FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Support to formulate a - ACP Fish II

24 Pages·2014·1.37 MB·English

"StrengtheningfisheriesmanagementinACPstates"
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
Support to formulate a fisheries and
aquaculture policy for the Commonwealth of
Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
ACP Fish II – Strengthening fisheries management in ACP states
9 ACP RPF 128 Accounting No. RPR/006/07 – EDF IX
Reference: CAR/1.2/B2b
October 2012
Project implemented by
“This publication has been produced with the assistance of the
European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole
responsibility of the consultant and can in no way be taken to reflect
ThisprojectiffinancedbytheEuropeanUnion
theviewsoftheEuropeanUnion.”
“Thecontentofthisdocumentdoesnotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheconcernedgovernments.”
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Table of Content
Abreviations and Acronyms....................................................................................................2
Executive summary.....................................................................................................................3
1. Background...............................................................................................................................6
2. Approach to the assignment.....................................................................................7
3. Comments on the Terms of Reference...............................................................9
4. Organisation and Methodology...............................................................................10
4.1 Delivery of Terms of Reference (table as below).......................................................................10
4.2 Conduct and details of the assignment...........................................................................................12
4.2.1 GRENADA.........................................................................................................................................................................12
4.2.2 DOMINICA........................................................................................................................................................................17
4.2.3 StVINCENT&GRENADINES...............................................................................................................................20
5. Conclusions and recommendations......................................................................22
Annexes............................................................................................................................................25
Annex 1 : Terms of Reference1
Annex 2 : Inception Report2
Annex 3 : Photographs of project activities3
Annex 4 : Information notes for the validation workshops and press
release4
Annex 5 : Technical outputs5
Annex 5.1: Documents for Grenada6
Annex 5.2 : Documents for the Commonwealth of Dominica7
Annex 5.3 : Documents for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.1 FTR pg.1/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Abreviations and
Acronyms
CCCFP Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy
CFO Chief Fisheries Officer
CFRM Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism
DOM Commonwealth of Dominica
ESDU Environmental Sustainable Development Unit (of OECS)
FD Fisheries Division
GND Grenada
IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (fishing)
KE Key Expert
MCS Monitoring Control & Surveillance
MPA Marine Protected Area
NAFCOPP National Association of Fisheries Cooperatives (Dominica)
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
RFU Regional Facilitation Unit
SPS Sanitary & Phyto-sanitary (fish product hygiene & food safety)
SVG St. Vincent and the Grenadines
TOR Terms of Reference
TT Technical Team
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.2 FTR pg.2/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Executive summary
This project was initiated to assist three Caribbean island states, Grenada (GND), Dominica (DOM)
and St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), to develop coherent and currently relevant fisheries
and aquaculture policies. A lack of formal policies was seen as hindering development and
sustainable management of the sector. Three European consultants were stationed, one in each
country, for two missions between April and August 2012. Locally, the consultants worked with the
Fisheries Division and stakeholders to first develop the national policies and then to present and
refine the drafts through a validation workshop where broad endorsement for the policies content
wassought.
The approach adopted for developing each policy was essentially participatory, with attention
given to both institutional (government agencies and other key players) and individual frontline
stakeholders(fishers,vendorsetc)consultedthroughaseriesof group meetings.To thisend:
(cid:131)
Key stakeholder meetings were held involving the broad spectrum of potentially
interested parties from government departments to fishermen’s associations, seafood
processors and aquatic tourism operators.
(cid:131)
Community Consultations were held in the more important fisheries centres in each of
the islands.
