Wolf D. Hartmann: Interactive mechanisms in the management of reservoir fisheries in the Mekong basin: the MRF II experience
Patrick Evans: Community fisheries development on the tonle sap in Cambodia
Winfried Wiedemeyer: Small-scale fisheries management by Philippine line agencies and local government units: status and suggestions for improvement
Programme Coordinator, MRF II, Vientiane, Laos
The project
MRF II is a component of the Fisheries Programme of the Mekong River Commission. Its first phase ran from 1995 to 2000, and its second phase (2000-2004) is under implementation.
Main areas of operation and coverage
The project is operational at 20 water bodies in four countries of the Lower Mekong Basin, of which 18 are reservoirs and 2 are natural water bodies. More specifically:
It covers a total area of 70 000 ha (less than one percent of the 1 000 000 ha of reservoir area in the Lower Mekong Basin) with about 170 villages with a total population of about 130 000, some 15 percent of whom are fishermen and fisherwomen.
Interactive mechanisms in MRF II
MRF II has developed and applied interactive mechanisms on two occasions:
Interactive mechanisms in project formulation
This refers to the conduct of an inception process at the start of the project’s second phase, during the first half of 2000. The inception process consisted of four steps:
This sequential, bottom-up process aimed at achieving project ownership by all concerned. Participants in the inception process were:
The results of this process were a reformulation of project objectives, outputs and activities.
The immediate objective now is “Fishing communities and concerned authorities jointly develop, implement and disseminate sustainable reservoir co-management models”. The outputs are as follows:
1. Recommendations for the development or improvement of reservoir (fisheries) management strategies are elaborated for each participating country;The outputs are not to be achieved sequentially but cyclically: one output leads to another and receives inputs from all the other areas of activity. However, emphasis is on output 2.2. A structure for the preparation and implementation of reservoir fisheries co-management plans is established for selected reservoirs;
3. The reservoir fisheries co-management capacity of all participating institutions and fisherfolk and other local water users is strengthened.
Setting up and strengthening interactive mechanisms in reservoir fisheries management
This refers to interactive mechanisms related to the project’s three outputs:
Interactive mechanisms in fisheries (management) policy formulation
An example of the project’s activities relating to strengthening and/or setting up interactive mechanisms in fisheries (management) policy and strategy is its involvement in the recent fishery policy reform in Cambodia. This involvement occurred in three areas:
Interactive mechanisms in local fisheries management planning and implementation
The starting point of activities in this area is an analysis of the local management situation and of to what extent interactive mechanisms (or co-management) already exist and which could be strengthened and further developed.
Before embarking on public participation, it is always advisable to try to find out to what extent such participation already exists. The slides below represent an analysis of co-management at a small water body in Lao PDR. Some crosses are within brackets, as it was sometimes not very clear who was government and who was the public. For example, should village headmen in Thailand and Lao PDR be considered government employees or community members?
Table 1. Is there co-management at Bung Wa Tai, Lao PDR?
|
Role/management function |
Community |
Government |
|
Who makes regulations |
X |
X |
|
Enforcement/patrolling |
X |
X |
|
Stocking |
X? |
X |
|
Fish marketing |
(X) |
- |
|
Capacity building |
- |
X |
|
Pond construction/maintenance |
X |
X |
|
Facility/equipment provision |
- |
X |
Table 2. Reservoir plans, Lao PDR
|
Activities |
Reservoirs |
Remarks |
|||
|
NH |
NS |
HS |
PP |
||
|
Organize reservoir fishing committee |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Consult with distr. Governor and headmen |
|
Review fishing regulations |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Improve existing regulations |
|
Create conservation zones |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Permission from provincial authority |
|
Stocking |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Coordination with organizations concerned |
|
Training in cage culture |
Ö |
- |
Ö |
Ö |
Contacting technical schools |
|
Organize fishermen’s groups |
Ö |
Ö |
- |
- |
Permission from provincial authorities |
Interactive mechanisms have been developed for three types of capacity-building events for fisheries co-managers:
On-the-job support and training emphasizes, among other issues, support to government officers in their new role as facilitators of participatory processes.
