The “Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management” was initiated by FAO and co-organized by the Coastal Development Centre, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. The Consultation was held at the Miracle Grand Convention Hotel, Bangkok, from 26 to 29 November 2001 and attended by 28 participants from nine countries, i.e. Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, the United States of America and Viet Nam, and five organizations, i.e. the Mekong River Commission (MRC), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Coastal Development Centre (CDC), the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) and Kasetsart University, Thailand.
The Consultation reviewed the fisheries situation in the Asia-Pacific region, an ecosystem-based fisheries management approach and a regional synthesis on small-scale fisheries and their management in the region. The national experiences in implementing small-scale fisheries management as well as specific problems encountered at the project level in Asian countries were presented and extensively discussed at the Consultation.
In considering steps required in decentralizing small-scale fisheries management, technical terms to describe the action required for implementing small-scale fisheries management were compiled. These actions were modified and grouped into six areas, i.e. Organization, Content/substance, Legal, Support, Training and Process. A flowchart on actions from government-based, top-down, centralized fisheries management to community-based, bottom-up, decentralized fisheries management was then developed and the identified actions were grouped in this chart according to their need in such a decentralization process (see page 114).
For each action, the Consultation identified constraints in the implementation process. The resulting matrix of areas, divided into actions with their identified constraints, was then completed with recommended solutions to overcome these constraints. Extensive discussions about proposed solutions, better described as activities, took place as these solutions were largely depending on the political, cultural and social background of each participant.
The three-phased matrix is formulated as the interactive plan for the implementation of small-scale fisheries management (see pages 118-140). Although divided into three phases, the Consultation felt that the move towards decentralized fisheries management is not straight forward, i.e., routinely progressing from one phase to the next. Some of the identified activities are specific for only one phase in the plan, others may have to be repeated or done continuously in all phases. The need for clearly identified parameters to measure the necessity for such repetition or continuation of activities was discussed as a base for recommendations for further action that will lead to the next phase.
The structure of the developed interactive plan is as follows:
|
PHASE |
||
|
AREA |
||
|
ACTIONS |
CONSTRAINTS |
ACTIVITIES |
Finally, the participants at the Consultation expressed the wish to provide a general statement for the readers of these proceedings for clarification and also the points below, which have evolved from the four days of discussion:
This document is intended to facilitate the process of decentralizing small-scale fisheries management. It offers suggestions for a decentralization process, based on experience of practitioners from various fields. The document would be useful for stakeholders, e.g. government agencies at all levels, communities, non-governmental organizations and others in the field.
Furthermore, the participants wished to state that:
a) The premise of this document is that the shift to decentralized small-scale fisheries management is considered desirable.b) Constraints listed may not necessarily be seen as constraints only, they may also be seen as opportunities or prerequisites for decentralization of small-scale fisheries management;
c) The terms used may depend on national definitions (e.g. poverty) or understanding (environmental or fisheries point of view, etc), as they relate to the different objectives, e.g., conservation, use, development, holistic and ecosystem-based management;
d) Participatory monitoring is a prerequisite for the entire process of implementing decentralized small-scale fisheries management;
e) Political will and financial support are not a necessity but would facilitate the process;
f) The phases described do not provide a strict timeframe; they are intended to underline decentralization as a dynamic process with feedback and fine-tuning based on monitoring and evaluation;
g) Decentralization of small-scale fisheries management may not be necessary or appropriate at all levels. Some responsibilities might be better centralized.
