This Appendix addresses the areas of concern identified in the synthesis report (on the basis of the national reports) and further elaborated during the discussions at the Workshop. The issues are divided into three main categories: fisheries management, fish utilisation and marketing, and related areas highlighted in the SADC Protocol on Fisheries. Issues are presented in each category in order of priority, as identified by the workshop.
In developing a draft action plan, the workshop first
suggested a short-term strategy that should be followed in order to enhance the
contribution of SADC to responsible fisheries exploitation in the region. The
workshop then turned to the development of a detailed actions in order for the
SADC countries to progress towards the harmonization of their marine fisheries
policy in line with their commitments under Articles 7 and 11 of the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
SHORT-TERM STRATEGY
1. Implement relevant provisions of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries with due attention to priorities set out in the Action Plan.
2. Ensure sound co-ordination of the SADC Marine Fisheries Project Portfolio, balancing as far as possible the priority needs of all member countries.
3. Strengthen the institutional framework at regional and national levels (ad hoc senior fisheries officer committee; stakeholder institutions and networks; shared stocks bilateral or multilateral arrangements) to guide the SADC Secretariat in the implementation of the Protocol on Fisheries.
4. Ensure adequate co-ordination and liaison with other
institutions dealing with areas affecting fisheries management and related
activities (e.g. Fisheries Management Organizations; Coastal Area Management
institutions; Standards Authorities).
ACTION PLAN
1. Fisheries management
1.1 MCS
The assessment of MCS in SADC Member States indicated that there was inadequate capacity to ensure proper compliance with responsible fisheries management. There appears to be a wide disparity in MCS capacity between the Member States.
There is a lack of capacity and insufficient exchange of experience in giving effect to national legislation. Ineffective and outdated enforcement measures provide an inadequate basis to manage the resource and combat illegal unreported and unregulated and, potentially, unsustainable fishing. Insufficient consideration is given to the range of legal mechanisms available to ensure the effective implementation MCS measures.
This situation conflicts with Article 7.1.7 of the Code of Conduct: “States should establish...effective mechanisms for fisheries monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement to ensure compliance with their conservation and management measures, as well as those adopted by subregional or regional organizations or arrangements”.
ACTION
1. The group recognised that the SADC Marine Coordinating Unit already has an MCS project. It was noted that at the last SADC Ministers’ meeting, other countries requested to be part of the project. The working group endorsed this request.
It was also recommended to:
2. Establish a SADC fisheries legal data base that is accessible through the use of the internet as a means of disseminating information to stakeholders and monitor legal developments relating to MCS including judgements and legal processes and translation of laws in the three SADC official languages.
3. Strengthen capacity including training of senior fisheries officers, authorised officers or inspectors, and legal personnel on MCS matters.
4. Through the previous two actions, discuss and develop expertise in the full range of options to strengthen national and regional MCS including the implementation of the MCS objectives under Articles 8 and 9 of the Fisheries Protocol. Other options include the consideration of measures to enable swift response by governments to policy changes (such as the use of licence terms and conditions, regulations, notices and orders or administrative guidelines), alternative enforcement mechanisms such as administrative procedures and penalties or compounding of offences, strengthening of Port State responsibilities such as the use of Lacey type clauses in legislation, confidentiality of information particularly in the context of data base management related to VMS and regional register of fishing vessels, and, implementation of international and relevant regional fisheries agreements and instruments.
5. Investigate the establishment of a regional observer programme and develop cross-authorisation programmes.
1.2 Access limitation and capacity control
Of the possible goals set out in the Code of Conduct section 7.2.2 paragraphs a-g, the priority identified in the national reports was to ensure that “excess fishing capacity is avoided and the exploitation of the stocks remains economically viable”.
In general, the control of capacity is in its infancy in the region. In order to meet the requirements of the Code of Conduct (cf. Articles 7.1.8, 7.2.2 and 7.6.3), and the International Plan of Action on Capacity, it appears that most SADC countries will have to develop much further the instruments that they have available for the management of fishing capacity. It might be noted that only economically based management instruments appear capable of avoiding excess capacity in the long run. SADC Member States might consider the possible use of such instruments.
There also appears to be inadequate implementation and enforcement of existing legislation for limiting access to fishing and over capacity. And there is currently no uniform policy or legal framework within the SADC countries for limiting access to fishing within zones under national jurisdiction. This has implications for resource management within the region and does not provide an adequate basis for progress in harmonization.
