|
The cornerstone for the survival and growth of
fishery dependent communities and regions is the
economic viability of the fishing activity. Most
public sector fishery policies include strategies
aiming to establish institutions - or public sector
frameworks - that will ensure that communities are
helped in maintaining and improving the viability
of their fishing/aquaculture activities. A major
role of these institutions is to assure that
viability is improved without causing negative
externalities of any kind.
Historically, the public institutions primarily
and directly concerned with fisheries and
aquaculture in rich, industrialized countries were
centralized in a public fishery administration. The
administration would aim: (i) to monitor fishing
effort and enforce fishing regulations
(MCS); (ii) to monitor fish stocks and
advice on appropriate levels of exploitation of
major commercial stocks; (iii) to report on the
volume and value of production in the sector; (iv)
to inform and instruct fishers on new technology
through extension services; (v) to develop new
fishing and fish processing technologies through
public research centres; and, sometimes, (vi) to
run offices dedicated to promoting trade and/or
consumption of fish products. In addition, within
government, the fishery administration functions as
a spokesperson for the sector vis-à-vis
other government departments and other sectors of
the economy. With growing economies, increased
mobility and expanding trade the outside demands on
the sector stretch continuously, placing
considerable demands on the fishery
administration.
However, with the advent of policies linked to
open market economies, fishery administrations in
industrialized countries came under pressure to
reduce in size. In addition to a general
downsizing, this led fishery administrations to
request that users pay for the services that those
same administrations provided.
The success of policies derived from the open
market economy varies. A main reason for, at best,
partial success is that some functions can be
reduced in size or eliminated; others not. For
example, while arguments can be found for
discontinuing technology development and extension
services in rich industrial countries, even these
countries require that publicly controlled MCS
services, as well as the monitoring of wild aquatic
resources, continue.
In several countries, public funding for
technology development in capture fisheries has
been reduced. There are two major reasons for this.
First of all, resources are being fully used and
where effort is not controlled, improved technology
leads to overexploitation, which in turn often
causes a decline in livelihoods for the majority of
the stakeholders. This of course reduces the
urgency of government to participate in developing
new technology. A second reason is that the
know-how and resources needed for technology
development are becoming more and more expensive
and sophisticated. In fact, the public sector
cannot afford the staff and infrastructure needed
to compete in this field with vessel, engine and
fishing gear manufacturers. Similarly, as the
manufacturers of gears and equipment introduce most
new technology, the need for extension services is
falling.
Other functions - such as quality control of
fish products and MCS of fishing effort -
cannot be so easily abolished or reduced. For the
well-being of the fishery sector it is essential
that MCS remain under the control of the public
administration, although it is one of the most
costly services provided to fishers. And the need
for MCS persists even where entry controls have
been introduced. Where quotas are used it is still
necessary for some authority to monitor that quota
holders do not exceed their share. This is because
quotas do not generally correspond with an
exclusive economic or fishing zone. However,
successful entry limit schemes often lead to the
generation of economic rents for those who remain
in the fishery. Thus the industry should be able to
contribute to the payment of MCS and resource
monitoring services.
Another equally important function - that does
not lend itself easily to private sector execution
- is the monitoring of the state of wild stocks.
Although it remains a costly undertaking for most
fishery administrations, it must be continued and,
if possible, improved.
During the second half of the last decade,
governments in some developing countries had the
time and resources to establish full-fledged
fishery administrations. But only in the very large
countries did these institutions become well
established and fully supported through the public
budget. In smaller countries with important
fisheries such administrations often received
significant support in the form of staff, equipment
and funding through international aid. But most of
the fishery administrations had not become
economically self-sustained by the time aid ceased
and outside forces constrained governments to adopt
policies inspired by the open market economy ideal.
For many countries this put an effective stop to
efforts aimed at developing appropriate fishery
administrations. Today, in many of the poorest
developing countries the fishery administrations
are not able to effectively execute the tasks they
originally were intended to undertake because they
are not provided the means needed to do so.
Unfortunately this also reflects negatively on the
administrations' capability to act as a
spokesperson for the sector vis-à-vis other
government departments and other sectors of the
economy.
As can be expected - given the costs and
infrastructure involved - fishery administrations
in developing countries have particular
difficulties in monitoring the status of resources
and in monitoring and enforcing capture fishery
regulations. Also, the resources dedicated by
governments to technology development in fisheries
are insignificant. The exceptions are large
countries - mostly Asian - with large fishery
sectors (e.g. China, India, Thailand, Indonesia).
Staff assigned to undertake extension services are
few and have difficulties in performing their tasks
for lack of funds and training.
In small and poor developing economies -
especially in Africa - the situation is indeed
critical. As population grows and the fishing
pressure mounts on a finite resource, the need for
effective resource monitoring and MCS becomes
acute. This is true even as more use is made of a
property rights-based approach to fishery
management. Furthermore, at this time it is
unrealistic for most of these countries to consider
assuming publicly executed technology research and
development programmes in support of either
fisheries or aquaculture.
Effective and easy communications between
fishers and the administration is a major problem
in poor countries. Where such communications are
deficient, it is a severe obstacle for development
of the sector as there is a growing recognition
that the fishery and aquaculture sector, like
others, must be governed in part by, and above all
with the consent of, the stakeholders. Transparent
and frequent communications with stakeholders is a
precondition if a consensus is to be achieved on a
realistic approach to the management of the sector.
For such communication to take place it is becoming
increasingly important that fishers are organized
and that the management of their associations be
prepared to interact with the representatives
fishing communities.
|
