workshop on risk management in fisheries
TRANSCRIPT
SmartFish Meeting Report No 063
Prepared by
Sandy Davies
Workshop on Risk Management in Fisheries
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The
contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way
reflect the views of the European Union.
Table of Contents
1 Welcome and understanding the risk in fisheries ...................................................................... 5
2 Step 1 – defining the fisheries units and possible risks .............................................................. 7
3 Step 2 – determining the likelihood of the risk occurring ........................................................ 10
4 Step 3 – assess the impact or consequence of a realised risk ................................................... 12
5 Step 4 – determining the inherent risk ...................................................................................... 13
5.1 Inherent risks – offshore fishery ............................................................................................. 14
5.2 Inherent risks – inland fishery ................................................................................................ 15
5.3 Inherent risks – coastal fishery ............................................................................................... 16
6 Step 5 – assessing the effectiveness of existing MCS measures .............................................. 17
7 Step 6 – allocating the residual risk ......................................................................................... 21
8 Step 7 and 8 – managing, monitoring and reviewing the risk in fisheries ............................... 23
9 Workshop recommendations and close .................................................................................... 24
10 Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 26
10.1 Agenda ................................................................................................................................... 26
10.2 Participants list ....................................................................................................................... 28
10.3 Regional fisheries classification by importance for SmartFish countries ............................... 24
10.4 Inland – tilapia fishery risk matrix .......................................................................................... 26
10.5 Inland – fresh water sardine/ kapenta fishery risk matrix ....................................................... 27
10.6 Coastal – artisanal pelagic fishery risk matrix ........................................................................ 28
10.7 Coastal – prawn fishery risk matrix ........................................................................................ 29
10.8 Offshore – industrial longline fishery risk matrix ................................................................... 30
10.9 Offshore – reefer and supply vessel risk matrix ..................................................................... 31
Abbreviations and acronyms
Acronym Full name
BRD By-catch Reduction Devices
CNA Capacity Needs Assessment
DFID The Department for International Development
DSFA Deep Sea Fishing Authority
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IEZ Inshore Exclusive Zone
IGO Inter-Governmental Organisation
IOC-PRSP Indian Ocean Commission - Plan Régionale du surveillance de Pèche
IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development
NPCA NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency
NFDS Nordenfjeldske Development Services
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
PAF Partnership for African Fisheries
PSM Port State Measures
PSMA Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU fishing
RFB Regional Fisheries Body
RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
RPOA Regional Plan of Action
SADC Southern African Development Community
SIF Stop Illegal Fishing
SoC Statement of Commitment
SWIOFC Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission
SWIOFP Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Project
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995
VMS Vessel Monitoring System
WB World Bank
1 Welcome and understanding the risk in fisheries
The risk management workshop was organised by the EU funded ‘Implementation of a Regional
Strategy for the Eastern and Southern Africa-Indian Ocean (ESA-IO) Project’ that is implemented by
the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) in collaboration with the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA), the East African Community (EAC) and the Intergovernmental
Authority on Development (IGAD). Other regional institutions that collaborate with SmartFish include
the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the regional fisheries management
organisations of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), South West Indian Ocean Fisheries
Commission (SWIOFC), the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO) and the Lake Tanganyika
Fisheries Authority (LTA). The Project is also known as the SmartFish project
The workshop held from the 5 to 7 December, followed a previous SmartFish workshop on
information sharing, held in the same venue at the Coral Reef Hotel, Mahe, Seychelles (Agenda,
Annex 10.1). The risk management workshop was attended by the same participants (Participants
list, Annex 10.2) providing an excellent opportunity for building on the previous workshops outputs.
The meeting began with an introduction by Mr Marcel Kroese, MCS expert from the SmartFish
Programme, who welcomed participants and gave a brief explanation as to why risk assessment is a
useful tool in fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), elaborating on how this would
benefit the fisheries sectors of the countries in attendance. He then welcomed Ms Sandy Davies, the
facilitator of the workshop, and handed proceedings over to her. After a brief self-introduction, Ms
Davies invited all the participants to introduce themselves, before she began with her first presentation;
Risk Assessment in Fisheries - Introduction to understanding risk in fisheries.
Ms Davies explained that risk assessment allows fisheries managers to target their activities to areas
within the fisheries system where the risk that the fisheries management goals will not be achieved and
the management system will be compromised is the highest. The over-arching objectives are the
sustainability of the fish stock and the ecosystem, and the maximization of benefits from the resource.
However, risk assessment also helps in decision making regarding the future of the fishery. The
presenter then outlined eight steps that can be taken when conducting a risk assessment,
namely;
1. Define the fishery units and the possible risks
2. Determine the likelihood of the risk occurring
3. Assess the impact or consequence of a realized risk
4. Determine the inherent risk
5. Assess the effectiveness of existing MCS measures
6. Allocate the residual risk
7. Manage the risk in fisheries
8. Monitor and review the risk
Ms. Davies introduced the participants to five strategic areas that risks can be grouped into. After an
explanation of how these classifications would be interlinked to form a risk matrix, and used in
analysis of the likelihood and consequences of certain risks within that fishery, Ms Davies used an
example from a risk assessment study conducted on the Namibian fishery to illustrate how lack of
information affects the perception of the areas presenting the most risk, and resultantly, the
intensity of MCS efforts directed towards that fishery. To conclude, she summarised by outlining the
topics participants were going to work through during the workshop, and the expected outputs of the
workshop.
Mr Per Erik Bergh (NFDS Africa, MCS expert) presented a summary of the findings and outputs from
the workshop conducted in the previous week on data and information sharing in the region. After
describing the methodology employed to get the results, he detailed the major outputs, which included: a
list of the high priority fisheries in the region, the main information requirements desired by the
countries for these fisheries, the priority allocated to the fishery in respect to shared data and
information sharing, the action plan, recommendations and implementation matrix.
2 Step 1 – defining the fisheries units and possible risks
Following the introductory session discussions began on fisheries classification and which fishery
units the workshop would focus on as examples for practising the methodology. The group decided to
work in three groups: off-shore fisheries, inland and coastal. The participants then took the table of
fisheries that had been developed in the previous workshop and identified which countries these fisheries
occurred in (Annex 10.3). From these each group chose two fisheries that had scored highly or with a
medium ranking in importance for sharing information at the regional level and proceeded to use these as
examples in the on-going work of the workshop (Table 2.1).