The feedback from these dialogues has formed the basis for the policy. The process was guided
by a Technical Team (TT), made up of members of Fisheries Division and in some cases from
key stakeholder groups outside government. This team met periodically to steer key aspects of
the programme, and will hopefully continue to do so in subsequent phases. There were three key
projectoutputs,allofwhichareappended tothe report:
(cid:131)
A Diagnostic Review and analysis of the sector (the “Working Document”) to provide
the essential context and define the policy environment. In some cases the Working
document has been appended to the policy as a further annex, as requested by the
country in question
(cid:131)
A Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy document which comprises three main sections:
(i) a contextual section distilled from the Diagnostic Review, (ii) the policy itself
expressed as series of policy elements and (iii) a series of annexes which provide an
expanded and detailed backup for the contextual section
(cid:131)
Finally, an Action Plan to provide a road map for the implementation of the policy.
In some cases the action Plan has been appended to the policy as a further annex,
as requested by the country in question
The Fisheries Divisions of each country participated very actively in the process and, together
with the technical teams, provided solid and consistent support for the policy formulation and
validation process. This was particularly appreciated given the complex and wide ranging
responsibilitiesofthe authorities.
Thepolicies
The policies for the three countries differed widely, but this was understandable given the
differences between islands and the varying approaches of the administrations involved.
However, a common structure for the policy documents was requested by ACP Fish II and this
wascompliedwithto the degreethatthe differingcountryrequirementsallowed.
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.3 FTR pg.3/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
The three policy documents all took due cognizance of the regional framework for fisheries
sector policies and the guiding principles embodied in regional agreements, especially the
Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy (CCCFP) and international standards of best
practice. However, the bulk of the content of the policies referred to specific issues that had
emerged from the key meetings and community consultations. Within a broad spectrum of such
issuesanumberofthemesemerged ascommonconcerns–theseincluded:
(cid:131)
Management and institutional governance of fisheries and aquaculture
(cid:131)
Resource sustainability and wider environmental issues
(cid:131)
Community involvement and upgrading of fisher’s capacity and status
(cid:131)
Support for artisanal and subsistence fisheries and related livelihoods
(cid:131)
Private sector development, especially of commercial fisheries prospects
(cid:131)
Aquatic resources in the wider economic context, including tourism
CommentsontheAssignmentandLessonsLearned.
Since this project was potentially the first of several policy projects in the Caribbean under ACP
Fish II, an important aspect was to test the approach. Accordingly thought was given to how
effective the approach had been and what lessons might be learned. The following points were
made:
(cid:131)
Responding to the differences between the three target countries. Despite many
similarities, the three target countries and their fisheries differed significantly. These
differences led to concomitant differences in the documentation produced, variously in
terms of its structure, content and overall approach
(cid:131)
The participatory nature of the research for this project determined the shape and
content of the resulting policy documents. The team felt that this made them much more
valid than would have been the case with a conventional “top-down” approach, thus
vindicating the participatory approach
(cid:131)
Devising a common format for the documentation: one result of the lengthy
participatory and revision process was that a common format developed for the policies
fell victim to differing national preferences
(cid:131)
Whilst extensive consultation was essential, more time should be allocated to
document review and understanding the realities of the broader context.
(cid:131)
The Working Document should be just that – ie a transitory stage en route to the policy
and not an end in itself, although it does provides useful supporting material
(cid:131)
The regional dimension of fisheries policy is both highly important in terms of
economics, trade and management of shared resources, and complex. This needs careful
treatment, including a dispassionate assessment of the cost benefit balance for each
country. There are potential conflicts between regional and national interests that mean
that perceptions of the policy at national and regional levels do not always accord. While
this is useful in some senses, the project team agreed in general that the regional
perspective should be subordinate to national priorities.
(cid:131)
Structuring this project as a regional assignment covering three countries was helpful
in several ways. The opportunity for the consultants to swap results of their respective
local experiences and expertise was appreciated, but the division of labour where not all
consultants could meet staff from key regional bodies was a disadvantage for some.
(cid:131)
The need for community involvement & support for management measures emerged
during the policy formulation. A realistic appreciation of what can and can not be done,
made the need for community endorsement of new measures very apparent.
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.4 FTR pg.4/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
(cid:131)
There was limited scope for developing the Action Plan. This was partly because of the
relatively short time frame and limited consultant inputs, and partly because the action
plan could not be formulated until the policy had been finalized, a stage that could not be
reached until close to the end of the project.