Joint user/government officer workshops: Instead of traditional training, a new format for joint learning has been developed, the joint user/government officer workshops. They follow a four-step process:
Regional training courses on co-management in inland fishery: as a response to a request of the technical advisory body of fisheries line agencies in the Lower Mekong Basin, an innovative format for a series of regional training courses on co-management in inland fisheries has been developed and implemented. The objective is, with regard to co-management, for the participants (mid- and senior-level government staff) to be able to:
Over a period of three years, each yearly course consists of a main course, in English and at the regional level, and of a follow-up workshop, in the national language and at the national level (hence “sustained”); regional training course participants attend all follow-up workshops (hence “continuous”).
The methodological approach follows the principle that the training process itself is an exercise in co-management. Thus, it exhibits the main characteristics of co-management:
Themes and issues discussed in regional training courses are: co-management; participation; community; conflict; resource tenure; policies and legislation; local knowledge; alternative livelihood strategies; institutional development; partners in implementation; process for co-management, action planning and implementation. However, emphasis is on delivery and facilitation, i.e. interactive mechanisms.
Discussion points
A few questions and ideas for discussion:
Chief Technical Adviser, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Introduction
Community fisheries are a new form of resource management adopted by the government of Cambodia in 2001. An FAO implemented project, “Participatory natural resource management in the Tonle Sap region”, has been working to develop and promote community-based natural resource management on the north shore of the Tonle Sap in the province of Siem Reap. This project has been instrumental in developing the approach and in sparking a reform process throughout the inland fisheries sector that has resulted in some 500 000 hectares of commercial fishing grounds being released to local communities for community fisheries management. This paper presents a brief history of the sector and the facilitation process and current status of community fisheries development in the province of Siem Reap.
The Tonle Sap
The Tonle Sap is the “great lake” of Cambodia. During the dry season the lake covers some 250 000 hectares, but as the Mekong River rises at the start of the monsoon the drainage of the lake reverses direction and flows into the lake until some 1.25 million ha are under water several months later. Surrounding the great lake are extensive forests and shrub lands which provide food, shelter and spawning habitat to many of the one hundred plus fish species found in the lake. This unique annual hydrological cycle of the lake has created an exceptionally productive ecosystem for fish and wildlife. The high productivity of the lake was central to the development of the Angkor empire a millennium ago and today still serves as the foundation for development in the region.
The project
The project “Participatory natural resource management in the Tonle Sap region” was drafted in 1994 to address concern over rapid clearing of the inundated forest ecosystem and subsequent threats to fisheries productivity. The project is funded by the government of Belgium and implemented through FAO. The project has been of a pilot nature with the first phase (1995-1997) focusing on research and data collection on fishing communities and the flora and fauna of the Tonle Sap within the Siem Reap province. The second phase (1998-2001) expanded the target area throughout the province and focused on field implementation of community-based natural resource management both within the forestry and fisheries sectors. Now the project has entered a third phase which will focus on consolidation and standardization of approaches for both community fisheries and community forestry and will emphasize training for government staff from around the Tonle Sap to promote appropriate strategies and techniques.
Fisheries on the lake
Fisheries on the lake were traditionally managed through a system of fishing concessions (fishing lots) which were auctioned at two-year intervals. This system, dating back about a hundred years during the French colonial times, was designed to extract revenue from the lake while providing some degree of protection to the inundated forest habitat. However, in practice the system was managed to generate maximum revenue which involved subleasing and sub-subleasing of a given fishing lot. The large amounts of money involved dictated a total-harvest mentality. For years, fishing lots were jealously guarded by armed militias and a tense armed atmosphere prevailed around the lake. Consequently, the thousands of fishermen living on the lake or on its borders were subjected to threats, intimidation and gunfire when straying too close to fishing lot boundaries. By the late 1990s, some 80 percent of the entire dry-season lakeshore was under the control of 18 fishing lots.
In mid 1999, the government converted all the large fishing lots on the lake into so-called research lots under four-year contract agreements without any auction process. This further empowered fishing lot operators and many illegally expanded their lot boundaries outward further diminishing access to fishing grounds for the numerous subsistence fishermen. At the same time, however, the disintegration of the Khmer Rouge and the cessation of armed conflict in the country gave fishing communities the confidence to speak out against the injustices of the fishing lot system. The number of conflicts reported increased exponentially. In the year 2000, as more and more conflicts were being reported in the news, the issue of fisheries management on the lake gained the attention of the donor community through their working group on natural resources. Dialogue was initiated between the donors and the government to start addressing the reported problems associated with the fishing lot system and the increasing conflicts between local people and fishing lots.
