Oc e a n g o v e r n a n c e f o r t h e C ommo nwe a l t h Box 1: Knowledge network Commonwealth Governance Handbook 2013/14 117 make the livelihoods of coastal small-scale fishers and their communities increasingly precarious in many Commonwealth countries. Framing Commonwealth responses In the face of these challenges, what is the Commonwealth to do? What can it do to build sensibly on strengths it already has? And what other sets of institutions need to be drawn into and linked to the further development of the evolving agenda? Better science for better policy. Although a great deal has been learned, especially in the last two or three decades, about what is happening to the oceans of the world, and about why their value as human resources for food and livelihood security are declining, much remains unexplored and unknown about the factors that affect ecosystem change in marine environments. This is especially at a country-specific scale and most particularly at a level that makes it possible to design and implement better management and livelihood practices for the benefit of local populations. A plausible and effective Commonwealth fisheries policy, or an equivalent Commonwealth ‘charter’ for ocean governance that might emerge finally from the 2015 CHOGM in Mauritius, must therefore rest, first and foremost, on a strong and improved scientific foundation. This will, however, raise interesting enumeration and transparency issues for small-scale fisheries, because much artisanal and subsistence fishing takes place without the sort of full reporting that is needed to counteract the effects of unreported and unregulated fishing. Small-scale fishing is often unregulated or community self-regulated. It represents, in the best cases such as Pacific SIDS’ locally marine managed areas (LMMAs), governance without government in effect. But when SSF catch is not enumerated (recorded), the fishing activity is unlikely to generate tax revenue. This, in turn, may encourage a Ministry of Fisheries to sell industrial fishing licenses at prices that do not take into account the multiple benefits to coastal communities: employment for women in processing and marketing fish; efficient use of the resource, as what would be bycatch in the industrial fishery is fully exploited by the local community; and the problems attendant on creating a pool of redundant fisherfolk in an environment where alternative sources of income may threaten national security (poaching, drugs, trafficking, gun-running, piracy). So, attempts to integrate small-scale fisheries into global supply chains have to do so in full recognition of the history and culture of the local fishery – the established ‘way of life’ of small-scale fishers – and with an understanding for the fishers themselves of the full implications of committing to a more market driven model of governance of their work: the need, for example, for a developed infrastructure of landing sites, storage facilities and laboratories for phytosanitary testing, as well as the expense involved in protecting local fishers from the impacts of industrial fishing, legal or illegal, that may destroy inshore ecosystems through bottom-trawling. Improving capacity for implementation. Better marine science and the data it yields are important as a baseline for policy development and evaluation. Better data might also help combat corruption and boost the capacity of Commonwealth small island and developing states to deal strategically with fish importing nations in multilateral instead of bilateral negotiations. The risk now is that if they do not agree to terms, their neighbours may be persuaded to accept – leaving them to fall prey to a situation in which they lose both the trade and the resource. Capacity problems exist at other levels of government as well. Through the development of stronger regulations for ecosystem and area based management mechanisms, including marine reserves introduced with the support of the community, for example, states can both improve the chances of SSFs to earn a living and do a better job of protecting the marine environment for recreational or cultural purposes. This needs to be coupled, of course, with better capacity for implementation and enforcement, which The Commonwealth hosts a wide range of pre-eminent marine science and policy research institutions. Significantly in the SIDS, Malta, originator of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), is home to the headquarters of the International Ocean Institute (IOI), which has branches in Canada, South Africa and Fiji (the University of the South Pacific, USP). Other key centres are at: the University of the West Indies, the Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, CERMES; the University of British Columbia, Canada; James Cook University, Townsville, and the University of Western Australia, Australia; Otago University and Victoria University, New Zealand; and Imperial College London, University of Plymouth and University of Portsmouth, UK. If Commonwealth ocean policy initiatives were to link these existing centres of Commonwealth strength in oceanic and marine research to more Commonwealth universities and research centres with recognised specialties in fisheries and ocean issues, the results would be impressive. With the development of links to the Commonwealth of Learning’s Virtual University for Small States in the Commonwealth (VUSSC) and to the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU), there would be scope for Commonwealth countries to co-operate on a regional ‘hub and spokes’ basis, and engage marine research institutions in developing and making accessible data that will sensibly inform policy.
CGH13_ebook
To see the actual publication please follow the link above