Report of the study orientation and methodology workshop
REPORT-R 6A
Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL)
WORK PACKAGE 2
Cover photograph: Boats on a beach Photo Courtesy FIMSUL
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS (FIMSUL) PROJECT IN TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY, INDIA (FAO/UTF/IND/180/IND) Work-Package 2 Fisheries Policy Development
Report of the Study Orientation and Methodology Workshop 28- 30th September 2010 Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Author Arthur E. Neiland PhD Technical Oversight and Policy Expert to FIMSUL
September 2010
Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or the World Bank concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or of its authorities in concerning the delimitations of its frontiers or boundaries. Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not imply any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO or the World Bank.
Copyright © 2011 Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of Puducherry Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Bank
Suggested Citation FIMSUL, 2010 . Report of the Study Orientation and Methodology Workshop 28- 30th September 2010 Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL), Report No. FIMSUL/R6A
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Office of the FAO Representative in India and Bhutan P.O. Box No. 3088, 55, Lodi Estate New Delhi-110003, India Tel: 91-11-24628877 www.fao.org
Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Fisheries DMS Complex First Floor, Administrative Building Teynampet, Chennai 600006 Government of Puducherry Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Botanical Garden Premises Puducherry 605001
SUMMARY In the following report, the proceedings and outcomes of a workshop on Fisheries Policy Development are reported. The workshop took place in Chennai between 28-30th September 2010 and marked the commencement of work-package two (WP2) of the Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL) project. The participants included government officers from Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, representatives from various NGOs connected to the fisheries sector and FIMSUL project staff. It is planned that WP2 will operate for at least ten months (Sept 2010 – June 2011), leading to a clear analysis of fisheries policy options in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. In turn it is intended that this will help to underpin the future design of a new draft fisheries policy document for both Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Overall, the following outcomes were achieved: · a clear orientation for FIMSUL WP2 Fisheries Policy Development was established; which was explained to all project participants and stakeholders in the workshop; · both awareness-building and capacity-building on fisheries policy and analysis were also provided; · the key policy issues were discussed from international, national and state level perspectives, and · the proposed WP2 methodology was explained and discussed in order to help better focus and refine the overall approach. The next set of activities under WP2 will be the implementation of three studies, to be undertaken by national experts in collaboration with international experts within FIMSUL, including the collation and review of fisheries policy studies in India and Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; a characterisation of the fisheries sector in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; and a profile and description of fisheries policy in India and Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
iii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BoBP
Bay of Bengal Programme (FAO)
BoBLME
Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project
CCRF
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
CMFRI
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute
CRZ
Coastal Regulation Zone
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
FAD
Fish Aggregating Device
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FIMSUL
Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods Project
GoI
Government of India
GoPC
Government of Puducherry
GoTN
Government of Tamil Nadu
ICAR
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
INGO
International Non-Government Organisation
INR
Indian Rupee
LoP
Letter of Permit
MFRA
Marine Fisheries Regulation Act
MOEF
Ministry of Environment and Forests
NFDB
National Fisheries Development Board
NGO
Non-Government Organisation
PAC
Project Advisory Committee
PC
Project Coordinator
PIP
Policy, Institutions and Processes
PMSSS
Pondicherry Multi Purpose Social Service Society
PPG
Pro-Poor Growth
PTC
Project Technical Committee
iv
SD
Sustainable Development
SHG
Self Help Group
SIFFS
South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies
TN/PC
Tamil Nadu / Puducherry
TO
Technical Oversight officer
TOR
Terms of Reference
UN
United Nations
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UT
Union Territory
WB
World Bank
WP
Work Package
v
Contents Page
1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6.
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x)
Author Summary Abbreviations and Acronyms Introduction Workshop objectives and key outputs Approach Proceedings, findings and discussions Day 1 – Fisheries Policy and Policy Analysis: An Overview Day 2 – Fisheries Policy Development in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Day 3 – Fisheries Policy Development – FIMSUL Approach Closing remarks Next steps Appendices FIMSUL Project Overview Workshop Programme Fisheries Policy (i) – Concepts and approaches Fisheries Policy (ii) – Analysis and methodology Fisheries Policy Development and International Experiences Fisheries Sector Issues in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Fisheries Policy Development Experiences in Orissa SWOT Analysis of Fisheries Policy Issues in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Fisheries Policy Analysis Framework for FIMSUL List of participants
ii iii iv 1 1 1 2 2 5 9 11 11
12 14 17 21 24 27 30 34 38 41
vi
1.
Introduction
In the following report, the proceedings and outcomes of a workshop on Fisheries Policy Development are reported. The workshop took place in Chennai between 28-30th September 2010 and marked the commencement of work-package number two (WP2) of the Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL) project. It is planned that WP2 will operate for at least ten months (Sept 2010 – June 2011), leading to a clear analysis of fisheries policy options in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. In turn this will help to underpin the design of a new draft fisheries policy document for both Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. 2.
Workshop Objectives and Key Output
The workshop objectives were: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
To provide a clear orientation for WP2 Fisheries Policy Development; To ensure that project participants understood the WP orientation and content; To provide awareness- and capacity-building in fisheries policy and analysis; To review and discuss fisheries policy issues at three levels – international, national and state (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Orissa); To review and refine the proposed WP2 methodology with advice and inputs from workshop participants;
The key output from the workshop is the current report which provides a summary and synthesis of the proceedings and the main outcomes in relation to the five objectives above. In particular, the workshop has helped to guide and refine the methodology for the subsequent implementation of WP2. 3.
Approach
The approach which underpinned the design and operation of the workshop included the following key elements: ·
·
·
·
Expert inputs : - The workshop was conducted over three days with lead inputs from both national and international experts in fisheries policy analysis and development and implementation (see workshop programme – Appendix II below); Workshop structure: -Each day focused on a specific agenda – Day 1 provided an overview of fisheries policy and policy analysis, including concepts and approaches; Day 2 focused on international, national and state-level experiences in fisheries policy development; and Day 3 reviewed and revised the proposed approach to fisheries policy analysis to be used by FIMSUL in the future; Types of sessions:- The workshop was made up of different types of sessions – formal presentations on key topics, presentations on past experiences, and moderated discussions; plus a participatory exercise on fisheries policy issues; Workshop participants:- The workshop participants included both senior and middle-level government staff from Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, national experts in fisheries and fisheries policy, staff from non-government organisations involved in fisheries, particularly at a local level, and FIMSUL project staff (see participants list – Appendix X below);
1
4.
Workshop proceedings, findings and discussions
Day 1 – 28th September 2010 – Fisheries Policy and Policy Analysis: An Overview The Opening Session (morning) The session commenced with a Welcome Address and Introduction to FIMSUL by the FIMSUL Project Coordinator, Mr. C.M. Muralidharan (Appendix I below). The overall goal of FIMSUL was identified as follows: ‘the fisheries sector makes a positive net contribution to sustainable development (SD) and pro-poor growth (PPG) in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry’. It was also explained that the mechanism for achieving this goal would be that – ‘frameworks, processes and capacities would be established in the public and private sectors, and in civil society, which facilitate the planning, design and implementation of appropriate fisheries development and management policies for sustainable livelihoods’. The contribution which WP2 on Fisheries Policy Development could make to achieving the goal through the mechanism was then highlighted. It was explained that WP2 would undertake analysis of current fisheries policy in TN/PC, explore and compare possible future policy options and then make the findings available in an appropriate form to enable the future development of a new draft fisheries policy for TN/PC. The structure, schedule and implementation methods for WP2 were also highlighted. Following-on, Mr. K. Sellamuthu, IAS (Director of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu) gave some opening remarks. He welcomed all the participants and wished them a successful workshop over the next three days. He stressed the importance of the fisheries sector to Tamil Nadu and the need to consider future policy directions. Technical Session 1 (Morning) Dr. Arthur E. Neiland (FIMSUL Project) gave an initial presentation on ‘Fisheries Policy Concepts, Approaches and Performance’ (Appendix III below). There were four objectives – to consider how policy is defined, to highlight the importance of policy and policy performance, to review the nature of the policy process from different perspectives, and to emphasise the importance of policy reform. Drawing on a recent in-depth analysis of the fisheries sector in India as a whole, it was shown that the fisheries sector represents a valuable asset base and has considerable potential to provide a range of sustainable benefits (income, employment, food). However, one of the major constraints to realising this potential is the weakness of the current policy, legal and administrative system for the sector. It was then explained that policy is often complex and that a good understanding of the underlying policy processes, the actors involved and how they might be influenced is essential in order to bring about policy reform. The presentation highlighted the contrasting perspectives provided by the linear and non-linear conceptualisations of the policy process. Finally, the critical importance of policy, institutions and processes (PIPs) in determining policy performance were explained. Thereafter, a Moderated Discussion Session addressed the key question – ‘What is the relevance and applicability of fisheries policy concepts / approaches to TN/PC?’The following points were raised and discussed: ·
There are examples of both policy success and failure in India which might be used in the future to contribute to policy improvement and reform;
2
·
·
·
· ·
· · · ·
·
·
·
· · ·