(cid:131)
Subsequent evolution of the policies This is the current form of the documents, and the
stage at which the project hands them on. They are expected to evolve subsequently as
the Target Groups develop them – indeed failure to do so would suggest that the policies
are not moving up towards broad national adoption in the way that we are hoping they
will.
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.5 FTR pg.5/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
1. Background
Recent discussion about the challenges facing the Caribbean fisheries sector identified the lack
of formal and coherent fisheries policies as a key constraint. The purpose of this document is to
help address this constraint, for three Caribbean nations: Grenada, Dominica and St. Vincent and
the Grenadines. It has been prepared as part of a project funded by the European Union through
its ACP FishII Programme and implemented by SOFRECO over the period from April to
September 2012. The primary objective of the project was to assist the Fisheries Divisions in each
country to develop a national policy framework that i) reflects wide stakeholder aspirations and ii)
promotes the sustainable and equitable management of the fisheries and aquaculture sector for
maximumnational economic gain..The projecthas generatedthreekeydocuments:
(cid:131)
A Diagnostic Review and analysis of the sector (the “Working Document”) to provide
the essential context and define the policy environment. In some cases the Working
document has been appended to the policy as a further annex, as requested by the
country in question
(cid:131)
This Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy document which comprises three main
sections: (i) a contextual section distilled from the Diagnostic Review, (ii) the policy
itself expressed as series of policy elements and (iii) a series of annexes which
provide an expanded and detailed backup for the contextual section.
(cid:131)
Finally, an Action Plan to provide a road map for the implementation of the policy.
In some cases the action Plan has been appended to the policy as a further annex,
as requested by the country in question
Thesethreesetsofdocuments,onefor eachofthe target countries,areappendedtothis Final
TechnicalReport(FTR)in annex.
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.6 FTR pg.6/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
2. Approach to the assignment
The approach to defining the policies has been participatory, as required by the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The workplan was therefore heavily orientated towards
consultation throughout. This was a progressive process, starting with the Fisheries Divisions, and
then moving on to other agencies and individuals with either a stake in the fisheries or marine
environmental sectors, or whose responsibilities overlap with the Fisheries Divisions in some way.
Finally, the consultation process moved on to the fishing communities themselves, with particular
efforts made to ensure that a broadly representative segment of the communities were directly
involved inpolicy formulationand review.
The project was directed at national level by a Technical Team formed of a mix of government
and private sector individuals (Grenada, St Vincent) and present and past members of the
Fisheries Division (Dominica). The three Technical Teams came up with slightly different formulae
for effective consultation with all key stakeholders (key representatives from
institutions/organisations that have a significant involvement in fisheries or other aspects of the
maritime environment). In Grenada and St Vincent, discussion with the Chief fisheries Officer
(CFO), staff and Technical Teams suggested that the most effective way of involving key
stakeholders was through forming themed groups. This meant identifying common areas of
interest/expertise and inviting representatives from the relevant institutions to form appropriate
working groups. In Dominica, individual meetings were set up with each relevant organisation. The
findings of these key stakeholder meetings, along with a literature, legislation and policy review,
were brought together in the Diagnostic and Analysis Working Document. This was devised as a
step in the process of policy formulation, rather than as a finished output in its own right. However
it was retained as a back up to the policy, in the form of a diagnostic of the fisheries sector,
designed to justify the focus and content of the policy. The Dominican and St Vincent Fisheries
Divisions have requested thatthe Working Document be prepared as a formal Annexto the Policy
(seebelow)..
For all three countries, fishing communities were included in the consultation process via
Community Consultations. These consultations were set up by the Technical Teams with the key
experts (KEs) who provided technical support where necessary and who facilitated delivery of
funds from the ACP Fish II incidental expenditure budget for this project. The agenda for these
consultations was guided by the findings of the preceding stakeholder focus group or individual
meetings, and provided input to the working documents. In Grenada, four community
consultations were held, and in Dominica and St Vincent three, as foreseen in the Terms of
Reference(ToRs)(seebelow).Between20 and 50 stakeholdersattendedeachconsultation.
