarly, there are reasonable arguments for excluding small canoes from regulations. An important issue is how to define a small fishing vessel and determine applicability in such a way as to capture the target vessels - those vessels that cause most of the sea safety incidents. Although some countries use length categories (i.e. between 6 m and 15 m (20 ft and 50 ft)) to determine applicability of regulations, some use the type of use (i.e. all vessels under 10 m (33 ft) involved in trade).

There is also the possibility of design criteria - excluding non-motorized vessels (lower limit) and including only non-decked vessels (upper limit).

The difficulties of placing restrictions on a customary activity in the Pacific Islands such as the use of a small boat should not be underestimated. Some of the problems of enacting small vessel safety legislation have come from the concern over the central government placing new restrictions on a traditional activity.

Specific safety requirements for small fishing vessels in the present legislation of Pacific Island countries can be placed in several categories, not all of which are applicable to every country situation:

• vessel construction requirements - for example, certified vessel construction plans;

• crew certification requirements - captain having undergone a safety course;

• safety gear requirements - flares and life jackets be carried;

• operational requirements - limits of operation, radio reporting, maximum and/or minimum crew size.

About half of Pacific Island countries have fisheries legislation that specify the objectives of fisheries management. Internationally there is a movement to specifically articulate safety of fishers as an objective of fisheries management. Although there could be merit in considering this approach, at present no Pacific Island country has this feature in their fisheries legislation.

Lessons learned

Pacific Island experience in small fishing vessel safety legislation suggest that any formulation of mandatory requirements:

• be done with substantial technical input from individuals with thorough knowledge of these vessels and the fisheries in which they participate;

• be formulated with input from relevant stakeholders;

• be sensitive to the practicalities of enforcement in remote locations;

• be conscious that many problems of sea safety cannot be addressed through legislation;

• aim to achieve an appropriate balance between legislation and awareness for improving sea safety;

• be sensitive of the difficulties in political acceptance of new controls on customary small-scale fishing activity;

• be aware of the difficulties concerning applicability of generic regional legislation.

Points to be discussed and possibly resolved

The group is invited to discuss and hopefully come to conclusions (or at least provide considerations) on the following topics.

In situations where enforcement of small vessel safety requirements would be very difficult:

• Is it practical to enact legislation and attempt enforcement?

• Are there good examples of remote location enforcement of new legislation in other sectors? For example, in fisheries, public health, or construction?

• For the improvement of sea safety in remote locations, what are important considerations in attempting to balance between legislation and awareness efforts?

Where there are effective regulations applicable to small fishing vessels, what lessons have been learned?

With respect to applicability:

• Should small fishing vessels be singled out in the legislation from other small vessels, such as those used for transport?

• What are important considerations for establishing upper and lower limits of applicability of new legislation?

As a minimum, what should be the elements of small fishing vessel safety legislation?

• vessel construction requirements

• crew certification requirements

• safety gear requirements

• operational requirements

• have any elements proven to be inappropriate?

Other points to be discussed:

• Are basic/minimal requirements (which stand more chance of being understood and enforced) better that more comprehensive requirements?

• With respect to safety requirements, what should be the appropriate relationship between the fisheries legislation and the transport legislation?

• What are the important technical assistance needs in small fishing vessel legislation?

DISCUSSION PAPER 2. IMPROVING SMALL BOAT SEA SAFETY AWARENESS PROGRAMMES

Introduction

In considering improvements to small boat sea safety in Pacific Islands, the 1991 FAO regional survey (McCoy, 1991)^[3] concluded:

• In planning even modest programmes it must be realized that safety at sea is something which must be taught and continually reinforced. It is recognized that heightened awareness of safety in industrial societies is due to constant reinforcement. In the island countries, it is the almost total lack of exposure to safety awareness on a recurring basis that results in it being ignored. Programmes should thus emphasize the necessity for their continued, long-term existence.

• Education through publicity campaigns, repeated and reinforced over a long period of time and backed up by a good supply of equipment and spare parts, and training seems to offer the best chance for improving safety at sea for artisanal fishers.

In response to the conclusions of the 1991 report, the Fisheries Training Section of the Secretariat for the Pacific Community commenced a regional programme to produce and distribute small boat safety awareness promotional material appropriate to the Pacific region.

The work undertaken by SPC and national governments and administrations in relation to sea safety awareness programmes has been more recently reviewed (Gillett, 2003)^[4] as a part of a follow-up FAO review of small boat safety in the region.

The importance of awareness programmes in improving small boat safety

The 2003 review noted:

• Many of the government fisheries agencies are not especially active in sea safety work. In several countries, the main safety activity of the fisheries agency is distribution of the SPC safety materials.

• The FAO 1991 study stressed the value of safety awareness programmes. This assertion has had a major influence in the type of sea safety programmes during the following decade.

Given this supposed reliance on the SPC promotional material, the assertions of the 1991 study and the summary findings of the 2003 report, consideration of possible improvements to sea safety promotional material and utilization of such is fundamental to the future planning of sea safety initiatives.

Constraints to improving awareness programmes

Measuring Impact

In the absence of detailed record-keeping, the success of promotional activities in improving the incidence of emergencies and accidents at sea is difficult to gauge. The presumption that fishers and small boat operators will act more safely once they are made more aware of safety issues is similarly difficult to test. There is not a simple "this works" formula or a standard means of measuring what does work to ensure better preparedness for emergencies at sea.

The SPC safety materials have been developed and distributed over the last ten years. While the materials have been well received by countries, there is no reliable means to gauge the effectiveness of the promotional material in actually raising safety awareness and contributing to improved safety records.

Accessing rural communities

In general, safety awareness programmes have targeted urban and near-urban communities. The 2003 study reported a disproportionate amount of sea safety related accidents from more isolated rural areas and outer islands and noted that, in general, these areas had been least likely to be targeted in safety related awareness activities.

Owners and operators of small vessels in rural areas are also likely to be involved in nonfisheries related commercial activities such as the informal carriage of passengers and cargo. The implication is that small boat sea safety is not just a fisheries issue.

Continuity

In promoting awareness programmes as the priority option for dealing with Pacific Island sea safety issues, the 1991 report stressed the importance of sustained-awareness promotion. This implies an ongoing programme of promoting safety practices on a regular and reinforced basis. With the exception of Samoa, there is little evidence to suggest that Pacific Island national small boat safety strategies have been anything other than ad hoc - more often in response to the provision of posters, videos, stickers, etc. from SPC.