The opportunity for reform opened in October 2000, when the prime minister visited Siem Reap to provide aid to flood victims. After discussions with local officials regarding conflicts between fishermen and fishing lots, HE Hun Sen announced the release of 8 000 ha (from the 84 000 ha under fishing lots in the Siem Reap province) to local communities for community management. A complaint against this decision from the director general of Fisheries resulted in his removal and a commission was sanctioned to conduct a more thorough review of conflicts within the inland fisheries sector. This commission held meetings with fishing communities in Siem Reap and later around the entire lake and asked the people what they wanted. The demands soared and by February it was agreed to release some 56 percent of the entire area under fishing lots in Cambodia (more than 500 000 ha) at the end of the fishing season in June 2001. Communities gained immediate access to fishing grounds taken from lots that were reduced in size. For lots that were to be abolished entirely, the lot owners were permitted to fish out the season. Fisheries reform became the mantra of the day.
Changes were occurring rapidly and as the fisheries department scrambled under new leadership to address the new challenges, the prime minister stepped forward in February 2001 and ordered all fisheries staff back to their offices for two months and threw the lake open to fishing - by anyone and by any means. It was open season as had never been seen before. No one was permitted to enforce laws against illegal fishing and any size of gear was acceptable without license fees. Everyone went fishing. People who had never fished before were down on the lake with their batteries. Push nets mounted on the front of large boats became standard and emptied the fish sanctuaries. Within the fishing lots to be released, this was their final fishing season and therefore, take everything was the rule. The lake had never been fished so thoroughly as during February through May 2001. The wealthy fishermen and wealthy businessmen benefited while the poor fishing communities watched their resources stripped before their eyes. This rapid depletion of fisheries resources around the lake left the fishing communities wanting and requesting assistance to establish some form of control and management over the resources: the stage was set for community fisheries development.
Community fisheries development
The FAO project in Siem Reap had established some 33 community forestry sites by early 2001 with seven sites totalling some 10 000 ha located within the fisheries domain of the Tonle Sap. These were within the open-access fishing grounds located between the existing seven fishing lots. By February 2001, it was decided that four of the seven Siem Reap fishing lots would be abolished and that the remaining three would be reduced by at least 50 percent. This totalled some 61 000 ha of fishing grounds to be released to the local communities.
When the fisheries department personnel were ordered off the lake and back to their offices, the project received permission from the new director general of Fisheries to provide facilitator training to the fisheries officers from Siem Reap. After a one-week training on facilitation techniques and concepts of community resource management, 15 of the 28 officers trained elected to work in community fisheries. These 15 were interviewed and seven were selected for further training and sent to the field as facilitators with previously trained project counterpart staff. Seven two-person teams began work in April, one team for each fishing lot, and have continued to the present. The teams spend Monday through Friday in the field and return to the provincial fisheries department on Friday afternoons for a meeting with the provincial director and project staff to discuss what has been accomplished during the week and to plan the next week’s activities.
Establishment of community control over the resources
The facilitation teams began by meeting with local authorities to discuss the concept of community fisheries and to gather information on who were the primary users of a specific fishing ground. The facilitators then visited each village and held discussions with the people about resource use to accurately identify primary and secondary (seasonal) users. Participatory resource assessment was conducted in each location and information collected from all segments of each village (old, young, male, female, etc). Through this exercise, problems, constraints and opportunities were identified for each location. Subsequent meetings and workshops were held at each village and eventually each village elected a village fisheries management committee to represent the people of that village. After village fisheries management committees were elected and initial draft rules and regulations of resource use drafted, a large workshop was held with all village representatives and local authorities and a central management committee was elected. Members of that committee then elected their own chairman, deputy, secretary and treasurer from among its members. From within the central committee, people were chosen to be in charge of protection and others were made responsible for extension within the community. The project has been encouraging participation of women on these central management committees (as well as on the village committees) and if not for this top-down intervention, very few women would be represented on the committees. Local commune chiefs serve as advisors but cannot be members of the committees.
