CLME Case Study on shrimp and groundfish

Report No. 1

Report of the Regional training workshop on facilitation CASE STUDY ON SHARED STOCKS OF THE SHRIMP AND GROUNDFISH FISHERIES OF THE GUIANAS-BRAZIL SHELF Port of Spain, 11-15 July 2011

CLME Case Study on shrimp and groundfish

Report No. 1

CASE STUDY ON SHARED STOCKS OF THE SHRIMP AND GROUNDFISH FISHERIES OF THE GUIANAS-BRAZIL SHELF

Regional training workshop on facilitation Port of Spain, 1115 July 2011

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2013

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO. All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: Chief Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch Communication Division FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to: copyright@fao.org FAO 2013

iii

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

iv

CASE STUDY ON SHARED STOCKS OF THE SHRIMP AND GROUNDFISH FISHERY OF THE GUIANAS-BRAZIL SHELF Regional training workshop on facilitation, Port of Spain, 11-15 July 2011. CLME Case Study on Shrimp and Groundfish - Report No.1 -, Rome, FAO. 2013. 115p. ABSTRACT
The regional training workshop on facilitation was held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, from 11 to 15 July 2011. The training workshop was organized in the framework of the Case Study on the Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf, which is coordinated by FAO under the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem Project. The training workshop was led by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI); it was attended by representatives from Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, FAO, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) and the Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES). The workshop was designed to be participatory and interactive and to maximize opportunities for peer learning. The facilitators also deliberately modelled and debriefed a range of techniques (e.g. ice-breakers, brainstorming, nominal group technique, small group work, creative work drawing on multiple intelligences), which participants could apply to their own internal and external facilitation exercises. The first two days focused on introducing participants to participatory approaches and specific tools and techniques in facilitating stakeholder participation in fisheries management. On the third day, a field trip was conducted to Claxton Bay in south-west Trinidad for the participants to apply the facilitation techniques they had learnt to engage the local fishing community in analyzing fisheries management issues and recommendations. The fourth day focused on debriefing the field trip and on introducing a participation strategy and a communication strategy as two key tools to help guide the facilitation of stakeholder participation in fisheries management. The final day introduced the governance arrangements for the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Caribbean and the methodology used in assessing the transboundary issues in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf.

Table of contents
1 2 3 4 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Workshop goal/objectives .................................................................................................. 1 Approach ............................................................................................................................ 2 Participants ......................................................................................................................... 2 Process and findings .......................................................................................................... 2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Welcome, facilitator and participant introductions ..................................................... 2 Introduction to the EAF Case Study ........................................................................... 3 Introduction to participatory approaches..................................................................... 3 Tools for participatory management ........................................................................... 4 Introduction to facilitation ........................................................................................... 6 Qualities of a good facilitator .............................................................................. 6 Introduction to stakeholder identification ................................................................... 8 Introduction to stakeholder analysis .......................................................................... 11 Stakeholder analysis-role of the stakeholder ..................................................... 11 Stakeholder analysis-capacity of the stakeholder .............................................. 12 Stakeholder analysis-analyzing power relations and relationships .................... 14 Identification of the challenges in fishing in Claxton Bay ................................ 16 Stakeholder identification .................................................................................. 17 Stakeholder analysis........................................................................................... 18 Possible solutions and recommendations........................................................... 19 Lessons learned in facilitation ........................................................................... 20 Determining the overall desired level of participation ...................................... 22 Determining the desired level of participation for each key stakeholder .......... 23 Strategies to engage the stakeholders ................................................................ 25 Capacity-building strategy ................................................................................. 26 Conflict management strategy ........................................................................... 30 Communication strategy ........................................................................................ 30 Introduction to the governance of the CLME project............................................ 33 Governance methodology ...................................................................................... 33

5.5.1

5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3 5.8 5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4 5.8.5 5.9 5.9.1 5.9.2 5.9.3 5.9.4 5.9.5 5.10 5.11 5.12 6 7 8

Field trip to Claxton Bay ........................................................................................... 15

Participation strategy ................................................................................................. 21

Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 34 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 36 Next steps ......................................................................................................................... 36

vi

List of appendices Appendix 1: Agenda ................................................................................................... 38 Appendix 2: List of participants ................................................................................. 41 Appendix 3: Introductory and welcome presentation ................................................. 43 Appendix 4: Participants perception of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their countries ................................................................................................ 45 Appendix 5: The CLME case study for the shared stocks of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf .................................... 47 Appendix 6: Participatory approaches ........................................................................ 49 Appendix 7: What is participation .............................................................................. 51 Appendix 8: Tools for participation ........................................................................... 55 Appendix 9: Introduction to facilitation ..................................................................... 58 Appendix 10: Learning styles ..................................................................................... 66 Appendix 11: Stakeholder identification and analysis ............................................... 67 Appendix 12: Capacities needed for participation ..................................................... 70 Appendix 13: Claxton Bay field trip report ............................................................... 82 Appendix 14: Participation strategy .. 83 Appendix 15: Communication plan .. 89 Appendix 16a: CLME Living Marine Resource Governance in the Wider Caribbean ..... 99 Appendix 16b: CLME governance assessment ......................................................... 103 Appendix 17: Evaluation ........................................................................................... 107 Appendix 18: Stakeholder identification and analysis template ............................... 110

INTRODUCTION

The Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) Project aims to assist countries to improve the management of their shared living marine resources, most of which are considered to be fully or over exploited, through an ecosystem approach. An Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) addresses the challenges of sustainable use of shared living marine resources by linking the various sectors that share use of marine ecosystems, e.g. fisheries, tourism, shipping, energy, and addresses complexity. Inherent in EAF is the need to involve stakeholders in the management of the fisheries. The shrimp and groundfish resources of the GuianasBrazil subregion (Brazil, French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela) are economically important. The shrimp resources support one of the most important export oriented shrimp fishery in the world. The groundfish resources are important for commercial and social reasons. Commercially, there is a strong domestic market demand for affordable and accessible fish protein together with a source of valuable foreign exchange when exported, with social reasons including the reliance of many rural fishers on artisanal fishing as a Plate 1. Participants and resource persons networking means of livelihood. during a coffee break However, there is evidence that the shrimp and groundfish resources of the subregion are overexploited. There is a need to improve management practices at the national and subregional levels, to ensure that maximum benefits can be gained from these resources and to improve livelihoods of those directly and indirectly dependent on these fisheries. An EAF approach needs to be taken and there is the need to have trained facilitators in each of the six countries who would be able to facilitate stakeholder participation in the management of the shrimp and groundfish fishery. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is coordinating the CLME case study on the shrimp and groundfish fishery. As a part of this, FAO contracted the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) to prepare and carry out a training course for the national Fisheries Focal Points (FFPs) from the six countries. This workshop was held from 11 to 15 July 2011 in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

WORKSHOP GOAL/OBJECTIVES

The goal of the workshop was to build the capacity of facilitators from each of the six countries in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf to facilitate stakeholder participation in an EAF approach to managing the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the subregion. The objectives of the workshop were to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. explain the value of participatory approaches in fisheries management demonstrate effective facilitation techniques identify key tools in facilitation of participatory natural resource management facilitate a process of stakeholder identification and analysis, including institutional mapping validate and refine the draft stakeholder analysis for the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf 6. develop recommendations for participatory governance of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country, including via an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Subcommittee

7. draft a simple communication strategy to communicate key messages to stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country 8. introduce the governance arrangements for the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Caribbeanand 9. introduce and discuss the methodology used in assessing the transboundary issues in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. 3 APPROACH

The workshop was designed to be participatory and interactive and to maximize opportunities for peer learning. The facilitators also deliberately modelled and debriefed a range of techniques (e.g. ice-breakers, brainstorming, nominal group technique, small group work, creative work drawing on multiple intelligences), which participants could apply to their own internal and external facilitation exercises. The first two days focused on introducing participants to participatory approaches and specific tools and techniques in facilitating stakeholder participation in fisheries management. On the third day, a field trip was conducted to Claxton Bay in south-west Trinidad for the participants to apply the facilitation techniques they had learnt to engage the local fishing community in analyzing fisheries management issues and Plate 2. The workshop was highly participatory and recommendations. The fourth day focused on interactive. Participants here were indicating how debriefing the field trip and on introducing a involved key stakeholders should be in the EAF participation strategy and a communication process on a spectrum. strategy as two key tools to help guide the facilitation of stakeholder participation in fisheries management. The final day introduced the governance arrangements for the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Caribbean and the methodology used in assessing the transboundary issues in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. The agenda is shown in Appendix 1.

PARTICIPANTS

Six countries form part of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf: Brazil, France (French Guiana), Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela. Of the six countries, France and Venezuela were not able to attend the meeting. Representatives from the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), the Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES) and FAO also attended the meeting. Most of the participants represented the Government agencies responsible for fisheries management in their countries while one of the participants from Guyana worked at the biodiversity unit of the University of Guyana. The list of participants is attached as Appendix 2.

5 5.1

PROCESS AND FINDINGS Welcome, facilitator and participant introductions

After a brief introduction to CANARI and the objectives for the week, the participants were asked to draw their impressions of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their countries and describe their expectations for the week. Many of the participants described their shrimp and groundfish fishery as being overexploited and in conflict with others such as the trawlers and other businesses. Piracy emerged as a common element in many of the images.

The participants expectations for the weeks activities included: learning to communicate better with the fisherfolk; understanding participatory approaches; clarifying the role of the government agencies in the CLME project; and understanding the region and the CLME project.

The presentation is attached as Appendix 3 while the participants presenting their images of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their countries are attached as Appendix 4. 5.2

Plate 3. Gary (Guyana) describes his image of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in his country

Introduction to the EAF Case Study

Tarub Bahri of the FAO introduced the case study (see Appendix 5). Ms Bahri explained that the objectives of the case study were to fill knowledge gaps in the preparation for the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and to mainstream the EAF into the shrimp and groundfish fishery in each of the countries. Each country was expected to host national consultations after an EAF regional workshop. A second regional workshop would follow the national consultations. The case study is scheduled to be completed by June 2012 (see Plate 4). 5.3 Introduction approaches to participatory

The participants were asked to brainstorm the term participation. The ideas put forward included: Everybody is working Everybody follows the same rules Everybody has the same rights People can express their opinion All key stakeholders contribute There is shared interest All stakeholders have expectations, though the expectations may be different Everybody has a role to play in the process Everybody takes action to reach a certain goal Openness to the topic Compromise Consensus Negotiation Acceptance of opinions Get buy-in Everyone feels a part of the process Differing powers

Plate 4. The "roadmap" to completion of the case study on the shared stocks of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. The case study is scheduled to end in June 2012

The validation of the brainstorming session showed that the participants were all aware of participation and some of its application in natural resource management. The participants were then introduced to the spectrum of participation, where participatory approaches range from top-down approaches with no stakeholder participation to the opposite end of the spectrum where responsibility for management has been fully devolved from the government management agency. Participants were asked to indicate using the symbols given where: they as individuals (symbol of a person) feel that they are in terms of practicing participatory approaches in their own work/life their organization (symbol of a house) is in terms of practicing participation their country (symbol of a fish, where the direction that the fish is facing indicates if the country is moving towards more or less participatory approaches) is in terms of practicing participatory approaches in fisheries management.

Many of the participants believed that they were slightly more participatory in their own work and life than either their country or their organizations. One participant involved in fisheries enforcement indicated that because of the type of job in which he is engaged, he takes a top-down approach to his job. Many of the participants believed that their organizations and countries were more conservative because the directors and Permanent Secretaries were the final decision-makers. There was sometimes conflict in how they worked among the individuals, their organization and the sector. The participants pointed out that each situation may require the actors to operate differently. Most of the participants from within countries generally agreed on the placement of their country along the spectrum. One of the problems encountered in the exercise was the difficulty many of the participants had separating their organisation from their country since most worked with the government. This highlighted a common misconception that government and country are synonymous. The presentation is shown in Appendix 6 while the handout is shown in Appendix 7. 5.4 Tools for participatory management

The facilitator introduced the participants to tools used in participatory management (see Appendix 8 for the presentation). The participants were asked to briefly identify different cases in their country where participatory approaches were used in fisheries management. All of the identified cases were examples of formal structures. The participants had difficulty identifying the participatory tools used. The participants, however, believed that this was not a reflection of problems in their capacity for participation within their countries, but that they had not internalized the participatory processes. The tools have not been systematically applied within the countries.

Plate 5. The spectrum of participation with symbols indicating the participants perceptions of where they as individuals, their organizations and their countries are in terms of participation

Table 1. Country examples of cases where participatory tools were used

Country Brazil Case Project to engage fisherfolk in the management process Fishing composed of fishing guilds Fisheries agency in conflict with the fishing guild In some types of fisheries there are steering, scientific and monitoring committees There is a management system (Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment) There is also a Steering Committee with management units (fleet, region) and special working groups Fifty percent from government and 50% from the sectors (fishers, scientists, industry, etc.) There is management planning (plans are implemented by other organizations) Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) Representatives from government agency responsible for fisheries, Ministry of Finance, various sectors in the artisanal industry and the cooperatives Meet once per month to discuss and make recommendations to the Minister Wetland management plan project Started out top-down (funded from the United Kingdom) One year into the project had meetings with the community where an individual expressed disappointment with the way the project was implemented. The project team decided to restructure the project Developed a management process Continued to engage the community At the national level have a participatory structure ongoing The project is now taking a community-based management approach Seabob (shrimp) working group Composed of the government, NGO, artisanal and industrial fishers Verify the data and policy that will let the industry and government comply with the management plan written by the working group Objective: ecolabelling of the seabob Engaging community in protecting the wetlands for their livelihood Monitoring and Advisory Committee (MAC) was initially established because of conflict on the north coast with the trawlers Representatives of the agencies and various stakeholder organizations Developed an agreement that was signed by the various stakeholders (discussed, negotiated) Participatory tools Participatory planning

Guyana

Systematic stakeholder identification Stakeholder analysis

Guyana

Stakeholder identification Participatory planning

Suriname

Stakeholder identification to put in powerful NGO and direct stakeholders Participatory planning

Suriname

Trinidad and Tobago

Mentoring (giving advice to the community) Systematic stakeholder identification Stakeholder analysis

The discussions highlighted that trust is important when engaging stakeholders. It is important that each stakeholder enter the participatory process with an open mind and is flexible and willing to change. It is also important each stakeholder is direct and open with the issues, even if controversial, as a way of building and maintaining trust. 5.5 Introduction to facilitation The facilitator introduced the session by pointing out that facilitation was the main approach used in participatory processes. The participants believed that facilitation meant: Enabling solutions Allow Opportunity Possibility Catalyse Change Communication Accommodate Providing tools Understanding Creating the environment Empowering Skilfulness

Many of the words above expressed how facilitation can be accomplished while few described why facilitation was important. It demonstrated that much of the group was new to facilitation. It is important that the facilitator remains neutral. This does not mean that the facilitator does not have an opinion but that s/he is able to be perceived as being neutral. A facilitator is someone who ensures dialogue in the participatory process. Participants noted that a facilitator is also a: Midwife Guide Catalyst Referee Mediator Coach Mentor

The participants indicated that they had conducted more training than facilitation in their own work. During the discussions, the participants noted that it was important to spend more time listening Plate 6. Drawing an outline for the body map exercise during the participatory process than presenting. In a consultation that seeks to engage stakeholders, it is important that there be few and short presentations as the facilitator is not trying to sell information to their participants but rather to draw out their ideas (see Appendix 9 for the presentation). 5.5.1 Qualities of a good facilitator

The facilitator introduced the types of capacities of a good facilitator. These included skills, knowledge, resources, values, feelings and attitudes. The participants were asked to draw a body map that demonstrated some of the specific qualities under all of these different types of capacities.