Associated issues

Sea safety and political will

The 2003 study noted that several major initiatives in sea safety promotion had been primarily instigated in response to significant loss of life scenarios. Sustaining safety awareness programmes may require a "political will" whereby key bureaucrats or politicians provide a catalyst for prioritizing safety issues in the public arena.

Regulatory environment

The argument against imposing forms of regulatory control on small vessels has primarily been that national level capacity to enforce small vessel operational rules and regulations is not in place. Coordinating the introduction of appropriate regulations with a sustained awareness programme (promoting both the regulations and their implications) could possibly diminish the enforcement requirements.

Safe vessel designs

Effective safety awareness cannot be undertaken without reference to vessel types and related safety standards. Widespread use of vessels of inappropriate design for open ocean passages is a major safety issue. Promoting awareness of safety related vessel design factors is an important potential consideration.

Sea safety and fisheries management

The 2003 study shows limited consideration by fisheries authorities of sea safety as a fisheries management goal. Promoting awareness of safety of life at sea as a fisheries management goal may provide a more fertile environment within fisheries administrations for the promotion of safety related issues.

Balancing awareness with formal training

With the SPC resource material, the majority of the awareness activity undertaken in the Pacific region has been informal. Several national institutions offer more formal training programmes targeting small vessel operators and offering standard (or regulation) safety training programmes. There is a need to consider an appropriate and achievable balance between informal awareness and formal training as mechanisms to promote improved safety awareness.

Lessons learned - what has worked well

With the diversity of Pacific physical, social and cultural contexts, it is not surprising that, in the case of the SPC sea safety promotional material, there is no single standout promotional activity. What might be judged as a successful activity in one country may have minimal impact on another.

Despite the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of promotional material, the 2003 study noted observations and comments as follows:

In general, the survey findings in the five countries suggest that the following are generally successful:

• appropriate small-vessel legislation backed up by "big stick" enforcement for urbanbased commercial vessels;

• radio programmes and extension visits for remote locations;

• video for those communities with access to video facilities;

• "no survey, no license" for areas/fleet strictly controlled by licensing;

• institutional safety courses for the semi-industrial fleet.

It is also apparent from the 2003 study that promotional materials (such as posters, checklists, T-shirts, etc.) are more likely to be effective if they are made available in local language and not just in English and French.

A number of national fisheries training institutions (New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, PNG) report successful initiatives in off-campus village and community-level delivery of sea safety workshops and short courses.

Main points for discussion and resolution

The principle theme for discussion and resolution is "where do we go from here", both in terms of regional initiatives and national strategies. Concurrent with this theme is a suggested strategy to build on known successes. General discussion themes include:

How can the SPC material be better utilized in safety awareness promotion?

Items for discussion may include:

• mechanisms for distribution of promotional material to more isolated communities (i.e. extension activities, use of NGOs, schools, other government agencies);

• prioritizing the use of proven promotional mechanisms (i.e. radio as a medium to reach more isolated communities);

• the advantage of having material produced in local language;

• including safety awareness as a committed fisheries extension activity and undertaking planned village-level workshops and short courses;

• small boat safety "train the trainer" initiatives;

• resource requirements for awareness activities - human, material, financial;

• possible mechanisms to better measure the effectiveness of safety awareness activities.

Linking awareness programmes to regulatory initiatives

In situations where small boat safety regulations are under development or proposed for introduction:

• Is it possible to plan promotional activities and awareness training in support of regulatory initiatives?

• Is there an achievable balance between informal awareness promotion and more formal institutional safety training?

• What capacity is in place to undertake more formal institutional safety training?

• What awareness mechanisms can be put in place to ensure regulatory controls are achievable?

• What is the role of Fisheries Departments? Is there a role for fisheries associations?

Linking awareness programmes to targeting improved political and social will

The Pacific socio-economic context suggests that a political imperative can be a significant benefit in galvanizing attention to particular activities. The main questions which might be considered in this context are:

• Are there specific activities (outside of publicizing or politicizing small vessel disasters) that can be undertaken to promote vessel safety issues at a community leader or political level?

• Are there specific activities that can be undertaken to promote safety awareness within government departments and agencies?

Safety awareness strategies

The 2003 study revealed that the majority of sea safety awareness activity in the region has historically been undertaken on an ad hoc basis.

• If sea safety issues are agreed as nationally important, is there benefit in considering the development of national strategies that outline a sustained series of awareness and safety-related promotional activities?

• What is the possible role of SPC in complementing and encouraging the development and implementation of national strategies?

• What are the likely costs of implementing such strategies and what funding options might be available?

• Is the development of safety awareness strategies a useful goal for the consultation meeting?

DISCUSSION PAPER 3. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SMALL FIBREGLASS FISHING VESSELS

Introduction

In many fishery jurisdictions around the world the question of small boat construction standards, particularly for fibreglass, has effectively been ignored until fairly recently.

However, some countries have had small fishing vessel construction standards for both wood and fibreglass fishing vessels for upwards of 30 years. It should therefore be possible to extract from these existing and proven standards sufficient data to design appropriate construction standards for fibreglass fishing boats in the Pacific Islands region.

A similar programme was recently carried out by FAO in the Caribbean region for seven island nations with the purpose of providing a set of harmonized construction standards for both wood and fibreglass fishing vessels (F/Vs) that could be used by all participating nations.

Previously only one of the seven nations had an existing set of construction standards, and these were for wooden F/Vs. Other than that, boat builders were left to build boats or canoes in the traditional manner and any inspection was at the total discretion of Fishery Officers, most of whom had no experience or knowledge of vessel construction standards. The problems arising from this approach became serious in the last few years with elevated small vessel losses, the principal cause being economic pressures brought on by depletion of inshore fish stocks forcing smaller boats to venture farther offshore to try and keep the same level of income. Many of these vessels are inappropriate for operation outside near shore areas, either through light construction, low freeboard, not designed for use with outboard (O/B) motors, no safety equipment and, in many cases, insufficient floatation to keep the vessel afloat if swamped.