Rules and regulations of resource use are formulated at the village level and discussed and negotiated into a common set of rules and regulations by the central committee. These by-laws cover everything from types of fishing gear permitted, size of fishing gear, timing of use, placement, protection of wildlife, protection of the inundated forest, and associated fines for violators. Each site is mapped and demarcated to inform outsiders of the boundaries of the community fisheries site. Some communities have divided the protection responsibilities for the resource into village-allocated areas under a common set of rules and regulations while other sites have agreed to protect and manage the resource in common.
As this process was taking place, project staff travelled to meet other secondary or seasonal users in villages and communes at a distance from the resource, in some cases in other provinces. The development of community fisheries was discussed with all identified secondary users and they were invited to attend workshops with the primary users to participate in the discussion of boundaries and rules and regulations. In all cases, the secondary users are allowed access but under the approved rules and regulations of each site.
A key element has been to keep the district governors involved in all the workshops and to also have the provincial director of Fisheries participate in all the workshops. This establishes legitimacy of the community fisheries development process and confidence among the participants.
Current status
There are now 10 central management committees overseeing protection and management of some 70 000 ha of inundated forest/fishing grounds within the Siem Reap province. The people and committees are taking their new responsibilities very seriously and are actively patrolling their areas to stop destructive fishing practices such as electric fishing and other illegal activities from forest cutting to wildlife poaching. They have been confiscating illegal fishing gear and charging fines according to their rules and regulations. Provincial fisheries department personnel who are responsible for law enforcement in each district are assisting the communities with enforcement of their rules and regulations. Tens of thousands of illegally captured fish fry have been released back to the lake as well as monkeys, turtles and snakes that the communities have confiscated from poachers.
The communities are gaining confidence in their ability to protect and manage their resources. The press has been giving coverage to their activities and the governor of one district (Puok) is planning a ceremonial destruction of illegal fishing gear to highlight the importance of using non-destructive fishing gear.
To strengthen implementation, the project is now assisting the communities to establish a provincial community fisheries network. The first meeting of all the central committee chiefs and deputies will take place in the town of Siem Reap on 28 November 2001. The committee members are formulating the agenda and will decide at this meeting how frequently they would like to meet to discuss issues of common concern.
In the coming months, the project will conduct additional training for the facilitators on management plan preparation. This training will provide the basics to the facilitation teams to assist communities with drafting five-year operational plans that look at both forest and fish resources and actions to not only protect and manage the resources but to increase their overall productivity.
Government support
Community fisheries development is happening at a rapid pace in response to the release of more than 500 000 ha of fishing grounds to local communities in 2001. The government wants all of these lands to come under the control of local communities and not to be left in an open-resource type of situation. The prime minister started this process and wants to see it develop successfully. He has instructed the Department of Fisheries to draft a sub-decree for community fisheries and to implement community fisheries now and not wait for the sub-decree to be finalized.
The sub-decree was drafted in mid 2001 through a consultative process with fishing communities and other officials from around the country. The draft is still being discussed and revised to meet the needs of the communities. Simultaneously a new fisheries law for the country is being drafted and discussed.
The Department of Fisheries has reorganized itself to address the new demands of community fisheries development. It has established a new community fisheries section within the central office as well as within the provincial offices. The government is taking its new job responsibilities seriously and is seeking additional assistance from donors to undertake the extensive amount of community fisheries development required around the country.
Project support
The project “Participatory natural resource management in the Tonle Sap region” will continue to support community fisheries development throughout its third phase until February 2004. During this time, the project objectives are to:
The project will continue to implement a number of activities in support of community-based natural resource management including: aquaculture extension, seedling production and agroforestry extension, horticulture development, rural credit and income-generating activities. Within the community fisheries sector, greater emphasis will be placed on fish processing and marketing by local communities. In all activities, the project emphasizes the role of women.
As always, there are questions regarding the sustainability of project activities after the current phase of the project. Empowerment of the people will last; however, the ability of the government to support field activities is questionable. The reality in Cambodia is that the government is poor and currently unable to pay civil servants sufficient salaries to support themselves nor are there funds available for field activities. Extensive governmental reforms are underway and are expected to eventually establish a proper functioning civil service. However, this will take time. For the present, donor support is needed. Currently the Asian Development Bank, in collaboration with UNDP and the Global Environmental Facility, is preparing a proposal to fund the fourth phase of the FAO Siem Reap project and to expand activities to the remaining four provinces bordering the Tonle Sap. This is needed as the project in Siem Reap has always been considered a pilot activity that must one day move around the lake.