Plate 7. The participants were divided into two groups and asked to graphically represent the qualities of a good facilitator on the human body

Table 2. Results of the body map of the qualities of a good facilitator

Qualities common to both groups A good listener Able to keep on target with the topic Speaks little Welcoming Warm Balanced Has access to resources Strong (values) Able to build and maintain relationships Calm Smart/ knowledgeable/is constantly thinking

Other qualities Group 1 Stable Neutral Ethical

Group 2 Ensures that everyone is involved in the process

The participants believed that the exercise helped them to understand some of the elements that go into the making of a good facilitator. It started the participants assessing their individual facilitation skills. For some people, facilitation would require a shift in attitudes to be effective. The facilitator suggested that keeping a learning journal may be a good way of helping the self-assessment process as a tool to help them to grow as facilitators. Paired review and coaching can also help facilitators grow. The facilitator however, needs to be open to criticism while the reviewer/coach should have the skills needed to provide a good review. In the discussions, the participants were concerned about dealing with challenging participants when facilitating a participatory session. Challenging participants were seen as persons who try to dominate the discussions, or who are not engaging in the discussions, or who try to create conflict. Participants suggested: Place the person in a group of one Give the person activities within the participatory process so that they would feel involved and important Validate all the points including that of the challenging participant Physically control the two or more participants in conflict by standing between them Use small group work to separate the dominant participants

It was important that a facilitator never ignored the challenging participant but involve him/her in the process. Someone who is quiet and not participating in the process is also challenging and can be engaged by using breaks to speak with the person. CANARI pointed out that it was important that all facilitators understand that everyone has a different learning style (see Appendix 10 for the handout). A participatory process should ensure that different learning styles are employed to engage as many stakeholders as possible. 5.6 Introduction to stakeholder identification The participants were asked to brainstorm the term stakeholder. They believed that a stakeholder is someone who had rights and interest in an issue. The facilitator pointed out that a stakeholder in the fishing sector may not necessarily come from the fishing sector. The ecosystem approach to fisheries requires that an inter-sectoral approach is adopted where all stakeholders are involved in the process. (The presentation and handout are shown in Appendix 11). The participants were then asked to

identify regional stakeholders in shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf in the following categories: Government/public sector Intergovernmental Civil society Private sector Media Academia Projects

A lively discussion produced the results shown in Table 3. One of the main discussion points was recognising that a large number of stakeholders need to be involved in management of the fishery. It demonstrated a common element of the stakeholder identification process where a small group Plate 8. Participants in a lively discussion about the regional usually begins by brainstorming the stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the possible stakeholders. The original Guianas-Brazil Shelf list is then added to by asking others to identify additional stakeholders, so that the identification process becomes participatory. The participants believed that the session did not allow for thorough inclusion of all the stakeholders at the regional level in the shrimp and groundfish fishery and that more work needed to be done on this. Another important point that emerged was that the stakeholders list is constantly changing as issues change or other stakeholders are identified. It is important to keep the list of stakeholders updated. The participants were also asked to identify key regional stakeholders based on criteria that included: The scope of their involvement The level of their power/influence/authority The size of their stake Their purpose and interest in the fishery

The full criteria used are shown in Appendix 11. Table 3. Regional stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf (the key stakeholders are highlighted in bold)
Category Intergovernmental Name of stakeholder Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat Organization for Fisheries Development (OLDEPESCA) Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) United Nations Environment Programme-Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEP CEP) Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) Association of Caribbean States (ACS)-Caribbean Sea Commission Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) Caribbean Environmental Health Institute (CEHI ) The Sub-Commission for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions, of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO (IOCARIBE)

10

Category

Government/ public sector

Donors

Civil society

Name of stakeholder United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation ACP-EU (CTA) The Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) The World Trade Organization (WTO) The International Labour Organization (ILO) The International Maritime Organization (IMO) For each country... Ministries/agencies responsible for fisheries and aquaculture Ministries of foreign affairs/ relations Coast Guard Maritime authorities Agencies responsible for customs and excise Ministries/agencies responsible for environmental management/protection (renewable natural resources) Ministry of transport (with respect to maritime transport) Ministries/agencies responsible for energy and/or mining Ministry of finance Seafood Industry Development Company (SIDC) National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration/ National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS) United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) European Commission Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (EC MARE) State enterprises oil and gas Petrobras Staatsolie Petrleos de Venezuela S.A (PDVSA) Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) Africa Caribbean Pacific-European Union (ACP-EU) Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD ) Embassy of Finland World Bank World Wildlife Fund (WWF regional office in Suriname) Conservation International (CI) Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organizations (CNFO) Consumers within and outside of the region (especially EU and US) Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Network (WIDECAST) Associations: SINDIPESCA (industrial fishing union/association) Guyana Association of Trawlers and Seafood Processors Suriname Seafood Association (SSA) Trinidad and Tobago Industrial Fisherfolk Association (TTIFA) Recreational fishing associations Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association (CHTA) Mining: Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GDMA) in Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association in Suriname name to check Eco-labelling groups

11

Category Private sector

Media Academia

Projects

Name of stakeholder Small scale fisherfolk Industrial fishers and fish processors, e.g. Heiploeg (Noble House, Moribel - Belgian company) Pirates Poachers Oil and gas: BG CGX Repsol bpTT Centrica Niko Small scale miners Post-harvest wholesale and retail vendors, including exporters Wal-Mart CLS (ARGOS), etc. involved in vessel monitoring systems One Caribbean Media Institut franais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (IFREMER) University of Guyana (UoG) University of the West Indies (especially Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies - CERMES) Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) Guyana School of Agriculture Caribbean Fisheries Training and Development Institute (CFTDI) University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT) Institute Emilio Garde, University of Para University of Suriname Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) Integrating Watershed and Coastal Area Management (IWCAM) European Union-Africa Caribbean Pacific Fish II CRFM/ Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Master Plan Study CARICOM / CRFM / Kingdom of Spain Diagnostic Study CRFM / CTA / CNFO project

5.7

Introduction to stakeholder analysis

The facilitator explained that when you begin to ask why an individual or organization is a stakeholder you begin to analyse that stakeholder. There are different ways to analyse a stakeholder. These include looking at the role the stakeholder plays and their capacity (see other ways to analyze stakeholders in Appendix 11). 5.7.1 Stakeholder analysis-role of the stakeholder The participants were asked to brainstorm the possible role of a few key stakeholders identified in the previous session. The results are shown in Table 4. There was a lively discussion on the roles of several other organizations, including ACTO and the governmental bodies responsible for foreign affairs. In both cases, the participants were unaware of the role of the organizations in the shrimp and groundfish fishery. The participants from Trinidad and Tobago were, however, more aware of the role of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its fishery because of the critical role that the Ministry plays in negotiating various fishing agreements in that country.

12

Table 4. Roles of the regional stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf
Category Intergovernmental Name of stakeholder FAO/WECAFC Role of the stakeholder Assessment of resources Technical assistance and advice on sustainable management Lead agency managing CLME case study for shrimp and groundfish fishery Provide support under FAO Technical Cooperation Projects (TCPs) Advocacy role on sustainable use and management Promote partnerships, provide neutral environment for negotiation and facilitate collaboration and cooperation among member states Capacity building Responsible for sustainable management of the fishery and post-harvest marketing and trade Policy development and execution Regulation and enforcement (monitoring, control and surveillance) Research and data / information management Responsible for fisheries management planning Capacity building including extension Facilitation to engage stakeholders Education, outreach, awareness, communication, advocacy Building partnerships with other relevant government agencies Represent government at meetings relevant to the fishery nationally, regionally, internationally Responsible for implementation of relevant international and regional conventions Promote conservation (including marine protected areas [MPAs]) and new fishing technologies Provide funds Provide information Communication, advocacy, education Capacity building technical training workshops

Government/ public sector

Fisheries authorities

Civil society

WWF

5.7.2

Stakeholder analysis-capacity of the stakeholder

The participants were divided into two groups to analyse the capacity of two key stakeholders by examining the seven elements of capacity identified by CANARI (see Appendix 12). The seven elements of capacity are: World view/philosophy: Values, attitudes, principles and beliefs of respect for all people and the contribution that they can make. Trust and openness to allow other people to play an equitable role in decision-making. Culture: Willingness to work with other stakeholders towards shared objectives and a belief that this can be effective. Organizational structure: Communication channels to receive input, share information, and facilitate discussion, debate and negotiation internally and with partners. Clear definition of roles, functions, lines of communication and mechanisms for accountability. Adaptive culture and strategies: Practices and policies so that structures and mechanisms can be adapted to respond to changes in the natural resource being managed, the patterns of use of this resource, and the needs, interests, roles and responsibilities of all of the stakeholders involved.

13

Linkages: An ability to develop and manage relationships with individuals, groups and organizations. Multidisciplinary and inter-sectoral approaches bringing together government agencies, academia, private sector, NGOs, CBOs, communities and individuals. Skills, knowledge and abilities (competence): Technical skills and knowledge in the specific management area how to effectively facilitate or engage in participatory processes (e.g. communication and interpersonal skills, ability to negotiate, ability to speak clearly and communicate effectively in front of a large group). Material: Technology, equipment, materials and finance to support the effective implementation of the participatory process, with equitable allocation among stakeholders.

The results for the capacity assessments for both the fisheries authorities and the small scale fishers (the two key stakeholders chosen) are shown in Table 5 below. In both cases, the groups determined that the capacity for participation was weak. The groups each had lively discussions with many centred on distinguishing the worldview and the culture of the stakeholder as these were new concepts that were introduced to the participants.

Table 5. Capacity of the regional stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf
Category Government/public sector Name of stakeholder Fisheries authorities Capacity of the stakeholder Not fully aware or committed to participatory approaches Culture still top down Needs more skills and knowledge, especially people skills (facilitation, communication) but some technical skills (EAF needs new skills) Allocation of material resources is issue dependent on political will Adaptive strategies inadequate Linkages not enough Structures inflexible and bureaucratic Leadership needed World view (2) mostly think only of themselves rather than seeing themselves functioning as a group Culture (3) only willing to work with others when they have a direct short term financial gain Structure (1) not organized Adaptive strategies (2) the stakeholder likes things as they are and do not like changes; willingness to compromise is low, although they are very willing to change fishing methods to suit changes in the environment Linkages / relationships (2) Skills, knowledge (4) the stakeholder knows a lot about the fishery in a practical sense but lacks the skills to effectively communicate with a large group

Private sector

Small-scale fisherfolk (ranked from 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest)

14

5.7.3

Stakeholder analysis-analyzing power relations and relationships

Each participant was given three key stakeholders and asked to place them on the power triangle. Those stakeholders with the most power were placed on the apex of the triangle and those with the least amount of power on the base of the triangle (see Plate 9 for the power triangle before and after discussion). The discussions yielded better clarity on the power of key regional stakeholders. Key academic organisations like CERMES and intergovernmental organisations like the CRFM were placed in the middle of the triangle representing their advisory role in the decision-making process. Many of the government stakeholders such as the fisheries authorities and the Coast Guard were placed at the apex of the triangle. This demonstrated a common perception among resource users and managers that the governmental agencies have the most power in the decision-making process. The small-scale fishers were also placed at the apex of the triangle highlighting the power that the participants believed that they had.

Plate 9. The results of the power triangle before (top) and after (bottom) the plenary discussion. The positions of many of the stakeholders changed after discussion in plenary

15

5.8

Field trip to Claxton Bay

The field trip to Claxton Bay was used as an opportunity for the participants to practice the facilitations skills that they were introduced to in the previous two days. These skills would be applied when the participants facilitated the meetings in their countries. It was also an opportunity for the participants to learn from and share experiences with the Claxton Bay residents. The objectives of the meeting with Claxton Bay fisherfolk were to: 1. Identify challenges facing fishing in Claxton Bay. 2. Identify stakeholders involved in the major challenges facing fishing in Claxton Bay. 3. Identify the role of the major stakeholders in Claxton Bay fishing. 4. Identify solutions that the Claxton Bay fisherfolk can undertake to address some of the challenges facing fishing in Claxton Bay. 5. Discuss recommendations that other stakeholders can undertake to address some of the problems in the fishing in Claxton Bay. 6. Share information, experiences and Plate 10. Henk from Suriname (centre) looks on in a session he lessons learned with the Claxton Bay facilitated with Calvin (Guyana). They facilitated the residents on fishing in other identification of challenges facing fishing in Claxton Bay countries surrounding the Caribbean Sea. 7. Build linkages with other organisations involved in fishing in the Caribbean. The workshop participants were divided into four groups to facilitate four different sessions. These sessions were: Identification of the challenges facing fishing in Claxton By Stakeholder identification Stakeholder analysis Possible solutions

The FAO participants were shown the way for the team to prepare for a facilitation session before a meeting or a workshop by planning in detail what they would each do. They were asked to use interactive techniques to engage the fisherfolk, including the use of creative techniques. Teams worked to develop detailed plans, so that every member of the team knew in detail what would be done during the session. This was very useful as in during the meeting with fisherfolk, each facilitation group was split to work with two groups of Claxton Bay Plate 11. One of the groups in Claxton Bay presents its image of the participants. This highlighted the challenges facing fishing in the area importance of a team approach to facilitation and the importance of each team member being prepared to facilitate.