The purpose of this paper is to promote discussion on how best to address the problem of construction standards, principally for open fibreglass F/V for the Pacific Islands region. It is not intended to define or provide any specific set of standards at this time but rather to give a starting point for development of appropriate standards for the region acceptable to all parties involved.

Why standards are important

When fishing boats are being built and/or purchased from a variety of sources (i.e. local production or imports), the issue of quality and cost is of primary interest to the purchaser and unfortunately not always in that order. It is in human nature that everyone wants the most for the least expenditure. Unfortunately, in the case of fibreglass F/Vs this can lead to possibly disastrous consequences of structural failure.

One of the principal problems encountered in some countries where fibreglass is a fairly recent introduction is that both fishermen and local boat builders sometimes have only a rudimentary knowledge of what constitutes an appropriate laminate schedule for F/Vs of various sizes. One fibreglass boat on the beach looks just the same as the next to the untrained eye, except that one costs much less! Without some knowledge of where the difference in cost is found, the unsuspecting buyer often purchases the cheaper boat.

Fibreglass construction is also famed for the ease with which copies or "flop mouldings" can be made of a favourite design, usually at a significantly lower cost than the original. Besides being a possible infringement of design copyright, the results can be downright dangerous, for example:

Copies of some popular and well-built Mexican skiffs were found in Central America that only had two skins of laminate in the hull and virtually no other reinforcements. These vessels had been purchased as part of an aid programme for replacement vessels after a tidal wave incident. The boats had been hastily ordered and purchased without a written specification or reference to a required standard. As a consequence, a large number of skiffs were either condemned, broke up in use, or in some cases were retrofitted with extra laminates and reinforced at the owner's cost.

Flop moulded skiffs with similar problems have also been found in South East Asia, the Caribbean, and South American countries where fibreglass construction of F/Vs is commonplace but with little regulation by authorities.

In summary, some points regarding the importance of standards for F/V construction is as follows:

1. Safety.

2. Value for money, customer is assured of value for money and makes it possible for the customer to compare "apples to apples" when purchasing a boat.

3. Enables boat builders to compete on "level playing field" with others in region. If all are building to the same specification, only material costs, labour costs, efficiency and profit margin should be the only differences.

4. As the standards will also apply to all F/V imports, whether new or used, loopholes are closed for any poor quality imported boats (certificates of compliance required).

5. The work of inspectors/surveyors is easier, either the boat complies or it doesn't with respect to construction standards.

6. In conjunction with an appropriate educational programme, advantages to the consumer of using such standards can be promoted (see also numbers 2 and 3).

7. If the standards are fairly comprehensive, the regular inspections required will pick up deficiencies during the construction phase and not after delivery when redress is sometimes difficult, especially if delivery is to a remote area.

8. The credibility associated with construction standards can provide a good selling point for the boatbuilder wishing to export his boats.

Constraints to regulation and construction standards

Enforcement of construction regulations has typically been difficult in the beginning phases, though not as difficult if the industry is still relatively new. About 20 years ago one Eastern Canadian Province introduced construction regulations to address serious structural failure problems with open fibreglass skiffs between 5 m and 8 m (16 ft and 25 ft) LOA that were rapidly replacing traditional wooden skiffs. Builders were not well versed in fibreglass construction techniques and were causing many problems. Over vigorous protests from builders that costs of compliance would be too high and drive buyers away, the government department responsible for F/V regulation imposed new fibreglass construction standards unilaterally. These new standards were based on existing rules (Lloyds) that were adapted for local conditions. In this case much heavier construction was mandated.

It is interesting that some years later the government department responsible for imposing those regulations was disbanded. This left the skiff builders to make their own decisions on construction standards. All builders without exception have voluntarily retained and are still using the original construction specifications as written. This we can assume to be an educated decision by both builders and the customer accepting that quality safety construction standards are beneficial to all.

As mentioned in FAO Fisheries Circular No. 993 FIIT/C993(En)^[5], inappropriate and overly complex standards will in all likelihood not be followed unless strictly enforced by a dedicated team of inspectors. This can be a costly and antagonistic approach. An alternative approach used in the Caribbean involved all stakeholders in designing a standard easily-used suite of construction standards suitable for the region and agreed to by all. This was a large and fairly complex programme running over a three-year period, including nine months of field work.

Elevated costs perceived to be associated with standards should be considered. Many fishermen will undoubtedly express concerns regarding cost of vessels built to construction standards. Educational programmes will be necessary to promote the benefits of such standards, particularly regarding safety issues. It is hard to convert the mindset of fishermen to consider safety until after an accident; this is a common trait worldwide.

Prior education/information seminars on the significance of safety construction standards for all stakeholders such as: boatbuilders, fishermen, financial organizations, banks, training institutes, insurance companies, fishery department personnel, coastguard/navy, search and rescue, and maritime legal specialists may all be involved depending on the jurisdiction. Getting consensus by all parties can be difficult.

Associated issues

Introduction of safety construction standards may necessitate changes to existing laws or, alternatively, the less complex process of issuing regulations.

Inspection requirements for imports may or may not be required, depending on whether the imported vessels were built and certified to an Internationally recognized standards organization (i.e. Lloyds, SFI Auth, ABS, NKK, etc.). Whilst many of these organizations tend to concentrate on larger decked vessels, they can also be used as a guide for smaller open vessels of the type being considered here.

Environmental and health concerns regarding fibreglass construction are coming to the forefront in many jurisdictions, especially in medium to large operations. As most materials being used in fibreglass construction are recognized as toxic in various forms, these issues will have to be addressed at some point in the future.

Lessons learned from other jurisdictions

Poorly written tender specifications with no reference to any particular construction standards for small F/Vs have caused safety problems and considerable added costs for fishermen after vessel delivery. For example, in Central America a very large number of fibreglass skiffs of up to 8 m (25 ft) LOA were purchased with basically no more information to the builder than length, beam and depth. Some unscrupulous builders naturally took advantage of this and supplied inferior non-seaworthy boats.

Safety features such as floatation chamber dimensions are poorly understood by many boatbuilders. Recorded incidents in the Caribbean, Gulf of Aden, Africa and the Pacific involving swamping of skiffs are common. In many instances the boat with an O/B motor will float vertically only leaving the bow to hold on to.

