Project Reference:    EAF/09/01

Funding: BCC, BCLME SAP-IMP, EAF-Nansen, Angola, Namibia, South Africa

Total Contribution:   USD 194 595 (1)

Implementation Organisation: BCC Secretariat

Technical Advice:   FAO through the EAF-Nansen project

Countries:    Angola, Namibia, South Africa

Duration:    3 years

Estimated starting date:  July 2010

Summary:

The project is intended to adapt the WWF-South Africa EAF Tracking Tool for use in three countries in the BCC area. New ecological risk assessments (ERAs) will be undertaken and the tracking tool used to assess the implementation of the management actions recommended from the ERAs. Special attention will be paid to building the capacity of Angolan scientists and managers to be able to participate fully in this and other EAF projects that FAO is partnering with the BCC to implement.

Collaborators:

i. WWF South Africa Sustainable Fisheries Programme, Cape Town, South Africa. Samantha Petersen (Project Co-Leader)

ii. EAF-Nansen project National Focal Points and EAF Task Groups in Angola, Namibia and South Africa.

iii. The BCC Ecosystem Advisory Committee

Objectives:

The project aims at providing a structured framework for tracking the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries in the Benguela region. The immediate objectives of the project are:

a.  To adapt the existing WWF EAF tracking tool framework (i.e. the use of ecological risk assessments -ERA- reviews and the electronic tracking tool) in order to develop a cost-effective tool within the monitoring and assessment capacity of the three countries for use in the BCC region.

b.  To identify the fisheries to which the tracking tool should be applied for stocks under national jurisdiction or shared by two or all three BCC member countries.

c.  To build the capacity of scientists and managers in all three countries and particularly in Angola in ecological risk assessment and the use of the tracking tool to be able to participate fully in the project.

d.  To conduct a streamlined Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA) for major fisheries identified under the project in South Africa, Namibia and Angola as a baseline for tracking EAF implementation.

e.  To assess progress made in implementing an EAF in the region through periodic ERA reviews based on the EAF tracking tool described above.

Outputs/deliverables:

The output / deliverables of the project are:

1.     A reporting format on EAF implementation based on the tracking tool outputs with both country-specific and, where relevant, regional components.

2.     A “User Manual” for the EAF tracking tool.

3.     A report on the Angola ERA & tracking tool introduction workshop.

4.     Fishery specific ERAs and ERA review reports.

5.     Compilation, from the reports in item 3, of ERA and ERA reviews for selected fisheries.

6.     Implementation in each country of the monitoring and evaluation required for application of the tool.

7.     A concise report on progress made in the implementation fisheries management consistent with the ecosystem approach to fisheries in the BCC region with concrete recommendations to inform management.

Background and Rationale

The benefits of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) have long been recognized (Cochrane et al. 2004). EAF principles are firmly entrenched in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (Article 61), thus legally obligating the 155 signatory States to implement these principles. Moreover, Namibia, South Africa and Angola are formally committed to implementing an EAF in all fisheries by 2010, through the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation.

These global commitments have spurred a flurry of important scientific activity aimed at understanding the complex marine ecosystem interactions (e.g. Shannon et al. 2004). However, the practical implementation of EAF principles in fisheries management protocols has proved more difficult to achieve. In particular, there has been surprisingly little progress globally towards developing simple and structured guidelines for implementing an EAF within fisheries management organizations (with a few exceptions such as the technical guidance provided by the FAO (FAO 2003, 2005) and Ward et al. (2002)). Another contribution to the development of a simple and structured framework is provided by the Australian Ecological Sustainable Development Framework (Fletcher et al. 2002).

The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem programme (BCLME) in partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) investigated the feasibility of implementing an EAF in South Africa, Namibia and Angola (Cochrane et al 2009). Recognizing that mangers are grappling with the complexity of implementing an EAF and how to prioritize resources and management actions and further recognizing the need to build a simple and common understanding of an EAF with stakeholders a decision was made to conduct Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA’s) as a means of identifying the ecological risks associated with the management of the major fisheries in the region, and to prioritize management responses. The framework provided by Fletcher et al. (2002) was adapted for the BCLME context and to date 11 ERA were successfully conducted for selected fisheries in South Africa, Namibia and Angola. In addition and building on this success of the ERA methodology, the concept of the Conservation ERA has been developed to address the multiple threats and opportunities for the conservation of vulnerable species such as seabirds, sharks and turtles.