Table 1 the six fisheries chosen as examples for the workshop
Regional fishery classification
Countries that the fishery occurs in
Co
mo
ros
K
en
ya
M
adag
asca
r
M
auri
tiu
s
M
oza
mb
iqu
e
Se
ych
elle
s
R
eu
nio
n
Ta
nza
nia
U
gan
da
Za
mb
ia
Offshore - industrial longline fishery – tuna and tuna like species
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Offshore - reefer /carrier / supply vessels
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Inland - kapenta (dagaa/ omena/mukene/ fresh water sardine) fishery – ring net and seine net
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
Inland - tilapia fishery – gillnets, hook and line and traps
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
Coastal - artisanal pelagic fishery, round net and gill net - Indian mackerel, sardines and dagga
X
X
NA
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Coastal - semi industrial prawn fishery – trawl
NA
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
Key:
X = fishery present in country
NA = fishery not present in country
Next a practical exercise took place to assist the participants in identifying different risks in fisheries and
categorising these. Participants were requested to write down different risks on a piece of paper, and
categorize it under one or more of the five following headings; excess capacity/effort, non-compliance,
management systems, post-harvest and environmental and ecosystem (Photo 2.1). Following the
categorization of risks, the workshop discussed each risk and the issues associated with it. The table
showing the categorization of the different risks is given below (Table 2.2). The group also discussed
if they though that the categories of risks were relevant and if they wanted to add or remove any. The
workshop decided to continue to use these five categories.
Table 2 Examples of risk by category
Risk
Excess Capacity/effort Open access
Excess capacity
Over fishing
Poaching by perceived friends longliners
Twin vessels (doubling effort)
High market export value
Presence of Chinese nationals driving harvest in certain marine resources
Poverty leading to the catch of juvenile fish
Non-compliance Poverty leading to the catch of juvenile fish
Entry exit without catch reporting
Use of mosquito nets
Non-submission of fish catch returns (lack of data)
Fishing without a license
Use of illegal gear (dynamite)
Illegal transhipment
Lack of market cooperation regarding juvenile fishing
Poaching
Lack of information (Underreporting)
Shark fin limit not observed
Weak laws
Lack of trust between govt. and fishers
Lack of MCS capacity
Bycatch, dumping, discard
Fishing in designated fish breeding areas
Management system Conflicts between fishers
Lack of regional cooperation (information sharing, political level, dealing with foreign vessels and licenses)
Lack of human capacity (adequate, qualified manpower)
Lack of information (Underreporting)
Political interference
Political non-action
Conflict of interest
Post – harvest Illegal transhipment
Unhealthy products
Non-declaration of catches
Composition of catches (not declaring)
Smuggling in without duty Environment and ecosystem
Bycatch
Dumping
Discard
High grading
Introduction of invasive species
Fishing in designated fish breeding areas
Fishing on protected species
Bad knowledge of the stock
Piracy
Pollution
Certain resources, species and taxa known to be more vulnerable
The participants were then divided into three groups; coastal, inland and offshore fisheries. Each group
began designing a risk assessment matrix and allocated specific risks to each fishery, in many cases
following long debates and discussions. The three groups presented their findings in plenary.
The first presentation was given by the participants discussing the inland fishery, and they focused on
the risks affecting the tilapia and the fresh water sardine fisheries. The tables detailing the risks to these
fisheries in each of the five categories can be found in Annexes 10.4 and 10.5, which provide the
compiled risk matrix for each of the six fisheries – it is the column named risk that is relevant to this
session. The results led to a brief discussion about the adequacy of fisheries legislation, and it was
generally agreed that the problem may lie with the application, or lack thereof, of the current legislations
in place, and not necessarily with the legislation. One participant also brought up the problem of
corruption in fisheries, and suggested higher wages for fisheries officers as a mitigation measure.
The second group to present was the representatives of the coastal fishery; they discussed the risks
related to the marine artisanal pelagic fisheries, as well as the inshore prawn fishery (Annex 10.6 and
10.7). They were followed by the last presentation for the day from the representatives of the off- shore
fishery, who presented the list of risks associated with the large pelagic longline fishery, and the
reefers and supply vessels (Annex 10.8 and 10.9). The session closed with a summary of the processes
that had taken place, the classification of the fisheries and the defining of the risks relevant to
each fishery, and a brief outline of the work to be undertaken in the next session.
Photo 2.1: Examples of risk by category
3 Step 2 – determining the likelihood of the risk occurring
The workshop focused on determining the likelihood that a risk would occur or be realized. Participants
were asked to assign a rating of probability to each risk they had listed in the previous session, and these
ratings were based on the likelihood of the risk occurring within a defined period of time, and should be
supported by evidence where possible.
Five ratings of probability and likelihood were proposed, these likelihood ratings are based on the
probability of the risk occurring within a defined period. Information sources such as; the economic
situation within a fishery, the perceived level of deterrence within the fishery and the compliance level
are used to assess this. It was also advised to try and cross-check information and not just use one
information source. Uncertainty or lack of data will generally increase the likelihood that a risk will
occur. The five ratings used were:
1. Rare - Will only take place in an extraordinary situation
2. Unlikely - Could take place occasionally
3. Moderate – Should occur from time to time
4. Likely - Will take place frequently
5. Almost certain - It is generally expected to take place
Before joining their group’s participants took the opportunity to discuss issues related to the various
risks they had outlined. The main discussions were:
A suggestion was made that countries encourage the presence of independent observers on the vessels,
as observers posted by the flag states may be biased. It was also pointed out that there are
international observers, and these are mostly from the EU countries. The concern was again that
observers should be representative of all nations and inclusive of the nations where the vessels are
fishing. Responses were that this is expensive and made harder by piracy, which has led to space on
ships being taken up by security guards, making it difficult to place observers on vessels.
Another comment related to the offshore fishery was that the non-compliance seems focused
on the EU fleets, and we are aware that there are also problems brought about by the Asian fleets.
It was noted that it is important for the countries to know the value of the resources in their waters, as
this will dictate the negotiations conducted and agreements made with countries exploiting their
resource. The suggestion was made that this issue should be discusses at greater length in the working
groups, because the lack of knowledge related to the value of the resources puts countries at a
disadvantage.
An interesting problem was brought to the fore, the problem of lack of cooperation amongst the
countries in the West Indian Ocean region. The access agreements that the different countries have in
place put certain countries at a disadvantage and allow the fleets and fishers to employ methods that
ensure they avoid paying the correct amount to the countries from which the resource is obtained. It
was pointed out that the inability of coastal states to actually inspect the vessels as they do not call into
port is one of the major problems. The recent successes in the Mozambique fishery can be attributed to
the fact that vessels are forced to call into port for a pre-fishing briefing, allowing them to monitor their
offshore fishery fleet.
After the discussions, the participants separated into their three groups to determine the likelihood of
occurrence of the risks they had listed in the group session held the previous day. The groups
tabulated the results of their discussions and these are given in Annexes 10.4 to 10.9
The group representing the coastal fishery presented their findings first, rating the risks to the
coastal fishery. The audience queried the rating given to high value species, which they explained
using an example of the shark fishery, stating that the value attached to the product made it a target
species even though it is only legally caught as a bycatch species. Lack of cooperation is a risk that
the countries agreed they have to work on, and Tanzania stated that one of the things they have
learnt from the workshop was that supply vessels need to be licensed but that currently this is not
happening in their waters, something they intend to amend immediately.