In Sri Lanka, fibreglass boatbuilding has a long history. The first fibreglass fishing boats were built in the early 1960s mostly from adaptations of wooden craft that had been successful. These vessels were very heavily built in that, besides the fibreglass shell, they also included glassed-in hardwood frames and longitudinal members in the same numbers and dimensions as the wooden boats from which they were derived. This type of construction using wood is now considered superfluous or over-built.

Unless there is some effective way of enforcing construction standards when initially introduced, the chances of builders adopting them voluntarily are slim, only after some years of using the standards does it tend to become normal practice.

Points for discussion

In this section a series of questions are asked that should make it possible to define a course of action that can result in a set of Construction Standards for Fibreglass Fishing Vessels commonly in use around the Pacific Islands region.

In the first place, is it necessary to have a uniform construction standard or specification for fibreglass skiffs and boats, or is the status quo completely adequate? The answers to this will determine the direction any future proposals may take in developing construction standards.

Training of inspectors may be required. Where and how can this training best be acquired?

There are several existing sets of internationally recognized construction standards for fibreglass boats of the type and size used in the region. Should the region adopt one of these or modify a selected model for regional conditions? The adaptation approach has been used in the Caribbean and appears to have a good chance of success. Why reinvent the wheel?

What boat size limits need to be applied to safety construction standards for fibreglass F/Vs, if any? In particular, the lower limit is important - many jurisdictions do not specify standards for vessels of under 4 m (13 ft) LOA, only load capacities.

Do factors within the region such as shortage of trained personnel, high raw material costs, high labour costs, lack of financing or inability of fishermen to pay prices demanded, make it difficult to produce well-built safe boats competitively? Do these foregoing factors virtually preclude competitive and safe local construction of fibreglass fishing boats and skiffs?

When instituting or considering introduction of construction standards, what are the perceived advantages/disadvantages of (a) construction standards mandated by law or (b) self-regulated by the industry and voluntarily applied?

Are there sufficient trained or willing personnel able to work in the fibreglass boatbuilding industry? If not, is there a suitable training institute(s) that could take this on or provide training services "in house" to the industry?

Should horsepower limits be instituted for O/B motors on fibreglass skiffs used for fishing? Overpowering and high speeds can cause hull and structural failures in many F/Vs, even when properly built to high standards. This approach is being tried in some jurisdictions but with mixed results.

The issues regional construction standards are likely to arise:

• Are regional construction standards desirable and/or practical?

• Is there the will in Pacific Island countries to address the issues of construction standards and all this would imply?

• Would it be possible to devise fibreglass construction standards suitable for the majority of nations and their obviously diverse fleets of fishing vessels?

• What would be the best way in which to obtain input from all stakeholders from around the region to obtain meaningful inputs and consensus from stakeholders for any proposed construction standards?

• How detailed should any regional construction standards be?

Other issues:

• How will construction standards be enforced and by whom?

• How should the importation of used F/Vs be handled with regard to compliance with any proposed construction standards and should all imports have to comply with new standards or get exemptions? Should age limits be imposed on used imported F/Vs? This will help in weeding out old worn out, unseaworthy and unsafe F/V's being sold off at "bargain prices".

• Should any initial construction standards include materials other than fibreglass?

• Should modifications to existing vessels be permitted, such as increasing length and volume or adding more HP? In some well-documented cases this has resulted in structural failure and loss of vessel.

DISCUSSION PAPER 4. ENHANCING SYSTEMS FOR SEA ACCIDENT DATA RECORDING

Introduction

Effective administration of sea safety programmes for small fishing vessels depends on adequate data resources. Without reliable and statistically valid data, sea safety deficiencies are more difficult to identify. Accurate historical and current data on vessels, fishermen, professional qualifications, fishing methods, environmental conditions and safety performance of personnel and equipment are fundamental to both identifying sea safety problems and monitoring the results of sea safety programmes.

The recording of data on sea accidents involving fishing vessels was recently investigated in a survey conducted by FAO in five Pacific Island countries. The survey concluded "the readily available data on sea accidents falls short in its potential in promoting sea safety". The data that is available is often not being used for systematic performance evaluation of sea safety programmes. As a result, most countries have difficulty in quantifying sea safety problems, determining casual relations, assessing sea safety improvement strategies and developing effective sea safety awareness programmes.

Why is this topic important?

The compilation and analysis of sea accident data can be a valuable tool for creating a greater awareness and political will within government administrations to address sea safety issues.

Furthermore, without reliable data, sea safety shortcomings cannot be identified with clarity and sea safety strategies cannot be implemented effectively.

Reliable data can assist countries in identifying:

• the dollar/human costs associated with sea accidents and whether resources committed to sea safety are being used effectively and efficiently;

• whether sea safety problems vary due to season, area, vessel configuration or fishing gear type; and

• the importance of any particular cause or type of sea accident.

This information is vital for the formulation of effective legislation and development of sea safety enforcement strategies.

The costs associated with sea accidents and implementing strategies to improve sea safety are significant. Search and rescue operations, enforcement activities and sea safety awareness programmes require substantial resources. The cost of implementing and maintaining a sea accident data programme is relatively low compared to the benefits that can be derived from it. These include identifying sea safety problems, assessing sea safety strategies and measuring the effectiveness of sea safety awareness programmes.

Constraints

The major constraints to the implementation and maintenance of effective sea accident data programmes for small fishing vessels include:

• Lack of awareness on the part of government officials of how useful accident data can be in improving safety. Most government officials do not realize that it is not difficult to start a sea accident programme. This lack of awareness results in minimal support in the allocation of resources for implementing and maintaining sea accident programmes.

• The agencies responsible for sea accident data collection are not clearly defined in most Pacific Island countries. Often there is a lack of coordination amongst agencies that are directly involved with information on sea accidents. This often results in crucial data not being collected and analysed and in conflicting data.

• Because the majority of sea accidents occur from vessels in isolated rural ports and outer islands, it is sometimes difficult to collect reliable data on a timely basis.

• A lack of even the modest human and financial resources required for collecting, recording, analyzing, and distributing data.

• In some countries where good accident data is collected, it is not consolidated and analysed at regular interval, but rather "filed away" and not used.