ACTION
1. SADC should request FAO assistance to organise a regional workshop on the International Plan of Action on Overcapacity, including the situation of artisanal fisheries. This regional workshop should identify the needs in order to develop a national and regional action plan for the control of fishing capacity. The importance of developing a regional approach must be emphasised in order to ensure that capacity controlled or removed from one country’s fisheries does not “spill-over” into another country. As preparation, each member country should prepare a report of their situation in regard to fishing capacity and its control.
2. SADC countries should implement existing legislation to ensure that access to fisheries resources is controlled to avoid overfishing. This should be undertaken in the context of the Code of Conduct and the SADC Fisheries Protocol.
3. In relation to fisheries access agreements, SADC countries should initiate consultation leading to the development of common definitions (for example of, local and foreign vessels) and a minimum terms and conditions for access by foreign fishing vessels and SADC flag vessels within the context of the obligations on free trade arising under the SADC Treaty, SADC Protocol on Trade and other international agreements. Such consultation should consider the need to ensure that policies adopted do not encourage vessels to adopt flags of convenience and to avoid the potential for “quota hopping” problems or that adversely affect the sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources.
1.3 Subsistence and small-scale fishery management
A large proportion of the total fishery activity within SADC consists of subsistence and small scale commercial fisheries. Indications are that most of the management effort so far has been directed at industrial scale fisheries. This is recognised by Article 12 of the Fisheries Protocol and programmes need to be launched to address this area. It is also stressed in Article 7.6.6 of the Code of Conduct: “When deciding on the use, conservation and management of fisheries resources, due recognition should be given...to the traditional practices, needs and interests of indigenous people and local fishing communities which are highly dependent on fishery resources for their livelihood”.
ACTION
1. Parts of existing projects (RFIS & MCS) relate specifically to SSF, and the recommendation on capacity also emphasises SSF. It is recommended that care be taken and appropriate mechanisms established to ensure that the results of RFIS be relevant to all SADC countries as not all are directly involved in this project.
2. The 1995 SADC Marine Fisheries Policy and Strategy proposed an Artisanal Fisheries Programme. This programme should be developed into a project and implemented. Care should be taken to consider aspects related to the management of SSF in line with Article 12 of the Fisheries Protocol (including co-management systems). The Marine Fisheries SCU should work with the SADC Hub to identify appropriate funding. The need to develop business skills amongst small-scale fishers as part of this project is emphasized.
1.4 Fishery management and research
Research is the lynch-pin of fishery management (cf Code of Conduct Article 7.4.2). In order to enhance the role of research, its scope might be widened, particularly to develop socio-economic research in support of fishery management. Articles 7.4.3, 7.4.5 and 7.6.7 of the Code of Conduct stress the need for such research. Although the situation differed between countries, research could be better focussed on the needs of the industry and that the results of research might be more fully taken into consideration in policy development.
ACTION
1. The importance of research for the fishery management process (Code of Conduct 7.4.1). and the existence of a new EU-ACP project, which aims to facilitate this aspect of fisheries management in ACP countries should be better acknowledged. Marine Fisheries SCU should further investigate and assimilate information concerning this project. An important aim would be to assist SADC Member States to develop and implement mechanisms to prioritise research and to develop and enhance links between research and users.
2. Each Member State should present to the SADC/SCU a report detailing its fishery management units, how they are currently managed and what research is on-going concerning each unit. This would allow the identification of research areas where collaboration would be fruitful.
1.5 Role of economics in fishery management
A common need is to strengthen the economic dimension of fishery management and analysis. In addition to the need for research referred to in 1.4 above, economic analysis could usefully be undertaken of the role of fisheries within the macroeconomic context of the different SADC countries, and socio-economic indicators of the consequences of fishery management could be developed. The need for economic analysis is a common thread in the Code of Conduct and many Articles refer to it.
ACTION
1. Organise a workshop to clarify needs and priorities in economics in fishery management.
2. Use output of the economics workshop to inform the process of reformulating the SADC Training project.
1.6 Stakeholder consultation
Participatory management is recognised as an important management tool (cf Code of Conduct Article 7.1.6) and the assessment indicated that there were weaknesses in this area across the Member States. Addressing this area is necessary for better management.
ACTION
1. In their reports to SADC (point 1.4.2 above), Member States should explain the nature of stakeholder consultation in each fishery management unit.
2. SADC/SCU should then prepare an inventory of stakeholder organizations and their constraints in contributing effectively to fisheries management.
1.7 Fishery management plans (FMP)
The use of FMPs (as advocated in Article 7.3.3 of the Code of Conduct) differs widely from one SADC country to another. This difference offers the opportunity for a useful intra-SADC project where those countries who are developing their planning process might draw on the experience of those where this process is more advanced. A primary reason for the lack of plans is inexperienced staff. However, there may also be some misunderstanding of what is involved in the management planning process. Often, the elements for a plan seem to exist and only its formalisation is lacking. It would appear useful to have a workshop on the nature of fishery management plans, including their design and implementation, particularly in the artisanal fishery context.
There is widespread awareness and use of the precautionary approach. However, its application might be strengthened further, particularly in the difficult but important area of negotiating pre-agreed management measures that will automatically be implemented in the event of limit reference points being exceeded.
ACTION
1. The SADC report (point 1.4.2 above) should include an inventory of fishery management plans in existence for the identified fishery management units.
2. Organise a SADC Regional workshop to consider the nature of the fishery management planning process and support that may be required for improvement/implementation of plans. This workshop should be organised at the same time as the economics workshop (point 1.5.1 above).
1.8 Legal capacity in fisheries management
There is a lack of legal expertise on the regional and international aspects of fisheries resource management and the interrelationship between fisheries resource management and trade. Certain SADC countries also felt that there was a lack of legal expertise in fisheries resource management in the national context.
ACTION
Initiate a regional network for fisheries legal specialists
for the exchange of information, and experience and views on fisheries law
development, implementation and enforcement. The network should also serve as a
resource base for SADC countries requiring information and expertise in this
area.
2. Fish utilization and marketing
2.1 Harmonization of legislation
Article 16 on Trade and Investment of the Protocol on Fisheries says that Member States shall co-operate in establishing regional capacity to implement the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). At present, there is an inadequate level of co-operation between the trade protocol implementation committees and the SADC Fisheries sectors. In addition, fish sanitary and safety legislation does not follow a common approach.
ACTION
Commission an analysis, by country, of fisheries trade issues covering food safety, including HACCP, SPS and TBT, with a view to harmonising quality assurance and sanitary legislation based on HACCP (or other quality assurance systems such as ISO 9000 or Total Quality Management). This process should be linked with other SADC committees on issues related to trade, SPS and TBT.
2.2 Regional training in quality assurance
There is a lack of skilled fish inspectors and quality assurance personnel in HACCP procedures to serve the industry needs in the region.
ACTION
SCU should liaise with INFOPÊCHE and other relevant institutions to assess the training needs before developing training programmes on HACCP procedures. Consequently, a number of training sessions could be undertaken both for government fish inspectors and industry fish quality controllers.
2.3 Strengthening of quality control laboratories
In Article 16 of the Protocol on Fisheries, Member States agree to establish basic infrastructure for the fishery sector. This would include the construction of laboratories.
There is a need to extend the services of the existing quality control laboratories at the regional level. Because of the new sanitary requirements, there is also a need for certified reference laboratories at a regional level to monitor and control analytical techniques in use.
ACTION
1. SCU in co-operation with relevant institutions should assess the needs of quality control laboratories relating to equipment and training of laboratory technicians at the regional level.2.4 Intra-regional trade information2. SCU should promote co-operation among the existing quality control laboratories through the collection, process and dissemination of information.
There is a lack of timely and reliable information on fish and fishery products being traded within the region. There is substantial unreported trade in fish and fishery products in the region. The lack of such reliable data makes policy planning difficult, in both food security within SADC and marine fisheries policy, and also has an impact on freshwater fish marketing and on aquaculture.
ACTION
1. Carry out an assessment study on the marine fish trade flows within the region including fish prices, volume and value traded, and on product forms and species concerned. The study will be undertaken by SCU in co-operation with the INFOPÊCHE unit in the SADC region as well as with other relevant institutions.
2. The findings of the study should be used to assess the opportunity to establish a database suitable to the monitoring of intra-regional fish trade.
2.5 Coordination of the private sector
There is a lack of corporation between operators from industrial and artisanal sectors and a lack of coordination and expression of the needs of the private sector at a regional level. Lack of information is also felt as essential limiting factor to economic integration and particularly intra regional trade.
ACTION
1. Identify forms of representation of the private sector and stimulate promotion of national and regional professional organisations networks.
2. Produce a Regional Directory of Professional Organisations
in the fisheries sector. Promote the organisation of a regional fisheries Forum
for the Private Sector aiming at strengthening cooperation between the
operators, develop awareness and adopt common positions on trade issues such as
Fair Trade, Ecolabelling, Quality Control.