While some attempts have been made to regulate fisheries in TN/PC, through periodic annual fishing bans (April-May, 45 days), there is a need to develop a more comprehensive approach to fisheries management and the development of fisheries management plans; At a local level, there are also examples of self-regulation within fisheries communities and associated fisheries; including the establishment of local rights; the question is how can these be incorporated into future policy and management, and how can fishing communities become more involved in the broader policy decision-making process; However, although there are some examples of attempts at fisheries regulation, the management of inshore fisheries in TN/PC represents a major challenge; the fisheries remain as an open-access system, and many people depend upon fisheries for socio-economic benefits; Many fishing activities are also covered by customary laws and traditions, which should also be taken into account; Resource sharing (or resource allocation) is a major issue – how can future fisheries policy accommodate the different stakeholders; for example, there is considerable competition and conflict between the traditional sub-sector and the mechanised sector; Although the fisheries sector is governed by a variety of rules and regulations, enforcement remains a problem; Policy should be clear on the role of the traditional sector; Other policy options could include the establishment of artificial reefs to prevent trawling and the generation of benefits for many stakeholders through associated resource enhancement; The actual contribution of fisheries to GDP is relatively small in India (<2%), as in most countries; but to what extent do formal national accounts really measure and capture the value or contribution of fisheries, especially when sector statistics are weak or non-existent? In some States, detailed studies relevant to understanding the contribution and performance of the traditional sector have been undertaken, for example, in Kerala, cost-earnings studies have been completed in the past, but not in TN/ PC; however, it may be possible to undertake case-studies in certain locations based on the available information; The overall fisheries policy development process in TN/PC faces a number of serious challenges – sector statistics in general are unreliable (e.g. there is a lack of coherence between CMFRI and State systems); there are only limited estimates of the state of the major fish stocks; there is no overarching policy document (there is a five year plan and annual policy notes); the underpinning legal framework also needs to be reviewed and reformed; There are various ongoing debates within the fisheries sector – including the role of aquaculture , which needs to be investigated further; and also the possibilities for the development of offshore fishing – since inshore resources are showing signs of depletion – is it simply a question of providing further and appropriate technological inputs to allow fishers access to these resources? The possibility of including indigenous knowledge within the policy process should also be considered; local actors can make an important contribution to policy development; The identification and evaluation of policy options are also constrained by the current lack of reliable statistics; The questions were raised – who makes policy in TN/PC? Who are the policy-makers? and What are the objectives? The primary focus at present is ‘welfare’ and the design and implementation of welfare schemes for fishing communities; this includes various subsidy schemes for gear and fuel; the problem of course is that with weak fisheries management, fishers have demanded more boats and other inputs in attempt to catch more fish, but this has just compounded the problems associated with all open-access fisheries and the ‘race for fish’; if fisheries management was
3
effective, then fishers would not need welfare support or subsidies; fishers take up welfare in the absence of fisheries management; Technical Session 2 (Afternoon) Dr. Arthur E. Neiland (FIMSUL Project) followed up with a second presentation entitled ‘Fisheries Policy – Analysis and Methodology’ (see Appendix IV below). There were four objectives. To examine how policy analysis is defined; to explain the importance and challenges of policy analysis; to highlight a standard approach to policy analysis and to consider its role within policy development, and methods of influencing and strategies for change. It was explained that a policy can be defined as a set of objectives and an associated course of action, adopted by those with responsibility for a given policy area, and expressed as a set of formal statements of positions; whereas the policy process consists of the design and development of policy, and its subsequent implementation and assessment. In turn, policy analysis is undertaken to improve our knowledge of the policy process in each particular setting. It includes a range of methods both qualitative and quantitative which help to identify and provide a better understanding of the components, inter-relationships, context and dynamics involved. The ‘standard approach’ to policy analysis includes 4 steps as follows: Identify the policy profile; Assessment of policy performance; Evaluate policy performance and Identify options for policy change. The extent to which people can influence policy design and implementation, will depend, to certain extent on a good understanding of policy processes, and identifying ways of engaging with them over time. There are a range of possible strategies for shaping policy processes, and they require new and innovative ways of thinking about policy – cross-sectoral, macro-micro links, people-centred, considering trade-offs and emphasis on process. Thereafter, a Moderated Discussion Session addressed the key question – ‘What is the relevance and applicability of fisheries policy analysis in TN/PC?’The following points were raised and discussed: ·
·
·
·
·
·
Fisheries policy in TN/PC appears to have multi-objectives, relating to biological/resource, social and economic dimensions of the sector, so therefore it is difficult to apply a standard policy analysis approach, where the starting point a single clear well-defined objective; Since government involvement in the sector is determined by both five-year and annual plans, with associated budgets, it is also possible to derive (imply) what are the overall policy objectives(s); In fact, although the overall state government budget for fisheries in TN has declined in recent years, the major financial component (90%) is still allocated to ‘welfare payments’ for the sector, in various direct and indirect forms; only about 10% of the budget is thought to be allocated to fisheries management initiatives; It was suggested that fisheries policy development in both TN/PC had been constrained by a failure to involve a full range of stakeholders; this was also related to the limited level of communication between government and stakeholders on important issues; it was acknowledged that government policy was, on the whole, reactive to pressing issues and crisises within the sector; In the past, there was an well-established fisheries extension service in TN and this provided a vital link between government and the primary stakeholders in particular; it does not operate any longer to the same degree; The importance of information flow and communication was further discussed in the context of recent policy development and debates; in particular the debate over the proposed Coastal Zone Regulation Act (CZRA) where various organisations including international organisations such as 4
·
·
·
UNDP working with local NGOs had facilitated a good flow of relevant information to local communities; in turn, local stakeholders had been able to express their views at consultation meetings and mobilise to demonstrate against the proposed Act in certain locations; the government has not yet passed the Act, and is seeking to re-draft it; The impact which stakeholder action can have on policy development was highlighted through a discussion of the seasonal fishing ban (45 day); this was suggested originally by fishermen in Kerala, as a monsoon ban on trawling, eventually the scientific community also accepted the idea, and government was persuaded to implement this; The extent to which there is sufficient and appropriate research to inform policy development in TN/PC and in India in general was considered; it was asserted that small-scale fisheries have not been a central focus and there is a need to investigate them further to increase understanding in general of their operation and major issues affecting them; The ‘drivers’ of policy change and development in TN/PC were discussed; in some instances, groups of stakeholders have petitioned government and sought to ‘copy’ policy interventions from other locations (such as the case of the Kerala trawl ban); other ‘drivers’ have come from different directions, such as desire to use ‘space technology’ for tracking fishing activity and fish stocks (from technology sector in India in general) and greater monitoring of vessels (relating to counterterrorism).
Day 2 – 29th September 2010 – Fisheries Policy Development in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Technical Session 1 (Morning) Dr. A. Neiland (FIMSUL Project) gave the first presentation on ‘Fisheries Policy Development and International Experiences’ (Appendix V below). The objectives were – to identify and explain issues affecting fisheries policy, with particular reference to fisheries management; to draw upon international experiences; and to consider the implications for policy reform in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The main sources of information for the presentation included studies on fisheries policy commissioned by the UN FAO and the World Bank. A set of ten issues were covered under the broad categories of ‘policy’ and ‘fisheries governance’. First, it was emphasised that the potential value of fisheries needs to be recognised within the policy process; otherwise potential benefit may not be realised or even lost. Second, fisheries policy and management must be underpinned by appropriate narratives; they should reflect reality and include multi-disciplinary perspectives to improve understanding of fisheries systems. Third, the context and nature of the policy process is important – for example, the extent to which there is an enabling environment for policy. Fourth, participation by a full range of stakeholders will be required for effective policy-making; however, the challenge remains how to encourage both appropriate and effective participation. Fifth, successful policy implementation will depend upon an appropriate and workable combination of regulatory tools defined in law. Sixth, institutional arrangements (both rules and organisations) are also important for effective fisheries operation and management; appropriate development and reform of institutions will probably be a gradual process involving negotiation and consensus-building. Seventh, an assessment of management capacity is an essential part of policy development – followon capacity building may be required and can have an immediate positive effect on policy performance. Eighth, stakeholder participation in fisheries management will also have a positive effect on performance; however, effective participation is problematic to achieve, and cannot be 5
simply handed down by government, and will depend on various factors including appropriate capacity-building. Ninth, relevant and timely information is also important to support fisheries management and the policy process overall. Tenth, and finally, political will and leadership are essential to support the policy process. It was concluded that comparisons of international fisheries experiences can usefully inform future policy analysis and development. Mr. V. Vivekanandan (FIMSUL Project) gave the next presentation in this session entitled ‘Marine Fisheries Sector – Policy Issues in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry’ (see Appendix VI below). He commenced by explaining that setting objectives needs to be the starting point for policy-making. Fisheries policy in India includes multiple (non-prioritised) objectives relating to benefits (food, nutrition, employment etc). Policy setting is dominated largely by Central Government, even though States have both the freedom, capacity and resources to act. This can be attributed to central planning and the greater financial power of central government. What have been the drivers of central policy? Major themes included – the 1960s resentment of dependence on food aid; followed by the ‘grow more food’ campaign (‘green’ and ‘blue’ revolutions), economic restructuring, and various agricultural initiatives (food security). Early state policies were aimed at improving fishing as a livelihood. Policies focused on increased mechanisation (trawlers), infrastructure and international trade (shrimp). The 1980s saw the first recognition of problems produced by earlier policies, especially dualism in sector – mechanised and small-scale fisheries subsectors. MFRAs included – conservation of resources, protection of small scale sector and conflict resolution. The production focus also shifted from the trawlers to promotion of motorisation. Welfare schemes and insurance also came in the 1980s/90s. Fisheries management also gained ground but was seen mainly as a matter of protecting small fishermen and reducing conflict than really managing the resource and system overall. Furthermore, in the 1990s, the conservation agenda (e.g. shark ban, Orissa turtle etc) started to emerged, and separate from fisheries management per se, spearheaded by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and various NGOs. Coastal issues have also come to the fore in the last five years, as demand for space and usage has increased, especially from industry. Overall then, fisheries policy is a ‘mish-mash’ of many objectives, lacking coherence and agenda set increasingly by non-sector actors. New policy development needs a paradigm shift. What are the key policy issues therefore? There are numerous issues to be considered. For start, livelihood development versus resource conservation. The option of moving from an open access system to limited access. The choice of management frameworks. The difficulty of relating international best practice in fisheries to the specific situation in India. There is also a need to assess and compare the range of policy prescriptions currently being advocated in TN/PC including better management of existing fisheries to get higher benefits, resource enhancement, diversification into deep sea fishing, more fish farming, and alternative (non-fishing) livelihoods. Defining fishermen and their rights to livelihoods and welfare is also an important policy issue. Other important policy issues include – the nature of domestic and international markets, transboundary fishing and fishermen migration, how to use the largest human resource in marine fisheries, and the need for information and analysis for fisheries policy-making and fisheries management.