The second presentation was from the offshore fisheries group, and their presentation led to a request for
greater transparency, regarding identifying which countries are falling short in which areas. Also
discussed was the capture of and sale of juvenile fish on the market. The facilitator noted that this
workshop was focusing on developing a process rather than the country specific results. The purpose of
the groups being mixed not country specific was to facilitate discussion and exchange of different
aspects of risk within what are shared fisheries.
The last presentation was from the inland fisheries group; the rampant use of illegal gears was rated
likely, as an average for the region, although in extreme cases it is usually 80%. Participants also felt
that the issue of climate change needs to be addressed as it affects the other risks, and the resource itself;
although it was pointed out that many of the countries do not have adequate information on the impacts
of climate change.
Photo 3.1: Working groups at work
4 Step 3 – assess the impact or consequence of a realised risk
The third step for the groups was to assign one of five qualitative ratings for the consequence if the risk
occurs. This ranking is based on the expected impacts of the risk on:
The integrity of management arrangements and
The achievement of fisheries goals.
Normally this requires consultation with other stakeholders, such as scientists, economists, fishers and
industry. In the case of the workshop the groups discussed the risk and made a best estimate of the
potential impact or consequence on the management measures and goals of each fishery. The rankings
given were:
Insignificant – Minimal to no impact
Minor - Limited impact to integrity of management system but no threat to the goals
Moderate – may have some impact to integrity of management system and minor threat to the goals
Major – Impact would most likely undermine the integrity of management system and may threaten
achievement of the goals
Serious – Impact would undermine the integrity of management system and threaten
achievement of one or more of the goals.
The results for each risk are given in Annexes 10.4 to 10.9.
5 Step 4 – determining the inherent risk
The fourth step is to combine the findings to date and allocate an inherent risk rating to each risk for
the fishery. The table below was used to categorise the inherent risks as low, moderate, high or
severe.
Table 3 Inherent Risk Matrix
Like
lih
oo
d
Consequence
Insignificant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Serious
Rare
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Likely
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Severe
Almost
certain
Moderate
High
High
Severe
Severe
5.1 Inherent risks – offshore fishery
The first group to present their finding was the group assessing the coastal fishery, after which they
fielded questions and comments from the participants. A comment was made regarding the quality of
the product as a factor, which raised a larger issue of the fact that although the meeting
attendees are MCS officers, they cannot overlook the issues that are beyond MCS. When conducting a
risk assessment you may have to define the scope early, or begin with a broad spectrum of indicators,
and then scale it down when creating your defined plan of action going forward. Group members said
that when they were assessing criteria, their main focus was on resource protection, which is why they
felt the quality of a product cannot be overlooked, because poor quality affects the revenue obtained,
and as such, it should be of concern to MCS practitioners. The issue of having a more inclusive matrix
should be considered when doing the assessment, as it is possible and does not take away from any of
the other criteria or area being assessed.
The figures below indicate the inherent ranking for the risks for each of the three fishery types in the
offshore fishery, the colours are as in the table above – red = severe, orange = high, yellow = moderate
and green = low.
Longline large pelagic Reefer
4%
8% 20%
40% 40%
48%
40%
0%
Supply vessels
13% 12%
25%
50%
5.2 Inherent risks – inland fishery
The second presentation was by the group assessing the inland fishery, which was followed by
comments from the workshop participants. The first comment was that perhaps the consequences for
fishing in areas designated for fish breeding was too low, and should be moved up to severe as it goes
against management objectives. The response from the group presenting was that this was just one of
several management measures, and alone, does not deserve a rating of severe. The same point was
raised regarding the offence of fishing without a fishing license, which was given a rating of moderate.
The group however defended this rating by stating that licensing is a problem, but that the real solution
is improved management and that the problem can be controlled at management level. Participants were
asked to consider it from the perspective of control, stating the licensing is usually the first step, and if
that is not enforced, this will affect the management of the fishery. A correction was made however that
the licensing issue should be considered as a management measure and not a revenue stream.
A comment from one of the participants was that when developing measures, we should consider what
the fisheries objective is, and whether we are fulfilling economic or social measures. In certain fisheries
the cost of licensing is not covered by the cost of the license, and it may be more efficient to develop
management measures that do not necessarily involve licensing. A response however is that you should
not base the success or usefulness of a management measure on the money behind it.
The figures below indicate the inherent ranking for the risks for each of the two fishery types in the
offshore fishery, the colours are as in the table above – red = severe, orange = high, yellow = moderate
and green = low.
Tilapia Kapenta
17%
0%
13%
29%
5%
14%
70% 52%
5.3 Inherent risks – coastal fishery
The last presentation was from the offshore fishery, who received no comments or questions from the
workshop participants.
The figures below indicate the inherent ranking for the risks for each of the two fishery types in the
offshore fishery, the colours are as in the table above – red = severe, orange = high, yellow = moderate
and green = low.
Artisanal/Semi-industrial Inshore Prawn
0%
4%
12%
23%
42%
50%
42% 27%
Ms Davies summarized the work done up until this point. She gave a graphical representation of the
level of risk for each major fishery, showing that according to the participants ratings, 79 % of the
fisheries were at a high or severe risk. Table 4 Inherent risk to each of the six fisheries
Rating Fishery Species
Low
Moderate
High
Severe
Offshore
Longline large pelagic
2
1
12
10
Reefer
1
2
0
2
Supply vessels
1
4
2
1
Inland
Tilapia
0
3
16
4
Kapenta
1
3
11
6
Coastal
Artisanal/Semi- industrial
1
3
11
11
Inshore prawn
0
5
6
11
Overall
6
21
58
45
6 Step 5 – assessing the effectiveness of existing MCS measures
The facilitator introduced Step 5 of the risk assessment process - assessing the effectiveness of the
monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) measures that are in place to avert the risks from
occurring. For each risk the key MCS measures currently being taken to mitigate the risk need to be
identified and these MCS measures need to be qualitatively rated for their adequacy. Adequacy ratings
can be assigned based on: the level of information about the risk provided by the existing MCS
measures and their likely level of deterrence to non-compliance. It was stressed that adequacy means
that the MCS measure is working.
Weak – MCS arrangements provide little or no information on the risk and / or are unlikely to
promote compliance
Moderate – MCS arrangements provide some information on the risk and / or are likely to
promote moderate levels of compliance
Strong – MCS arrangements provide good information on the risk and / or are likely to promote
good levels of compliance
Very strong – MCS arrangements provide very good information on the risk and / or are likely
to promote high levels of compliance
Participants went into working groups to assess the presence and adequacy of the measures
currently being taken to mitigate the risks. They were encouraged to propose actions for each
fishery at the national, sub-regional and regional levels, and tabulate their findings.
The first group to present was the group representing the offshore fishery.