Associated Issues

Regulations and Enforcement

The compilation and analysis of data recorded from sea accidents can help identify some specific sea safety deficiencies. The agencies responsible for sea safety should be made aware that this information is very useful in developing appropriate regulations to address sea safety problems. Also, where regulations have been established for specific sea safety problems, the accident data can be used to assess whether those regulations and associated enforcement strategies are effective or not.

Sea accidents are often the result of basic sea safety procedures not being followed. Small fishing vessels, in particular, often do not carry sea safety equipment that could assist in avoiding accidents. Also, the crew is often not properly trained to follow basic sea safety procedures when accidents occur.

Fisheries Management

If "fisheries management" is defined to be action in support of established fisheries objectives, then saving lives at sea could be considered as a possible objective of fisheries management. Sea accident data that includes the vessel type, fishing season, fishing activity and gear type can be instrumental in developing a safety objective suitable for incorporation into management strategies.

Data Collection

Collecting data concerning sea accidents in remote rural areas and outer islands can be quite difficult. As the agencies responsible for sea safety are often located in urban centers, often sea accidents are reported long after the event or not reported at all. To implement a comprehensive data collection programme, government agencies may need to involve communities.

Lessons learned

The lessons learned in the collection, recording, analysis, and utilization of sea accident data for small fishing vessels include:

• An exchange and sharing of data with relevant stakeholders (i.e. marine surveillance, Police Department, insurance companies, fishing industry, communities, etc.) are often required to facilitate the improvement of sea safety. The establishment of an advisory group to address sea safety issues can provide a forum for sharing sea accident data. In Samoa, a Commercial Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (CF-MAC) comprised of members from the fishing industry and relevant government agencies made a significant contribution to the development of legislation and strategies to improve sea safety.

• A single government agency should be identified as the lead agency for implementing and maintaining sea accident data programmes. This could help eliminate some of the difficulty in coordinating the efforts of a number of agencies in collecting, recording and analyzing sea accident data.

• To maintain the database it must be monitored and corrected on a regular basis to ensure the validity of the data (i.e. correcting the list of people lost at sea who turn up months later). The individuals responsible for collecting, recording, analyzing and distributing sea accident data should be made aware of the importance of their work.

• Stakeholders should be made aware of the benefits from the analysis of the sea accident data. Their support is critical to the success of sea safety initiatives.

Points to be discussed and possibly resolved

The group is invited to discuss and hopefully come to conclusions on the following topics:

Lack of awareness in government administrations

• How can government organizations be made more aware of the importance of implementing sea accident data programmes?

• Would the development of a presentation detailing the requirements and benefits of sea accident data programmes for government administrators be useful? What promotional materials would be required?

• Should other stakeholders be included in awareness-raising initiatives to support sea accident data programmes?

Problems/Issues to consider with data collection

• Readily available data on sea accidents involving vessels including passenger, cargo and pleasure craft is limited in most Pacific Island countries. Is there merit in singling out fishing vessels when designing and implementing sea accident data programmes?

• What are the initial steps a country should take in starting a sea accident data programme?

• What types of data should be incorporated in a sea accident data programme?

• What types of analysis can be made with the data?

• What sea safety strategies can be developed from the data?

• What are the difficulties in establishing and maintaining a sea accident data programme?

• Is there merit in designing a generic sea accident data programme that could be used as a model for Pacific Island countries to follow?

Problems/issues to consider with data management

• What are the difficulties in creating the political will to act on sea accident problems identified through data analysis?

• What government agency should be responsible for promoting, implementing and maintaining a sea accident data programme? Should Fisheries Departments take a major lead in promoting sea accident data programmes?

• What are the costs involved in implementing and maintaining a sea accident data programme?

• What type of training is required for the individuals responsible for sea accident data programmes?

APPENDIX D. IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS FROM EACH DISCUSSION GROUP

· Conclusions on Appropriate Sea Safety Regulations for Small Fishing Vessels

· Conclusions on Improving Small Boat Sea Safety Awareness Programmes

· Conclusions on Construction Standards for Small Fibreglass Fishing Vessels

· Conclusions on Enhancing Systems for Sea Accident Data Recording

Appropriate Sea Safety Regulations for Small Fishing Vessels

The conclusions of discussion groups on appropriate regulations (as modified by a plenary session) are:

1) Political will is essential to:

• start the legislative/regulatory process;

• enact the legislation; and

• promote enforcement and compliance.

The generation of political will through awareness (e.g. publicizing the cost of search and rescue, lives lost) is therefore quite important.

2) There could be considerable benefits from using existing appropriate traditional/community institutions (e.g. island and provincial councils) for: (a) increasing acceptance of, and compliance with, sea safety regulations in the outer island situation; and (b) the adoption of recommended safety procedures in remote communities. Substantial time, effort and resources will be needed to create the conditions (e.g. local by-laws) leading to enforcement and compliance. The issue of placing traditional controls on non-traditional activity should be given due consideration.

3) Recognizing that in most cases the government agency responsible for transport/marine affairs is the entity responsible for sea safety legislation. Accordingly:

• Full consultation with the fisheries sector especially the end users (fishermen) is essential to develop effective fishing vessel sea safety legislation. This may entail development of mechanisms for consultation where none exist.

• For the legislation to function properly, this consultation must be appropriately reflected in the resulting legislation.

4) Priority should be given to efforts that encourage compliance with small fishing vessel sea safety requirements, rather than focusing on enforcement and penalties.

5) Legislation should be simple, easy to interpret, and drafted in plain words, with the recognition that there must be an appropriate balance between using understandable language and being legally rigorous.

6) Even where legislation is difficult to enforce, there is value in having appropriate and publicized legislation to act as:

• a target to aim for - applicable to both individuals and governments;

• a basis for local rules;

• a useful standard which can be a requirement for a fishing licence, loan approval, etc.

7) It may not be desirable (or practical) to legislate for unrealistically high safety standards/requirements, particularly in the short term. Alternatives could be:

• to specify an ideal standard (e.g. one type-approved lifejacket per person) and include an "exceptional circumstances" caveat (e.g. a competent authority-approved alternative such as a longline fishing float);

• to allow the "equivalency" concept in which an alternative is acceptable, such as not requiring an EPIRB if two vessels remain together during a fishing trip.