16

5.8.1

Identification of the challenges in fishing in Claxton Bay

The session facilitators divided the Claxton Bay participants into four groups to draw the challenges in fishing in the community on flip chart paper provided using markers and Playdough to create models (of boats, trees, people, etc.). The facilitators worked with each of the groups to ensure that each person contributed to the process. The discussions within the groups were lively and all the fishers were engaged. Each group then presented their drawing to the plenary and the problems Plate 12. Claxton Bay stakeholders voting for the major challenges facing fishing they identified were listed in the area on separate pieces of paper and stuck up on a wall. The Claxton Bay participants were then asked to rank the challenges identified by placing sticky dots on the challenge that they believed to be the most important. Each fisherfolk was given the same number of dots or votes. Several problems were identified and ranked in Claxton Bay. These were (the number of votes received is indicated in brackets): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Piracy (41) Removal of mangroves hurt fish (7) Big boats in area destroying nets (6) Waste polluting seas-oils spills (5) Trawlers damaging the fishing ground (4) Nearby ammonia plant deadly (3) Water taxi damages the nets (1) Buoys without lights damaging boats at night (1) Difficult to get boats through the mud and bring in catch (1) Tuck seine taking all the bait- no food for fish (0)

Piracy was the top ranked problem in Claxton Bay while removal of mangroves was ranked a distant second.

Plate 13. Calvin (Guyana) debriefed the session that identified the challenges facing fishing in CB. Piracy had the most dots in the picture

The facilitators were able to engage the Claxton Bay stakeholders by demonstrating qualities of a good facilitator such as listening attentively despite differences in native languages. The session facilitators were able to quickly identify the more challenging participants among the Claxton Bay residents and worked within the groups to ensure that no one dominated the discussions. One facilitator engaged the most dominant Claxton Bay participant in conversation. This ensured that his points were discussed but also ensured that others were given an opportunity to impart their knowledge during the group sessions without interruption.

17

5.8.2

Stakeholder identification

The session facilitators divided the participants into two groups; each group discussed one of the two major problems identified in the voting process piracy and loss of mangroves. Because of time constraints, the facilitators continued to work in small groups for the remaining sessions. It demonstrated both the need to be flexible and the need to be prepared as facilitators. The first part of the session asked fisherfolk to brainstorm what they understood by the term stakeholder. The group working on loss of mangroves were able to do this as the facilitator asked them to give words that they thought this meant, and thus built a collective understanding. The participants in the piracy group had more difficulty defining the term stakeholder as they tried to discuss a definition and eventually the facilitator explained it.

Plate 14. Shandira from Trinidad and Tobago (standing at left) facilitates a small group session on stakeholder identification in the loss of mangroves. Terrence (CRFM) and Sergio (Brazil) assist by writing the points on coloured sheets.

The groups were then asked to identify the key (or main or most important) stakeholders involved in each of the two problems. These are shown in the table below. Table 6. Results of the stakeholder identification exercise in both groups
Piracy Coast Guard Fisheries Division Claxton Bay Fishing Association (CBFA) Trinidad and Tobago Unified Fisherfolk (TTUF) Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organisations (CNFO) Trawling associations Petrotrin/Trinidad Cement Ltd. (TCL)/Pt. Lisas Fishers Embassies of Venezuela and St. Vincent and the Grenadines CARICOM Secretariat Removal of mangroves Environmental Management Authority Point Lisas Industrial Port Development Corporation Limited (PLIPDECO) International Development Research Centre IDRC (through the UWI mFisheries project) University of the West Indies (UWI) Freelance e.g. Ivan Toolsie Fishers/ Claxton Bay Fishing Association (CBFA)

18

5.8.3

Stakeholder analysis

Each group was then asked to analyse the stakeholders by looking at the role of each stakeholder in the issue or challenge. The Claxton Bay fisherfolk in the piracy small group were initially reluctant to discuss the current role of the stakeholders as they had preconceived solutions and wanted to jump to what they thought these were. Discussions were dominated by the dominant participant and the facilitator had to repeatedly ask him to give others the opportunity to speak, and to draw out other fisherfolk by using probing questions. By questioning the stakeholders and sharing experiences from other countries as part of the discussion, the Claxton Bay fisherfolk were able to clarify the roles that each stakeholder played in the piracy problem. The group discussing the removal of mangroves had similar problems understanding the role of the stakeholders in the issue. The session facilitators were however able to ensure that the Claxton Bay participants remained on the topic by using questioning to refocus the discussion and draw out ideas.

Plate 15. Mario from Suriname (standing) facilitates the session on the role of the stakeholder in the "piracy" small group

Table 7. Role of the stakeholders in piracy in Claxton Bay

Stakeholder Coast Guard Fisheries Division Claxton Bay Fishing Association (CBFA) Role Enforcement (has jurisdiction) Patrols Link fishermen with other government agencies- partnerships Has information on who the pirates are Advocacy Training Facilitate sharing of information among fishermen Report issues to the Coast Guard, Fisheries, Police GPS monitoring Help bring together different fishing associations to share information and work together on piracy Website to post information to share with fisherfolk in other countries Help with communication (radios, GPS) Private security Help with patrols and look for ghost boats Patrol and report and communicate with other fishermen Help to coordinate with their government to organize joint patrols Facilitate sharing of information and countries working together

Trinidad and Tobago Unified Fisherfolk (TTUF) Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organizations (CNFO) Trawling associations Petrotrin/TCL/ Pt. Lisas Fishers Embassies of Venezuela and St. Vincent CARICOM Secretariat

19

Table 8. Role of stakeholders in the removal of mangroves in Claxton Bay

Stakeholder Environmental Management Authority (EMA) Role Consultation through the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process Education/ awareness Enforcement of regulation pertaining to the mangroves and pollution of natural resources Pollution of the mangroves and waters surrounding Claxton Bay Information on safety at sea Marketing of fish Report illegal activities Research Making information accessible Develop knowledge database Develop awareness Public exposure Report to appropriate authorities e.g. the EMA Education and awareness Give information Advocacy

Point Lisas Industrial Port Development Corporation Limited (PLIPDECO) International Development Research Centre IDRC (through the UWI mFisheries project) University of the West indies (UWI)

Freelance e.g. Ivan Toolsie Fishers/ Claxton Bay Fishing Association (CBFA)

5.8.4

Possible solutions and recommendations

The facilitators had difficulty in getting the Claxton Bay fisherfolk to discuss new solutions to the two problems since the Claxton Bay fisherfolk had preconceived solutions. Comparisons were used with other countries and examples and questioning were used to have the fisherfolk consider new ideas and potential solutions. One of the solutions proposed to piracy was that fisherfolk be given guns to defend themselves against pirates. The facilitators had to caution against the grave dangers that would be posed by such action. One facilitator commented that at times it seemed that the facilitators were forcing the solutions onto the participants. It is important that facilitators understand the type of questions to ask that would not impose the facilitators own opinions on the participants. The solutions and recommendations that can be adopted involving the various stakeholders are shown in the tables below. Table 9. Recommendations for combating piracy in Claxton Bay
Stakeholder Coast Guard Fisheries Division Claxton Bay Fishing Association (CBFA) Petrotrin/TCL/ Pt. Lisas Fishers Solutions/recommendations Bring back marine police Need a Coast Guard base in the area Funds to Fisheries Division for vessel to patrol inshore areas Need for communication system between fishermen (phone, flashlight, etc.) Need for central point to report to Get use of the company vessel for patrol Fishers can be elected to be on board the vessels Need for communication system between fishers (phone, flashlight, etc.)

20

Table 10. Recommendations for managing the threat to the removal of mangroves in Claxton Bay
Stakeholder Environmental Management Authority (EMA) Point Lisas Industrial Port Development Corporation Limited (PLIPDECO) Solution/recommendations Implement mandate by enforcing regulations pertaining to pollution and removal of mangroves Fishers and the Claxton Bay Fishing Association (CBFA) Reduce pollution from its users Education and awareness Consult with other stakeholders when they are removing mangroves Develop an information database of the users of the resource through the mFisheries project Continued documentation of the threat to the mangroves in the area Continued public awareness of the threat to the mangroves Improve CBFA by including more fishers from the area. This would also make the organisation stronger Education on authorities with the responsibility for addressing the problems (e.g. EMA, Forestry Division) Identification of persons within the EMA and the Forestry Division who the fishers can call to address their problems In-house security or self policing o Cooperation with the protective services Member (CBFA) on EMA board Form a stakeholder committee with the following: o EMA, fishers o Community leaders o Pt. Lisas representatives o Forestry o Fisheries o Media o Police

University of the West indies (UWI)

Freelance e.g. Ivan Toolsie

5.8.5

Lessons learned in facilitation

It was quite challenging to effectively facilitate the sessions with the Claxton Bay fisherfolk. Some of the challenges were: there was a highly dominant participant who did not want others to speak, there were many participants who were shy about giving their ideas, the facilitators arrived late so did not have time to set up properly and meet fisherfolk before the start of the session, and the fisherfolk were pressed for time as they had to go out in the afternoon to fish.

However, the facilitators used the facilitation techniques described above to ensure that the discussions were meaningful.

21

During the previous two days of the Claxton Bay meeting, piracy was discussed as one of the challenges affecting the shrimp and groundfish fishery in each of the countries present. The Claxton Bay meeting confirmed that piracy was a major challenge to fishing at the local level. Piracy was suggested as a fourth transboundary issue for the shrimp and groundfish fishery.
Plate 16. Keisha from CANARI (left) and Lara from Trinidad and Tobago (centre) engage a dominant participant in discussion. The other participants were in small group sessions drawing their perceptions of the challenges in fishing in Claxton Bay

CANARI produced a report of the meeting for the Claxton Bay stakeholders. This is attached as Appendix 13.

5.9

Participation strategy

The facilitator reminded the participants that the EAF approach was holistic and engaged a diverse group of stakeholders in management of the shrimp and groundfish resource. It is important that stakeholders are involved in both management planning and management. Stakeholders should be involved in management planning so that their perspectives would form part of the plan. If the stakeholders are engaged in management planning, they need to be involved in management to fulfil expectations that have been raised. When the stakeholders are involved in planning, a commitment is made for them to participate in management. Although the countries present have engaged in participatory processes, one participant commented that the governments in many of the countries were not comfortable delegating responsibilities. The facilitator explained that a participation strategy was a useful guide to facilitating multistakeholder processes. The steps in constructing a participation strategy were (see Plate 17): Identify decisions requiring stakeholder participation Identify key stakeholders needed to input into decision-making Analyse the interests, rights and responsibilities of stakeholders Analyse capacity of stakeholders to participate and identify capacity needs Identify potential conflicts Determine types of participation that will be facilitated for different stakeholders Develop and implement capacity-building interventions, including communication of information and specific training and mentoring, to ensure that stakeholders have the capacity to effectively participate in the decision-making Develop and implement a conflict management plan if needed, to include targeted negotiation and mediation Mobilise stakeholders to participate Facilitate stakeholder participation using various processes as appropriate to stakeholder needs, capacity, and type of participation desired Consider stakeholder input in making decision and feedback final decision to stakeholders (including explaining compromises and why their idea was not taken on board if needed)

22

The presentation is shown in Appendix 14. 5.9.1 Determining the overall desired level of participation Different stakeholders need to be engaged to different levels depending on their level of interests, rights and responsibilities but it is useful to have an overall decision of the desired level of participation and then to determine the specific engagement of each stakeholder later in the process. The participants were divided into four groups to determine the type of participation aimed for in terms of the: Context; willingness of the stakeholders; type of possible participation; and the costs and benefits of participation.

The participants were given probing questions on each criterion (see Appendix 14) to determine the level of participation desired in management of the shrimp and groundfish fishery. They indicated their assessment of what type of participation should be aimed for by placing a symbol on the participation spectrum line on the wall. Each group discussed the rationale behind their assessment of what type of participation should be aimed for as follows. Context There are many conflicts in the shrimp and groundfish fishery and many interests from varying groups such as NGOs and trawlers. The participants stressed that the State may hold all the legal rights to the resource but the fishers have all the access rights. It is important that the planners determine where they should be Plate 17. The steps in the participation strategy. These and the timeframe to be there. Considering this are also identified in Appendix 14 context, the participants felt that the type of participation aimed for should be Control and decision-making shared among stakeholders (see Plate 18). Willingness of the stakeholders The participants believed that the State should be willing to give up approximately 25-33 percent of the management control of the shrimp and groundfish resources. The State should be willing to maintain some control. As the trust and relationships among the stakeholders are built/destroyed the desired level of participation would shift along the spectrum of participation. This highlighted the point that participation is dynamic and is constantly changing. Considering the limited willingness of the State to devolve responsibility, the participants felt that the type of participation aimed for should be left of Control and decision-making shared among stakeholders where there is still a level of top-down management (see Plate 18).

23

Type of participation possible The type of participation possible depends on the facilitator and the persons involved. The legislation in the various countries also determines the type of participation possible. The symbol was placed in the middle of the spectrum because there needs to be buy-in and all stakeholders must feel comfortable in the process. One way of accomplishing this is to share the management responsibility equally among all the stakeholders. Some of the participants (e.g. Suriname) believed that their countries had the resources and facilitators necessary to ensure the desired level of participation as those countries had existing enabling legislation. Other participants, notably those from Trinidad and Tobago, believed that their countries lacked the necessary structures to ensure that participation is shared equitably among all stakeholders. Considering the type of participation possible in managing the shrimp and groundfish fishery, the participants felt that the type of participation aimed for should be Control and decision-making shared among stakeholders (see Plate 18). Costs and benefits It was difficult for the participants to separate the costs of participation with the risks associated with a more participatory process. They believed however, that benefits were higher than the costs of participation. They believed that the type of participation aimed for should be to the right of Control and decision-making shared among stakeholders where participation approaches Full control by natural resource users (see Plate 18). Overall desired level of participation Based on the assessments from the four perspectives, the participants believed that the overall desired level of participation should be Control and decision-making shared among stakeholders. They stressed, however, that it was important to define the terms used since each person may understand the terms differently. They also believed that each stakeholder should be engaged in a different way (see Plate 18).