6
The whole area of institutions and organisations is also important for policy. For example, to what extent the current fisheries administration should be changed, upgraded or reformed? How should government and non-government organisations (e.g. fishermen coops) interaction? How should state and national institutions interact and work together? Finally, the presenter closed with two main observations – the FIMSUL policy development process provides TN/PC Fisheries Departments with the opportunity to redefine the paradigm that still dominates Indian fisheries policies and trigger a change across the entire Indian coast, and – the time is right for a paradigm shift – the crisis in marine fisheries provides the opportunity. Dr. V. Sampath (Ex-Advisor, MoES, GOI & Former Sr. National Consultant, DfID/UNDP Orissa Fisheries Project) gave the next presentation entitled ‘Fisheries Policy Development Experiences in Orissa’ (see Appendix VII below). He commenced by describing the Orissa Fisheries Project (200508) entitled ‘Supporting Development of Strategies for Enterprise Promotion and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Fisheries Sector in Orissa’, which was funded by DFID and executed through UNDP and Government of Orissa. The objectives were to (i) facilitate formulation of a Comprehensive Fishery Policy for the State of Orissa and a Vision Document, and (ii) to develop strategies for promotion of enterprise and livelihood security in fisheries sector in close collaboration with all key stakeholders. The processes involved in addressing the fisheries vision and policy development included various high level task forces and formal meetings, a project steering committee and a project implementation committee, plus eight technical sub-committees on different sub-sectors of fisheries to inputs and review the vision and policy documents. A series of stakeholder workshops were also conducted. In total 54 study reports on key areas were produced by the various experts and participants. Prior to the formulation of the vision and policy documents, a detailed and wide-ranging consultation process was undertaken, involving 35 stakeholder and other meetings, with 1650 participants. In addition, over 300 fishery officials were consulted. A draft vision document was hosted on the project website. Newspaper adverts were prepared in both Oriya and English dailies to alert stakeholders. About 5000 copies of the documents were printed and circulated widely in Orissa. In total, 30 district level consultations (6 regions) were held and opinions sought on draft vision and policy documents. Separate consultations were also held with fisheries officers, cooperatives, NGO and other secondary stakeholders. In a state level workshop on 12 March 2007, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Fisheries, the Vision and Fishery Policy documents were reviewed and accepted. In November 2007, a presentation on the draft fishery policy and fisheries vision were made to the Chief Minister of Orissa. A draft policy Resolution was prepared in January 2008 and submitted for Cabinet Approval and the State Legislature. However, the fisheries policy has yet to be adopted and implemented. What lessons can be learned overall? First, frequent change in the bureaucratic set up often results in delays and non-completion of the major project objectives. Second, if the project objectives of formulating and implementing the fisheries vision and policy are to succeed, then there is a need for better coordination and cooperation between the State Fisheries Department, the link departments and the project/executing agencies, and commitment from the project implementing agencies.
7
Thereafter, a Moderated Discussion Session addressed a number of key questions including – ‘What can Tamil Nadu and Puducherry learn from other international and national experiences in fisheries policy development?’; and ‘What are the major fisheries policy issues in TN/PC?’; and ‘What methods should be applied to the analysis of these fisheries policy issues?’ . The following points were raised and discussed: ·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
The relationship between policy and law was raised; the sequencing of reform was viewed as important; fisheries policy should precede legal reform, in that the legal framework provides part of the mechanism and means by which policy (and particularly fisheries management) is implemented; It was noted that there is a good deal of information available on fisheries policy in TN/PC; GoI and GoTN/PC websites all contain the relevant documents relating to the 5-year plans and annual plans; further information is also available on the websites of the NFDB and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry for Rural Development; Regarding fisheries policy objectives, it should also be remembered that food security is also an important issue for India; On the issue of whether international lessons on fisheries policy development and reform were relevant to India and to TN/PC, it was acknowledged that while some of the key principles are important (e.g. good governance, appropriate laws etc), it was crucial that the specific character and history of policy development and implementation in India should be well-analysed before instigating a policy reform process; in fact, national lessons may be more important in the first instance; Regarding Orissa and the policy development process described and reviewed by Dr. Sampath, it was observed again, that even after two years and significant engagement with stakeholders and government administration at all levels, the policy devised has not been implemented to any great extent; the importance of political support for seeing the process through was again highlighted and discussed; the question was asked whether the push for change should come from the grassroots level or from a higher government level, or both?; It was noted by participants from Pondicherry that the welfare of fishermen and fishing communities is a key concern for the government of this UT; the levels of welfare payments to fishers has increased in recent years; however, other policy areas of growing concern are deep sea fishing opportunities and safety measures; Participants from Pondicherry also emphasised the importance of increasing knowledge on fisheries and how this can then input into further technological development, particularly for vessel design and fish catching gear; it was suggested that fishing could then be better targeted at offshore species such as tuna, shark and cuttlefish; The issue of data on both fish stocks and patterns of fisheries exploitation was explored; while it was acknowledged that there is some data – collected by different organisations e.g. CMFRI, GoTN and PC Fisheries Departments, and various NGOs – there is relatively limited understanding of stock dynamics or fishing patterns; there are relatively few up-to-date fish stock models or stock assessments; in addition there is also some concern that the data collected by different organisations is not coherent and may even be conflicting, raising issues about the quality of the data; The accuracy of fisheries data was raised, and whether many organisations had the capacity in terms of man-power and technical skills to do the job properly; it was suggested that questions need to be addressed about who is collecting data and why? And is it necessary to share and cooperate in this task overall to improve fisheries assessments? 8
·
Finally, the issues of economic data and assessments in the TN/PC fisheries sectors were raised; it was concluded that there is relatively little economic data overall, although some data on market prices and gross market value of landed and traded fish; there was almost no data on the economic returns of particularly fishing operations, by vessel or by gear type.
Day 3 – 30th September 2010 – Fisheries Policy Development – The FIMSUL Approach Technical Session 1 (Morning) Dr. A. Neiland (FIMSUL Project) gave a presentation on ‘Policy Analysis Framework for FIMSUL’ (Appendix IX below). To start off, it was emphasised that international experience shows that by strengthening the policy framework and improving fisheries management, the benefits from fisheries can be increased on a sustainable basis. Both TN and PC have a limited fisheries policy framework and a weak fisheries management system. As a result fisheries are vulnerable to overexploitation and loss of benefits. Under FIMSUL, the policy analysis and policy development component will seek to describe and analysis the current fisheries policy process and its impacts. Then it is proposed to identify and evaluate options for the future, and attempt to draft a new outline fisheries policy framework, in collaboration with government and all other stakeholders. There will be four phases: Phase 1 – Policy review and preparation; Phase 2 – Policy analysis – Toolbox development; Phase 3 – Fisheries Policy Options – identification and comparison; Phase 4: New draft Fisheries Policy development. It is intended that all these components would be completed between Sept 2010 and July 2011. The team involved would consist of national and international consultants working under FIMSUL, plus collaboration with GoTN/PC, representatives of key stakeholders in the fisheries sector; and stakeholders in other sectors (e.g. other coastal users). It was also intended that the WP2 on Fisheries Policy Development would link closely with all the other WPs in FIMSUL, drawing on relevant results from other WPs, and feeding back the results of integrated analysis which is planned. Given the wide-ranging discussion which took place at the end of Day 2, it was decided in a change of plan and schedule for the workshop, to attempt to undertake a further discussion on policy issues and their analysis in order to conclude Day 3. Furthermore, in order to better channel the discussion, it was decided to use a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) framework. The key questions to be addressed, therefore, were – ‘What are the major characteristics of the fisheries sector in TN/PC?’ and ‘What are the Opportunities and Constraints for Fisheries Policy Development in TN/PC/’. The results, which formed the focus of the discussion, are shown in Appendix VIII (below). In terms of ‘Strengths’, the resource base was identified as important; a long coastline and large EEZ with a rich array of multi-species resources. These underpin the flow of benefits from the fisheries including employment and livelihoods, foreign exchange and investment opportunities, as well as food for thousands of people along the coast. The people in the fisheries sector have a wide variety of skills and employ a diversity of fishing gears. They are very enterprising and adaptable. There is also good backup to the fisheries administration through the scientific establishment, who have appropriate manpower and skills. There is some attempt at fishery regulation, with closed seasons and areas declared. In terms of policy and institutional context, there appears to be some political will to address fisheries problems, with the support of capable and willing expertise. This is set in the wider context where the national and state economies of TN/PC are expanding quickly. The fisheries officials also have good relations with the closely-knit fishing communities. Overall, there are some positive trends
9
in the sector and its wider context, and in particular, the post-tsunami investments and developments have been positive. For the ‘Weaknesses’, the fact that there are some limitations to the current analysis of fisheries in TN/PC was identified initially. There are some inconsistencies in the underlying data and lack of analysis of certain dimensions including in fisheries economics and bio-economic modelling. Despite the factors identified under the ‘Strengths’ above, the groups also identified a list of issues relating to the current policy and legal framework for fisheries. These included the lack of a firm fisheries policy with an appropriate long-term vision, weak legal framework and limited political will (or a champion) to improve matters. The fact that the current policy framework is also focused on so-called welfare measures and subsidies was viewed as limiting to the long-term sustainable development of the sector (by at least some of the participants). A series of social issues which need to be addressed were also identified including the poor education level of many fishers and alcohol abuse. Also caste-related problems and a large dependency on limited fisheries resources. The lack of effective fisheries management was seen as a major weakness, in part due to the limitations of the fisheries administration and the existing policy, legal and regulatory framework. Some weaknesses were also identified within the sector, with some of the fisher organisations lacking leadership, and others failing to remain viable, especially some of the coops. Infrastructure in general was considered to be a major problem for the fisheries sector with limited harbour, landing site, cold chain and store facilities, which constrained value-addition. In terms of ‘Opportunities’, improved fisheries management could generate wealth and provide greater opportunities for many stakeholders; and this is linked to using the available technical information on the fisheries and also considering how existing regulations might be amended. In addition, stock enhancement with new species might also provide new fishing opportunities. Both the better management and stock enhancement of fisheries, could also be complemented by the use of both new and diversified fishing gears and methods, and means of fish processing. However, it is also recognised that these activities need to enabled and regulated by appropriate institutions. There are also opportunities to promote and develop community organisations and greater participation in fisheries regulation and decision-making. With the growing literacy of fishers, there are also opportunities to further introduce and improve skills. There are also many ways in which existing livelihoods can be enhanced. For example, through improved fisheries management, use of new technology, diversifying employment, adopting livelihood alternatives, and including promoting greater participation by women. Other opportunities may arise as the fisheries sector becomes increasingly linked to the wider economy. Another important economic factor is the increasing market demand for fish nationally and internationally. In addition, public-private partnerships and the greater provision of credit offer pathways for fisheries development. Finally, there are some signs that increased political will help to improve the opportunities to stakeholders in the sector. The ‘Threats’ identified included the range of current barriers and constraints to effective fisheries management including the absence of readiness to accept limited access, the increased size of fishing fleets, the inability to control mechanised boats, inappropriate fishing methods and the overexploitation of near-shore waters. Environmental degradation and destruction of critical coastal habitats is also a major threat, associated with dwindling resources of commercial importance. Natural disasters (cyclones, tsunami) are also important. The coastal zone is also under threat from the discharge of pollutants from industry and domestic sewage, the mushrooming of industrial activities and coal-based power-plants, and the coastal development activities in general (housing, infrastructure). The weakness of institutions and organisations is also a threat, typified by the 10
short tenures for Head of Departments (DoF) and Fisheries Secretary, and the overall lack of commitment by GoTN over implementing policy. A lack of skills and capacity is also a threat, with inadequate knowledge and skill among fishers. Social factors which constitute threats include migration, involvement of non-fishing community in fishing and some illiteracy among active fishers. Economic threats include market demand deciding fishing operation, methods and frequencies, along with subsidies of various kinds, and the distribution of ‘freebies’ to fishing communities. Finally, political threats include security concerns, persons seeking political advantage, political instability, and the domination of small group in decision-making process. 5.