Table 5 Proposed MCS action for the offshore fishery
Offshore Fishery
Strategic Area MCS action-National MCS action - Regional
Excess capacity/ effort, Management system, Post-harvest, Environment Ecosystem
Conduct national management plan.
Conduct assessment of legal/policy to identify gaps and propose measures.(governance)
Improve compliance to IOTC management measures.
Speed up the process of quota allocation scheme.
Define the framework for data sharing.
Harmonization of legislation.
Non-compliance Adopt/review and implement national plan of action to combat IUU fishing.
Establish regional VMS.
Establish a regional observer program.
Establish regional joint surveillance
Operationalize a regional coordination MCS centre.
The workshop participants posed two questions to the group presenting for the offshore fishery. The first
question was whether there are fishery management plans in place. To which the response was that there
are management plans, but they are needed at the national level. The second question was whether
there is any risk areas associated with the fishery. The group responded that they merged the risk areas
as they could be addressed with similar mitigation measures, this included corruption, which was
addressed by good governance.
A participant commented that linkages are actions that can be proposed to all these issues, the national
plans of action need to be implemented and changed from a plan of action to action itself. They further
stated that inter-agency intelligence sharing and cooperation, as well as good governance are also good
measures.
It was noted that the MCS ranking had very few strong areas, making it clear that there is limited strong
MCS for the offshore resources of the Indian Ocean. The ranking was an average, and some of the
countries were performing very well while others were not; presenting a strong argument for regional
cooperation, as these are migratory stocks, and if all the countries are not performing well then it affects
the region. It was noted that the region is benefitting from regional patrols by the IOC, but that many
improvements could take place such as: improved landing sites and traceability throughout the entire
value chain of the fish harvested.
A query was raised regarding the presence of un-licensed supply vessels in the region; to which a
SmartFish representative responded that there is always a possibility of unlicensed supply vessels,
however they do enter port and when this occurs they can be inspected.
The next presentation was from the representatives of the coastal fishery; and it was followed by a
question and answer session.
Table 6 Proposed MCS action for the coastal artisanal fishery
Artisanal and semi-industrial inshore
Strategic area MCS action national MCS action regional
Excess Effort Explore possibilities of shifting effort to other fisheries or areas
Explore alternative livelihood options
Explore aquaculture opportunities - redeployment of fishers
Non-Compliance On-going sensitisation and awareness campaign, including compliance
Campaign to include negative impacts of non-compliance on the ecosystem, fisheries and livelihoods
Understand why there is non-compliance and why compliance officials are not able to or willing to enforce the laws.
Non-discrimination in enforcing compliance Equip MCS units with necessary training, tools and equipment
Management System
Transparency in management decision-making Involvement of civil-society in the management process
Co-management and capacity-building Understand why management systems or aspects of management systems are not effective
Where feasible, harmonise management systems
Post-Harvest For high value marine resources improve trade monitoring and regulation
Initiate and/or enhance inter-agency collaborations
Environment & Ecosystem
Require research on ecosystem functions and value EAF
On-going sensitisation and awareness campaign.
Campaign to include negative impacts of non-compliance on the ecosystem, fisheries and livelihoods
Sharing of awareness-raising methods and information.
Table 7 Proposed MCS action for the coastal prawn fishery
Inshore prawn
Strategic area MCS action national MCS action regional
Excess Effort Explore possibilities of shifting effort to other fisheries or areas
Post-harvest value adding to support more people and reduce fishing effort
Explore alternative livelihood options
Explore aquaculture opportunities - redeployment of fishers
Introduce quotas
Non-Compliance On-going sensitisation and awareness campaign, including compliance
Campaign to include negative impacts of non-compliance on the ecosystem, fisheries and livelihoods
Understand why there is non-compliance and why compliance officials are not able to or willing to enforce the laws.
Non-discrimination in enforcing compliance
Penalties increased to serve as deterrent
Equip MCS units with necessary training, tools and equipment
Learn from success stories in other countries in use of BRD's
Learn from success stories in other countries in use of BRD's
Management System
Transparency in management decision-making Involvement of civil-society in the management process
Co-management and capacity-building
Understand why management systems or aspects of management systems are not effective
Post-Harvest For high value marine resources improve trade monitoring and regulation
Initiate and/or enhance inter-agency collaborations
Environment & Ecosystem
Require research on ecosystem functions and value EAF
On-going sensitisation and awareness campaign.
Campaign to include negative impacts of non-compliance on the ecosystem, fisheries and livelihoods
The first concern raised was that perhaps the words corruption, political interference and poor
enforcement should be changed to something more diplomatic. However participants felt that these were
the issues and they should be discussed as honestly as possible. It was also noted that the inclusion of
these issues illustrates that participation by civil society in this process would be beneficial. As a point
of clarification, the group members informed the other participants that they had applied their ratings
based on the MCS systems that are in place, rather than whether or not they are effective, or adequate.
The last presentation came from the representatives of the inland fishery.
Table 8 Proposed MCS action for the Inland tilapia fishery
Tilapia Fishery
Strategic area MCS Actions - National MCS Action- Regional
Excess capacity/effort
Develop a Plan of Action to Address excess capacity/effort
Review fisheries regulations
Promote alternative livelihood options (aquaculture, eco-tourism etc.)
Strengthen Co-management with reference to data collection
Harmonization of regional fisheries regulations for shared water bodies
Non Compliance Develop and strengthen MCS systems
Capacity building for MCS operations
Establishment and surveillance of
Establish and strengthen joint MCS for shared water bodies
Development/strengthening of an effective
breeding areas
Awareness and advocacy
reporting system for information exchange within and between MCS stakeholders
Management System
Develop/strengthen fisheries management structures and systems
Sustainable funding of MCS activities
Develop/strengthen data collection and analysis mechanisms
Strengthen regional transboundary fisheries meetings
Sustainable funding of MCS activities
Harmonization and sharing of MCS data and information
Post-Harvest Capacity building in post-harvest handling, processing and storage
Promote and Support regional fish trade
Environment and ecosystem
Develop and establish integrated management systems
Under fisheries management Introduce ecosystem approach to management
Table 9 Proposed MCS action for the Inland kapenta fishery
Kapenta Fishery
Strategic area MCS Actions - National MCS Action- Regional
Excess capacity/effort
Develop a Plan of Action to Address excess capacity/effort
Review fisheries regulations
Strengthen Co-management with reference to data collection
Harmonization of regional fisheries regulations for shared water bodies
Non Compliance Develop and strengthen MCS systems
Capacity building for MCS operations
Awareness and advocacy
Establish and strengthen joint MCS for shared water bodies
Development/strengthening of an effective reporting system for information exchange within and between MCS stakeholders
Management System
Develop/strengthen fisheries management structures and systems
Sustainable funding of MCS activities
Develop/strengthen data collection and analysis mechanisms
Strengthen regional transboundary fisheries meetings
Sustainable funding of MCS activities
Harmonization and sharing of MCS data and information
Post-Harvest Capacity building in post-harvest handling, processing and storage
Promote and Support regional fish trade
Environment and ecosystem
Develop and establish integrated management systems
Support environmental protection programmes and community awareness
Establishment of an effective reporting system for information exchange for shared water bodies
The first comment was that there are a lot of measures that could cover various areas. When
mention is made of developing strengthened MCS systems, it should be considered that MCS
practitioners are all working within their legal framework, and as such they need to work on developing
the current systems as well as ensuring that there are proper management structures in place.