Plate 18. The spectrum of participation showing the type of participation that should be sought based on willingness, type possible, context and costs & benefits. The large fish represents the overall type of participation that should be achieved

5.9.2

Determining the desired level of participation for each key stakeholder

The participants were each given the names of three key stakeholders and asked to place these on the spectrum of participation to show the desired level of participation for each. These were then grouped into six distinct groups of stakeholders based on the level of desired engagement. Stakeholders in group one were those that the participants believed should be most involved in the management of the shrimp and groundfish resource. Stakeholders placed in group six were those they believed should be least involved in the management of the fishery (see Plate 19). There was a lot of discussion noting that the roles played by some stakeholders were different in each country, so the situation was slightly

24

different. This analysis would need to be validated for each country but a general picture for the entire fishery was agreed on. The groups were: Group 1: Very high level of involvement in decision-making Ministry of foreign affairs Fisheries departments Ministry responsible for fisheries Small-scale fisherfolk Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organizations (CNFO) Trawler associations Industrial fisherfolk and fish processors Post-harvest wholesale and retail vendors Maritime authorities

Group 2: High level of involvement in decision-making Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/ Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (FAO/WECAFC)

Group 3: Medium level of involvement in decision-making Energy/ mining associations Association of Caribbean States - Caribbean Sea Commission (ACS-CSC) Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES) Caribbean Fisheries Training and Development Institute (CFTDI) State enterprises (oil, gas, mining)

Group 4: Moderate level of involvement in decision-making Ministry for environmental management Oil and gas companies Consumers Coast Guard

Group 5: Low level of involvement in decision-making Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Sub Commission for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (UNESCO IOCARIBE) European Union African Caribbean Pacific Countries Fish II Programme (EU-ACP) Global environmental Facility (GEF) Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO)

Group 6: Lowest level of involvement in decision-making Ministry responsible for energy and mining Poachers Institut franais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (IFREMER)

25

5.9.3

Strategies to engage the stakeholders

Plate 19. The spectrum of participation showing the stakeholders and the groups they were placed in. This information will need to be validated by each country

The facilitator reiterated that each stakeholder group will need to be engaged differently to facilitate the desired level of participation. The table below shows the different strategies that were identified by participants to engage the groups of stakeholders.

Table 11. Strategies to engage stakeholders Strategies to engage stakeholders Meetings (individual and group) Regional level workshops National meetings with experts from outside the country and region Group Individual Regional/ national committees/ working groups Regional/ national networks Emails, letters Conference calls Send information and ask for feedback Send information Grp 1 Grp 2 Grp 3 Grp 4 Grp 5 Grp 6 x x x x x

x x x x x

x x

x x x

x x

The stakeholders that are the most important to the process (those in groups one and two) had the most strategies to engage them in the participation process.

26

5.9.4

Capacity-building strategy

One of the elements of a participation strategy is the capacity-building strategy. Many of the key stakeholders had capacity needs that the participants were asked to identify. These are shown in Error! Reference source not found..

Plate 20. Participants assessing the capacity of the key stakeholders. Participants referred to the spectrum of participation as a guide to help assess capacity

Table 12. Capacity needs for groups one and two regional stakeholders
Stakeholder Ministries of foreign affairs World view Need to make a shift towards participatory management Culture Structure Adaptive strategies Linkages Need to form linkages with other stakeholders as role not clearly understood in all countries Participatory skills are lacking Many do not have material resources to support the participatory processes Skills Material resources

Fisheries departments

Ministries responsible for fisheries

Some in the region have not embraced participatory management of the shrimp and groundfish fishery Need to make a shift towards participatory management. Some have not established/ implemented enabling legislation. Fishers are not always willing to work with other stakeholders. Need to have the benefits of participatory management demonstrated to get their buy-in

Many have a topdown structure that does not allow for stakeholder participation in management

Lack the practices and policies that enable them to adapt and respond to changes in their operating environment.

Need to be able to work more effectively with the various stakeholders

May have technical skill but lack skills to facilitate the participatory process

Some may not have access to the resources to support the effective implementation of the participatory process Small-scale fishers may not have the resources to be full partners in participatory processes

27

Small-scale fisherfolk via NFOs

Structures may not support participatory management

Need to develop structures/ policies/ practices to be able to adapt to the changes in the fishery.

Need to be able to work with other stakeholders. Conflicts may prevent linkages with other stakeholders

Skills in the participatory processes lacking. Need access to scientific knowledge about the resource

Stakeholder Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organisations (CNFO)

World view

Culture

Structure CNFO still developing the organisational structures to enable participatory processes

Adaptive strategies Need to develop structures/ policies/ practices to be able to adapt to the changes in the fishery.

Linkages CNFO still developing relationships with the NFOs and other stakeholders that are part of the participatory process Conflicts with other resource users may prevent linkages/ partnerships with other stakeholders

Skills CNFO has technical skills but is still building skills in participatory processes

Material resources Need access to material resources to be effective participants in the shrimp and groundfish fishery.

Industrial fisherfolk and fish processors

Trawler associations

Post-harvest wholesale and retail vendors

Have not adopted participatory philosophy in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the GuianasBrazil Shelf Have not adopted participatory philosophy in the shrimp and groundfish fishery. May not always consider other types of fisherfolk as stakeholders that affect the fishery Participatory philosophy lacking among stakeholders

Have not developed the mechanisms to adapt to changes in the fishery

Lack the skills to be effective partners in participatory processes

May not have the material resources to participate in the participatory management of the fishery May not have the material resources to participate in the participatory management of the fishery

Need to develop structures/ policies/ practices to be able to adapt to the changes in the fishery.

May need to develop technical skills associated with the use of the resource. Lack skills in participatory management

28

Need to develop structures/ policies/ practices to be able to adapt to the changes in the fishery.

May not see themselves as being as important as other stakeholders in the fishery. May not form linkages on the basis of this.

Need for material resources

Stakeholder Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM)

World view

Culture

Structure Developing policies to allow participatory management. May need new internal structures

FAO/WECAFC

Adaptive strategies CRFM needs to demonstrate adaptive strategies for fisherfolk organizations to buy-in Have not demonstrated adaptive strategies

Linkages May not have formed all the linkages needed to be effective partners

Skills Lack skills in participatory management

Material resources May be dependent on funding cycles that do not allow participatory processes to develop. May not be able to provide assistance outside of funds identified through projects. Projects may not have sufficient length to allow participatory processes to develop.

Have not formed all the linkages necessary to be effective partners. Hindered by the need to work through state partners.

29

30

Many of the key stakeholders had not moved towards participatory management in the shrimp and groundfish fishery nor had they developed the necessary linkages. Skills and resources in participatory processes were also lacking in many of the key stakeholders. The participants believed that because the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf was not managed in the holistic way, many of the stakeholders acted as independent agents. Participants however believed that many of the key stakeholders have shown a willingness to work with other stakeholders. 5.9.5 Conflict management strategy Participants felt that conflicts among the industrys stakeholders also hampered participatory processes, although engaging stakeholders in participatory processes is important to mediate and manage conflicts. The participants were able to identify few conflicts among the stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. Conflict can prevent stakeholders from working together. Some of the conflicts identified included those between: trawlers and artisanal fishers; ministries of foreign affairs and the ministries responsible for fisheries; research institutes and the fishers (in Brazil in particular); and the conservation organisations and the fishers.

A conflict management strategy is an important element in a participatory strategy as it can help to ensure that all stakeholders are engaged in the participatory process. Identifying conflicts is an essential part of the strategy and can also be used as a way to analyse stakeholders. 5.10 Communication strategy Communication is important to any participatory process. The importance of facilitators listening and using simple language that is easily understood was highlighted. The participants understood that messages should be communicated in such a manner that the target audience can understand. The messages should be communicated to address the target audiences perspectives and interests. The key components of a communication strategy are:
Plate 21. CANARI demonstrated the importance of clear, simple messages as part of a communication strategy by playing a whisper game. Sergio (left) was asked to pass a complicated message to Gary (right). Both had difficulty

Key messages (what you need to communicate) Target audiences (who you need to communicate to) Desired actions (what do stakeholders need to do to contribute to effective management of the fishery) Products and pathways (that will be used to communicate the messages)

The stakeholders (target audiences), desired actions, products and pathways identified by participants are shown in the table below. The presentation on communication strategy and the handout are shown in Appendix 15. Some stakeholders (including the fisheries departments, CNFO, trawler associations, CRFM and the FAO/WECAFC) were identified as being able to play a role to communicate messages to other

31

stakeholders. In this way, they act as pathways for the communication. These are highlighted in bold and italics in the table below. Table 13. Target audience, desired action, products and pathways for key regional stakeholders
Stakeholder Ministry of foreign affairs Desired action Provide advice on relevant regional and national multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) Lead and coordinate the national process to engage stakeholders Distil the national input and represent in regional discussions Support/ provide resources to the fisheries departments Advise on fisheries and broader policy issues Participate, provide information, share views and negotiate Product Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations Pathway Letters Emails Meetings Letters Emails Meetings

Fisheries departments

Ministry responsible for fisheries

Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations

Letters Emails Meetings

Small-scale fisherfolk via national fisherfolk organisations (NFOs)

Stickers Posters Caps

Fisheries departments and NFOs go to all landing sites Cell phone messages Village meetings CNFO and NFOs can be a pathway to the smallscale fisherfolk Fisheries departments and NFOs go to all landing sites Cell phone messages Village meetings NFOs can be a pathway to the small-scale fisherfolk Fisheries departments and NFOs go to all landing sites Cell phone messages Village meetings CNFO and NFOs can be a pathway to the smallscale fisherfolk Letters Emails Meetings

Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organisations (CNFO)

Represent their membership at the regional level (local knowledge) Keep membership informed and provide feedback

Stickers Posters Caps Brochures Fact sheets

Industrial fishers and fish processors (at the level of the fishers)

Represent membership (share info) at national level and keep them informed and negotiate

Stickers Posters Caps

Industrial fisherfolk and fish processors (at the managerial level)

Represent membership (share info) at national level and keep them informed and negotiate

Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations

32

Stakeholder Trawler associations

Desired action Represent membership (share info) at national level and keep them informed and negotiate Represent membership (share info) at national level and keep them informed and negotiate

Product Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations

Pathway Letters Emails Meetings Letters Emails Meetings

Post-harvest wholesale and retail vendors

Maritime authority

CRFM

Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations Generic products that can be used to communicate with several stakeholders: Brochure/ fact sheet Poster Video Web Stickers Caps Radio products Slide presentation FAO/WECAFC

Provide advice on maritime policy and info on maritime issues that may impact on fisheries Assist with coordination and provision of technical advice the process at the regional level in partnership with the FAO Lead and coordinate Bring global knowledge

Stickers Posters Caps Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations Brochures Fact sheets Slide presentations

Letters Emails Meetings Letters Emails Meetings

Letters Emails Meetings

Pathways that can be used for many stakeholders: Video on national televisions, targeted DVDs and on the internet on video sharing sites such as YouTube Website to host the information and facilitate discussions Translation is a cross-cutting challenge. Five languages are spoken throughout the project region: English, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Portuguese.

The key messages identified were: 1. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is a holistic approach to sustainable development of fisheries for the benefit of all people in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. 2. EAF is the way to go. It can benefit biodiversity, economics, and livelihoods. 3. All stakeholders have a role to play in EAF OR EAF is participatory (bottom-up). 4. EAF is based on local (traditional) and scientific (ecological, economic, social, etc.) knowledge. 5. Get involved in the decision. Participation is indispensible.

33

5.11

Introduction to the governance of the CLME project

Throughout the week, many of the participants were concerned that they did not understand many aspects of both the CLME project and the case study on the shared stocks of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. The facilitator from CERMES addressed many of the gaps in the CLME project. The presentations are attached as Appendix 16. The Caribbean Sea is one of the most geopolitically complex regions in the world. There are 25 countries speaking many different languages and operating at different scales. Table 22. Robin (left) clarified the governance assessment of Many of the issues are the shrimp and groundfish fishery. Robin clarified many transboundary because of the aspects of the CLME project for the participants number of countries within close proximity to each other. The project team was asked to focus on governance as an overarching theme in the CLME project. The facilitator pointed out that the project is using a multi-level, policy cycle-based governance framework that depends on the lateral linkages among organisations to avoid duplication of effort. The framework is very flexible and allows the stakeholders to choose specific areas for interventions. It is not prescriptive. A transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) was conducted within the CLME project and will inform the strategic action programme (SAP). Meetings have not been planned for the specific case studies and pilot projects under the CLME project. Integration of learning will take place at the level of the steering committee. Each country is required to form a national inter-sectoral committee for the project. This has not happened to the extent that it needs to be effective. The facilitator pointed out that climate change is an area of key concern throughout the CLME project. 5.12 Governance methodology The facilitator explained the different governance levels and the two assessment methodologies used in the project. Each transboundary issue has a governance arrangement. The presentation is shown in Appendix 16. Much of the focus has been on the regional level but there is a national component as well. The interconnection between the national and regional levels is necessary to complete the governance cycle. Even if the CLME governance may not always coincide with the countries governance, it is important that each country agrees on what needs to be done to take the project forward. Clear procedure is needed to attend CLME meetings. Few countries have developed processes for attending regional meetings. The processes need to be effective to ensure that the information is being disseminated to the right people. The CLME project team has suggested recommendations on the process but these have not always been adopted by the countries. One participant indicated that his country has made policy that is in direct contradiction to the suggested CLME meeting policy. Implementing processes for attending the CLME meetings may have greatly improved attendance at the meeting. The participants suggested that piracy should be included as a fourth transboundary issue in the CLME project. Transparency is also important in the CLME process. This can also help in the stakeholder identification and analysis that is to be completed by the participants countries.

34

One participant commented that stakeholder identification was time-consuming in his country since the stakeholders were widespread.

EVALUATION

Throughout the workshop, participants were concerned that information about the case study was unclear. They were unsure of their role in the project and expectations for the project. CANARI used an evaluation line (from zero or do not know to 100 percent) so that the participants could indicate by standing at different positions on the line where they started at the beginning of the workshop and where they finished in terms of their understanding of CLME, the case study and facilitation. The information is discussed in the table below.

Plate 23. Participants standing along the evaluation line to indicate their understanding of project.