Closing Remarks
The workshop on Fisheries Policy Development covered many relevant topics and issues over the course of the three days, and there was active, constructive and useful participation by all the participants. Overall, the workshop achieved the following outcomes – a clear orientation for FIMSUL WP2 Fisheries Policy Development was established and explained to all project participants and stakeholders in the workshop; both awareness-building and capacity-building on fisheries policy and analysis were also provided; the key policy issues were discussed from international, national and state level perspectives, and finally, the proposed WP2 methodology was explained and discussed in order to help better focus and refine the overall approach. 6.
Next steps
Following the workshop the next set of activities under WP2 will be the implementation of three studies, to be undertaken by national experts in collaboration with international experts within FIMSUL, including: · · ·
Collation and review of fisheries policy studies in India and Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; Characterisation of the fisheries sector in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; Profile and description of fisheries policy in India and Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
11
Appendix 1 FIMSUL PROJECT OVERVIEW
Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES C. M . MU RA L I DH A R A N NA T I O NA L P R O JE CT C O O RD I NA T O R , FI M S U L FAO
Purpose — Frameworks, processes and capacities
established and operational, in — public/ private sectors, and civil society, which — facilitate the planning, design and implementation of appropriate fisheries development and management policies for — sustainable livelihoods
Back ground — The scoping study by FAO ,World bank and DFID in
2006, have shown that by better management of marine fisheries sector there is potential for sustainable livelihoods enhancement and economic growth In Tamil Nadu and Puducherry — The FIMSUL project is developed based on the
scoping study
Work packages — WP(1) Stakeholder analysis and visioning. — WP(2) Fisheries policy development. — WP(3) Livelihoods support and best practice
interventions. — WP(4) Institutional and legal frameworks. — WP(5) Fisheries management system. — WP(6) Livelihood status and impacts. — WP(7) Future Planning
Goal — Fisheries sector makes a positive net contribution to
sustainable development (SD) and pro-poor growth (PPG) in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
Expected Outputs — New fisheries long-term vision developed by stakeholders; — New fisheries policy drafted; — Policy-makers agree on best policy approaches for
sustainable livelihoods in fisheries;
— Revised institutional and legal framework for fisheries is
designed and a process for implementation defined;
— New fisheries management system defined; — System for assessing fisheries livelihoods defined; — A pathway for fisheries development to the Year 2030
agreed
12
Workshop Plan — Day 1-Fisheries Policy and Policy Analysis: An
Overview — Day 2- Fisheries Policy Development In Tamil Nadu
And Puducherry — Day 3-Fisheries Policy Development – The FIMSUL
Approach
WP 2° - Fisheries Policy Development — Profiling and performance assessment of existing
Thank you
policy and policy process (what can we learn?) — Consider international best practice — Identify and evaluate policy options — Feed them into the discussions with stakeholders — Produce a draft fisheries policy
About this workshop
13
Appendix (ii) Workshop Programme Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods FIMSUL PROJECT: WORK-PACKAGE NO. 2: FISHERIES POLICY DEVELOPMENT
3-DAY WORKSHOP STUDY ORIENTATION AND METHODOLOGY PROGRAMME
DAY 1. TUESDAY 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 FISHERIES POLICY AND POLICY ANALYSIS: AN OVERVIEW
Morning session 0930 – 0945
Registration
0945 – 1015
Opening Session
Welcome address and Introduction – FIMSUL context and objectives (Mr. C.M.Muralidharan) Opening Remarks: Mr. K. Sellamuthu, IAS, Director of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu
Technical session I 1015 - 1130
Fisheries Policy (I) - Concepts and Approaches (Dr. Arthur E. Neiland)
1130 – 1145
Tea / Coffee break
1145 - 1300
Discussion – What is the relevance and applicability of fisheries policy concepts /approaches in TN/PC?
1300 – 1400
Lunch
Technical session II 1400- 1515
Fisheries Policy (II) - Analysis and Methodology (Dr. Arthur E. Neiland)
1515-1545
Tea/Coffee break
1545-1645
Moderated Discussion Session – What is the relevance and applicability of policy analysis in TN/PC?
1645-1700
Sum up / Close (Moderator) 14
DAY 2. WEDNESDAY 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 FISHERIES POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY
Morning session 0930 – 0945
Introduction – Today’s objectives (Mr. Muralidharan)
0945 - 1015
Fisheries Policy Development and International Experiences (Dr. A.E. Neiland)
1015 – 1045
Fisheries Sector Issues in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (MR. V. Vivekandan, FIMSUL consultant)
1045 – 1115
Tea / Coffee break
1100 – 1130
Fisheries Policy Development Experiences in Orissa (Dr. V. Sampath)
1130 – 1230
Discussion – What can TN/PC learn from other international and national experiences in fisheries policy development?
1230 – 1400
Lunch
Afternoon session 1400 – 1415
Policy Focus Exercise – outline (Dr. Arthur E. Neiland)
1415- 1515
Breakout session (Group work) What are the major/priority fisheries policy issues in TN/PC? What methods should be applied to the analysis of these fisheries policy issues?
1515-1545
Tea/coffee break
1545- 1645
Plenary
1645 – 1700
Summary / Close (Moderator)
15
DAY 3. THURSDAY 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 FISHERIES POLICY DEVELOPMENT – THE FIMSUL APPROACH
Morning session 0930 – 0945
Introduction – Today’s objectives (Mr. C.M. Muralidharan)
0945- 1045
FIMSUL Policy Development and Analysis Approach (Schedule, Methods, Team, Outputs, Links to other FIMSUL WP) (Dr. Arthur E. Neiland)
1045- 1115
Coffee
1115 – 1215
Implementation Lessons from other Fisheries Policy Development Programmes (International, national) – Opportunities and Constraints (Dr. Arthur E. Neiland)
1230- 1400
Lunch
Afternoon session 1400-1515
Discussion – What are the Opportunities and Constraints for Fisheries Policy Development in TN/PC?
1515-1545
Tea / Coffee
1545– 1600
Summary / Close
-
End -
16
Appendix (iii) Fisheries Policy (I) – Concepts, Approaches & Performance
2. DEFINITIONS FIMSUL Work-package No. 2: Fisheries Policy Development FISHERIES POLICY (I): CONCEPTS, APPROACHES AND PERFORMANCE
• ‘Policy’ and ‘policy analysis’ can be defined and used in different ways – this can create some confusion; • To start – ‘A policy can be defined as a set of objectives and an associated course of action, adopted by those with responsibility for a given policy area, and expressed as a set of formal statements of positions’.
by Dr. Arthur E. Neiland, IDDRA Ltd, UK
• In other words, for the fisheries sector, policy involves defining what should be achieved, and how this will be done;
Presentation at the 3-day Workshop on Study orientation and methodology Chennai, India, 28-30th September 2010
• Policy process = design + development + implementation + assessment • A core component of implementation = fisheries management systems
1. CONTENT
2. DEFINITIONS cont.
1. Objectives 2. Definitions 3. The importance of fisheries policy 4. Global fisheries policy performance reviewed 5. Explaining fisheries policy performance 6. Factors of success in fisheries policy and management 7. Fisheries in India – current status 8. The policy process – (i) linear model 9. The policy process – (ii) the non-linear model 10.Fisheries policy reform – transition issues 11. Policy outcomes
Sectoral policy – a policy that is specific to a sector such as fisheries, BUT this should also be coherent with other policies in other sectors;
1. OBJECTIVES
• To consider how policy is defined • To highlight the importance of policy and policy performance • To review the nature of the policy process from different perspectives • To emphasise the importance of policy reform
Policy coherence in a single country means that policies are not contradictory (a measure of good governance); e.g. A fisheries policy that prioritizes earnings or exports, should be coherent with policy on food security; National policy – policy specific to a country, and needs to coherent with international commitments e.g. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982);
3. THE IMPORTANCE OF FISHERIES POLICY Why is it important to have the ‘right’ fisheries policy in place? (and to consider carefully how this can be achieved over time, there is no magic bullet!) The potential value of the sector will be realised through the right fisheries policy; the benefits for society will include: • The sector will contribute to sustainable development and economic growth; • The sector will generate economic, social and environmental benefits; • The sector will underpin national, regional and local economies; • The sector will contribute to sustainable livelihoods; • The sector will underpin local communities, industries and businesses; • The sector will not become dependent upon the state for support; • The sector will not be a source of conflict or instability;
17
4. GLOBAL FISHERIES POLICY PERFORMANCE The empirical evidence shows that on a global scale, fisheries policy in general has failed to realise the potential of fisheries; § Fish stocks: 25% overexploited, depleted and recovering; 50% fully exploited; 25% underexploited, moderately exploited (FAO, 2006) § Economic: Fishing is heavily subsidised (up to US $40 billion p.a.?); Overall absence of economic rents, limited contribution to economic growth (a loss of US $50 billion p.a.) (World Bank, 2008) § Social:
Low levels of income in fishing communities; High levels of uncertainty about income and food; Livelihoods often vulnerable and insecure; Increasing levels of conflict within fisheries sector;
7. FISHERIES IN INDIA – CURRENT STATUS World Bank (2008) India: Marine Fisheries: Issues, Opportunities and Transitions for Sustainable Development. Report. Opportunities: - Fisheries sector has significant potential (valuable asset base); - Possible to generate higher level of sustainable benefits (capture wealth); - Possible to improve utilisation and distribution of benefits (equity)
7. FISHERIES POLICY IN INDIA – cont.
5. Explaining fisheries policy performance
Constraints:
(i) Fisheries management: Weak fisheries policy gives weak fisheries management; (ii) Overexploitation: Fisheries which are unmanaged or inadequately managed (de facto open and free access) will inevitably become both economically and biologically overexploited; (strong theoretical and empirical evidence); (iii) ‘Conventional approach’: Fisheries policy in most countries has not evolved quickly enough or been able to respond to new opportunities and challenges over time; the early approach (1960s) focusing on production maximisation, technology inputs, and value-addition, within a government top-down system, has persisted and become embedded; (the so-called ‘conventional approach’); (iv) ‘Best practice’ : In some countries, however, the fisheries sector is performing well, and effective systems of fisheries management have been established – leading to positive economic, environmental and social outcomes (e.g. New Zealand, Namibia, USA, Iceland, Australia); there is an emerging ‘international best practice’ for fisheries policy and fisheries management;
6. FACTORS OF SUCCESS (i) A clear and well-founded policy framework;
- Current policy, legal and administrative systems are not able to support more progressive fisheries management, but can serve as a partial foundation for reform; - The biological and economic sustainability of marine fish stocks in India are at risk; - Small-scale fishers are losing their livelihoods and opportunities for development, and there is little wealth being created to improve livelihoods; - Fisheries management is weak; - Market channels, particularly for small-scale fishers, are inefficient and hinder delivery of high quality products at optimal prices.