It was also noted that some countries do not have established and protected breeding areas, and some
do; where they are established, surveillance will occur, and in their absence it will not. These breeding
areas should be supported by clear delimitation and legislative support. A suggestion made was that a
community based MCS system would be a good option.
7 Step 6 – allocating the residual risk
The final step that the workshop took was to allocate the residual risk to each of the fisheries that had
been assessed in the workshop. This step takes the inherent risk and compares that to the adequacy of
the MCS in place to assess if this reduces the risk, thus providing the inherent risk at that point in
time. Table 7.1 shows how this ranking is given.
Table 10 The residual risk matrix
Ad
eq
uac
y o
f M
CS
Inherent risk
Low
Moderate
High
Severe
Very strong
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Strong
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
Severe
Weak
Low
Moderate
High
Severe
7.1 Residual risk pie charts
7.1.1 Offshore fishery
Longline large pelagic Reefer
32%
8%
12%
40%
20%
48% 40%
0%
Supply vessels
12%
13% 25%
50%
7.1.2 Inland Fishery
Tilapia Kapenta
13% 13% 24%
14%
22%
29%
52% 33%
7.1.3 Coastal Fishery
Artisanal/Semi-industrial mixed Inshore Prawn
42%
16%
27%
15%
41%
5%
18%
36%
The workshop then concluded with an analysis of the group work outputs, and a comparison of the
inherent and residual risks for the three fisheries, showing that the MCS systems in place do provide
positive impacts in all of the fisheries except for the reefer fishery. The fisheries moved from 79 %
being rated as high and severe risk, to 66 % once the MCS measures are applied.
Table 11 Table showing the residual risk rating for fishery
Fishery
Species
Rating
Low Moderate High Severe
Offshore
Longline large pelagic
2
3
12
8
Reefer 1 2 0 2
Supply vessels 2 4 1 1
Inland
Tilapia 3 5 12 3
Kapenta 3 6 7 5
Coastal
Artisanal/Semi- industrial mixed
4
4
7
11
Inshore prawn 1 4 8 9
Overall 16 28 47 39
8 Step 7 and 8 – managing, monitoring and reviewing the risk in fisheries
The workshop did not deal with managing, monitoring and reviewing the risks in fisheries; these would
normally form steps 7 and 8 in a full risk assessment. However, Ms Davies did introduce the subject
briefly. She noted that when you have identified a high or severe risk you should aim to avoid the risk
– i.e. don’t open the fishery / don’t license the vessel, or transfer it – partly or totally – e.g. get
insurance, share it or retain it – and then find options to reduce it. A table and a diagram were
introduced to help explain these concepts. Figure 1: Risk management options
Figure 2 Risk Management Options
Risk status
Management response
MCS response
Low
Management should be made aware of the risk and the steps taken to reduce it.
Ensure that adequate monitoring of the infraction is taking place so that the trends in the infraction rate and compliance levels can be regularly monitored.
Moderate
Management should be made aware of the risk and plan to reduce it as well as the plans to increase the MCS efforts if the risk moves into a high risk status.
Compliance levels to be regularly monitored and a check made that the risk doesn’t become a high risk status. Efforts increased to reduce non-compliance within the routine work of the organisation and especially through awareness programmes.
High
Management decision required Detailed compliance strategy to be developed.
Increased effort, targeted operations with available MCS components. Increased landings control and post-harvest data verification.
Severe
Urgent management decision required. Detailed compliance strategy to be developed and additional assistance and funds may be required immediately. Consideration of closure of the fishery.
Urgent response. Increased effort, targeted operations with available MCS components, consideration of hiring or leasing additional tools (such as aeroplane or patrol vessel) for a limited period. Increased landings control and post-harvest data verification. Regional cooperation to be negotiated if applicable.
Then two speakers provided presentations on options that are available to assist MCS personnel and
managers in dealing with the risks and reducing these. The first speaker was Mr Markus Burgener
who presented on the analysis of trade data and how this can be used to combat IUU fishing,
entitled; Tackling IUU fishing through trade data analysis. He described that the analysis of trade
data for fish products in international trade provides useful information for tackling IUU fishing.
Trade data refers to the data on commodities in international trade that is collected by Customs or
other similar agencies at the point of export and import. This data shows the volume of the
commodity traded, its value and the countries from which it was imported or to where it was exported.
In its simplest form, fisheries trade data analysis involves a comparison of import and export figures.
Where catch data can be obtained, analysis can also involve comparisons of trade and catch data.
The advantages of trade data analysis are that it is cost effective, it does not require the gathering of
new data, data access is easy and mostly obtainable at no cost, it provides quick results and, it
facilitates interdepartmental collaboration. All countries engaged in the trade in fish products should
explore the integration of trade data analysis into existing Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
systems. A good first step is to explore TRAFFIC’s web-based user’s guide on fisheries trade data
analysis: http://www.fisheries-trade-data.org/
In discussion a concern was raised about the accuracy of trade data, and participants wanted to
know how this concern was being addressed. The presenter stated that because of the ease of
access to existing information, this was no longer an issue, although there are one or two issues. The
compatibility of this process with inland fisheries was also questioned, and the response was that
this is dependent on the key and codes and the detail of the information. Traffic also stated that
there is no profit attached to what they do and they are happy to investigate data freely, but of course
once costs are incurred these should be covered.
Mr Bergner’s presentation was followed by a talk given by Mr Bergh; Smarter MCS and the use of
fisheries “intelligence” information. During which he described the various sources of information
that MCS officers have at their disposal, and explained the suspicious and peculiar behaviour that
they should watch for when inspecting a vessel. Using examples, Mr Bergh showed participants
some of the strategies that have been adopted by IUU fishing vessels in order to avoid detection and to
fish illegally. He also showed that by using technology such as AIS tracking the movements of vessels
thought to be fishing illegally can be monitored and this coupled with a professional regional and
international network, as well the knowledge of when and where to look for evidence, will greatly
improve the effectiveness of MCS officers.