Summary
The process of community fisheries development used in the province of Siem Reap has been developed by the project over the past four years primarily in the upland forest areas. It is being adapted to issues specific to community fisheries and is being applied rapidly due to the urgent need to establish community control over the lands released from fishing lots. In summary, the process is as follows:
1) Contact with local authoritiesThe objective of this process is to empower the local communities for the protection and management of the forest and fisheries resources upon which they depend.
- letters of authorization are provided from the provincial authorities and delivered to the district governors by the facilitation teams
- objectives and work involved are clearly explained
- district governors and other authorities (military, police) are kept informed and involved in the process
2) Identification of users
- primary and secondary users are identified through local authorities, village chiefs and local fishermen
- discussions are held to ensure accuracy of information
3) Participatory resource assessment
- for each site a participatory resource assessment is conducted with all the primary and secondary users regarding resource use, supply and demand, conflicts, etc
4) Village meetings
- meetings are held in each village to discuss participatory resource assessment results and review sketch maps
- to define the resource area that individual villages use and want to manage
- to elect village representatives to a village-level community fisheries committee
- to define objectives of resource management and to draft rules and regulations
5) Central workshops
- held with village committee members, commune and provincial authorities to elect a central committee with representatives from each village
- to clearly define the resource boundaries
- to name those responsible for protection activities and extension work
6) Demarcation and mapping
- community fisheries resources are defined and mapped with GPS
- demarcation is done with painted poles if needed
7) Rules and regulations
- these are finalized for each community fisheries site by its central committee and made public with maps to inform all other potential users as to the location and user obligations for a given resource
- the rules and regulations are endorsed and signed by the central committee, the district governor, the provincial director of Fisheries and the provincial director of MAFF (DAFF)
8) Management plans
- the central management committee in consultation with village committees and fishermen in general drafts a five-year operational plan defining activities and actions related to resource protection, management and enhancement as well as benefit distribution
Conclusion
The basic strategy in community fisheries is to transfer responsibility for resource protection and management from the government to local resident communities. In Cambodia, the actual resource that communities protect and manage is physical land, i.e. thousands of hectares of seasonally flooded forest and shrub lands dotted with ponds and streams in the dry season. The lands recently released from the fishing lot system for community management are highly productive fishing grounds. If managed properly, community fisheries have great potential to ensure food security and to stimulate local economic development. The legislation is being formulated to support this new policy and the government is working to ensure its implementation. It is an unexpected and massive reform within the inland fisheries sector of Cambodia, which will directly benefit many thousands of rural people.
Office of the Governor of Negros Oriental
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Dumaguete City, Philippines
Introduction
During the last decade, the Philippine political and administrative systems have undergone several major changes leading to a highly beneficial decentralization of decision-making processes. As part of a wide array of changes, the Philippine new Local Government Code (RA 7160), which is the central legal bill governing these changes, also ensures a clear-cut autonomy of all local government units in the country concerning the management of all kinds of resources in their areas. This management autonomy includes coastal resource management in general and fisheries management in particular, which was further specified in the New Fisheries code (RA 8550).
As a result, the Philippine provinces and municipalities are given a very impressive legal and far-reaching jurisdictional authority within their 10 or 15 km exclusive municipal water boundaries. A common expression heard at all fisheries management levels including government line agencies is “There are no national waters; there are only municipal waters”. This is of course not true but comes close to the actual situation in a country of more than 7 000 mostly closely neighbouring islands. Very often, municipal water boundaries, whether delineated or not, do immediately interconnect because inter-island distances of water bodies are less than 30 km or two times 15 km, which is the maximum extent of municipal waters in the Philippines.
The main question has to be whether this rather rigorous turning over of decision-making power is in fact supported by the existence of all or at least basic essential monitoring and management capacities and tools to ensure the intended executive improvements. Based on my experience as a consultant in fisheries management and coastal resource management to a local government unit, there is still room for improvement.
Background
Coastal areas in the Philippines are overfished and constantly under high pressure also because of non-regulated small-scale and/or marginal subsistence fisheries of a magnitude which greatly exceeds the already poorly managed commercial fisheries.
Through the Local Government Code and its elemental decentralization aspect, Philippine local government units have been given the responsibility for local fisheries management. They are however left with very limited technical support and fisheries management advice.