Understanding the complexity of the policy situation and the policy process
(ii) Appropriate institutional capacity; a clear definition of roles and responsibilities within and between stakeholders and organisations;
In this next section – two perspectives (or conceptualisations) of the policy process are presented:
(iii) Use of holistic fisheries management planning, and stakeholder cooperation and participation;
There is significant complexity associated with policy and policymaking;
(iv) Placing resource rent as a central concept; it is les problematic than biological management and able to fulfill social objectives also; (v) Creating appropriate incentives for stakeholders;
A better understanding of the processes involved and how they can be influenced by different stakeholders is essential in order to achieve desirable outcomes (fisheries policy objectives including sustainable livelihoods );
(vi) Dealing with complexity and change (new opportunities and challenges as they arise, learning and adaptation).
18
8. THE POLICY PROCESS – (I) LINEAR MODEL
9. THE POLICY PROCESS – (II) THE NON-LINEAR MODEL
1. Agenda Phase what is the issue? Why is it important? What needs to be done? Values and Decisions
2. Identifying possible options What are the possible courses of action to deal with issue?
3. Evaluating options What are the advantages / disadvantages of each alternative?
Facts and Knowledge
4. Decision Phase Operationalising
Choose the policy option which offers best solution
5. Implementation phase (and evaluation to follow up)
8. THE POLICY PROCESS – (I) LINEAR MODEL – cont.
9. THE POLICY PROCESS – (II) THE NON-LINEAR MODEL Why is this model more realistic?
Assumption (i): policy-making is rational - Policy-making as a technical matter – problems are identified and solved in a logical manner; - Analytical (scientific techniques) are applied; or - Judgements are made on sound advice of experts; - Improving policy processes is about expanding technical knowledge (scope and input); Assumption (ii): policy-making is linear - Policy process as a series of sequential and discrete steps; - If implementation fails, then improve mechanism, or - Go back to the beginning and re-define problem; - Failure is usually blamed on lack of political will, poor management or shortage of resources;
9. THE POLICY PROCESS – (II) THE NON-LINEAR MODEL
Much evidence that the linear model is far from reality! ‘..the whole life of policy ...a chaos of purpose and accidents’ (Clay and Schaffer, 1984) Policy process tends to be - non-linear, - political and contested, - more incremental & - haphazard;
• Competing /overlapping agendas – stakeholders may not agree on the policy problem and how it is defined; • Important decisions – often taken before the formal decision-making process happens; • Processes of implementation – often poorly monitored, involve local discretion about decisions on the ground, and subject to uncertainty and change (far from the policy-makers drawing board); • Negotiation and fluidity – policy-makers and advisers and other stakeholders interact and negotiate at different times, formally and informally, and in different places; a two way-process;
10. FISHERIES POLICY REFORM – TRANSITIONAL ISSUES
• Policy analysis (problem definition) • Policy process and future vision (opportunities identified by stakeholders) • Information to shape reform and shift perceptions • New approaches to fisheries management designed, tested and applied • New Institutions developed and evaluated • Critical importance of legal framework considered • Pilot and scaling up new fisheries management systems • Supporting the process of change (coherence with other policies) • The need for political support and appropriate governance • Managing the impacts of change
19
11. Fisheries Policy Outcomes – current status (weakness of PIPs is limiting the delivery of benefits, despite continuing government investment in ‘capitals’)
Society capital: - Environment - Human -Physical - Social - Financial
Policy Institutions Processes
Sustainable Development Benefits: Economic Social Environmental
11. Fisheries Policy Outcomes (cont) – after reform (Strengthening PIPs enables the delivery of greater benefits, through investment in ‘capitals’ + PIPs)
Society capital: - Environment - Human -Physical - Social - Financial
Policy Institutions Processes
Sustainable Development Benefits: Economic Social Environmental
20
APPENDIX (IV) FISHERIES POLICY (II) – ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY 2. DEFINITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
FIMSUL Work-package No. 2: Fisheries Policy Development FISHERIES POLICY (II): FISHERIES POLICY ANALYSIS AND METHODS by Dr. Arthur E. Neiland, IDDRA Ltd, UK Presentation at the 3-day Workshop on Study orientation and methodology Chennai, India, 28-30th September 2010
1. CONTENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Objectives Definitions The importance of fisheries policy analysis The challenge Standard fisheries policy analysis - 4-steps Influencing the policy process - more in-depth analysis Summary
1. OBJECTIVES 1. To examine how policy analysis is defined; 2. To explain the importance and challenges of policy analysis; 3. To highlight a standard approach to policy analysis; 4. To consider the role of policy analysis within policy development and methods of influencing and strategies for change;
A policy can be defined as a set of objectives and an associated course of action, adopted by those with responsibility for a given policy area, and expressed as a set of formal statements of positions; The policy process consists of the design and development of policy, and its subsequent implementation and assessment; The policy process can be intensely political, as differences in values and preferences are resolved and agreed upon. However, there are often a complex array of interest groups and forces that may in one way or another influence policy. Some groups may attempt to ‘depoliticise’ the policy process (scientific and legal language), presenting it as objective, neutral and value-free, if it serves their purpose. Policy analysis is undertaken to improve our knowledge of the policy process in each particular setting. It includes a range of methods both qualitative and quantitative which help to identify and provide a better understanding of the components, inter-relationships, context and dynamics involved.
3. IMPORTANCE OF POLICY ANALYSIS • By identifying the factors which have affected policy performance in the past, it may be possible to improve policy performance in the future by addressing these factors; • Through a better understanding of the policy process, stakeholders (of many types) can seek to engage to a greater degree, in order to influence and change policy;
4. POLICY ANALYSIS – THE CHALLENGE • Policy and the policy process is difficult to define in a simple linear manner; • In reality, the policy process tends to be non-linear, and policies usually consist of a broad course of action (or inaction!); • The policy process can be conceptualised as a web of inter-related decisions, with many interest groups exerting different levels of influence, which evolve over time during implementation; • The policy process is often poorly understood because of its complexity; • Over time, policy analysis should evolve according to a particular context, as important situation-specific aspects of the policy process become apparent; • Where to get started ? Examine current policy....using standard approach
21
5. POLICY ANALYSIS – A STANDARD APPROACH Simple 4 –step approach (1) Identify the policy profile (2) Assessment of policy performance (3) Evaluate policy performance (4) Identify options for policy change
5. POLICY ANALYSIS – A STANDARD APPROACH cont. Step 3: Evaluate Policy Performance Purpose Why has policy been implemented in this way? What are the main influences on this? Key Questions: How can the level of policy performance be explained? What influence have political interests had on performance? How has policy been influenced by actor-networks? What is the influence of particular development narratives?
5. POLICY ANALYSIS – A STANDARD APPROACH cont.
5. POLICY ANALYSIS – A STANDARD APPROACH cont.
Step 1: Identify Policy profile
Step 4: Identify options for policy change (new policy spaces)
Purpose: to examine existing fisheries policy and the broader policy framework for purposes of ensuring coherency and to establish the extent of participation by stakeholders;
Purpose To identify ways of improving policy and the policy process in order to achieve the objectives of policy
Key questions: What are the objectives of policy? What are the mandates related to and derived from this policy? What organisations, institutions or individuals are responsible for policy design and implementation? Who in reality influences policy? What is the policy context?
Key questions: What opportunities currently exist for policy change? What opportunities might be anticipated in the future? What constraints does policy change face in general? How can these constraints be overcome?
5. POLICY ANALYSIS – A STANDARD APPROACH cont.
6. INFLUENCING THE POLICY PROCESS MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
Step 2 Assessment of policy performance:
• Policies impact on the lives of people
Purpose This exercise is undertaken in order to ascertain the extent to which policy has been given effect in legislation and accompanying regulations. Has this achieved the desired results?
• Can people also influence policy design and implementation?
Key Questions: Have the stated objectives of policy been achieved? To what extent have they been achieved? What sources of information underpin the assessment? Is legislation consistent with policy and is it effectively implemented?
• The answer is YES • But this requires: - a good understanding of policy processes - identifying ways of engaging with them over time There are a range of possible strategies for shaping policy processes, and they require new and innovative ways of thinking about policy – cross-sectoral, macro-micro links, people-centred, considering trade-offs and emphasis on process;
22
6. INFLUENCING THE POLICY PROCESS MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
6. INFLUENCING THE POLICY PROCESS MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
Strategies for shaping policy processes:
(4) Identifying policy spaces
(1) Knowing the governance context
- Identifying and reacting to opportunities to influence policy; - Capitalising on a better understanding of governance, narratives and actor-networks; - Looking for opportunities at different levels of the policy process; - Accepting that change happens and anticipating this;
- political context - bureaucratic system - Communication and advocacy
6. INFLUENCING THE POLICY PROCESS MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (2) The importance of policy narratives (what is the issue? What is the cause and impact? How can it be addressed?) -
Identify the narrative What is the origin (and what interests does it serve?) Could it be reframed? What is the counter narrative?
7. SUMMARY - Policy analysis is important for policy improvement and reform; - The policy process is complex and a variety of tools and methods are required to give a better understanding; - New policy networks (government-NGO-private sectorcommunity organisations and others) can use policy analysis to better engage and influence; - There are more and more examples which show that policy change and reform for better development outcomes are possible.