9 Workshop recommendations and close
The workshop recommendations were:
Further regional /sub-regional or national training /working groups to develop detailed risk
assessments for the shared or transboundary fisheries
Nile perch fishery – risk assessment LVFO and other shared inland water bodies
Risk management developed
Strengthen the capacity building to reach further and replicate workshop with focus on specific
fishery types
Methodology with guidelines and associated tools is developed to support risk assessment
Explore how to utilize additional information sources to get better information to allow targeted
actions to reduce non-compliance and increase deterrence
With that, Ms Davies offered a vote of thanks, and handed over to Mr. Marcel Kroese to officially
close the workshop. He thanked the facilitators and participants and noted that hopefully this was only
the beginning of the process. He acknowledged the requests and said SmartFish would continue to
provide support to the fight against IUU fishing where necessary.
10 Annexes
10.1 Agenda
Monday 10 December 2012
8.30-9.00
Registration
9.00-10.30
WELCOME and UNDERSTANDING THE RISK IN FISHERIES
Opening/Welcome
Introduction to the IOC and SmartFish
Introductions by participants
House keeping
Introduction to understanding risk in fisheries
What is risk assessment and why do we do it in fisheries – the methodology for risk assessment? – Presentation by Consultant
Questions and answers
Summary of information sharing and data harmonisation workshop – Per Erik Bergh
10.30-11.00
Break
11.00- 12.30
First Session – STEP 1 – DEFINING THE RISKS IN FISHERIES
What are the risks that we face in fisheries – defining and grouping these into strategic areas – Working session
Questions and answers – Participants in plenary
12.30- 14.00
Lunch
14.00-15.30
Agreeing the fishery units that we will work with – Consultant and participants
Practical session to define risks by fisheries – Working groups – Inland/Marine coastal and Marine off-shore
15.30-16.00 Break
16.00-17.00
Continuation of practical session – Participants
Feed-back to plenary – Participants
Summary of step 1 – Participants and consultant
Summary of days’ work – Participants and consultant
Wednesday 12 December 2012
9.00-10.30
Fifth Session – STEP 5 – ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY OF EXISTING MCS
Introduction to the days’ work and practical session – Introduction by Consultant
Practical session assessing adequacy of existing MCS - Participants supported by consultants
10.00-10.30
Break
10.30-12.30
Presenting the risk tables in Plenary – participants
Questions and answers – all
Summary – Consultant
Sixth Session – MANAGING RISK IN FISHERIES
Overview of what next in risk management in monitoring control and surveillance in fisheries systems? – How can we make MCS more efficient, prioritization and planning - Presentation by Consultant
Questions and answers – all
12.30- 14.00
Lunch
14.00-15.30
Plenary discussion of next steps for the SmartFish project – Participants in plenary
Drafting of workshop recommendations – Participants
15.30-16.00
Break
16.00-17.00
Continued discussion if required – Participants
Summing up of workshop- Consultant
Close of workshop
Wednesday 12 December 2012
9.00-10.30
Fifth Session – STEP 5 – ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY OF EXISTING MCS
Introduction to the days’ work and practical session – Introduction by Consultant
Practical session assessing adequacy of existing MCS - Participants supported by consultants
10.00-10.30
Break
10.30-12.30
Presenting the risk tables in Plenary – participants
Questions and answers – all
Summary – Consultant Sixth Session – MANAGING RISK IN FISHERIES
Overview of what next in risk management in monitoring control and surveillance in fisheries systems? – How can we make MCS more efficient, prioritization and planning - Presentation by Consultant
Questions and answers – all
12.30- 14.00
Lunch
14.00-15.30 Plenary discussion of next steps for the SmartFish project – Participants in plenary
Drafting of workshop recommendations – Participants
15.30-16.00
Break
16.00-17.00
Continued discussion if required – Participants
Summing up of workshop- Consultant
Close of workshop
10.2 Participants list
Name of participants Country Email address
Mr Said Boina Hassan Comoros [email protected]
Mr Patrick Mwenda Kiara Meme Kenya [email protected]
Mr Patrick M. Kimani Kenya [email protected]
Mr Nicholas Ntheketha Kenya [email protected]
Mr Andriamaharo Ny Aina Tantely Madagascar [email protected]
Mr Tiana Randriambola Madagascar [email protected]
Mr D. Mauree Mauritius [email protected]
Mr Subhas Chandra Bauljeewon Mauritius [email protected]
Mr Pierre Pieries Mauritius [email protected]
Mr Manuel Castiano Mozambique [email protected]
Mr Joao Noah Senete Mozambique [email protected]
Ms Teresa Athayde Reunion [email protected]
Mr Arnaud Le Mentec
Reunion arnaud.le-mentec@developpement- durable.gouv.fr
Mr Finley Jacques Racombo Seychelles [email protected]
Mr Roy Clarisse Seychelles [email protected]
Mr Gerard Domingue Seychelles [email protected]
Mr Aleandro Anganuzzi Seychelles [email protected]
Mr Julius Mairi Tanzania [email protected]
Mr Baraka Mngulwi Tanzania [email protected]
Mr Nadiope Eric Uganda [email protected].
Mr Richard Mangeni Uganda [email protected]
Mr Abura Samson Achieng Uganda [email protected]
Mr Evans Mutanuka Zambia [email protected]
Mr Michael Mhango Zambia [email protected]
Mr G.F. Nanyaro Zanzibar [email protected]
Mr Zahor El Kharousy Zanzibar [email protected]
Mr Nebojsa Petrovic Australia [email protected]
Ms Sandy Davies Botswana [email protected]
Mr Per Erik Bergh Botswana [email protected]
Mr Mark Ssemakula Botswana [email protected]
Mr Marcel Kroese IRFS- SmartFish [email protected]
Mr Jude Talma IRFS- SmartFish [email protected]
Ms Aurore Martingale IRFS- SmartFish [email protected]
Mr Markus Burgener South Africa [email protected]
10.3 Regional fisheries classification by importance for SmartFish countries
The following table identifies fisheries that occur in the region. It then classifies the area that these occur in, the main target species, the gear used and then
they are marked with a cross if they occur in specific countries. The participants then ranked these for regional importance in respect to sharing information
for MCS – the orange boxes represent a high importance, white a medium importance and green a low importance.