Looking at the essential requirements for a functional monitoring-management loop in small-scale fisheries, as for fisheries in general, it has to be asked whether these loops do already exist. For a decisive assessment of their functionality, we have to take a look at the outer ends of the chart and pose two simple questions:
1. Are the small-scale fisherfolk experiencing an efficient monitoring and management of their fisheries resources, possibly even participating in these processes?Unfortunately, in most places, both questions still have to be answered with “No”.2. Do sufficient data sets on small-scale fisheries exist with national line agencies?
Management monitoring loop in small-scale fisheries
In an ideal management-loop situation four basic processes should exist, which can be divided into two groups: an information and data flow, and a flow of laws, regulations and support.
Small-scale fisheries data gathered from or even by fishermen has to be forwarded to responsible local government units, which will forward condensed and/or analysed data sets to the national line agencies. While the latter process could be accomplished through existing structures at local government unit level, e.g. Provincial Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (PFARMC), Provincial Agriculturist Office - Fisheries Section (PAO-FS, no longer provided for in RA 8550), etc, the initial process of data gathering does not exist. Thus, a comprehensive data set on small-scale fisheries cannot be produced.
Vertical data flow management scheme for small-scale fisheries
Since functional management of small-scale fisheries depends on reliable information and data sets, this portion of the monitoring-management loop cannot exist. Fisheries laws and regulations are enacted and enforced at the local government unit level as well as along the coastline. However, they do not include the highly diverse local situations in different parts of the Philippines. Additionally, neither the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources nor the local government units are able to provide efficient management support to coastal fisherfolk or fisherfolk’s associations or cooperatives.
This leads to the unbalanced situation:
|
1. Enforcement of fisheries regulations |
Yes |
|
2. Management of fisheries, particularly small-scale |
No |
The upward data and information flow does not efficiently overlap with the downward regulatory and management flows. Not surprisingly this results in non-existing or inappropriate or even counterproductive management approaches for small-scale fisheries.
This situation is partly caused by conflicts between the Local Government Code and older laws as well as by budgetary problems when providing the line agencies with sufficient manpower and logistics. It is also caused by overlapping or insufficiently defined areas of responsibilities between different line agencies. Another hindering factor is the vertical organizational setup of government line agencies and local government units involved in fisheries management. To clarify these problems, we may have a look at the organizational and administrative structure of these administrative and regulatory bodies.
Some reasons for the lack of appropriate small-scale fisheries management in the Philippines
Possible approaches leading to a functional management of small-scale fisheries
Two approaches are suggested:
Some supporting aspects to these approaches
Suggestions for a programme leading to a small-scale fisheries management scheme
When establishing government institutions/administrative bodies for small-scale fisheries management these should have the following structures, resources and capabilities:
Programme cost calculation (approximation)
The following is a very rough estimation of establishment costs for an initial 10-year programme for small-scale fisheries management in the Philippines, based on eight-year local experience in the province of Negros Oriental. Comparable parameters can be assumed when making projections for the other Philippine provinces. All possible groups of programme costs have been considered. Some items may however be locally redundant, for example when technical and administrative personnel as well as office space already exist at other target provinces.