6. INFLUENCING THE POLICY PROCESS MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (3) Mapping actor-networks - Which organisations and institutions are involved in a policy process? - What is their relative power and how are they inter-related? - Can this network be joined or changed? - Should a new network be built? - Using examples of success, pilot projects, documentation and participatory activities; - Consider bringing together a full range of stakeholders – to create a new policy network – government, NGOs, private sector, producer and community organisations...build understanding and devise strategies to influence and shape policy over time;
23
APPENDIX (V):
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT POLICY & INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES
FIMSUL Work-package No. 2: Fisheries Policy Development FISHERIES POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES by Dr. Arthur E. Neiland, IDDRA Ltd, UK
2. INFORMATION SOURCES • Study commissioned by UN FAO for ACP Fish II Feasibility Study Report (2003) • 50 case-studies of fisheries from different countries were examined • World Bank (2006) Good Management Practice in Sustainable Fisheries – Key Policy Issues in Fisheries Management Performance. Policy Brief no. 14.
Presentation at the 3-day Workshop on Study orientation and methodology Chennai, India, 28-30th September 2010
1. CONTENT
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Objectives Information sources Key Issues Policy Issues Fisheries Governance Issues Summary
1. OBJECTIVES
2. Key Issues Policy Issues 1. Recognition of the potential value of fisheries 2. Use of appropriate policy narratives 3. Context and nature of the policy process 4. Participation in policy-making 5. Nature of the legal framework Fisheries Governance 6. An appropriate institutional framework 7. Adequate management capacity 8. Participation in fisheries management 9. Fisheries information and assessment 10. Political will and leadership
3. Policy Issues 1. Recognition of the potential value of fisheries
• To identify and explain issues affecting fisheries policy – with reference to fisheries management • To draw on international experiences • To consider the implications for policy reform in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
Failure by government to recognise the role and value of fisheries leads to little or no attention being given to policy design and implementation; Potential benefits may not be realised, used in a sub-optimal way or even lost; Fisheries need to valued (using dedicated methodology) as part of any policy process; scenario analysis can be used to consider value under different management regimes.
24
3. POLICY ISSUES – CONT. 2. Use of appropriate policy narratives
3. POLICY ISSUES – CONT. 5. Nature of the legal framework
Fisheries policy and management approach used by government will be underpinned by a particular understanding or explanation of events and mechanisms and systems.
Laws of a country define the rights of stakeholders and give expression to the specific rules that regulate the operation of a fisheries management system;
Such understandings gain the status of conventional wisdom and are referred to as policy narratives.
Successful policy implementation will depend, to some degree, upon appropriate and workable (for all stakeholders) combination of regulatory tools defined in law;
Policy narratives should reflect reality.
This has proven to be a challenging task in many countries;
They should include a wide range of multi-disciplinary perspectives in order to open-up opportunities for policy development and innovation.
Requires development of innovative approaches, for example, linked to government decentralisation and the creation of partnerships between local government and communities (comanagement).
3. Policy Issues – cont. 3. Context and nature of the policy process Policy process can be affected by a wide-range of factors such as : - national policy context (is it supportive and enabling?) - ability and willingness of stakeholders to cooperate (is power distributed symmetrically?) - effectiveness and credibility of decision-making processes (Objective, transparent and accountable? Responsive and adaptable?) An enabling environment for policy will relate to all sectors and not just fisheries, and more general targeting of constraints may be relevant.
3. POLICY ISSUES – CONT. 4. Participation in policy-making Participation by a full range of stakeholders will be required for effective policy-making; In many countries, policy is made and ‘handed down’ by central government with limited stakeholder participation; Two challenges: (i) to encourage wider participation; (ii) to ensure participation is appropriate and effective.
4. FISHERIES GOVERNANCE
6. An appropriate institutional framework Institutions are the rules (both formal and informal) which define and govern relationships between different stakeholders and between stakeholders in relation to particular fishery resources (e.g. Use rights); There are a wide range of institutional arrangements in fisheries depending on the type of fishery and its local and national context; The further development, modification or reform of institutions will require participation by all stakeholders, it may be complex and difficult, and will probably be a gradual process of persuasion, negotiation and consensus-building;
4. FISHERIES GOVERNANCE – CONT. 7. Adequate management capacity Performance of fisheries management systems is related to the capacity of the fisheries management authority to make available the necessary management and technical skills, and to provide other assets. They have to set management objectives and operate within the agreed institutional framework. An assessment of management capacity is an essential part of policy development. Follow-on capacity building may be required and can have an immediate positive effect on policy performance.
25
4. FISHERIES GOVERNANCE – CONT. 8. Participation in fisheries management Stakeholder participation in fisheries management will have a positive effect on performance. However, effective participation is problematic to achieve. It cannot be simply ‘handed-down’ by government decree. Stakeholders must be willing to engage. Capacity be increased over time in relation to needs, opportunities and constraints.
5. SUMMARY • The comparison of international experiences can be useful in the overall analysis of policy performance • The current study results reveal 10 importance areas divided broadly into policy and governance issue • These generic lessons can help to inform the analysis of specific national and local fisheries policy experiences.
4. FISHERIES GOVERNANCE - cont. 9. Fisheries information and assessment A flow of relevant and timely information is essential for effective fisheries management; Fisheries management requires multi-disciplinary information to inform decisions on issues, problems and solutions. A range of assessment and study techniques are therefore required and appropriate capacity. New opportunities and challenges will require new information over time. Information should be used in a responsible and transparent manner.
4. FISHERIES GOVERNANCE - CONT. 10. Political will and leadership This issue cuts across all the previous nine issues; Political will expresses the extent and nature of support; it often appears once the true value of the fisheries sector is recognised; It will determine the nature of the enabling environment; A champion will almost certainly be needed to take forward desired and necessary reforms
26
APPENDIX (VI):
FISHERIES SECTOR ISSUES IN TAMIL NADU & PUDUCHERRY Drivers of Central Policy
Marine Fisheries Sector Policy Issues in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry
• 1960s Indian economy: “ship to mouth” ; feeling of national inadequacy and resentment at dependence on food aid • The “grow more food” campaign—the trigger for “green revolution” and “blue revolution” policies • 1960s: Foreign exchange crunch and rupee devaluation—significant influence on marine fisheries policies • Farm sector policies have largely been seen as meant for national food security while marine plantation and marine sector policies have been seen as foreign exchange earners
Setting Objectives—Issues • As always, setting objectives needs to be the starting point for policy making • Fisheries provides: food & nutrition, livelihood/employment, investment opportunities, foreign exchange, etc. • It is therefore inevitable that we have multiple objectives • However, the tendency in India has been just to list multiple objectives without prioritising them or discussing the trade-offs involved • Further, specific marine capture fisheries sub-sector goals/objectives are not often sharply defined
• Early state interventions on fisheries were clearly based on ways to improve fishing as a livelihood • The Indo-Norwegian Project • Maharashtra’s mechanisation programme and Coops • However, after 1966, state marine fisheries policies become driven by Central policies • Central Policies, however, also were influenced by the international market and the new opportunities it brought • The development of international trade for tropical shrimp had a strong influence on policies of almost all coastal nations in the tropics—promotion of bottom trawling and all associated infrastructure
Policy setting by Central Govt • Federal structure, but Central Govt has been most influential in setting policy • States have freedom, but have tended to follow central line unless it there is a conflict with local politics • Though States have constitutional powers and own resources and have made many policy innovations, Central policies have been most decisive in most sectors • This can be attributed to Central Planning and the greater financial resource availability with Central Govt • Large R&D infrastructure in Central Govt another source of influence • States, being weaker financially, have preferred to conserve own funds for “non-plan” expenditure and for schemes that are important from local political point of view—some innovative, some populist • Successful innovations in policy by States often get converted into Central policies
• • • • • • •
1980s see first recognition of problems due to 60s and 70s policies—creation of a dualism in sector: mechanised and small scale MFRAs reflect new objectives: conservation of resources, protection of small scale sector and conflict resolution (“law and order at sea”) However, these objectives were just added on to the previous objectives without significantly modifying them Production orientation shifted from promotion of trawlers to promotion of motorisation Welfare agenda also starts in the 1980s from states and becomes core of central policies in 90s. Insurance of fishermen starts from Kerala; fishermen housing schemes start from TN National policies vis a vis poverty eradication changed in1980 from structural change and socialistic pattern to “direct attack on poverty” and promotion of individual livelihoods through subsidies. This also gave legitimacy to subsequent subsidy schemes.
27
Key Policy Issues • Fisheries Management agenda gains ground around 1980 due to small fishermen struggles, Majumdar Committee report • TN one of the early adopters of MFRA • However, management seen mainly as an issue of protecting small fishermen and reducing conflict than really managing the resources and overall system
• Livelihood development vs. Resource Conservation • Moving from open access to limited access • Choosing from various management frameworks--mostly coming from developed countries in temperate waters • No success story that has our combination: developing countries, tropical multi-species ecosystem, large small scale fisheries sector; domination of informal market system, etc.
• The conservation agenda starts gaining ground from late 90s as part of growing environmental consciousness • However conservation agenda starts getting set by environmental groups and through the Min of Env and Forests • Shark ban, Orissa turtle, GEF project in Gulf of Mannar, etc. • Fisheries sector yet to articulate coherent strategy to integrate conservation agenda and to set the terms of engagement with environmental groups and MoEF. • Conservation has not been integrated into the larger fisheries management framework and is addressed as a separate agenda under MoEF
• Need to assess potential and prioritise between following policy prescriptions to handle current crisis in marine fisheries
• Coastal issues have come to the fore in the last five years—rapid industrialisation of the coast and coast as seat of strategic infrastructure to support globalisation policies • So, TN policies are a mish-mash of many objectives; lack of coherence; agenda increasingly set by non fisheries actors • While some contradictions between the objectives may have been recognised, the fisheries sector policies do not really address these contradictions and conflicts • Fisheries Departments and Fishery Institutions still prisoners of old paradigm; unable to respond to changes in context and changes in paradigm in the outside world • New policy development needs a paradigm shift
• Defining fishermen and their rights to livelihoods and welfare is an important policy issue
– Better management of existing fisheries to get higher benefits – Resource enhancement – Diversification of fishing (deep sea fishing) – Shifting to mariculture – Shifting to alternative (non fishing) livelihoods
– Fishermen as an occupational category – Fishermen as a historical caste based category – Need to define rights of both occupational category and historical community
28
• Marine fisheries as livelihood sector vs. sector for business opportunity • Off shore and deep sea policy—up-gradation of small scale or introduction of new actors? • TN actually has India’s only genuine “deep sea” fleet—the Thoothoor fishermen; how to protect and develop the “artisanal deep sea fleet” • Developing a mariculture policy based on realistic assessment of scope, potential conflicts with marine fisheries and fishermen, externalities caused by mariculture, etc.