Regional fishery classification
Definition
Country
Area Species Gear Comoros Kenya Madagascar Mauritius Mozambique Seychelles Reunion Tanzania Uganda Zambia
Industrial offshore longline fishery
Off-shore
Tuna and tuna like
Longline
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Industrial offshore purse seine fishery
Off-shore
Tuna and tuna like
Purse Seine
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Reefer carrier and supply vessels
Off-shore
Tuna and tuna like
na
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Dagaa/ Omena/ Kapenta/ Mukene (fresh water sardine) fishery
Inland
Kapenta,(Dagaa Omena) Mukene
Ring net Seine net
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
The Buka buka Fishery
Inland
Lates Ring net
Purse sein
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
NA
X
The Nile Perch Fishery
Inland
Nile Perch
Gil nets Hook and line Long line
NA
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
X
NA
The Tilapia Fishery
Inland
Tilapia
Gil nets Hook and line Traps
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
Marine artisanal pelagic fisheries
Coastal Indian Mackerel Sardines, Dagaa
Round net Gil net
X
X
NA
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Artisanal Fishery
Coastal
Reef fish, Demersal Invertebrates, Squid Octopus, Lobster
Hand line, Traps Long line, Gil nets
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
Semi industrial chilled fishery
Coastal
Demersal
Hand line
X
NA
X
X
NA
X
X
NA
NA
NA
Regional fishery classification
Definition
Country
Area
Species
Gear
Comoros
Kenya
Madagascar
Mauritius
Mozambique
Seychelles
Reunion
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Semi industrial prawn fishery
Coastal
Prawns
Trawl
NA
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
Slope fishery
Coastal
Demersal Snapper
Hand line Hydraulic Wheels
NA
NA
NA
X
NA
X
X
NA
NA
NA
Sports fishery
Coastal/ Inland
Medium and large pelagic, Tiger fish Bream
Line (manual reel)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fresh water Aquaculture
Inland Tilapia
Cage
NA
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
Amateur (recreational) fishery Coastal/ lagoon
Coastal
Hand line
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Artisanal prawn fishery
Coastal
Prawn
Trawl
NA
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
FAD fishery
Off lagoon Outside reef
Pelagic
FAD with drop line
X
NA
X
X
NA
X
X
NA
NA
NA
Fresh water shrimp fishery Lake and rivers
Shrimp Trap Net
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sea cucumber - Seasonal Fishery
Coastal
Sea cucumber
Diving
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
Residual risks
10.4 Inland – tilapia fishery risk matrix
Strategic area Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk Existing
MCS
Over fishing Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Excess capacity/effort Catching of juvenile fish Almost Certain
Major Severe Moderate Severe
Excessive fishing effort due to open access fishery management system Likely Major High Strong Moderate
Rampant use of illegal fishing gear Likely Serious Severe Strong High
Fishing without fishing Licenses Moderate Moderate Moderate Strong Low
Non-Compliance
Lack of compliance to regulations and illegal fish trading (closed fishing season) including juvenile fish
Moderate Major High Moderate High
Management System
Post-Harvest
Environment and ecosystem
Lack of catch and effort data/information and sharing mechanisms Likely Major High Moderate High
Inadequate local and uncoordinated regional enforcement of fisheries regulation ( MCS
capacity) Moderate Major High Moderate High
Fishing in designated fish breeding sites Likely Major High Strong Moderate
Conflict between fishers within user group and different nationalities competing for fishing
grounds Likely Major High Moderate High
Weak regional cooperation Likely Major High Moderate High
Inadequate qualified Human capacity and inability to retain Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Lack of political will and interference Likely Major High Moderate High
Un-harmonized fisheries regulations and policies Moderate Moderate Moderate Strong Low
Undesignated Landing sites Likely Moderate High Very strong Low
Poor handling, processing and storage of fish Likely Moderate High Weak High
Smuggling of fish and fishery products Likely Major High Moderate High
Introduction of invasive species (flora and fauna) Moderate Serious High Weak High
Fishing in designated breeding areas Likely Major High Strong Moderate
Habitat destruction through the use of inappropriate fishing gear Likely Major High Strong Moderate
Inadequate knowledge on fish stocks and aquatic environment Moderate Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
Indiscriminate dumping waste and pollution Moderate Serious High Weak High
Ghost Fishing Unlikely Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
10.5 Inland – fresh water sardine/ kapenta fishery risk matrix
Strategic area Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk Existing
MCS
Residual
Risk
Excess capacity/effort
Non Compliance
Management System
Post-Harvest
Environment and ecosystem
Over fishing Moderate Serious High Strong Moderate
Catching of juvenile fish Almost
Serious Severe Weak Severe certain
Excessive fishing effort due to open access fishery management system Likely Major High Strong Moderate
Rampant use of illegal fishing gear Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Non Compliance of catch returns (IUU) Moderate Moderate Moderate Strong Low
Fishing without fishing Licenses Moderate Moderate Moderate Strong Low
Lack of restricted trade in juvenile fish Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Lack of information and sharing Moderate Major High Strong Moderate
Inadequate and uncoordinated enforcement of fisheries regulation ( MCS capacity) Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Conflict between fishers Likely Serious Severe Strong High
Weak regional cooperation Likely Major High Moderate High
Inadequate qualified Human capacity and inability to retain Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Lack of political will and interference Likely Major High Moderate High
Un-harmonized fisheries regulations and policies Likely Moderate High Strong Moderate
Undesignated Landing sites Likely Moderate High Strong Moderate
Poor handling, processing and storage of fish Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Smuggling of fish and fishery products Likely Major High Moderate High
Introduction of invasive fish species (flora and fauna) Moderate Serious High Weak High
Habitat destruction through the use of inappropriate fishing gear Unlikely insignificant Low Strong Low
Inadequate knowledge on fish stocks and aquatic environment Moderate Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
Indiscriminate dumping of solid waste and pollution Moderate Serious High Weak High
Catchment destruction and sedimentation Moderate Serious High Weak High
10.6 Coastal – artisanal pelagic fishery risk matrix
Strategic area Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk Existing
MCS Residual
Risk
Excess Effort
Open access (With or without license) Almost Certain
Major
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Overfishing Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Catch of juvenile fish (Market demand for small fish due to poverty) Almost certain
Serious
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Illegal fishing gear and methods (Mosquito nets; dynamite; Beach seine in some countries; Herbicides)
Likely
Serious
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Fishing without licence Moderate Insignificant Low Moderate Low
Non-Compliance Fishing in a closed season or closed areas Unlikely Serious High Very strong Low
Fishing for prohibited species Likely Moderate High Strong Low
Poor enforcement of laws Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Corruption Moderate Major High Moderate High
Poor catch reporting Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Politicisation of management decisions Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Management System Political interference Moderate Serious High Moderate Moderate
Poor enforcement of laws Likely Serious Severe Severe Severe
Corruption Moderate Serious High Moderate Moderate
Poor quality of product (Preservation; toxicity) Unlikely Serious High Moderate High
Poor trade regulations for high value fisheries Moderate Major High Moderate High
Lack of inter-agency collaboration Likely Major High Moderate High Post-Harvest Smuggling of catches Likely Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate
Ecological damage (Poverty leading to the catch of juvenile fish) Likely Major High Weak High
Fishing in a closed season or closed areas Unlikely Major Moderate Strong Low
Lack of awareness Moderate Serious High Moderate High