35

Table 14. Results of the evaluation line

Question I understand what the CLME project is about I understand what the case study is about Responses Most participants understood what the project was about. Only one participant was less than 50 percent certain about the project. Very few participants understood what the case study was about before the start of the workshop. One participant was introduced to the project four days before the start of the workshop. During the workshop, the participants understanding of the case study improved. They believed, however, that there were still gaps in their knowledge of the case study. One participant however, did not understand the role of the FAO country offices in the case study. All the participants felt that the participatory approach was essential to the shrimp and groundfish fishery. They believed this was important even more so after the meeting. Many did not fully understand the importance to their country. Two participants did not know the importance to their country before the start of the workshop. There were differences in perception between country participants probably caused by the different jobs that the participants perform and their knowledge/understanding of the case study. Guyanas fisheries representative for example felt 75 percent sure that the case study was important to his country. The representative from the University of Guyana however, was less than 50 percent sure of the importance of the case study to Guyana. Few participants were less than 50 percent sure that their country had bought into the case study. The Brazil representative indicated that the country has other projects that may be a priority. All the countries were different and the perceptions within the countries were different. All were at least 50 percent certain that their countries had the resources. Only one participant did not know the importance of the case study to his job. All others believed that the case study was important to their jobs but were unsure what the level of their involvement in the project would be after the workshop. Personal commitment to the case study was high in most cases (more than 60 percent on the evaluation line). One participant did not know since he was involved in other projects and did not know how much time he could commit. Many felt able to develop and coordinate the national participation under the case study. All were more than 50 percent confident of this on the evaluation line. Before the start of the workshop, most of the participants were not comfortable with the facilitation process. This workshop was the first introduction for many of the participants to facilitation. The participants indicated that they were more comfortable with the process but most believed that they still did not have sufficient capacity to facilitate the process. They believed however, that they were given the tools to be able to identify facilitators. All felt able to contribute to the national technical knowledge about the case study (more than 50 percent on the evaluation line).

I feel that the participatory approach is essential in the EAF approach in this fishery I feel that the case study is important to my country

I feel that my country has bought in / is committed to the case study I feel that my country has resources that it can use to implement the national process I feel that the case study is important to my job

I feel that I have bought in / am committed to the case study I feel able to develop and coordinate national participation under the case study I feel able to facilitate national participatory processes under the case study

I feel able to contribute national technical knowledge to the case study

36

All the participants improved their facilitation skills. Most had never practiced facilitation nor have been intimately involved in participatory approaches. For some it reinforced the need for wide participation in developing a management plan for the shrimp and groundfish fishery. Practicing many of the facilitation skills and participatory approaches helped the participants to understand the new skills. All the participants believed that the objectives were clear and the content was relevant to the topic. The material used was also helpful. All believed that the field trip helped them to understand the techniques introduced during the week and the information was relevant to their needs. One of the Fisheries Officers from Trinidad and Tobago said that the techniques used were very effective in engaging the fisherfolk and she had never seen the fisherfolk giving and discussing ideas so openly and effectively before. The full evaluation is shown in Appendix 17.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Several points and recommendations emerged from the evaluation. 1. Gaps remained in the participants understanding of the CLME project and the case study of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. The CLME steering committee and the FAO need to communicate to the project countries and the national focal points. 2. Participants were uncertain of their role in the case study. Many of the participants were not sure that they were the national focal points for the CLME case study. It is also unclear if the right representatives were selected to attend the meeting. Each country needs to decide who the national focal points for the project are so that national processes can begin. 3. CLME may not be a priority in some of the project countries. Many of the participants were unaware of their countries involvement in the project. Two of the project countries also did not attend the workshop. The case study needs to be mainstreamed in the project countries so that stakeholders can understand the importance to the shrimp and groundfish fishery to their country and the region. 4. Participants were still uncertain about their ability to facilitate the national processes. The participants will need further training in facilitation to be able to facilitate the national processes. The participants are however able to identify the skills necessary to facilitate the processes and can identify and work with expert facilitators. 5. Developing a procedure for attending CLME meetings is critical to understanding the skill set needed for each meeting.

NEXT STEPS

Several next steps were identified. These are shown in the table below.

37

Table 15. Next steps in the case study on the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil Shelf

WHO CANARI

WHAT Report on the training workshop Design generic scheme for national communication strategy Report on the participation in the training workshop, underlining the importance of insuring continuity by having the fisheries focal points throughout the case study Provide comments/suggestions/updates on the stakeholders and institutional analyses

WHEN end August 2011 end August 2011 end July 2011

end August 2011 15 Sep 2011

Countries

Fill in the template on stakeholders involvement in governance at national/regional levels (see template and guidelines in Appendix 18) Start thinking of who would attend the next workshop on EAF (key persons/institutions that will make the national consultation process easier) Review the generic communication strategy and adapt it to the national context Contact missing countries (Venezuela, French Guiana) to get them on board Report to CLME project coordinator, CLME focal points, Permanent Secretaries, FAO Offices (national/subregional/regional) on the training workshop As far as possible, push to have the same persons involved in the case study (while reporting to the countries' Permanent Secretaries) Prepare the next workshop on EAF (date & venue, agenda, trainers, documents, logistics, etc.)

Mid August 2011

Mid September 2011 by end July 2011

end July 2011

end July 2011 As soon as possible To be determined As soon as possible

FAO-CRFMCERMES

Organise steering committee meeting: draft Terms of Reference Think of communication channels for the case study outputs (CLME website, links on other organizations websites) Explore possibilities for the design and translation of communication products Touch base with GEF Project REBYC II on by-catch reduction (Suriname, Venezuela, Guyana, Brazil) Preparation of template for issue-based stakeholder analysis (CERMES)

20 July 2011

38

Appendix 1. Agenda Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions Case Study on Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf Regional workshop for training of facilitators 11 15 July 2011 9:00 16:30
Kapok Hotel Port-of-Spain, Trinidad AGENDA Goal: To train facilitators from each of the participating countries on participatory planning, stakeholder analysis/identification Objectives: 10. To explain the value of participatory approaches in fisheries management 11. To demonstrate effective facilitation techniques 12. To identify key tools in facilitation of participatory natural resource management 13. To facilitate a process of stakeholder identification and analysis, including institutional mapping 14. To validate and refine the draft stakeholder analysis for the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil shelf 15. To develop recommendations for participatory governance of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country, including via an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Sub-Committee 16. To draft a simple communication strategy to communicate key messages to stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country 17. To introduce the governance arrangements for the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Caribbean

Monday 11 July AM Welcome and introductions Participant expectations and overview of agenda, goals and objectives for the meeting CLME EAF shrimp and groundfish case study Introduction to participatory approaches PM Introduction to tools in participatory natural resource management Introduction to facilitation

Tuesday 12 July AM Check in and review of Day 1 Introduction to stakeholder identification and analysis Validation of the desk study PM Introduction to institutional mapping and validation of the desk study Team preparation for facilitation on field trip

39

Wednesday 13 July Depart the hotel at 8:00 and leave the site at 14:30 Check in and review of Day 2 Introduction and overview of Claxton Bay fisheries Short walk around Claxton Bay Facilitation skills Recommendations for participatory governance of fisheries at Claxton Bay Debrief

Thursday 14 July AM Debrief of Day 3 Visioning for participatory governance of the shrimp and groundfish fishery at the country level Development of recommendations on how to achieve vision of participatory governance at the country level PM Introduction to developing a communication strategy, including: identification of key messages, identification of target audiences, identification of desired behaviours, selection of appropriate products and pathways Creation of a draft communication strategy

Friday 15 July AM Governance in shrimp and groundfish fisheries (programme details below) PM Next steps Evaluation Wrap-up and close

Time 9:00-10:00

10:00-10:15 10:15-11:15

11:15-11:45

11:45-12:00

Topic/activity Introduction to governance in the CLME Project A brief overview of how governance came to be prominent in the CLME Project and how it relates to other LME Projects The Regional Governance Framework component of CLME The conceptual basis for governance in the CLME Project, the development of the LME Governance Framework as a basis for the CLME Project design and the work to be carried out by the Regional Governance Framework component of the project The CLME governance assessment methodology Presentation of the methodology that has been developed for the CLME pilot projects and case studies: Level 1: governance architecture Level 2: governance performance Break The Level 1 assessment Governance architecture The Group will make a first pass at the steps in the Level 1 assessment and reflect upon how best to get this completed. The Level 2 assessment Governance performance The Group will discuss the information requirements of the Level 2 assessment and reflect upon how best to get this completed. Some initial perspectives will be solicited on key substantive and procedural principles to guide the assessment. Conclusions and the way ahead for the governance assessment

40

Background information
CERMES. 2011. One-pager on the Regional Governance Framework component of the CLME Project

Selected Readings
LME governance Mahon, R., L. Fanning and P. McConney. 2011a. CLME TDA update for fisheries ecosystems: governance issues. CLME Project, Consultant Report. 113 p. Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney and S. Almerigi. 2011. The Symposium on Marine EBM in the Wider Caribbean Region. pp 13-26. In: Fanning, L., R. Mahon and P. McConney. [Eds.]. 2011. Towards Marine Ecosystem-based Management in the Wider Caribbean. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Mahon, R., L. Fanning, and P. McConney. 2011. Principled Ocean Governance for the Wider Caribbean Region. pp 27-38. In: Fanning, L., R. Mahon and P. McConney. [Eds.]. 2011. Towards Marine Ecosystem-based Management in the Wider Caribbean. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam Mahon, R., L. Fanning, P. McConney and R. Pollnac. 2010. Governance characteristics of large marine ecosystems. Marine Policy 34: 919927. Fanning, L., R. Mahon and P. McConney. [Eds.]. 2011. Towards Marine Ecosystem-based Management in the Wider Caribbean. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 426 p Fanning, L., R. Mahon and P. McConney. 2009. Focusing on living marine resource governance: the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas Project. Coastal Management 37: 219 234. Mahon, R., L. Fanning and P. McConney. 2009. A governance perspective on the large marine ecosystem approach. Marine Policy 33: 317321. Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney, J. Angulo, F. Burrows, B. Chakalall, D. Gil, M. Haughton, S. Heileman, S. Martinez, L. Ostine, A. Oviedo, S. Parsons, T. Phillips, C. Santizo Arroya, B. Simmons, C. Toro. 2007. A large marine ecosystem governance framework. Marine Policy 31: 434443.

Governance assessment methodology

Mahon, R., L. Fanning and P. McConney. 2011. Governance assessment for Global Environmental Facility (GEF) International Waters Systems: governance arrangements and architecture. Earth Systems Governance Project Working Paper. Mahon, R., L. Fanning, and P. McConney. 2011. Observations on governance in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Waters (IW) Programme. CERMES Technical Report No. 45. 40 pp www.cavehill.uwi.ed\cermes . NBC LME Mahon, R., T. sgeirsson, K. Asraf, K. Blackman, P. Boudreau, M. Butler, J. Cavanagh, B. Chakalall, S. Connell, D.L. Gil-Agudelo, S. Heileman, N. Lucky, T. Phillips, L. Romahlo, W. Rudder, S. Smikle and A. YezArancibia. 2011. The Vision for EBM of Continental Shelf Ecosystems in the Wider Caribbean. pp. 347-354. In: Fanning, L., R. Mahon and P. McConney. [Eds.]. 2011. Towards Marine Ecosystem-based Management in the Wider Caribbean. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Phillips, T. 2011. Consultancy to deliver the CLME Project Causal Chain Analysis (CCA) revision, CCA gap analysis and the update of the Continental Shelf Ecosystem Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA). Prepared for The Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas (CLME) Project, Cartagena, Colombia, 64 pp. Phillips, T., B. Chakalall and L. Romahlo. 2011. Managemnet of the shrimp and groundfish fisheries of the north Brazil shelf: an ecosystem approach. pp 213-225. In: Fanning, L., R. Mahon and P. McConney. [Eds.]. 2011. Towards Marine Ecosystem-based Management in the Wider Caribbean. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Digital versions of the above are available from: rmahon@caribsurf.com

Appendix 2 . List of participants, resource persons and facilitators

Name Mr Srgio Macedo Gomes de Mattos

Organization Marine Artisanal Fishing Planning and Management Coordination Fisheries Department Ministry of Agriculture University of Guyana Fisheries Department

Address SBS, Qd 2, Bl J.Edf. Carlton Tower. 4 andar. 70070-120, Braslia-DF Regent and Vlissengen Roads Bourda, Georgetown Turkeyen Campus P.O. Box 101110, Georgetown Cornelis Jongbawstraat 50 POB 438 Paramaribo Cornelis Jongbawstraat 50 POB 438 Paramaribo Western Main Road, Chaguaramas

Country Brazil

Phone + 55 61 2023 3329

Fax

E-mail sergio.mattos@mpa.gov.br

Skype smgmattos

Mr Gary Baird

Guyana

+592 627 1297

garybairdis@yahoo.com

Mr Calvin Bernard

Guyana

+592 222 2329 (direct)

+592-222-3583

calvin.bernard@uog.edu.gy

calvin.r.bernard

41

Mr Henk Bhagwandin

Suriname

+597 8924682 (cell) +597 472233 (office) +597 476741 +597 8819951 (cell) +597 472233 (office) +597 476741 1 868 634 4504/05

+597 424441

henk_bhagwandin@yahoo.com visserijdienst@sr.net (director of fisheries) marioyspola@yahoo.com marioyspola@gmail.com visserijdienst@sr.net (director of fisheries) mfau@tstt.net.tt ferreiralara@hotmail.com marioyspol-a

Mr Mario Yspol

Fisheries Department

Suriname

+597 424441

Ms Lara Ferreira

Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs

Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago

+1 868 634 4488

Ms Shandira Ankiah

Western Main Road, Chaguaramas

1 868 634 4504/05

+1 868 634 4488

shandira@gmail.com

Name

Organization

Address

Country

Phone

Fax

E-mail

Skype

Resource persons and facilitators Prof Robin Mahon Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES) University of the West Indies FAO FAO Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences Cave Hill Campus St. Michael Barbados +1 246 417 4570 +1 246 424 4204 rmahon@caribsurf.com robinmahon

Ms Angela Alleyne Ms Tarub Bahri

Lot. 18, Brickdam, Stabroek Georgetown FIRF -F615 Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome

Guyana Italy

+1 592 227 3149 +1 5926381762 (cell) +39 06 5730 5233

angela.alleyne@fao.org tarub.bahri@fao.org

angelaa721 tarubb

42

Mr Terrence Phillips

CRFM (Caribbean CRFM Secretariat Regional Fisheries Third Floor, Coreas Mechanism) Building Halifax & Hillsboro Streets Kingstown CANARI (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute) CANARI (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute) Building 7, Units 4-11 Fernandes Industrial Centre Eastern Main Road, Laventille Building 7, Units 4-11 Fernandes Industrial Centre Eastern Main Road, Laventille

St Vincent and the Grenadin es

+1 784 457 3474

+1 784 457 3475

terrencephillips@vincysurf.com terrencephillips

Ms Nicole Leotaud

Trinidad and Tobago

+1 868 626 6062

+1868 626 1788

nicole@canari.org

nicole.leotaud

Ms Keisha Sandy

Trinidad and Tobago

+1 868 626 6062

+1868 626 1788

keisha@canari.org

keisha.sandy2

43

Appendix 3. Introductory and welcome presentations

Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions

Welcome

Case Study for the Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf Regional workshop for training of facilitators
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad Monday 11th to Friday 15th July, 2011

The CANARI team FAO representatives Participants

CANARI
Regional non-profit, nongovernmental organisation which has worked in the islands of the Caribbean for over 30 years.