The implementation of an EAF requires a process of putting in place the enabling mechanisms and structures. In order to measure progress made in the process it is important to regularly review what steps have been taken to address the issues and priorities that have been identified and agreed upon in the ERAs. A framework was developed (Paterson & Petersen 2009) to undertake bi-annual reviews in which stakeholders agree on priority actions for the following planning period. An electronic EAF tracking tool has been developed to underpin the problem structuring process and to generate visual outputs from each review. This tool decision support tool applies a fuzzy-logic inference mechanism and was developed using NetWeaver commercially available software.  The next phase is to investigate the potential application of excel software. The merits of decision support tools for fisheries management have been well documented (e.g. Paterson et al 2007, Jarre et al 2008). The advantage of the EAF tracking tool is that it makes the review process completely transparent and allows for interrogation and reporting at any level. For instance, at the operational level managers can track progress of management actions and at a policy level implementation can be reported by means of a simple effective diagram.

The EAF tracking tool not only allows for the measuring of progress in a transparent manner, but also facilitates communication, structures a complex issue, and furthers the building of a common understanding among stakeholders which enables proactive and participatory development of work-plans. To date four ERA review workshops have been undertaken in Namibia (3) and South Africa (1). These ERA review workshops have provided an excellent way of monitoring and stimulating EAF implementation in a transparent and participatory manner.

This project seeks to expand the existing work to all major fisheries in Namibia and South Africa based on the successes and experiences made for selective fisheries in the two countries. A further key focus is to support Angola in implementing this framework by providing training opportunities for Angolan colleagues.

Project Activities

1. To adapt the EAF Tracking tool framework (i.e. the use of Ecological Risk Assessments, ERA reviews and the electronic tracking tool) for the Benguela Current region

a.     To conduct a review of the tracking tool from inception to current form in a workshop attended by key Resource Management and Scientific staff from Angola, South Africa and Namibia. This workshop would benefit from the participation of an expert of the ERA process. WWF South Africa has already begun such a review and the report of work undertaken so far will be well placed to inform this workshop. (This activity is unbudgeted for because the tracking tool has been peer-reviewed. The ERA review methodology was developed by Paterson & Petersen (2010) and builds upon the Australian ESD process (Fletcher et al. 2002) and has been successfully applied to six major fisheries in the BCC region).

2. To conduct a training workshop in Angola in ecological risk assessment and the use of the ERA tracking tool

a.   The training workshop in Angola will be for managers, scientists, stakeholders and relevant NGO representatives. The ERA process and the tracking tool will be explained;

b.   Trainees will also be introduced to stakeholder profiling to enable them identify the appropriate stakeholders for the ERA workshops and also to workshop facilitation. 

3. To conduct Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA) for selected fisheries in Namibia and Angola as a baseline for tracking EAF implementation.

a.    The EAF National Task Group in each country will participate in a familiarisation training on the ERA methodology before the full stakeholder workshops are held in order for them to have the capacity to take responsibility for the project and enable future independent workshops and reviews. This will be led by the EAF-Nansen project national Focal Point.

b.   ERA and ERA review workshops will be conducted in each country. The candidate species will be selected during the training workshops but may include monkfish in Namibia and horse mackerel, deep-sea crustaceans and sparids in Angola.

4. To review progress made in implementing an EAF in the region through3-3 year ERA reviews based on the EAF tracking tool developed for the BCC countries

Annual workshops will be used for stakeholders to agree on priority actions for the following 18 month. It is important to note that this process does not increase the burden on already limited resources, but rather provides a comprehensive and efficient way to structure the review of EAF implementation. The proposed method here has twofold focus namely i) to review progress and stimulate discussion on next priority actions and ii) to facilitate communication of progress especially in light of the 2010 goal and the need for mangers to report on progress. The workshops will be organised in consultation with the EAF National Task Group in each country, natural and social scientists, fisheries managers, stakeholders, and compliance officers.

Capacity building:

This project allows for capacity within each government institution to be developed. A project leader from each government institution (preferably the National Focal Point for the EAF-Nansen project) will be identified at the beginning of the project. He/she will assist in the co-ordination and logistics for each workshop as well as co-facilitation with a view to facilitate workshops independently by the end of the project.