8) Fishing vessel sea safety legislation should not be developed in isolation from the legislation covering other activities of small vessels (e.g. diving, resort fishing, charters). In the legislation, references should be made to appropriate complementary legislation (e.g. crew certification, vessel construction standards). Legislation should be readily accessible and come as a package, including appropriate extracts of related legislation.

9) The lower limit and classes of vessels to be regulated will be influenced by:

• social sensitivity,

• the need capture high-risk vessels,

• the size of administrative burden,

• risk,

• the area of operation,

• in certain circumstances, horsepower.

Simple, easy-to-use measures should be used for categorizing vessel size (e.g. length is easier to apply than tonnage).

10) Sea safety legislation will usually contain various legal requirements for equipment, personnel and operating procedures. Some aspects of sea safety legislation will need to be introduced immediately, and others phased in over time.

11) While cost-benefit issues do exist and there are other competing priorities, there would be value in registering small fishing vessels. These include:

• easy identification of vessels involved in sea safety incidents;

• enforcement of sea safety requirements (e.g. ability to check sea safety compliance at point of new or used sale);

• estimation of fishing capacity (fisheries management implications).

12) Because outboard engine breakdown is likely to be responsible for a large portion of sea accidents, at least one person in an outboard powered boat should have some form of formal certification in outboard engine repair.

Conclusions on Improving Small Boat Sea Safety Awareness Programmes

1) Improved small boat safety will best be undertaken through the development and implementation of coordinated national strategies.

2) The development of such national strategies will require the establishment of a consultative stakeholder framework.

3) Safety awareness programmes should comprise a combination of awareness initiatives and formal and informal training. These should be directed not just at fishers but also at communities and governments.

4) Successful sea safety awareness programmes require the identification of committed and motivated people ("movers and shakers") within an organizational framework.

5) Safety awareness is a community extension task and not just a fisheries extension task.

6) Community extension activities should be a key component in raising awareness on sea safety.

7) There is a need to monitor the impact of safety awareness programmes through community consultation and data collection.

8) Improved safety awareness requires the development of additional awareness resources, which should include the following features:

• focus on causes and on appropriate technology;

• safety as a fisheries management objective;

• importance of data collection;

• promotion of regulations and standards;

• promotion of safety as a community and political issue.

9) Where applicable, safety awareness resource material should be made available in local language.

10) An SPC Special Interest Group and associated information bulletin on small boat safety should be established as a mechanism to assist in safety promotion.

Conclusions on Construction Standards for Small Fibreglass Fishing Vessels

1) The requirement for a regulation should be determined without regard to the difficulties associated with its enforcement. However, a process of consultation with all stakeholders should take place with a view to ensuring willing compliance.

2) A mandatory standard for the construction of small FRP fishing vessels is required to improve safety in the region. There are advantages of having a standard uniform across the region. The standard should address:

• plan approval,

• construction,

• built-in buoyancy,

• maximum loading (and a hull mark denoting the max loading),

• engine size limit,

• colour of hull and open areas inside the vessel,

• handholds (both in upright and in capsized position),

• storage of FRP materials and resins,

• boatbuilding premises and environment,

• building certificate and metal plate fixed to boat (builder, maximum horsepower and loading).

3) The standard should be based on an existing standard (e.g. Lloyds or White Fish Authority) and finalized through a facilitated process of national and regional consultations which include boatbuilders, marine and fisheries administrations, fishermen's representatives. The standard should be easy to understand, be illustrated and translated into local languages as appropriate.

4) All small FRP fishing vessels which are imported into the Pacific Islands region should be built to a standard (or comply with a standard) which is no less stringent than the Pacific Islands construction standards. Investigation might be required to determine whether this requirement would not be in contravention of international trade agreements.

5) There should exist a mandatory requirement concerning the carrying of safety equipment at sea. The equipment should reflect the level of exposure to risk, the availability of safety equipment and the purchasing power of the boat owner.

6) The difficulties of some fishermen to comply with mandatory requirements on safety equipment must be taken into account. The competent authority could in exceptional circumstances permit alternative safety equipment, provided it is approved by the Authority.

7) Countries should be encouraged to register all fishing vessels and carry out associated safety inspections.

8) All fishermen should have the opportunity to attend periodical training in basic sea safety, following which they would receive a certificate mentioning the scope of the training. The competent authorities should consider the feasibility of making such training a mandatory requirement. It might be feasible to have a mandatory requirement that at least one person on the boat is in possession of a valid certificate of attendance.

9) To ensure the ongoing feasibility of all of the above, an assessment of the human and financial resources required by the competent authority should be made in each of the Pacific Island states. It should also consider the required levels of skills and expertise, the extent of current and ongoing training needs and the existence of regional and national training institutions to provide this training. This latter point might also be considered in respect of training of boatbuilders and fishermen.

10) There is a need for more data on small fishing vessel problems in order to determine what items should be regulated.

Conclusions on Enhancing Systems for Sea Accident Data Recording and Analysis

1) A multisectoral approach that includes all stakeholders must be used to obtain political will to move forward. One agency should not move ahead alone.

2) The coordinating agency in data collection should be the entity responsible for search and rescue.

3) A single agency should be identified to facilitate sea accident data programmes and assess existing programmes to identify gaps, deficiencies, or successes.

4) A data collection and analysis programme should be designed in such a way that:

• it is applicable to all main types of seaborne activities;

• it has the ability to extract statistical information to enhance the utilization of resources;

• it contributes to the strengthening of sea safety strategies.

5) A separate data collection programme for sea safety information may not be required.

Collection of data important for sea safety (e.g. vessel numbers), including that from isolated communities, can be included in normal governmental statistical collection programmes and/or through existing reporting pathways.

6) Because a history is needed to make the database a useful tool, a strong commitment by all parties is required to allow its growth.

7) A generic database programme should be formulated that can be applied throughout the region, and training provided to enable compilation of statistics and useful analysis of sea safety concerns/issues.

8) Sea accident data should be compiled on a regular, rather than ad hoc basis, and analysed at least annually for a report to be distributed to relevant stakeholders as well as regionally.

9) Sea accident data should be used in developing, implementing, and improving fisheries management and maritime-related initiatives.

APPENDIX E. NOTES ON IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a non-exhaustive list of important factors for national governments to consider when implementing the recommendations of the consultation.

1) Provision of support to a consultative national stakeholder framework (e.g. national sea safety coordinating group) and motivated people or "drivers"

How to do it?