CANARIs mission
To promote equitable participation and effective collaboration in managing the natural resources critical to development through:
research sharing and dissemination of lessons learned, including capacity building; and fostering partnerships.

Based in Trinidad Geographic focus: the islands of the Caribbean

Overview of the workshop

Thematic programmes
1. Coastal and marine governance and livelihoods

2. Forests and livelihoods

3. Climate change and disaster risk reduction 4. Civil society and governance

Goal: To train facilitators from each of the participating countries in participatory planning, stakeholder analysis/identification

44

Workshop objectives
By the end of the workshop, participants will be able to: Explain the value of participatory approaches in fisheries management Demonstrate effective facilitation techniques Identify key tools in facilitation of participatory natural resource management Facilitate a process of stakeholder identification and analysis, including institutional mapping

Workshop objectives
By the end of the workshop, participants will be able to: Validate and refine the draft stakeholder analysis for the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil shelf Develop recommendations for participatory governance of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country, including via an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Sub-Committee Draft a simple communication strategy to communicate key messages to stakeholders in the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country

Getting to know..

Getting to know..
Draw your impression of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in your country 5 minutes

present yourself and your drawing to the plenary in 2 minutes

Tell us your name Tell us what you do What you expect from the workshop Tell us about your drawing

Rules and roles

Ground rules

Roles and responsibilities

Chair Rappoteur Mood investigator

45

Appendix 4. Participants perceptions of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their countries

Plate 1. Gary (left) and Calvin (right) of Guyana present their images of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country

Plate 2. Sergio (left) from Brazil and Terrence (right), a resource participant from CRFM present their perceptions of the shrimp and groundfish fishery

46

Plate 3. Shandira (top) and Lara (bottom) of Trinidad and Tobago images of their impression of the shrimp and groundfish fishery

Plate 4. Henk (left) and Mario (right) of Suriname present their images of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in their country

47

Appendix 5. The CLME case study on shared stocks of the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil shelf

Case study area

Brazil France (F. Guiana) Guyana Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Venezuela

CASE STUDY FOR THE SHARED STOCKS OF THE SHRIMP AND GROUNDFISH FISHERY OF THE GUIANAS-BRAZIL SHELF
Facilitators training workshop
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad & Tobago 11-15 July 2011

General information
Implementing agency Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division Kevern Cochrane, Gabriella Bianchi, Tarub Bahri Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, CANARI Nicole Leotaud, Keisha Sandy Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, CERMES Robin Mahon, Patrick McConney Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, CRFM Terrence Phillips

Objectives and Approach

To fill knowledge gaps that will contribute to the final CLME Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) as a basis for preparation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP), with priority actions for the sustainability of the shrimp and groundfish fisheries Mainstreaming the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) in the management of shrimp and ground fish fisheries, through this case study. Both objectives will be addressed through assessments/studies at the national and regional levels. All of the above with participation of stakeholders and following some of the key steps of the planning process under an EAF framework
The TDA is a systematic analysis (objective assessment) of environmental issues that extend across national boundaries The SAP is a document that describes the shared vision for the transboundary environment and the agreed interventions that will be made to move towards achieving it

Collaborating organizations

Time frame and budget

16 months (completion date June 2012) USD 253,000 US $

EAF Definition
An Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking account of the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries.

Key features of the EAF implementation (2)

It is comprehensive
institutional

FAO guidelines (FAO, 2003)

ecological

human

it ensures that all key components of the fishery system are taken into consideration, while also taking into account external drivers

48

Key features of the EAF implementation (3)

It is based on the best available knowledge

Key features of the EAF implementation (4)

it promotes the adoption of an adaptive management system
A flexible management system that responds to signals from a monitoring process covering biological, social and economic aspects Adaptive management should lead to more resilient and adaptive socio-ecological systems

Knowledge requirements often perceived as a barrier to the application of EAF Improving scientific understanding of ecosystems, of human and institutional systems is fundamental for the application of EAF Precautionary principle: fisheries management is explicitly required to take decisions also in the lack of complete scientific knowledge

EAF planning and implementation framework

High level policy goals
Select a fishery or area 1. Scoping
Consultation with stakeholders

Roadmap (1)
Updated assessment of shrimp & groundfish stocks (incl. ecological, socio-economic and governance aspects, external drivers) Desk studies Preliminary stakeholder analysis in the 6 countries Insitutional analysis (current arrangements for inter-sectoral decision making) Communication strategy
Best available knowledge

2. Identify key issues

3. Prioritize key issues 4. Develop a management plan

1 year

5-10 years

Training on participatory approach Regional training workshop on facilitation Review of stakeholder and institutional analysis Review of national communication strategies

5. Implement & enforce Short-term assessments Long-term policy review

Source: FAO Guidelines

Roadmap (2)
Regional Meeting
Introduction of EAF methodology to representatives of fishery research, government, industry, NGOs.
Identification of key priority issues (national and regional) Consultation of stakeholders Validation of priority issues identified during the regional meeting.

Outputs & Partners

EXPECTED OUTPUTS
Integrated assessments of the shrimp and groundfish fisheries of the NBSLME at the national and regional levels (ecological,
socio-economic and governance aspects, as well as external drivers that impact these fisheries e.g. climate change and impacts from other sectors);

6 National Meetings

A proposed mechanism for collaboration at the regional level; Sub-regional declaration / plan of action completed for endorsement by policy makers from the participating Countries;

Identification of key actions

Presentation of results of national/regional activities for validation and to provide recommendations for inclusion in the SAP

KEY PARTNERS
National fisheries departments and related agencies Fishing industry representatives Other relevant regional institutions

Regional Workshop

Case study fisheries focal points

CLME Project

CLME Focal points

THANK YOU

Case study focal points (Fisheries Focal Points)

49

Appendix 6. Participatory approaches

Session objectives
By the end of this session, participants will be able to: Explain what is meant by participation in natural resource management Identify different types of participation Analyse the level of participation in decisionmaking in their organisation, and fisheries management in their country Explain the value of participatory approaches

Participatory approaches

What is participation?
A process is participatory when

What is participation?
facilitates dialogue among all actors; mobilises and validates popular knowledge and skills; encourages communities and their institutions to manage and control resources; seeks to achieve sustainability, economic equity and social justice; and maintains cultural integrity (Renard and Valds-Pizzini, 1994).

Spectrum of participation
Full control by agency with authority Control and decisionmaking shared among stakeholders Full control by natural resource users: all stakeholders fully involved

Spectrum of participation
Where are you as an individual lie on the spectrum of participation in fisheries management Where does your organisation lie on the spectrum of participation in fisheries management? Where does your country lie on the spectrum of participation in fisheries management?

Consulting

Actively seeking consensus

Developing and deciding on specific agreements

Sharing authority and responsibility formally

Transferring authority and responsibility

50

Types of participation
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Manipulative Passive Participation by consultation Participation for material incentives Functional Interactive Self-mobilisation

What are factors that determine type of participation?

Purpose of initiative Complexity Urgency Capacity
Philosophy of leaders of process Skills and knowledge Available time Available human and financial resources

Source: Bass et al (1995)

Challenges of participation
1. Costly in terms of time & resources for all (including stakeholders) 2. Raises stakeholder expectations & can lead to disillusionment if realistic expectations not defined 3. Where capacity lacking, can be counterproductive and result in backlash 4. Danger of consultation burnout

RESULTS IN IMPROVED MANAGEMENT

Values of participation
Incorporates a wide range of perspectives and ideas and sources of knowledge Improves the knowledge and skills of all stakeholders

Increases the likelihood of stakeholder support through involvement in decisionmaking

Can provide a forum for identifying conflicts between users and negotiating solutions Can contribute to stakeholder empowerment and local institutional development, especially when sharing of management responsibility in involved

51

Appendix 7. What is participation

52

53

54

55

Appendix 8. Tools for participation

Tools for participatory natural resource management

Natural resource management

MANAGING PEOPLE!

Stakeholder identification Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder mobilisation Participatory Tools in visioning facilitating Participatory planning PNRM Participatory implementation Participatory monitoring and evaluation

Conflict management Action research and learning Communication to stakeholders Participatory video Participatory GIS Web 2 tools Coaching Mentoring

56

Appendix 9. Introduction to facilitation

What is facilitation?
The act of making easy or easier. (Free Online Dictionary) The process of helping groups, or individuals, to learn, find a solution, or reach a consensus, without imposing or dictating an outcome. Facilitation works to empower individuals or groups to learn for themselves or find their own answers to problems without control or manipulation. (http://www.bnet.com/topics/facilitation) A facilitator is someone who helps a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to plan to achieve them without taking a particular position in the discussion. (Wikipedia)

Introduction to facilitation

The Facilitraining Rainbow

What are the key capacities needed by a good facilitator?

Skills Knowledge Values / feelings / attitudes Relationships Resources

Socratic direction = open ended questioning to get to a point Aha!

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/aS Guest8784-130603-facilitation-skills-producttraining-manuals-ppt-powerpoint/

Facilitation skills Learning Journal

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/aS Guest8784-130603-facilitation-skills-producttraining-manuals-ppt-powerpoint/

Listening: the 10 commandments

1. Stop talking 2. Put your people at ease 3. Show you want to listen 4. Remove distractions 5. Empathise 6. Have patience 7. Hold your temper 8. Dont argue or criticise 9. Ask questions 10.STOP TALKING

Questioning
Use OPEN questions to probe:
Who, why, what, when, how?

Use CLOSED questions (yes / no answers) to redirect or summarise:

Are you saying that...?

57

Handling conflict
Identify points of agreement Reformulate contributions to highlight common ideas Encourage people to build on others ideas Test for false consensus Test consensus for relevance / motivation

Analysing key points

What were the key points made?

Handling conflict
Identify points of agreement Reformulate contributions to highlight common ideas Encourage people to build on others ideas Test for false consensus Test consensus for relevance / motivation

Using feedback
What did you do well? What could you have done even better? What prevented you from doing better? What is the plan to do even better in the future?

Learning styles

Handling conflict
Identify points of agreement Reformulate contributions to highlight common ideas Encourage people to build on others ideas Test for false consensus Test consensus for relevance / motivation

Peer evaluation

Learning Journal

58

Appendix 10. Learning Styles

THEORIES RELEVANT TO ADULT LEARNING

1. KOLBS LEARNING STYLES MODEL AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY

Having tested the model for many years, David Kolb published 'Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development in 1984 Kolb's learning theory sets out four distinct learning styles (or preferences), which are based on a four-stage learning cycle (which might also be interpreted as a 'training cycle'). His model therefore offers both a way to understand individual people's different learning styles, and also an explanation of a cycle of experiential learning that applies to us all. Kolb includes this 'cycle of learning' as a central principle in his experiential learning theory, typically expressed as a four-stage cycle of learning, in which 'immediate or concrete experiences' provide a basis for 'observations and reflections'. These 'observations and reflections' are assimilated and distilled into 'abstract concepts', producing new implications for action which can be 'actively tested' in turn creating new experiences. Kolb's model therefore works on two levels - a four-stage cycle: 1. Concrete Experience - (CE) 2. Reflective Observation - (RO) 3. Abstract Conceptualization - (AC) 4. Active Experimentation - (AE) and a four-type definition of learning styles, (each representing the combination of two preferred styles, rather like a two-by-two matrix of the four-stage cycle styles, as illustrated below), for which Kolb used the terms: 1. Diverging (CE/RO) 2. Assimilating (AC/RO) 3. Converging (AC/AE) 4. Accommodating (CE/AE)

59

60

2. HERMANN BRAIN DOMINANCE THEORY

Adapted from Houghton Mifflin College Thinking Styles and Learning Styles accessed from http://college.hmco.com/instructors/ins_teachtech_foundations_module_thinkstyles_printerfr iendly. html Ned Herrmann used research on right brain/ left brain differences to develop a model that shows that each person has four parts (quadrants) of the brain when it comes to the process of thinking and learning. Depending on which quadrants we engage, our learning processes can be very different. Brain dominance leads to thinking style preferences, which impact what we pay attention to and how and what we learn best. Each of these four "brains" or quadrants is listed below with words that typically characterise a person who uses that thinking style. The four thinking styles are: A: The Rational Self (Upper or Cerebral Left Brain) B: The Safekeeping Self (Lower or Limbic Left Brain) C: The Feeling Self (Lower or Limbic Right Brain) D: The Experimental Self (Upper or Cerebral Right Brain) A Rational Self knows how things work knows about money likes numbers is realistic is critical is logical quantifies analyzes B Safekeeping Self plans timely is neat organizes is reliable gets things done establishes procedures takes preventative action D Experimental Self infers imagines is curious/plays likes surprises breaks rules speculates is impetuous takes risks C Feeling Self feels talks a lot is emotional is expressive is supportive touches a lot likes to teach is sensitive to others

You may see yourself in more than one quadrant. The research indicates that people may use more than one style primarily. In fact, most people have at least two primary quadrants. Each person can have primary preferences (areas of the brain he/she goes too easily and enjoys), secondary preferences (areas of the brain that can be and are accessed when necessary) and tertiary preferences (areas a person may have difficulty accessing or may even avoid). You also don't need to identify with everything in the quadrant to have some

61

strength there. People have varying degrees of dominance in the quadrants. Each quadrant has preferred learning activities: A quadrant thinkers prefer quantifying, analyzing, theorizing and processing logically. B quadrant thinkers prefer organizing, sequencing, evaluating and practicing. C quadrant thinkers prefer sharing, internalizing, moving and being involved. D quadrant thinkers prefer exploring, discovering, conceptualizing and synthesizing. This model allows trainers and learners to consider the full potential of the brain and their abilities and to take an honest look at where their preferences and avoidances are. The model also asserts that preferences are wonderful and knowing our preferences can give us powerful information about who we are and what type of work we might enjoy. But having a particular preferred thinking or learning style does not excuse us from interacting with a world of varying styles. We need to understand how to communicate and learn from and teach others with different styles. There is an instrument available called the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument or HBDI that provides a full profile of an individual. However the following exercise can at least give you some indications. To begin to determine your own preferred thinking and teaching/facilitating styles, complete the exercise below by circling the 8 work elements that you enjoy the most. Which quadrants best represent your preferences as a teacher/facilitator? Now, underline up to 4 work elements that you enjoy the least. Which quadrants are you least likely to explore in your teaching/facilitating? Thinking Styles Assessment for Trainers