Implementing arrangements:

For the implementation of this project, the Fisheries Departments of the three countries (Angola, Namibia and South Africa) will provide in-kind services to assist in the implementation of the project. In collaboration with the BCC and the Implementation Organisation, each of the three countries, will identify two national facilitators to contribute to the ERA and ERA review workshops at national level and nominate a focal point to act as counterpart/liaison person for the Implementation Organisation for the preparation of the workshops (ERA and ERA Reviews).  The countries will also meet the travel and per diem costs for the national participants to the ERA and ERA review workshops and cover the costs related to the provision of facilities for the workshops.

After consultation with the Implementation Organisation, the Fisheries Departments of the three countries will be responsible to organize the planned meetings and workshops at national level and ensure that selected participants are invited in time to participate in the workshops.

The Implementation Organisation will coordinate the whole project and provide overall supervision in the implementation. It will be responsible to prepare the contracts, raise the travels authorisations and pay the daily subsistence allowances (DSA) to participants if and when necessary.

WWF South Africa will be responsible to provide technical assistance and advice for the execution of the ERA and ERA review workshops in the three countries and prepare the six-monthly reports of the project and the final report on progress achieved for submission to the BBC Board. WWF SA will provide and cover the costs of the technical experts (existing WWF staff time only) over the 3 year period. More specifically the in-kind contribution of WWF is expected to cover 73 working days as follows:

Year 1: Workshops: 5 days in Angola (with support from the ERA Consultant and focal point of Angola), 5 days in Namibia (with support from the focal point of Namibia) and 5 days in South Africa (with support from the focal point of South Africa)

  Preparation of workshops and reporting time: 15 working days

Year 2: Workshops: 3 days in Angola (with support from the ERA Consultant and the focal point of Angola) and 5 days in South Africa (with support from the focal point of South Africa).

  Preparation of workshops and reporting time: 15 working days

Year 3: Workshops: 5 working days in South Africa (with support from the focal point of South Africa).

Preparation of workshops and reporting time: 15 working days

The WWF Technical Officer will be responsible to conduct the ERA Reviews in South Africa (1 fishery per year) and will contribute, along with a ERA consultant, to the execution of the ERA Review in Angola for the first year. WWF South Africa will also contribute to the travel costs in relation to the ERA reviews in South Africa. The travel costs for the participation of the WWF Technical Officer in the ERA review in Angola during the first year will be supported by the project.  WWF South Africa will be the entity responsible for the preparation of the reports of the ERA workshops for submission to the Implementation Organization.

For the execution of the ERA workshops in Namibia and Angola a ERA Consultant will be recruited by the project. The project will cover the honorarium of the ERA consultant including his/her travel costs related to the ERA and ERA reviews in Angola and Namibia. The ERA consultant will be responsible to conduct the New ERA and ERA Reviews as follows:

Namibia: ERA Reviews (1 fishery for the first two years and 2 fisheries in the third year)

New ERA (1 fishery in the first year and 1 fishery in the second year)

Angola: ERA Reviews (1 fishery per year)

New Review (1 fishery during the third year)

For the first year, the ERA Consultant will conduct the ERA Review in Angola in close collaboration with the WWF Technical Officer. The ERA Consultant will be responsible for the preparation of the reports of the ERA workshops for submission to WWF South Africa.

BCC National coordinators will be responsible for handling all workshop logistics including identifying participants, sending out invitations, booking a venue, arranging catering, facilitating printing of materials during workshops etc.

The BCLME SAP-IMP project will provide funds to cover in part the travel costs of the participants and to cover the organization of the workshops in each country. At the request of the Implementation Organisation, BCLME SAP-IMP will issue tickets and pay the DSA to selected participants and contribute to the workshop expenses (facilities, coffee breaks, small material, etc.).

The EAF-Nansen project will cover the cost of a FAO staff to hold an EAF familiarisation workshop in Angola during which the EAF concepts will be explained in detail to relevant stakeholders.

Time Frame of Project

ERA and ERA Review Workshops

Note:

1.     A full ERA requires a 3 day workshop and an ERA reviews 1.5 days; each requires 3 days preparation and a day and half report writing and follow up;

2.     Each workshop also requires at least 2 facilitators, i.e. a full ERA will require the participation of 14 person days and a review 12 person days.

1 The BCC will contribute with a budget of USD 103 913; the BCLME SAP-IMP project with a budget of USD 24 000; the EAF-Nansen with a budget of USD 15 682; and the three countries USD 51 000 as in-kind contribution. The contribution of WWF SA is not taken into account.