• Identify a lead agency, but encourage a wide range of stakeholders to actively participate in and drive the process. If results come, interest will be maintained if such a committee is ineffective the reverse will happen.

• Strive for recognition of the national coordinating body as a committee of substance (e.g. by getting Cabinet sanction and/or a high level mandate).

• Be aware of differing interests that could arise from setting up a large sea safety committee (e.g. large and small operators (longliners vs. skiffs)). It is important that safety issues for larger vessels do not over-shadow small fishing vessel safety.

Who should do it?

• Explore use of existing committees (e.g. give the Marine Board or equivalent the role of a coordinating committee in sea safety).

• A wide range of groups should be encouraged to act as drivers (e.g. fisheries agencies, marine authorities, the private sector).

What resources are needed?

• Ongoing resources for national sea safety programmes must be capable of being met from the recurrent budgets of government, the private sector, or other likely local contributors.

• Some costs will be associated with coordinating committees and structures. There is a need to be cautious about approaches to regional and other outside agencies as those contributions are not likely to be continuous. Furthermore, they may distort the process - there is some concern that an individual's participation could be driven by the benefits from outside intervention, rather than a desire to improve sea safety (e.g. expectations of attendance money at committee meetings).

2) The generation of commitment and political will at a national level to address small vessel sea safety

How to do it?

• Use high profile, quality data focusing on loss of lives and wasted money (e.g. patrol boat time) to influence the opinions of high-level national politicians.

• Target key national politicians with an interest in sea safety and who would see benefits, especially to their electorate, in supporting the development and implementation of an effective sea safety strategy.

• Draw attention to all small vessel accidents, including those in other sectors.

• Emphasize the social effects of sea safety accidents (e.g. family of casualty left without breadwinner).

• Make full use of multimedia (press, television, etc.) to get message across. Educate national media to the real issues affecting sea safety and follow up the facts behind safety incidents. This may reduce the promotion of some survivors as "heros" rather than those who may have benefited from greater attention to sea safety.

• Build on and learn from other success stories in national awareness raising (e.g. AIDS programmes).

• Focus on simple and highly effective awareness-raising initiatives (e.g. "safety saves lives and money") - easy messages to sell to politicians and the public.

• Use HoF and CRGA to publicize, raise profile, seek funds, and stimulate less willing countries in safety issues, noting that in many countries the fisheries agency may not the be the lead agency on sea safety issues.

Who should do it?

• National drivers are required and these will vary by country. Efforts will also be needed by a range of pressure groups (e.g. Chair of safety committee; regional agencies, women's groups).

What resources are needed?

• No resources are likely to be available or required for directed political activities.

3) Increasing the effectiveness of ongoing sea safety awareness programmes, with special emphasis on (a) the development of channels for the efficient distribution of appropriate and updated materials, and (b) evaluation of past and present impact

How to do it?

• Efforts should be focused on identifying bottlenecks and establishing effective channels to get material out from government agencies and into the hands of end users (fishers, communities, etc.).

• A range of other agencies circulating and working in communities should be used to distribute and sell sea safety messages. The possibility of "piggybacking" on the distribution network of other agencies should be considered. Provision of materials to teachers could be especially effective.

• Consideration should be given to mounting national sea safety campaigns, including ads in newspapers and radio, possibly including professional advice on best way to use resources and achieve results.

• Translation of more regionally-available sea safety awareness material into local languages should be considered.

• Packages of sea safety materials should be prepared for distribution to the purchasers of new vessels or as a part of a licensing process.

Who should do it?

• Sea safety awareness is a national responsibility.

• SPC will continue to produce awareness material which should be complementary to in-country efforts under national sea safety awareness strategies.

• There is a danger that regional programmes have led fisheries and other agencies to believe that SPC "does fishing vessel sea safety" and that this is the only effort required.

What resources are needed?

• The current SPC budget for awareness materials is US$15 000. It should be noted that these financial resources are constraining sea safety awareness activities at SPC.

• More resources should be channeled into the production of materials in local languages.

• The evaluation of the impact of the awareness materials is especially important considering the limited resource available for material production.

• Consideration should be given to using the media units of educational institutions to develop awareness materials.

• Other institutions may be willing to provide additional materials.

4) The development, enactment and implementation of appropriate and sensitive legislation for small fishing vessels, including the carriage of safety equipment, training/certification requirements, and construction standards

How to do it?

• A prerequisite is that the country wants and supports the use of legislation to increase fishing vessel safety, and that high-level political commitment exists. Good briefings will assist in creating these conditions.

• When external legal expertise is used to draft legislation, a partnership approach (counter-parting) should be used to increase ownership.

• An effective consultative process is essential. This will increase the chance of draft legislation being enacted and implemented.

• As the legislation conditions vary widely between countries, it is often best to provide model legislation which has considerable flexibility for modification to suit varying national conditions.

• Safety legislation should be developed in conjunction with, and be complementary to, other related legislation.

• It is necessary to follow up and support post-drafting activities to encourage the enactment and implementation of legislation.

• It is important to learn from past experience with small fishing vessel safety legislation, including successes (Samoa, Niue) as well as non-successes.

• Make use of appropriate existing model legislation, such as the Pacific Islands Maritime Legislation and Regulations (PIMLAR) prepared by SPC, which includes small fishing vessel safety.

• In some countries, the use of provincial/state law mechanisms may be more appropriate than that of the national government.

• The primary legislation should provide policy guidelines, with details in regulations.

Who should do it?

• Ultimately safety legislation is a national responsibility, but external assistance is often available.

• There is considerable value in using regional organizations (FFA, SPC) that have already provided fisheries and maritime legal advice to assist national legal departments with sea safety legislation.

• The FFA legal section should be alerted to the issues surrounding sea safety legislation, since in some counties, fisheries law may include sea safety.

What resources are needed?

• Bilateral financial assistance may be available for such activities.

5) The determination of minimum mandatory requirements for each class of small fishing vessel with due regard to operational circumstances

How to do it?

• The regulations should take full account of the difficulties associated with cost, remote communities, and availability of equipment.

• Whether or not to implement a requirement should not be determined solely by the difficulties associated with its enforcement.

• The safety problem must be identified and defined, making use of any safety database.

• The determination must include a consultative process.