62

3. HOWARD GARDNERS MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Adapted from Armstrong: Multiple Intelligences at http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/ multiple_intelligences.htm and http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol36/no2/p2.htm The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are: Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"): the ability to use words effectively both orally and in writing. sensitivity to the sounds, meanings and rhythms of words. Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart"): the ability to use numbers effectively and reason well. This includes the ability to think conceptually and abstractly, and capacity to discern logical or numerical patterns Spatial/visual intelligence ("picture smart"): the ability to sense form, space, color, line, and shape; to think in images and pictures, to visualize accurately and abstractly; to graphically represent visual or spatial ideas (charts, maps etc.). Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart"): ability to control one's body movements and to handle objects skillfully. This includes such physical skills as coordination, flexibility, speed, and balance. Also the ability to use the body to express ideas and feelings and to solve problems. Musical intelligence ("music smart"): the ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch, and melody. This includes such skills as the ability to recognize simple songs and to vary speed, tempo, and rhythm in simple melodies. Intrapersonal intelligence (self smart): the ability to to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes. This includes such skills as understanding how you are similar to or different from others, knowing your learning styles, and knowing how to handle your feelings, such as what to do and how to behave when you are angry or sad. Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart"): the ability to understand and respond appropriately to another person's moods, feelings, motivations, and desires. Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart"): ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature. Schools and universities have traditionally focused mostly on linguistic and logicalmathematical intelligence. The highly articulate or logical people tend to be those held in highest esteem by teachers. Dr. Gardner advocated that equal attention should be given to individuals who show gifts in the other intelligences: the artists, architects, musicians, naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs, and others who enrich the world in which we live. Unfortunately, many children who have these gifts dont receive much reinforcement for them in school and this is one of the reasons why many people dont enjoy school and become resistant to the idea of formal learning. The theory of multiple intelligences proposes a major transformation in the way schools are run and adult training is conducted. It suggests that teachers and trainers be trained to present their lessons in a wide variety of

63

ways using music, cooperative learning, art activities, role play, multimedia, field trips, inner reflection, and much more The theory of multiple intelligences also has strong implications for adult learning and development. Many adults find themselves in jobs that do not make optimal use of their most highly developed intelligences (for example, the highly bodily-kinesthetic individual who is stuck in a linguistic or logical desk-job when he or she would be much happier in a job where they could move around, such as a a forest ranger). The theory of multiple intelligences gives adults a whole new way to look at their lives, examining potentials that they left behind in their childhood (such as a love for art or drama) but now have the opportunity to develop through courses, hobbies, or other programmes of self-development The theory of multiple intelligences provides the trainer/facilitator with eight different potential pathways to learning: words (linguistic intelligence) numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence) pictures (spatial intelligence) music (musical intelligence) self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence) a physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence) a social experience (interpersonal intelligence), and/or an experience in the natural world (naturalist intelligence)

4. -BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

Adapted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality questionnaire designed to identify certain psychological differences according to the typological theories of Carl Gustav Jung. Fundamental to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the concept of Psychological Type. In a similar way to left- or right- handedness, the principle is that individuals also find certain ways of thinking and acting easier than others. The MBTI endeavours to sort some of these psychological opposites into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting sixteen possible combinations. None of these combinations is 'better' or 'worse' than each other; however, Briggs and Myers recognised that everyone has an overall combination which is most comfortable for them: in the same way as writing with the left hand is hard work for a right-hander, so people tend to find using their opposite psychological preference more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviourally flexible) with practice and development. Four pairs or dichotomies were identified: Extraversion iNtuition Feeling Judging Introversion Sensing Thinking Perceiving

64

The preferences are normally notated with the initial letters of each of their four preferences, for example: ISTJ - Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging ENFP - Extraverted, iNtuition, Feeling, Perceiving And so on for all sixteen possible combinations. The terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to MBTI, which differ from their everyday usage. For example, people with a preference for Judging over Perceiving are not necessarily more 'judgemental', or less 'perceptive'. In the normal sense MBTI does not measure aptitude either: it simply identifies one preference over another. So someone reporting a high score for E over I on the MBTI cannot be correctly described as 'more' or 'strongly' Extraverted: they simply have a clear preference. Functions (S-N and T-F) The Sensing-Intuition and Thinking-Feeling dichotomies are often referred to as the MBTI Functions. They relate to how we prefer to take in information (perceiving); and how we prefer to make decisions (judging). Individuals will tend to trust one preference over the other, although they may have some ability to do both. Indeed, the flexibility to sense check information and decisions using one's less preferred preference can be of value in many situations, for example in groups that have preferences in common amongst a number of members (and therefore a potential blind spot i.e. a tendency to avoid the opposite). Individuals with a preference for Sensing prefer to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: information can be comprehended by the five senses. They may prefer to look for detail and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. Those with a preference for Intuition will trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (remembered or they may look for a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory. Jung described Sensing and Intuition as irrational functions (as a technical term, not as a pejorative), as a person does not necessarily have control over receiving data, only how to process it once they have it. This is not to say that they ignore the opposite function, but a matter of what they prefer to concentrate on. Thinking and Feeling are the decision making (judging) calculus functions. They both strive to make rational choices, based on the data received from their perceiving functions (S or N). As people use their preferred function more, they tend to be much more practiced and comfortable with its use. This can be compared to an athlete: a person cannot have an innate ability to play a particular sport. A person who enjoys that sport, and practices constantly to improve in that sport, will most likely become good at that sport. Similarly, a person who has a clear preference for thinking or feeling will tend to become better at that particular function, simply because they practice it more. Those with a preference for Feeling will prefer to come to decisions by associating or empathising with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation up so to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit with their personal set of

65

values. Those with a preference for Thinking will prefer to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what is reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. In coming to a decision, individuals will tend to come to their preferred function first and trust it better. As noted already, people with a Thinking preference do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, 'think better' than their Feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions and in any case the MBTI is a measure of preference, not ability. Similarly, those with a Feeling preference are not necessarily 'more feeling' or emotional than their Thinking peers. Attitudes (E and I) The preferences for Introversion and Extraversion are sometimes referred to as attitudes. Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the functions can show in the external world of behavior, action, people and things (extraverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator sorts for an overall preference for one or the other of these. People with a preference for Extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their level of energy and motivation tends to decline. Conversely, those whose preference is Introversion become less energized as they act: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. People with Introversion preference need time out to reflect to rebuild energy. The terms Extravert and Introvert are used in a special sense when discussing Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Note that "Extravert" is even spelled differently than is usually seen. Someone with a clear E preference is not necessarily a party animal or a show-off, any more than someone clearly preferring I is necessarily shy, retiring and unsociable. An INTP meeting another INTP is an excellent example of this; the conversation will frequently begin with a recognition of a shared interest, such as science fiction, and continue with a rapid exchange of data and theories incomprehensible to an outsider to the conversation, the two only breaking off when interrupted by a third party or thirst. Lifestyle (J-P) In addition to the two Function pairs and Attitudes, Myers and Briggs identified that individuals had an overall preference to favour either their Judging function (T or F) or their Perceiving function (S or N), which is revealed in how they like to go about getting things done in the outside (extraverted) world. People with a preference for Judging prefer matters to be decided; to start tasks in good time, well ahead of a deadline; to have clear plans that they prefer not to be distracted from; and they can sometimes seem inflexible in this regard. Those whose preference is Perceiving are happier to leave matters open, for further input; they may want to leave finishing a task until close to the deadline, and be energised by a late rush of information and ideas; and they are readier to change plans if new information comes along. They may sometimes seem too flexible for their Judging peers.

66

Appendix 11. Stakeholder identification and analysis

Stakeholder identification and analysis

Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders are people who have rights to, responsibilities for and interests in a resource

Stakeholder analysis
What are the current and future interests of stakeholders in the use and management of the resources? What do they need and want? What benefits do they currently or potentially derive? What are the past and current power, rights and responsibilities, both formal and informal? What are the relationships between stakeholders? Are there formal structures or informal networks and mechanisms?

Stakeholder analysis
What impacts are stakeholders having on the resource, both positive and negative? What are the areas of existing or potential conflict? What are the areas of consensus and shared interest upon which consensus and collaboration can be negotiated? Are stakeholders willing to participate in planning or management? What capacities do they have to contribute? What capacities do they need to be able to effectively contribute?

Who is a key stakeholder

What is their purpose/ focus/ interest/ mission? What is their level of power/ authority/ influence? What is the size of their stake? What is the scope of their involvement What capacity does the stakeholder have to be involved? What capacity will you give/ contribute?

Explain to the participants that a key stakeholder is someone: What is their purpose/focus/interest/mission: How closely does the primary focus of the stakeholders relate to management of the natural resource? What is their level of power/authority/influence: What political, social and economic power do the stakeholders have? What legal mandate do they have? What is the size of their stake: What is the level of responsibility of and benefits to be gained by the stakeholders? How much land does the stakeholders own/manage/use? What is the scope of their involvement: What is their level of benefit, impact, responsibility? What is their level of dependency on the resource for their livelihood? What is the level of their vulnerability to a change in management of the resource? What capacity does the stakeholder have to be involved? Do the stakeholders have capacities that can be contributed to management of the natural resource?

67

Appendix 12. Capacities needed for participation

68

69

70

Appendix 13. Claxton Bay field trip report

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

81

82

82

Appendix 14. Participation strategy

Participation Strategy for developing the regional management plan for the shrimp and groundfish fishery

What type of participation is desired?

1. 2. 3. 4. What is the context? What is the willingness? What type is possible? What are the costs and benefits?

What is the context?

Is there existing or potential conflict? Is there strong interest by stakeholders? Do many different stakeholders have management rights and responsibilities? Are there existing or potential users of the resource? Will people be negatively impacted by the change in management of the resource? What are the relationships and power struggles? Is there a risk that by not involving stakeholders the management efforts will be derailed?

What is the willingness?

Is there willingness to accept the inputs of stakeholders in the decision-making? Is there willingness to accept the involvement of stakeholders in management

What type of participation is possible?

Are there sufficient resources to support the desired type of participation? Is there sufficient time to facilitate it? Do the stakeholders have the capacities required to equitably and effectively participate? Can an appropriate facilitator be found? Can the mechanisms to facilitate equitable involvement of stakeholders be created?

What are the costs and benefits?

What are the benefits that we are seeking to achieve through using a participatory approach? What are the costs of this approach? Are the benefits greater than the costs? What are the costs of not using this approach? Are other approaches feasible? Would they yield greater benefits in relation to costs?

83

Appendix 15. Communication plan

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

Appendix 16a. CLME Living Marine Resource Governance in the Wider Caribbean
LIVING MARINE RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN THE WIDER CARIBBEAN Large Marine Ecosystems of the world

Caribbean Sea

Hawaii

Gulf of Mexico
SE US Continental shelf

Benguela Current
Caribbean North Brazil shelf

Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions

Case Study for the Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf
July 11-15, 2011, Kapok Hotel, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

The LME Approach

Typical LME project based on five modules

The most pressing rationale for a focus on governance at the regional scale lies in the many transboundary oceanographic and ecological linkages within the Wider Caribbean. With many marine resources being shared, it can be expected that there will be emphasis on transboundary or shared living marine resources which require cooperation for governance. This must include both exploited and non-exploited resources and their critical habitats. Another reason is that a regional approach will facilitate the use of limited capacity within the region.
3

The CLME Project Context

The Wider Caribbean Region is geographically and politically highly diverse and complex
Geopolitical
26 countries
Hypothetical EEZs

Where are the clusters

45 state entities

Cultural
ethnicity, language

Size
smallest to largest

Development
poorest to most wealthy
Cluster key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5

Geopolitical components of LME complexity

Caribbean Sea

Geopolitical components of LME complexity

Caribbean Sea

Number of countries

20 15 10 5 0
In d H on um es bo i an ld S So Su Y t Cu ea m l u- el lo rr al C w en i C el S t e Be oas be ea n g ta s S ue l C e a G la urre u C n Ea lf of urre t N s t Me nt o C C rth hi xi co el B na tic ra S -B z i e isc l S a a he Ag B y S l f u l l ac hel ha k f C s S an C e a u a Ba ry C rren y u t of rre B nt So e u t Re nga h d l C S hi e n Ba a S a l ti e N cS a Ar orth ea G ab S ui i a ea n n M ea Se ed C a C i te urre ar rr n ib a n t be e an an Se a

Number of countries

25

Number of boundaries

30

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

Maritime boundaries

10

15

20

25

Number of countries
7

100

Geopolitical components of LME complexity

Context for Caribbean ocean governance

Large pelagics

Caribbean Sea
Number of Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Sea No rt h c Se a

Reef fishes

Chin a Se a Re d Sea Ca n ary C urren t Black Sea Ce lti c -Bis ca y Sh elf East Chin a Se a Gulf of M ex ic o Beng u ela Curr Som ent ali C oas ta l C urr e nt Sulu -C ele be s Se a Yello w Se a Hu m b old t Cu rr ent Indo n esi an S ea Bay of Be ngal Agulh as C urren t Med iterr a nea n Guin ea C urren t Arab ia n S ea No rt h Bra zil S h elf Ca ri bbe a n Se a

Flyingfish

Shrimps

Balti

Ocean governance issues are multi-scale level and transboundary

Context for Caribbean ocean governance

Nine overlapping and nested fisheries related organisations
ICCAT
Angola Benin Cape Verde Canada Gabon Ghana France Ivory Coast Korea Morocco Spain Portugal Senegal South Africa Sao Tome & Principe Uruguay USSR

South

Issues of large scale and complexity in the Wider Caribbean

Lots of technical work has been done Has little impact on governance

WECAFC ACS

USA Brazil Japan *French Guiana*** Venezuela *Puerto Rico** *Martinique*** *Guadeloupe*** *Netherlands Antilles *USVI**

Cuba

*Aruba

WECAFC LAC

CARIFORUM
Dominican Republic

OLDEPESCA

Colombia

Haiti Guyana Jamaica Belize

CARICOM
Bahamas Suriname

Bolivia El Salvador Ecuador

OSPESCA
Costa Rica
Guatemala Honduras

Barbados Belize Trinidad & Tobago *Turks & Caicos I. *Cayman I. St. Vincent & Grenadines *Anguilla**** *British Virgin I.**** *Montserrat****

Many local efforts at management

Uncoordinated and disconnected at regional level Duplication of effort

OECS
St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda Dominica St. Lucia Grenada

Peru

Mexico
Nicaragua

Panama

* Associate States of ACS **in ICCAT as USA *** in ICCAT as French Departments

**** in ICCAT as UK

There are 30+ organisations with relevance to living marine resources

10

Whats different about Caribbean fisheries?