Once a draft policy document had been prepared and reviewed by project Technical Teams and
Fisheries Division staff, a Validation Workshop was held in each country. The Validation Workshop
aimed to finalise the draft policies and gain the endorsement of all key stakeholder groups.
Following the Validation Workshop and policy redraft, it is understood that further modification
may result from their review by Cabinet, but this stage in the process is clearly beyond the remit
ofthisproject.
A first draft Action Plan for implementation was devised with each draft policy. The Action Plans
could not really be developed until the policy was in final mutually agreed form. This meant that
these action plans had to be expressed as generalised and tentative documents as there was
very limited time to discuss them or to make modifications required. In addition, some Technical
Teams expressed the view that during endorsement by Cabinet (a pre-requisite for formal
adoption of the policies) the Cabinet would be likely to have their own views on the priorities for
implementationofthestrategiesand actionssetout in thepolicy.
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.7 FTR pg.7/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
The project has a strong regional element expressed in the regional fisheries initiatives that
operate in the region (Carribean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CFRM), CCCFP, Organisation of
Eastern Carribean States (OECS), Environmental and Sustainable Development Unit (ESDU), etc.).
However it was noted that the three countries differ significantly in many of the problems they
face and in the way they respond to them - a long-standing feature of small Caribbean islands.
They therefore needed to be treated independently, and the three experts were consequently
required to operate with some autonomy. Nonetheless, the regional approach by the project was
regarded as important and useful, if only because the experts were able to share experiences,
information and analyses.
Working with the Regional Facilitation Unit of the ACP FISHII (RFU), the Fisheries Directorate (FD)’s
and team members, the KE1 (team leader) devised a work plan coupled with some formats in
order to provide harmonised activities and outputs where possible. However, as noted above, the
team members were left relatively free to operate with the autonomy required given their relative
isolation from each other and the different styles and interests of their respective island states.
Nonetheless, significant efforts have been made to produce harmonised final outputs in terms of
structureandformat,renderingcomparisons morestraightforward.TheKey Expertteamwas:
(cid:131)
Nigel Peacock, Fisheries Policy Specialist based in Grenada, Team Leader, KE1
(cid:131)
Jo Gascoigne, Fisheries Specialist, based in Dominica, KE2
(cid:131)
Sophie Des Clers, Fisheries Specialist, based in St Vincent & the Grenadines, KE3
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.8 FTR pg.8/463
Supporttoformulateafisheriesandaquaculturepolicyforthe
Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3. Comments on the Terms of
Reference
At the inception stage, the team had three comments on the TOR: two on specific aspects
(aquaculture and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management) and one general remark on
thetimeframe forreview andcomment bythebeneficiaries. Thesewereas follows
(cid:131) TOR p4 states that ‘aquaculture has great potential’. The team noted that as well as lack
of
an aquaculture policy as identified by the project inception, there are major
hindrances such as limited availability of coastal sites or suitable land and water,
market access and economies of scale. The team felt that fisheries should be the
main priority of this project.
(cid:131)
TOR p6 ‘based on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries’ – The team felt that
implementation of an ‘ecosystem approach to fisheries’ has not really been
achieved even in the most advanced and data rich fisheries. The ecosystem
approach was then borne in mind to the extent that information is available and
that it fits with the realistic and achievable objectives identified by the
consultations and the Technical Team.
(cid:131)
More generally the team noted that the project timeline was very short – it was
felt that technical teams and key stakeholders did not have enough time to review
the draft policy document before the validation workshop.
Comments made during and after the project are included in section 5 – Conclusions and
Recommendations
ThisprojectisfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion Projectimplementedby pg.9 FTR pg.9/463