Environment & Lack of knowledge on ecosystem and environmental issues Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Ecosystem Habitat destruction (Mangroves; Coral Reefs; Estuaries) Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Pollution Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Littering Likely Moderate High Weak High
Coral Reef destruction Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Residual
Risk
10.7 Coastal – prawn fishery risk matrix
Strategic area Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk Existing MCS
Excess Effort Increased fishing effort (Technology; Engine power) Moderate Serious High Moderate High
Excess capacity Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Illegal fishing gear Likely Serious Severe Moderate High
Non-compliance
Management System
Post-Harvest
Environment & Ecosystem
Fishing in closed areas Rare Serious Moderate Very strong Low
Under-reporting catch and by-catch Likely Major High Moderate High
Illegal transhipment to artisanal vessels Likely Moderate High Moderate High
Non-use of BRD’s Almost Certain Serious Severe Weak Severe
Poor catch reporting Likely Major Severe Moderate Severe
Politicisation of management decisions Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Political interference Moderate Serious High High Poor
enforcement of laws Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Corruption Moderate Serious High Moderate High
Catching protected species Almost certain Serious Severe Strong High
Insufficient quota controls Almost certain Serious Severe Weak Severe
Use of BRD’s Almost Certain Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Poor quality of product (Preservation; toxicity) Rare Serious Moderate Moderate Moderate
Poor trade regulations for high value fisheries Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Gap between export and import figures Moderate Minor Moderate Weak Moderate
Smuggling of catches Likely Moderate High Weak High
Lack of knowledge on ecosystem and environmental issues Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Habitat destruction (Mangroves; Estuaries) Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Pollution Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
10.8 Offshore – industrial longline fishery risk matrix
Strategic area
Risk
Likelihood
Consequence
Risk Existing MCS
Residual Risk
Excess capacity/effort
Poaching by non-licensed vessels Likely Major High Moderate High
Multiple vessels using a single license Moderate Major High Moderate High
Increased in non-targeted species with high market value Almost Certain Serious Severe Strong High
Non-compliance
No/Under reporting of catches by all fleets Almost Certain Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Entry & Exit without catch reporting. Moderate Major High Strong Moderate
Fishing without a license Moderate Serious High Moderate High
Use of illegal gears Likely Major High Moderate High
Illegal transhipment Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Noncompliance to IOTC resolution on shark fining Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
By catch dumping Likely Major High Weak High
Poaching Likely Major High Moderate High
Management system
No observers monitoring Almost Certain Moderate High Weak High
Conflict between fishers Unlikely Minor Low Moderate Low
Lack of regional cooperation ( absence of information sharing) Likely Major High Moderate High
No control of landing Almost Certain Serious Severe Strong High
Non-implementation of port state measures Almost Certain Serious Severe Moderate Severe
No electronic report system Almost Certain Moderate High Weak High
Post-harvest
Mixing of Legal and Illegal catch. ( IUU Products) Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Illegal transhipments Likely Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Unhealthy product Rare Insignificant Low Strong Low
Non declaration of catches and species composition Almost Certain Serious Severe Moderate Severe
Discard Likely Major High Weak High
Environmental ecosystem
High by-catch of protected species. Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Pollution. Moderate Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
Fishing during close season/ in designated areas. Unlikely Serious High Strong Moderate
Ghost Fishing Unlikely Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
10.9 Offshore – reefer and supply vessel risk matrix
Regional
Existing
Residual
fishery classification
Strategic area Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk MCS Risk
Non-compliance
Operating unrecorded reefers Unlikely Major Moderate Moderate Moderate
Illegal transhipment Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
Reefer
Management system No observer on-board Almost Certain
Major Severe Weak Severe
Post-harvest Unhealthy products Rare Insignificant Low Strong Low
Environmental
ecosystem Pollution – from ballast water close to shore Unlikely Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
Excess capacity/effort Fishing under size Tuna/ by-catch due to setting numerous FAD's Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Non-compliance Un-license supply vessel. Likely Major High Strong Moderate
Illegal Fishing. Rare Moderate Low Moderate Low
Supply vessel
Management system
Lack of information (Number of FAD's deployed) Almost Certain
Moderate High Weak High
Supply goods to Non-license Vessel. Likely Serious Severe Weak Severe
No VMS. Unlikely Major Moderate Strong Low
Environmental ecosystem Unlikely Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
Moderate Moderate Weak Moderate
By-catch of species e.g. Turtle (FAD's with nets)
Unlikely
Ghost fishing
By improving the governance and management of
our fisheries and aquaculture development, we can
also improve food security, social benefits, regional
trade and increase economic growth, while also
ensuring that we protect our fisheries resources and
their ecosystems.
The Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), the
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
(COMESA), the East African Community (EAC)
and the Inter-Governmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) have developed strategies to
that effect and committed to regional approaches to
the promotion of responsible fisheries and
aquaculture.
SmartFish is supporting the implementation of
these regional fisheries strategies, through capacity
building and related interventions aimed
specifically at:
implementing sustainable regional fisheries
management and development;
initiating a governance framework for
sustainable regional fisheries;
developing effective monitoring, control and
surveillance for trans boundary fisheries
resources;
developing regional trade strategies and
implementing regional trade initiatives;
contributing to food security through the
reduction of post-harvest losses and
diversification.
SmartFish is financed by the European Union
under the 10th European Development Fund.
SmartFish is implemented by the IOC in
partnership with the COMESA, EAC, and IGAD
and in collaboration with SADC. An effective
collaboration with all relevant regional fisheries
organisations has also been established. Technical
support is provided by Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) and the Agrotec SpA
consortium.
La bonne gouvernance et de la gestion des pêches et de
l'aquaculture permettent d'améliorer la contribution du
secteur à la sécurité alimentaire, au développement
social, à la croissance économique et au commerce
régional ; ceci en assurant par ailleurs une protection
renforcée des ressources halieutiques et de leurs
écosystèmes.
La Commission de l'Océan Indien (COI) ainsi que la
COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa), l'EAC (East African Community) et l'IGAD
(Inter-Governmental Authority on Development) ont
développé des stratégies à cette fin et se sont engagés à
promouvoir la pêche et l'aquaculture responsable.
SmartFish supporte la mise en œuvre de ces stratégies
régionales en mettant l'accent sur le renforcement des
capacités et des interventions connexes visant à :
la mise en œuvre d’un développement et d’une
gestion durables des pêcheries ;
le lancement d’un cadre de gouvernance pour les
pêcheries durables dans la région;
le développment d’un suivi-contrôle-surveillance
efficace pour les ressources halieutiques
transfrontalières ;
le développment de stratégies commerciales
regionals et la mise en œuvre d’initiatives
commerciales;
l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire à travers
la réduction des pertes post-capture et la
diversification.
SmartFish est financé par l'Union Européenne dans le
cadre du 10ème Fond Européen de Développement.
SmartFish est mis en œuvre par la COI en partenariat
avec la COMESA, l'EAC et l'IGAD et en collaboration
avec la SADC. Une collaboration étroite a également été
développée avec les organisations régionales de pêche
de la région. L'assistance technique est fournie par la
FAO et le consortium Agrotec SpA.
Contact:
Indian Ocean Commission-SmartFish Programme
Blue Tower,5th
Floor, Institute Street – Ebene
Mauritius
Tel: (+230) 427 6502
Fax: (+230) 425 7952