• Fishermen Coops—what is their role and future?; Independent coops already being supported by Dept of Rural Development under World Bank tsunami project and IFAD project • Fisheries education and training—how to reform them to be in tune with current needs and policies • Integrating coastal policies with fisheries policies • Protecting state fisheries interests in Central Govt policies • Coherence with India’s international commitments like CBD, International Plans of Action
Finally • • • • •
Market policies—export vs domestic Problems of domestic market development Fisherwomen’s role in markets Problem of trans-border fishing Migration of TN fishermen and migrant fishermen from other states • How to leverage the advantage of having the largest human resource in marine fisheries? • Information and analysis for fisheries policy making and fisheries management
• The FIMSUL policy development process provides TN Fisheries Department to redefine the paradigm that still dominates Indian fisheries policies and trigger a change across the entire Indian coast • The time is ripe for a paradigm shift—the crisis in marine fisheries provides the opportunity
• Fisheries administration—revamping to be in tune with current needs and objectives • Fisheries management—top down, community based or co-management • What sort of Co-management? How to prepare for co-management? • Review and revision of MFRA to be in tune with new policies
29
APPENDIX (VII):
FISHERIES POLICY DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCES IN ORISSA
FIMSUL Project Methodology Development & Orientation Workshop 28-30 September 2010
Dr. V. Sampath Ex-Advisor, MoES, GOI & Former Sr. National Consultant, DfID/UNDP Orissa Fisheries Project
Project title: “Supporting Development of Strategies for Enterprise Promotion and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Fisheries Sector in Orissa”. Project funded by DfID and executed through UNDP and Dept. of Fy&ARD, GoO. Project implementation started in July 2005 and ended in May 2008.
Objectives To facilitate formulation of a Comprehensive Fishery Policy for the state of Orissa and a Vision Document; and To develop strategies for promotion of enterprise and livelihood security in fisheries sector in close collaboration with all key stakeholders.
• A high level Task Force under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary set up by Govt. of Orissa for providing overall guidance and support to Project Team. • A Project Steering Committee and Project Implementation Committee were also set up for effective coordination and implementation of the project, • 8 Technical sub-committees on different sub-sectors of fisheries constituted which provided inputs for and reviewed vision and policy documents. • 9 workshops held (Inception Workshop, state-level Fisheries Officials and DFOs, PPP in fisheries, Marine Primary Fishermen Cooperatives, Reservoir Fisheries Management, and Fisheries NGOs). • Formal meetings with APC-ACS, a number of formal meetings with Secretary/Director of Fisheries and the link Departments.
30
Processes involved in Fisheries Vision and Policy Development 22 Desk study/Consultancy Reports and 32 other reports totaling 54, got prepared by engaging fisheries experts, technical officers, NGOs, Scientists, ICAR Fisheries Research Institutes, State Level Senior Officials and reputed Consultancy Services, as per the needs of the State Government.
Review of the Legal and Regulatory Framework for Fisheries Development and Management – International vs Indian scenario
UNDP Project Team
Jan uary 2006 An Overview of the International and Nation al Fishery Policy Related Issues- a Desk Research
UNDP Project Team
October 2005
Processes involved in Fisheries Vision and Policy Development Prior to the formulation of the vision and policy documents, Ø 30 fisheries experts, scientists, exporters, retired Orissa fisheries officers, sea food exporters association, Ministry of Agriculture (Government of India), MPEDA, ICAR, etc., were consulted on the vision/policy formulation. Ø Orissa Fisheries Yahoo Group was created through which inputs were obtained. Ø Senior level officials of Government of Orissa and a host of fisheries officials met and their views obtained. Ø A list of issues that could be addressed in the stakeholder consultations was prepared and used in the consultation process. Ø A total of 35 stakeholder and other meetings were organized at district/state level where more than 1650 stakeholders participated and shared their thought on vision and policy issues. Ø Over 300 fishery officials were consulted and their perceptions / views obtained.
Processes involved in Fisheries Vision and Policy Development Post-visioning & policy development •
Draft vision document was hosted in the Fisheries Website.
•
A newspaper advertisement was given in both Oriya and English dailies to attract the attention of the common people.
•
5000 copies of documents were printed and circulated widely among the stakeholders in all the 30 districts of Orissa, and in the workshops.
•
30 district level consultations pooled into 6 regions held and their opinion on draft vision and policy documents sought.
ORISSA FISHERIES POLICY
Government of Orissa
November 2007
31
Processes involved in Fisheries Vision and Policy Development Post-visioning & policy development •
Separate consultations were held with all fisheries officers involved in marine fisheries, Marine Primary cooperatives, fisherwomen, NGOs including those from marine/coastal fisheries sector, exporters, traders, marine fishermen and their associations, etc, in 6 coastal districts.
•
Through these processes a tremendous response was obtained from stakeholders on both the vision and policy documents, which were considered for formulation and subsequent revision of the two documents.
Processes involved in Fisheries Vision and Policy Development Post-visioning & policy development • In a state level workshop held on 12-3-2007 under the chairmanship of the Minister for Fisheries, Vision and Fishery Policy documents were reviewed and accepted for finalisation. • In November 2007, a presentation on the draft fishery policy and fisheries vision was made to the Chief Minister of Orissa. • A draft Policy Resolution was prepared in January 2008 and submitted to the Hon.’ble CM, Orissa for Cabinet Approval and the State Legislature. • After almost two years, now the fisheries policy is received the attention of highest authorities for adoption and implementation.
Orissa Fisheries Policy - Contents 1. Preamble 2. The Need 3. Policy objectives 4. Key elements of the policy 4.1 Policy Area 1 : Sustainable management and development of fisheries 4.2 Policy Area 2: Inland fisheries 4.2.1 Capture fisheries in inland waters 4.2.2 Culture-cum-capture fisheries in lakes/reservoirs 4.2.3 Culture fisheries in tanks and ponds 4.2.4 Fish Seed Production & Certification 4.3 Policy Area 3: Sustainable coastal aquaculture 4.4 Policy Area 4: Marine capture fisheries 4.5 Policy Area 5: Post-harvest Infrastructure support & marketing 4.5.1 Post-harvest fish quality and value addition 4.5.2 Fishery Harbours and fish landing centres 4.5.3 Fish marketing and trade 4.5.4 Export 4.6 Policy Area 6: Safety of fishermen at Sea and welfare of fishermen
32
Orissa Fisheries Policy -Contents 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15
Policy Area 7: Supplementary nutrition Policy Area 8: Entrepreneurship development & Self Employment Policy Area 9: SC/ST in fisheries Policy Area 10: Co-management and Community involvement in fisheries management Policy Area 11: Planning Policy Area 12: Fiscal Incentives Policy Area 13: Information, Education and Capacity building (IEC) and awareness Policy Area 14: Environment and fisheries Policy Area 15: Support for implementing the policy PPP in fisheries Fishery Co-operatives Equity - Gender budget Investment in fisheries Research and technology services Advisory support services Global change Institutional arrangements Organisational aspects Legal framework Monitoring and evaluation
Lessons learnt •
Frequent change in the bureaucratic set up, often results in delays and non-completion of the major project objectives. If the project objectives of formulating and implementing the fisheries vision and policy, are to succeed:
•
There is a need for better coordination and cooperation between the State Fisheries Department, the link departments and project funding/executing agencies; and commitment from the project implementing agenceis.