• Regional successes in the introduction and implementation of mandatory sea safety requirements should be considered.

Who should do it ?

• The responsible government agency as determined by the legislation.

• Outside assistance could be used to complement local expertise.

What resources are needed?

• The resources required for extensive consultation should not be underestimated.

6) The full use of existing institutions and community-based structures for increasing compliance, data collection, training and awareness, taking into account the time and resources required

How to do it?

• Community responsibility for improving the safety of their fishermen and others who go to sea on small vessels should be encouraged.

• The ability/capacity of existing structures to facilitate sea safety outcomes should be determined. Gaps should be addressed through training and judicious use of assistance.

• Communities that are most likely to be successful in increasing sea safety standards should be targeted, based on past performance, need, and likelihood to accept and act on safety initiatives. Key individuals in these communities should receive special attention.

• Efforts should be made to publicize legal requirements and regulations to fishers in outer islands.

• Use should be made of good examples from other sectors where regulations have been enforced effectively at community level.

• Once community structure and leaders are identified, they should be involved in a national sea safety group to obtain "grass roots" input into safety strategies.

Who should do it?

• The use of incentives, possibly in kind, should be considered to encourage community groups to assist with sea safety initiatives, including the supply of accident data.

What resources are needed?

• Sufficient resources to ensure adequate follow up and support for communities in the long term.

7) The development and phased implementation of appropriate enforcement procedures to ensure compliance

How to do it?

• Enforcers should be made fully aware of what they are enforcing, how to enforce it, and applicable penalties.

• A lead enforcement agency should be identified, based on capability, resources, etc.

• Penalties and publicity of successful prosecutions may increase the level of compliance (e.g. major high-profile "busts").

• A grace period should be considered for remote communities. If this is to be the case, this period should be used to mount an intensive publicity campaign.

• After any grace period, there must be firm follow-through when regulations and penalties are implemented. Political interference should be avoided in the application of regulations and penalties.

• Comprehensive vessel inspections are not likely to be an option for remote communities. In that case, enforcement based on spot checks at congregation points (e.g. fish landing sites) could be effective in improving compliance.

• In some circumstances, boat registration could assist with enforcement efforts (e.g. inspection of safety equipment or certificates of competency as a prerequisite for licensing).

Who should do it?

• Ultimately, communities must be involved in efforts to improve sea safety.

• Even with community involvement, some use of national agencies (where they exist) will be required.

• Dependence on non-existent or ineffective enforcement agents, particularly in remote communities, should be avoided.

What resources are needed?

• Effectively enforcing sea safety regulations will be a massive job requiring a large amount of resources.

• There is some possibility that the cost of enforcement could be reduced if effective consultation is carried out prior to formulating and enacting regulations.

8) The development and maintenance of a national sea accident database

How to do it?

• Consider using a regional approach to coordinate and assist efforts.

• Small vessel accident reporting should be mandatory, taking account of existing systems.

• General information important for the accident database (e.g. numbers of vessels) can often be obtained using other information systems (e.g. census data, results of household income and expenditure surveys).

• The agency responsible for the database should be required to do periodic analysis and produce annual reports which should be publicized and made available to stakeholders.

• There are advantages of involvement of regional agencies in the coordination of national small vessel accident database and assistance with analysis.

Who should do it?

• National authorities, with some regional assistance.

What resources are needed?

• The resources required depend on the present national situation: some countries have no national database, some countries have a database but it is less than fully effective, and other countries have good systems.

9) Support for the establishment of an SPC fishing vessel safety at sea special interest group^[6] and associated newsletter and the development of additional sea safety awareness resource materials

How to do it?

• Endorsement for a special interest group (SIG) should be obtained from the SPC Heads of Fisheries (HoF) Meeting.

• Lessons learned from establishing other SPC SIGs should be considered.

Who should do it?

• It is highly preferable to have a paid part-time editor to encourage and coordinate contributions from SIG members.

What resources are needed?

• A good idea of the required resources could be obtained by SPC Information Section which has established other SIGs.

• Some resources may at present be available at SPC.

10) Investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of the establishment of national small fishing vessel registration schemes and inspection schemes

How to do it?

• There is a need to carefully establish upper and lower limits of the vessels to be covered.

• Lessons learned should be studied, including registration schemes in other sectors, and vessel registration schemes in other regions.

• Consider benefits of having a similar vessel registration database and inspection regime.

• The results of the investigation should be publicized.

• The processes of registration and inspection should be complementary.

Who should do it?

• National authorities with assistance from regional organizations.

11) Formal and informal training directed at fishers, fishing communities, government staff, NGOs, the private sector and other stakeholders

How to do it?

• A needs assessment should be carried out for sea safety training at a variety of levels.

• Existing local capacity (human and institutional) should be used, and consideration should given to reorienting the priorities of existing training institutions and fisheries agencies.

• The focus should be on training at the workplace and in the community, rather than on institutional training.

• Informal training should include NGOs, extension, short workshops, radio, and TV.

• There is the possibility that a regional sea safety programme could include training. This should be built on needs assessment and could be attractive to donors.

Who should do it?

• SPC has undertaken various fisheries-oriented training needs assessments.

• Ideally, training would be implemented by existing institutions and a network of national trainers, extension agents and training bodies.

What resources are needed?

• Resources for any SPC sea safety training needs assessment.

• Training resources (personnel and materials) could come from a wide range of sources, including the private sector.

12) Consideration of the inclusion of sea safety as an integral part of fisheries management and development initiatives

How to do it?

• Highlight to fisheries managers of the region the justification of including safety in fisheries management/development initiatives.

• Highlight with FFA and others responsible for providing management advice the justification for promoting sea safety as a legitimate part of tuna management development initiatives.

• Use a meeting attached to, or part of HoF (like the coastal management workshop) to publicize the concept.

• Include safety in the FFA tuna management and development plans.

• Include safety in the SPC Coastal Fisheries Programme strategic plan.

• Check management and development measures against sea safety considerations (e.g. area closures, time closures, effort limitation, vessel size).

Who should do it?

• Initially, SPC and FFA staff.

• National fisheries managers.

What resources are needed?

• Attitude change is required, which may not depend on funding.

• Sponsorship, if any, to enable getting the subject on the HoF agenda.

APPENDIX F. ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT