APPENDIX H - Report of the Working Groups on Management

The Management sub-group began by discussing the issues which had been raised in the presentation of the synthesis report, and identified a set of nine fisheries management issues in the region. These issues were:

1. Access limitation and capacity control. In order for management to be effective, it was considered essential for the management authorities to have the ability to limit access and control capacity and to do so in practice.

2. Fisheries management planning. The extent to which fisheries management planning was formalised and used in practice was considered to have an impact on the effectiveness of management.

3. Stakeholder consultation. It was considered important that provision be made for widespread stakeholder consultation and that such consultation occur.

4. ICAM. The need to ensure the integration of fisheries concerns into coastal area management was highlighted.

5. Economics. Given that the root cause of the overfishing problem is economic, it was felt important that economic factors be integrated into fisheries management systems.

6. Research. Effective management depends on the correct research being undertaken and its results implemented.

7. MCS. No management system will succeed unless there are effective mechanisms for monitoring, control and surveillance.

8. Artisanal fisheries management. Given the widespread importance of small-scale fisheries in the region (with the exception of Namibia), the group felt it important to consider the extent to which such fisheries are taken into account in the management system.

9. MPAs. The group attached particular importance to marine protected areas as a management mechanism.

The group assessed the ability of the management authorities to deal with each issue. Three factors which determined this ability were assessed separately. First, does the legal framework allow the issue to be addressed in principle? Second, does the institutional capacity exist to allow the issue to be addressed in practice? And third, to what extent is the issue currently addressed? These factors constitute the rows of the matrix.

Each national team thus had to score 27 cells. Each cell was scored from 0 to 5, where 5 meant that current performance was very good and 0 meant that current performance required substantial improvement. Thus for instance the first cell required that the team assess the current legal instruments to control access and fishing capacity. A score of 5 indicates that the current legal framework is sufficient to enable such control to be exercised, if the management authorities so decide.

It must be emphasised that the scores represent a very rudimentary assessment of fishery management in each of the countries. First, it is a broad assessment across all sectors, with no attempt made to highlight discrepancies between sectors. Second, no weightings were used. Third, the scoring for each country is inevitably subjective and the use of the range of values (0 to 5) does not necessarily mean the same in each case. Not too much should therefore be read into the precise values, the relative values are much more important for both individual countries and the region.

Country priorities

Tables 1 to 7 present the results by country.

Table 1: Congo

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs	TOTAL
Legal Framework	3	3	3	0	2	0	2	4	5	22
Institutional Capacity	4	3	3	2	2	0	2	4	4	24
Management Practice	2	3	2	2	2	0	2	3	3	19
TOTAL	9	9	8	4	6	0	6	11	12	65

Table 2: Mauritius

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs	TOTAL
Legal Framework	3	3	3	3	2	3	3	5	5	30
Institutional Capacity	1	4	4	3	2	4	2	4	4	28
Management Practice	2	3	3	3	1	4	2	4	3	25
TOTAL	6	10	10	9	5	11	7	13	12	83

Table 3: Mozambique

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs	TOTAL
Legal Framework	5	5	5	2	5	5	5	5	-	37
Institutional Capacity	3	3	3	0	3	4	2	3	-	21
Management Practice	4	3	3	2	3	4	2	3	-	24
TOTAL	12	11	11	4	11	13	9	11	-	82

NB No ranking was given for MPAs as these are the responsibility of a different Ministry

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs	TOTAL
Legal Framework	5	5	4	3	4	5	5	-	5	36
Institutional Capacity	5	5	5	2	3	5	4	-	4	33
Management Practice	5	5	5	2	3	4	4	-	4	32
TOTAL	15	15	14	7	10	14	13	-	13	101

NB No ranking was given for artisanal fisheries management due to the absence of such fisheries in Namibia

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs	TOTAL
Legal Framework	5	3	2	4	2	3	2	2	5	28
Institutional Capacity	3	2	1	1	4	4	2	3	4	24
Management Practice	2	3	2	3	5	3	3	4	4	29
TOTAL	10	8	5	8	11	10	7	9	13	81

Table 6: South Africa

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs	TOTAL
Legal Framework	5	5	2	5	3	3	5	3	5	36
Institutional Capacity	3	4	3	3	3	4	2	2	4	28
Management Practice	3	4	3	2	2	4	2	2	3	25
TOTAL	11	13	8	10	8	11	9	7	12	89

Table 7: Tanzania

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs	TOTAL
Legal Framework	5	5	4	4	4	5	2	5	5	39
Institutional Capacity	1	4	5	2	4	2	1	2	4	25
Management Practice	2	3	4	2	4	1	2	2	4	24
TOTAL	8	12	13	8	12	8	5	9	13	88

These tables are useful at the individual country level and enable the identification of priority areas for future work. The workshop, however, was more concerned with regional (SADC) priorities. In order to try to identify these, the results were aggregated across countries for each of the three rows, i.e. legal framework, institutional capacity and management practice.

The results of the regional aggregations are presented in tables 8 to 10.

Table 8: Legal Framework

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs
CONGO	3	3	3	0	2	0	2	4	5
MAURITIUS	3	3	3	3	2	3	3	5	5
MOZAMBIQUE	5	5	5	2	5	5	5	5	-
NAMIBIA	5	5	4	3	4	5	5	-	5
SEYCHELLES	5	3	2	4	2	3	2	2	5
SOUTH AFRICA	5	5	2	5	3	3	5	3	5
TANZANIA	5	5	4	4	4	5	2	5	5
AVERAGE	4,43	4,14	3,29	3,00	3,14	3,43	3,43	4,00	5,00
RANKING	8	7	3	1	2	4	4	6	9

Table 9: Institutional Capacity

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs
CONGO	4	3	3	2	2	0	2	4	4
MAURITIUS	1	4	4	3	2	4	2	4	4
MOZAMBIQUE	3	3	3	0	3	4	2	3	-
NAMIBIA	5	5	5	2	3	5	4	-	4
SEYCHELLES	3	2	1	1	4	4	2	3	4
SOUTH AFRICA	3	4	3	3	3	4	2	2	4
TANZANIA	1	4	5	2	4	2	1	2	4
AVERAGE	2,86	3,57	3,43	1,86	3,00	3,29	2,14	3,00	4,00
RANKING	3	8	7	1	4	6	2	4	9

Table 10: Management Practice

	Access Limitation/Capacity Control	Fishery Management Planning	Stakeholder Consultation	ICAM	Economics	Research	MCS	Artisanal Fisheries Management	MPAs
CONGO	2	3	2	2	2	0	2	3	3
MAURITIUS	2	3	3	3	1	4	2	4	3
MOZAMBIQUE	4	3	3	2	3	4	2	3	-
NAMIBIA	5	5	5	2	3	4	4	-	4
SEYCHELLES	2	3	2	3	5	3	3	4	4
SOUTH AFRICA	3	4	3	2	2	4	2	2	3
TANZANIA	2	3	4	2	4	1	2	2	4
AVERAGE	2,86	3,43	3,14	2,29	2,86	2,86	2,43	3,00	3,50
RANKING	3	8	7	1	3	3	2	6	9

Note that in order to determine the rankings, a low score implies relatively poor current performance and hence a high priority.

The overall averages were 3.76 for the legal framework, 3.02 for institutional capacity and 2.93 for current management practice. In terms of broad themes, therefore, the group identified that the management system tends to be enabling, it is in the implementation that the most pressing problems are to be found.

The rankings were very similar between institutional capacity and management practice but rather different in the case of the legal framework. However, given that it is the first two that give most cause for concern, the sub-group decided to focus attention on the priorities which emerged from these.

The exercise was very useful for the group as a first attempt to establish priorities. In developing its contribution to the action plan (cf. chapter 4), the sub-group discussed the results in depth. It was decided to organise actions to reflect management priorities, distinguishing between those that related to fishery management strictly under the control of the fisheries ministry (section 1 of the Action Plan) and those which appeared to have wider implications (section 3 of the Action Plan).