2.6 SADC private sector forum
In most countries of the region, co-operation between operators from the artisanal and industrial sub-sectors is weak, hindering the sectors in reaching their full potential. Regional co-operation of operators on trade matters in general, including labelling issues, is in its infancy. This state of affairs stems partly from a lack of adequate professional organizations of fishery sector operators in some countries.
ACTION
1. Promote, with the support of the INFOPÊCHE/SADC unit, the creation and/or strengthening of professional organizations of fish operators, in order to encourage regional cooperation and promote intra-regional trade.3. Related areas (SADC Protocol on Fisheries)2. Organize awareness campaigns on trade issues through the establishment of information networks, e.g. on labelling, on fair trade principles.
3.1 Shared stocks
The situation differs quite markedly between the Indian Ocean and Atlantic SADC seaboards. In the Indian Ocean, shared stocks seem to be limited principally to tuna and tuna-like species which come under the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC).
On the Atlantic, the South African report suggests that hake, pilchard, and prawns are shared whilst the Namibian report identifies pilchard as the most important shared stock together with the Kob stock. Angola, Namibia and South Africa have different management regimes so that there is no formal common management plan in place and each country manages its stock on its own. Namibia manages its pilchard stock as a quota species. Article 7 of the Protocol on Fisheries invites, in paragraph 4, two or more member States to establish instruments for co-ordination, co-operation or integration of management of shared resources. Article 7.3.2 of the Code of Conduct refers.
ACTION
The importance of the management of shared stocks should be further acknowledged. Member States should formally identify these stocks and enter when relevant into bilateral and multilateral arrangements in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of Protocol on Fisheries
3.2 Integrating fisheries into coastal area management (ICAM) (article 14 protocol)
The fisheries sector in SADC countries faces serious threats from a variety of other users of coastal and marine resources, including tourism and general recreational development, urbanisation, land-based pollution and the exploitation of other natural resources (oil, gas, diamonds). The need to address such issues is stressed in Article 7.2.2 paras f and g of the Code of Conduct. There is currently inadequate information on the extent of the problem and the nature of the conflicts to develop a common approach to this issue. Although a number of approaches are used to integrate fishing with other activities, the position of the marine fisheries sector could be strengthened.
ACTION
1. Strengthen the position of the line Ministry:3.3 Implementation of international fisheries instruments
- Formalise the need for the line Ministry to be involved in decisions concerning other sectors that may potentially have an impact on fishing.
- Consider more formal inter-Ministerial collaborative arrangements within countries to ensure the appropriate management of fisheries within the wider exploitation of coastal and marine resources.
2. Although national legal frameworks set out the basis for property, access and use rights; and although coastal management issues will be partly addressed in the SADC BCLME (Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem) and MCS Projects, the legislative framework for the integration of fisheries in coastal area management should be considered by all countries. This will require:
- a review (with external assistance and expertise as appropriate) of existing legislation and practice to establish the extent to which they facilitate integrated coastal area management and to enhance the access and use rights of fishers (including co-management, subsistence and small scale fishers) in the coastal area in the context of Articles 12 and 14 of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries;
- corrective action where necessary through amending or drafting legislation to achieve integrated coastal area management and strengthening of fishers’ access and use rights and to facilitate inter Ministry co-ordination to ensure the appropriate management of fisheries within the wider exploitation of coastal and marine resources.
International instruments impose increasingly complex obligations on parties which require implementation at the national level. Implementation is a prerequisite for progress in the harmonization process.
ACTION
At a regional level, establish ongoing review mechanisms to monitor how far SADC countries have progressed in giving effect to international instruments in fisheries and the resource sector including the technical aspects of these instruments. The review process should include the exchange of ideas on implementation and capacity building.
3.4 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
It is recognised that the use of MPAs is one of the important management measures in a fishery and marine environment management programme. The implementation of MPAs to ensure the protection of the marine environment is a responsibility Member States have under Article 14 of the Protocol on
Fisheries. There is no regional database on MPAs or on development methodology and management implementation in respect of MPAs.
ACTION
1. Member States should submit a list of all MPAs in their waters for the compilation of a database of current MPAs across the region.2. Arrange a workshop in order to share expertise on the use of, development and management of MPAs in marine fishery and environment management in order to build capacity across the region. Such a workshop could also set regional objectives for the establishment of MPAs.”