33
APPENDIX (VIII) SWOT ANALYSIS OF FISHERIES POLICY ISSUES IN TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY Strengths -
Resource base Long coastline and vast area in EEZ; Adequate resource base in the form of multi-species fishery; Multi-species resource – faster replenishment of biological resources; Differential ecosystem; Presence of two monsoons; Benefits: Fisheries sector provides livelihoods, employment, investment opportunities, foreign exchange; Sizeable population depends on fishery wealth as livelihood; Fisheries gives food and nutritional security; Sustainable utilisation of resources; Technology and fishing methods: Diversified fishery and fishing methods; Technology is sound and locally available; Knowledgeable technical manpower and scientific knowledge; Skills and capabilities: Good availability of technical skill; Stakeholders level of awareness is high; Strong fishing capabilities; Enterprising fishing community; Fishery Regulation: Closed season for fishing; Conserved area to be declared; Fishery resource conservation; Policy and institutional context: Political environment is favourable; Availability of adequate expertise and manpower in fisheries departments; Administrative coherence; TN MFR Act to be implemented correctly; Country is growth oriented; Close, compact community (easy to implement policies); Fisheries officials have good relations with fisherfolk Trends Post-tsunami investments and developments have been positive
34
Weaknesses -
Fisheries analysis Inconsistent fishery data and database; No real data analysis; Lack of scientific analysis of fisheries economy at field level; Absence of bio-economic evaluation of contribution of fisheries to GDP; Policy and legal frameworks: Lack of concrete uniform fishery policy; Lack of long-term vision and policy; Weak legal arrangements; Limited implementation of TMFR Act Welfare measures dominate; Subsidies are a significant component; Absence of a champion; Lack of political will; Lack of general awareness of fisheries sector and problems; Lack of sufficient sea safety measures; Lack of industrial outlook; Social issues: Need to address social evils (e.g. alcohol abuse); Poor education level of fisher population; Large population depend on limited resources; Investment on religious causes overrides development investments; Caste-oriented perspectives in fisheries; Fisheries administration and management Open access arrangements to fisheries persist; Open access and overcapacity; Overcapitalisation persists; Lack of proper fisheries management systems; Weak enforcement measures for Acts/rules; Lack of required manpower; Overfishing not addressed; Institutions and organisations: Failure of fisher cooperatives; Lack of strong leadership amongst fishermen; Lack of proper marketing capabilities; Infrastructure and technology: Lack of infrastructure for value-addition of fishery products; Lack of infrastructure for fishing operations; Sub-optimal performance of government infrastructure; Lack of proper cold chain and transport facilities;
35
Opportunities -
Better fisheries management Generation of fisheries wealth as a whole; Making amendments/changes in the Act; Increased availability of information on resources; Stock enhancement: Addition of new species for exploitation; Enhancing production through mariculture; Fisheries technology and methods: Diversification of gears for exploitation of fisheries resources; Diversification in fishing Diversification of processing and value addition; Institutional / organisational development: Building institutions Promoting greater community participation; Skills / capacity-building Improvement of skills through more capacity-building; Growing literacy of fishers; Enhancing livelihoods Enhancing fishers’ livelihoods through sustainable fisheries management; Introducing innovative technology to enhance livelihoods; Diversify employment opportunities; Mariculture and other alternative livelihoods; Increased participation by women in fisheries; Economic factors: Linking fishers and livelihoods into wider economy; Increasing demand for fish in internal and external markets; Promoting public-private partnerships; Provision of microfinance; Political support: Political will can increase opportunities for action
36
Threats -
Fisheries management Absence of readiness to accept limited access; Increased size of fishing fleets; Inability to control mechanised boats; Inappropriate fishing methods; Overexploitation of near-shore waters; Environment Environmental degradation and destruction of critical coastal habitats; Dwindling resources of commercial importance; Natural disasters (cyclones, tsuanami); Discharge of pollutants from industry and domestic sewage; Mushrooming of industrial activities and coal-based power-plants; Coastal development activities in general (housing, infrastructure); Institutions and organisations: Short tenures for Head of Departments (DoF) and Fisheries Secretary; Lack of commitment by GoTN over implementing policy; Skills and capacity Inadequate knowledge and skill among fishers; Social factors: Migration Involvement of non-fishing community in fishing; Some illiteracy among active fishers; Economic factors: Market demand deciding fishing operation, methods and frequencies; Subsidies of various kinds; Distribution of ‘freebies’ to fishing communities; Political Security concerns; Persons seeking political advantage; Political instability; Domination of small group in decision-making process;
37
APPENDIX (IX) POLICY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR FIMSUL
FIMSUL Work-package No. 2: Fisheries Policy Development FISHERIES POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS APPROACH by Dr. Arthur E. Neiland, IDDRA Ltd, UK
Presentation at the 3-day Workshop on Study orientation and methodology Chennai, India, 28-30th September 2010
2. SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE • The fisheries sector throughout the world is in crisis (low performance – contribution to sustainable development – with reference to economic, social and environmental objectives); • The fisheries of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry are important for coastal economy and people in particular, but are threatened by range of factors (overexploitation, competition for coastal space); • Underlying these threats are a limited policy framework and weak fisheries management system; • International experience shows that by strengthening the policy framework and improving fisheries management, the benefits from fisheries can be increased on a sustainable basis; • There is emerging international best practice which can help to inform policy development;
3. CONTEXT / ISSUES
1. CONTENT
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Objectives Significance and relevance Context /Issues Approach / methodology Outputs /Schedule Team / Involvement Links to other WP
• What is the status of the fisheries sector? • What is the role and contribution of the sector to Tamil Nadu and Puducherry? • What is the status of policy? • What is the performance of performance? • How can policy performance be explained? • What development pathway is fisheries following? • What will the sector look like in 20, 50, 100 years? • How can the pathway of development be influenced? • Who should be involved? • What are the policy options? • What are the opportunities and constraints? • What are the risks and uncertainties? • How much will policy development cost? • Who will be the winner and losers? • Is mitigation important? • What can be learned from national and international experiences?
4. Approach and methodology
1. OBJECTIVES
• To produce a detailed description of the fisheries sector in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry • To characterise the policy process • To assess and evaluate policy impact • To identify and analyse policy options • To propose a new draft fisheries policy • To collaborate closely with policy-makers and all stakeholder groups • To develop appropriate analytical tools and frameworks • To build capacity in policy analysis and policy development • To link closely with other FIMSUL work-packages and activities
Four Phases Phase 1: Policy review and preparation Phase 2: Policy analysis – tool-box development Phase 3: Fisheries policy options – identification and comparison Phase 4: New draft fisheries policy development
38
4. Approach and methodology – cont.
4. Approach and methodology– cont. Policy analysis tools?
Phase 1: Policy review and preparation: (a)Workshop on Fisheries Policy Analysis (b) Three preparatory studies: • Collation and review of fisheries policy studies in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and India; • Characterisation of fisheries sector in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (with other WP experts); • Profile and description of fisheries policy in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and in India;
4. Approach and methodology – cont.
Qualitative - Policy profiling - Policy performance assessment (e.g. Objectives achieved, use of national statistics and development reports) - Policy evaluation (initial) (e.g. Expert interviews, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, hypothesis testing) - Policy process characterisation and evaluation (detailed) (e.g. Context political-economy and governance analysis, narrative identification and analysis, actor-network analysis); - Scenario analysis (e.g. Participatory techniques and focus groups) Quantitative - Policy and project appraisal (e.g. Using national and programme accounts and data; economic, social and environmental impact; cost-benefit analysis; investment analysis); - Modelling approaches (e.g. Scenario analysis using bio-economic approach with specific fisheries);
4. Approach and methodology – cont.
Phase 2: Policy analysis toolbox development
• Fisheries Policy Options – identification and comparison
• Review and comparison of fisheries policy analysis approaches and tools;
• Identification and comparison of fisheries policy options for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry;
• Design and testing of fisheries policy analysis toolbox for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry;
• Operation of stakeholder meetings to discuss policy options
4. Approach and methodology - cont. Policy profiling: • What are the objectives of fisheries policy? (e.g. Increased production) • What are the priority areas for policy? (e.g. Input provision?) • What is the coverage of policy? (e.g. Marine fisheries?) • What are the policy instruments proposed and used? (e.g. Regulations?) • What is the performance and impact of policy? (what measures?) • Who is responsible for policy design, implementation and administration? • What are the underlying institutional arrangements? (e.g. Organisations and rules?); • What are the financing arrangements? (e.g. Amounts and schedule?) • What policy trends have occurred over time (e.g. Changes in priorities or approach?); • What are the relationships with other policies (e.g. Economic or social policy?) • What are the future likely future opportunities and threats?
4. Approach and methodology – cont.
New draft Fisheries Policy development • Design of new draft Fisheries Policy
39
5. Schedule and outputs
Sept- Oct 2010:
Phase 1: Policy review and preparation
Oct – Nov 2010:
Phase 2: Policy analysis – tool-box development
Dec 2010 – Jan 2011:
Phase 3: Fisheries policy options – identification and comparison
Feb 2011 – July 2011:
New draft fisheries policy development
6. Team and involvement FIMSUL Team – national and international experts External advisers (e.g. National and international) ____________________________________________________ Government of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry All stakeholders in fisheries sector Stakeholders in other sectors Communication!
7. Links to other FIMSUL WP WP 2 Policy development – just one component! Important links to all other WPs: WP.1. Stakeholder analysis and visioning WP3. Livelihoods analysis WP4. Legal and institutional analysis WP5. Fisheries Management WP6. Livelihoods Impact
40
APPENDIX (X) LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS ORIENTATION AND METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP/28TH TO 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PARTICIPANTS DETAILS Sl Name Address phone Email ParticipaNo. tion date Participants from Govt. of Tamil Nadu 1
Mr K Sellamuthu, IAS
2
P Mohanasundram
3
M Subburaj
4
K Rengaraju
5
R Elamparithy
6
C Balu
7
S Ravi
8
A Antoniraj
9
P Govindassamy
10
R Srinivasan
11
Dr V Sampath
12
Dr H Mohammed Kasim
Director of Fisheries, DMS 9443022550 Complex, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006 Joint Director of Fisheries, DMS 9444256455 Complex, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006 Joint Director of 9444451272
[email protected] Fisheries(Regional), Nagai Joint Director of Fisheries, 9444070783
[email protected] om Department of Fisheries, North Beach Road, Thoothukudi – 1 Assistant Director of 9486263099
[email protected] Fisheries(marine), Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram Participants from Govt. of Puducherry Joint Project Director(Fisheries) 9944540546 Project Implementation Office, 5th Floor, Kamarajar Educational Complex, Puducherry Assistant Director of Fisheries, 9445381153
[email protected] [email protected] Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Botanical Garden, Puducherry – 605 001 Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, 9791158547
[email protected] .in Office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries & Fishermen Welfare, 4, Dumas Street, Puducherry - 1 Inspector of Fisheries, 9442067779
[email protected] Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Botanical Garden, Puducherry – 605 001 Other participants Consultant, 1/647, Thilagar Street, Ganga Nagar, Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100 Ex Advisor, MOES, 99, 6th cross, KRM Nagar, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram – 608052 Rtd. Principal Scientist, CMFRI, 2/3 First Street,
28th – one day All days
All days
All days
All days
28th – one day
28th – one day
All days
29th & 30th – 2 days
044 22771060 9444119409
Srini.economist @yahoo.co.in
All days
04144 237278 9444399814
[email protected]
All days
9444226385
[email protected],
[email protected]
All days 41
Saediq Basha Nagar, Chennai – 87 Executve secretary, International Collective in Support of Fishworkers,(ICSF), 27 College Road, Chennai - 600 006 Team Leader, GUIDE, Palaveli Village, Venpakkam post, Chengalpattu-603111 Assistant Team Leader, GUIDE, Palaveli Village, Venpakkam post, Chengalpattu-603111
13
Chandrika Sharma
14
Gilbert Rodrigo
15
Jeba
16
Dr R T John Suresh
Director, PLANT, 52A1, Oragadam Road, Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053
17 18
Arthur Neiland C M Muralidharan
19
V Vivekanandhan
20
V Karthikeyan
21
G M Chandra Mohan R Buvaneswari
FIMSUL Project, FAO, Chennai National Project Co-ordinator, FIMSUL Project, Chennai FIMSUL Project, National Cosultant, Chennai FIMSUL Project, National Consultant, Chennai FIMSUL Project, National Consultant, Chennai Operations Assistant, FIMSUL Project, Chennai - 35
m
044 28275303
[email protected]
28th – one day
9443228894
[email protected]
28th – one day 28th – one day
9626307784
044 26570929 9840740929 9445837173
[email protected]
28th – one day
[email protected]
All days All days
Participants from FAO
22
9840859888 0984708484 0 9865354221 9486769180 9840499054
Chavakatmanghat.muralid
[email protected] [email protected]
All days
[email protected]
All days
[email protected]
All days
[email protected]
28th – one day
42
FIMSUL: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS FIMSUL Project, FAO of the United Nations Department of Fisheries, DMS Complex, First Floor, Administrative Building Teynampet, CHENNAI 600 006
http://sites.google.com/site/fimsul/ Email :
[email protected]