A. Municipal level
Cost calculation for a small-scale fisheries monitoring
and management programme
1. Municipal level
|
Item |
no. |
unit |
month |
per year or total |
|
Personnel cost |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Municipal Small-Scale Fishery Data Analyst |
1 |
|
400 |
$5,200.00 |
|
2. Fish-Catch/Fishery Data Typist |
1 |
|
300 |
$3,900.00 |
|
3. Municipal Coastal Community Organizer |
1 |
|
300 |
$3,900.00 |
|
4. Municipal Coastal Organizer “Organizational Structure
Development” |
1 |
|
300 |
$3,900.00 |
|
5. & 6. Boat Operators* |
2 |
200 |
400 |
$5,200.00 |
|
Limited Honorary Contracts to Third Parties |
n.a. |
|
100 |
$1,200.00 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
$23,300.00 |
|
General operational budget |
|
|
|
|
|
Office Space Rental* |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
Office Supplies |
|
|
300 |
$3,600.00 |
|
Communication Cost |
|
|
300 |
$3,600.00 |
|
Travel Expenses |
|
|
300 |
$3,600.00 |
|
Seminar, Workshop, Training to Fisherfolk |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
Internal Capability Building |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
Maintenance and Replacement of Equipment |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
$20,400.00 |
|
Operational field aupplies |
|
|
|
|
|
Petrol |
|
|
100 |
$1,200.00 |
|
Vehicle Maintenance |
|
|
100 |
$1,200.00 |
|
Sets of Field Tools to Fisherfolk |
|
|
50 |
$600.00 |
|
Data Sheets, Info Fliers, etc to Fisherfolk |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
$5,400.00 |
|
Equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
Set of Field Tools (seminars and workshops) |
2 |
|
300 |
$600.00 |
|
Boat* |
1 |
|
5000 |
$5,000.00 |
|
Personal Computer Units for Data Management |
2 |
|
1500 |
$3,000.00 |
|
Software (Data Management, Office, Communication) |
1 |
|
2000 |
$2,000.00 |
|
Copy Machine |
1 |
|
3000 |
$3,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
$13,600.00 |
|
Contengency cost |
|
|
500 |
$6,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
$6,000.00 |
|
Subtotal programme installation cost per
municipality |
$13,600.00 |
|||
|
Subtotal yearly operational cost per
municipality |
$55,100.00 |
|||
Cost Calculation for Small-scale Fisheries
Monitoring and Management Program
2. Provincial Level
|
Item |
no. |
unit |
month |
per year or total |
|
Personnel Cost: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Provincial Small-Scale Fishery Data Analyst |
1 |
|
500 |
$6,500.00 |
|
2. Fish-Catch/Fishery Data Typist |
2 |
300 |
600 |
$7,800.00 |
|
3. Provincial Supervisor “Coastal Community Organizing” |
1 |
|
400 |
$5,200.00 |
|
4. Provincial Supervisor “Coastal Organizational Structure Development” |
1 |
|
400 |
$5,200.00 |
|
5. Driver |
1 |
|
250 |
$3,250.00 |
|
Limited Honorary Contracts to Third Parties |
n.a. |
|
100 |
$1,200.00 |
|
|
|
|
Sub-Total |
$29,150.00 |
|
General Operational Budget: |
|
|
|
|
|
Office Space Rental* |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
Office Supplies |
|
|
300 |
$3,600.00 |
|
Communication Cost |
|
|
400 |
$4,800.00 |
|
Travel Expenses |
|
|
500 |
$6,000.00 |
|
Seminar, Workshop, Training to LGU-personnel |
|
|
400 |
$4,800.00 |
|
Internal Capability Building |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
Maintenance and Replacement of Equipment |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
|
|
|
Sub-Total |
$26,400.00 |
|
Operational Field Supplies: |
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
Vehicle Maintenance |
|
|
200 |
$2,400.00 |
|
Data Sheets, Info Fliers, etceteras |
|
|
300 |
$3,600.00 |
|
|
|
|
Sub-Total |
$8,400.00 |
|
Equipment: |
|
|
|
|
|
Set of Field Tools (also for seminars and workshops) |
|
300 |
|
$300.00 |
|
Vehicle |
|
25000 |
|
$25,000.00 |
|
Personal Computer Units for Data Management |
|
1500 |
|
$1,500.00 |
|
Software (Data Management, Office, Communication) |
|
2000 |
|
$2,000.00 |
|
Copy Machine |
|
3000 |
|
$3,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
Sub-Total |
$31,800.00 |
|
Contengency Cost: |
|
|
600 |
$7,200.00 |
|
|
|
|
Sub-Total |
$7,200.00 |
|
Sub-Total Program Installation Cost per Province |
$31,800.00 |
|||
|
Sub-Total Yearly Operational Cost per Province |
$71,150.00 |
|||
1. Subtotal of programme installation cost per municipality, approximately US$13 600.00The Philippines has 55 provinces with coastal areas.2. Subtotal of yearly operational cost per municipality, approximately US$55 100.00
3. Subtotal of programme installation cost at provincial level and per province, approximately US$31 800.00
4. Subtotal of yearly operational cost at provincial level and per province, approximately US$71 150.00
5. Total of programme installation cost per province at provincial and (10) municipal levels, approximately US$167 800.00
6. Total of yearly operational cost per province at provincial and (10) municipal levels, approximately US$592 150.00
7. Total programme cost per province and over a minimum programme period of 10 years, approximately US$5 921 500.00