Diversity of primarily small to medium-scale fisheries.

Whats different about Caribbean fisheries?

No large commercial revenue earning fishery to fund RFMO as in: West Central Pacific Commission (tunas) So .roughy) What is the SE Atlantic (SEAFO)(orange NW atlantic (NAFO) (groundfish) way forward in the

Wider Caribbean? What about tourism $$? Only just waking up

We propose that a networking approach that makes the best use of existing organisations?

Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean (SEAFO Convention)

101

A networking approach that makes the best use of existing organisations?

We believe this can be approached through a governance framework using the conventional policy cycle -- Like this one.
ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DATA AND INFORMATION DECISION MAKING

The LME governance framework

Building a multi-level policy-cycle based governance framework
Global
DATA AND INFORMATION

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE

DECISION MAKING

REVIEW AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION

Complete Linked vertically

Regional

Linked laterally

REVIEW AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION

National

Diversity

Local

Building the CLME Governance Framework Learning by doing

The CLME Project - Approach

LME governance framework can accommodate Diversity of policy cycle arrangements and linkages
Hierarchical

Long-term goal
Fully-functional policy cycles at all appropriate levels with the appropriate vertical and lateral linkages.

Framework building interventions

Interventions can be:
Specifically targeted at:
1. Establishing or completing policy cycles 2. Building or enhancing linkages

Collaborative

Diversity of EBM approaches that currently exist

Existing organizations - but will require that they review and adjust their modes of operation

Approached incrementally by targeting deficient areas

To examine the appropriateness of the concept, we developed 4 propositions that we saw as underlying the construction of the framework and as such, to be examined within the context of the Caribbean:

The CLME Project Structure:

Building a multi-level policy-cycle based governance framework
Transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) Assesses issues to be addressed in activities Strategic Action Programme (SAP) Develops agreed plan to address key transboundary issues in next phase

LME Governance Framework Fisheries sub-framework

Global marine policy cycle

Global

UNGA CSD COFI?

LME Level Monitoring and Reporting Develops indicators to monitor LME status

Strengthening Regional Governance Engages regional and sub-regional organisations to put LMR governance on their agendas for policy decision-making.

Promoting the Caribbean Sea Initiative Works with ACS and its Caribbean Sea Commission and other regional organisations to implement the UN Resolution on the Caribbean as a special area.

Caribbean Sea regional policy cycle

ACS CSI/CSC

Large Pelagics Project Increases involvement in ICCAT for oceanic species and pursues regional governance arrangements for species contained in the Wider Caribbean area.
Global

Regional
Regional/subregional fisheries policy cycle Flyingfish cycle Pelagics cycle

WECAFC? CARICOM/CRFM? SICA/OSPESCA? OECS/ESDU? OECS? WECAFC FFWG? CRFM? OSPESCA? WECAFC WG?

Guianas-Brazil Shrimp and Groundfish Establishes and operates subregional cycle for cooperation in management of the shared stocks.

Eastern Caribbean Flyingfish Establishes and operates subregional cycle for cooperation in management

Lobster cycle

Regional

National
Spiny Lobster Enhances local level capacity and linkages among western Caribbean fishery stakeholders and upward linkages to national and regional levels
National

Reef Fisheries and Biodiversity Enhances local level linkages among fishery and non-fishery stakeholders and upward linkages to national and regional levels

Local

Local

102

CLME and CSI Governance framework

Note that: Functional policy cycles at all levels are important because different types of decisions take place at each level
DATA AND INFORMATION DECISION MAKING ANALYSIS AND ADVICE

REVIEW AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENT -ATION

Example of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Regional policy level proportion of national area in various categories to be conserved in MPAs Regional technical level linkages among national MPA systems to achieve optimal result

National level which areas will be MPAs and who will manage them
Local Level Tactical approaches to MPA management

The most pressing rationale for a focus on governance at the regional scale lies in the many transboundary oceanographic and ecological linkages within the Wider Caribbean. With many marine resources being shared, it can be expected that there will be emphasis on transboundary or shared living marine resources which require cooperation for governance. This must include both exploited and non-exploited resources and their critical habitats. Another reason is that a regional approach will facilitate the use of limited capacity within the region.

In May 2011.

ACS-CLME Partnership
ACS policy cycle for living marine resources
A wide variety of technical entities with expertise in relevant areas

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DATA AND INFORM -ATION

ACS Caribbean Sea Commission reviews advice provided in response to specific requests to appropriate agencies

DECISION MAKING

We recommend a dual track approach: a) Emergency solutions now, that begin to stop and reverse negative environmental trends and redress inequalities in the inadequate institutional frameworks within which we operate, and b) Long term structural solutions that gradually change values, institutions and policy frameworks. We need to support our ability to innovate, adapt, and learn.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENT -ATION
Caribbean Sea Commission and technical agencies

ACS Council

Primarily national and local agencies

The way ahead

No nice neat off-the-shelf solution exists for CLME We can learn from other regions but
DATA AND INFORMATION

Caribbean fisheries framework flyingfish subnetwork

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE

DECISION MAKING

ZONE 3 Evaluation of flyingfish within broader policy and principles context Is approach consistent with policy and agreed principles? Is it meeting regional sustainability objectives? If not what is needed?

Given the nature of our region a networked approach that makes best use of and improves upon existing arrangements appears to be the most feasible one
We believe it can work if we are prepared to --

REVIEW AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENT -ATION

ZONE 2 Evaluation of flyingfish models and approaches Is it equitable? Does it reduce variability and risk of collapse? Is it efficient, etc. at (a) purple stage, (b) orange stage? If not what is needed?

Regional marine policy cycle Flyingfish policy cycle

ZONE 1 Evaluation of implementation action quality Did it achieve the 500 fishing equivalents? Are they distributed among countries as planned? If not what is needed?
DATA AND INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DECISION MAKING

make a long-term commitment

to develop the network incrementally and to learn and adapt as we go

REVIEW AND EVALUATION

IMPLEMENT -ATION

Flyingfish management approach Objective is to: Reduce interannual variability in landings, and Reduce risk of short-term collapse, by Setting a status quo effort level at 500 fishing equivalents Distributed equitably among fishing countries

National and local policy cycles

103

Appendix 16b. Governance Assessment for CLME Case Studies and Piklot Projects

Governance assessment for CLME case studies and pilot projects

Introduction and background on the GEF IW

1. GEF originated at UNCED Rio 2. IW programme covers transboundary waters in five categories i. Aquifers - 300 ii. Lakes - 10,000-50,000 iii. Rivers - 263 iv. LMEs 64 v. Open Oceans - 5

Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions

Case Study for the Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf
July 11-15, 2011, Kapok Hotel, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

Introduction and background on the GEF IW

1. IW Projects

Basis for Observations on Governance in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Waters (IW) Programme
Governance has received much less attention than the natural science aspects of LME Projects - far behind in terms of its development and application. Also the case in the GEF TDA/CCA/SAP methodology. Dominance of natural scientists in the LME program likely cause of low effort on understanding governance. Imbalance in emphasis on ecosystem conservation/resource rehabilitation vs social and economic issues related to governance. Gap between the GEF LME program and the recent emphasis on human well-being that can be found in the MDGs and WSSD targets. Requires that the GEF evaluation process encompass a much wider range of criteria than currently appears to be in use for LMEs.

2. IW Learn
3. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis 4. Transboundary Waters Assessment Project (TWAP)

No small set of universal indicators for governance context specific

Requires conceptual framework or model

Governance trends
Conventional top-down, command and control, e.g. RFMOs People-centered alternatives
Broader range of stakeholders and interactions

A quick primer on governance

Emphasis on shared principles/visions Perception of Social Ecological Systems (SESs)

Recognition of complexity and interactions

Externalities and unpredictability Resilience through adaptive governance arrangements

(capacity to detect/ respond to change)

Social capital/social networks - relationship to governance

Enabling of self-organisation - capacity building for SESs

with low capacity and low resources.

Large Marine Ecosystems

Governance is the whole of public as well as private interactions taken to solve societal problems and create societal opportunities. It includes the formulation and application of principles guiding those interactions and care for institutions that enable them.
Bavinck et al 2005

Governance - IGA
Three interrelated orders of human activity:
Problem solving or day-to-day management is the order most proximate to the system to be governed The institutional framework for problem solving Overarching meta-governance, which is about the principles and values that underlie the institutional frameworks.

104

Components of a governance system Consider briefly how conventional perspectives on fishery management might map onto these orders. For some, the term management encompasses all three orders, for others it is mainly the day-to-day activities. For some, policy is a very practical term that should translate with little variability into implementation, whereas for others, policy has a strong component of principles and concepts. Effective governance requires attention to the part that each of the three orders day-to-day management, institutional governance and meta-governance plays in the whole. Upward and downward linkages between the orders are essential to integrate them into a governance system. Meta-level principles and concepts that are not supported by institutional arrangements and problemsolving processes are only an intellectual exercise. Unless informed by real institutional issues and practical problems, the meta-level may be irrelevant to the lower levels. It has already been made clear that a problem-solving level that is uncoupled from principles and institutions is largely reactive and may even on different occasions react differently to the same problem. Effective governance requires attention to the part that each of the three orders day-to-day management, institutional governance and meta-governance plays in the whole. Upward and downward linkages between the orders are essential to integrate them into a governance system. Metalevel principles and concepts that are not supported by institutional arrangements and problem-solving processes are only an intellectual exercise. Unless informed by real institutional issues and practical problems, the meta-level may be irrelevant to the lower levels. It has already been made clear that a problem-solving level that is uncoupled from principles and institutions is largely reactive and may even on different occasions react differently to the same problem.

Background to, basis for, the proposed methodology

Governance assessment and action

The basis for governance action is actual or potential issues.
In IW systems, these are transboundary issues Ideally these would have been identified in the TDA Each issue must have a governance arrangement The arrangement must be specific to the issue Similar issues may be covered by similar arrangements There may be efficiency in clustering these arrangements (example of cod stocks clustered, then demersal stocks clustered then all fisheries clustered) Must be linkages among arrangements within clusters Governance arrangements for individual issues especially transboundary ones likely to have components at multiple geographical and institutional scale levels

Governance assessment characteristics

Each arrangement must have certain common characteristics to be effective

Governance assessment and action

Within a single LME, the arrangements needed may differ among issues - must be tailored to the specific context or need. Tendency to ignore governance architectural details and lump all issues and arrangements together may have contributed to the low impact of LME projects on governance reform. The LME Governance Framework provides a means (model) to address the diversity of arrangements that must be clustered and linked to provide effective governance across issues. Provides a means to dissect out the parts of the framework that need attention, or identify those that are missing so they can be given a priority level and address separately. Architecture is important for large-scale governance arenas the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, especially as we try to achieve EBM.

It must have a complete policy cycle mechanisms for uptake of data and information, generation of advice, decision-making, implementation and review - adaptiveness. Each arrangement must have functionality in three modes
(1) The meta-mode (articulation of principles, visions and goals) (2) institutional mode (agreed ways of doing things reflected in plans and organisations) and (3) operational mode if it is to be adaptive and effective.

These modes may operate at different scale levels within the same arrangement hence the need for linkages within arrangements.

105

The LME Governance Framework

A multi-level policy-cycle based governance framework
Global

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE

DATA AND INFORMATION DECISION MAKING

The assessment methodology

Two- Level process:

REVIEW AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION

Must be: Complete Linked vertically

Level 1 will assess governance arrangements and architecture Level 2 will assess the performance of the arrangements

Regional

Linked laterally

National

Diversity of cycles

Local

Level 1 assessment - architecture of governance arrangements

ID system

Issue 1 ID key issues Issue 2 Issue n

Assess arrangement in place for each issue

Arrangement 1 Arrangement 2 Arrangementn

Score 1 Score 2 Scoren

Average score for system

Assess existing clustering or linkages among arrangements

Average score for system

Level 2 assessment - performance of governance arrangements

Arrangement 1 Identify substantial and Arrangement 2 procedural principles Arrangementn for arrangements for each issue to Assess extent Arrangement 1 which substantial and Arrangement 2 procedural principles Arrangementn are reflected in arrangements for each issue Propose desirable clustering or linkages among arrangements and compare to existing linkages

Propose measures to ensure that substantial and procedural principles are applied in each arrangement

Propose measures to establish missing interactions and strengthen weak ones

The level one assessment steps

The level one assessment methodology

Level 1 assessment: System summary

CLME transboundary system governance architecture - System summary IW category: Total number of countries: System name:

Pilot system North Brazil Shelf LME

Region:

Complete these columns then assess issues using the After completing the arrangements tables, complete arrangements tables these columns Trans- Number of Descriptive or Collective Incompleteness of Priority for Observations boundary countries commonly importance governance intervention to issue involved used name for for countries arrangement improve the involved governance (score/category) arrangement 1 2 n System architecture completeness index << System >> priority for intervention index

GoM LME

Caribbean Sea LME

North Brazil Shelf LME

106

Level 1 assessment: System summary

CLME transboundary system governance architecture - System summary IW category: Total number of countries: System name: Region:

Level 1 assessment: Issue/Arrangement summary

Arrangement: Guianas-Brazil shrimp Issue: Trawl fisheries for shrimp and groundfish and groundfish arrangement Policy cycle stage Responsible Scale level or CompleteObservations (governance function) organisation levels ness or body Meta level - preparation of policy advice META LEVEL META LEVEL Meta level - Policy setting POLICY DECISION ADVICE MAKING or decision-making Policy cycle - preparation of management advice Policy cycle Management decisionmaking Policy cycle Implementation Policy cycle Review of implementation at strategic and operational levels Policy cycle - Provision of data and information Total
ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DATA AND INFORM -ATION

Complete these columns then assess issues using the arrangements tables

After completing the arrangements tables, complete these columns

Transboundary issue
Trawl fisheries for shrimp and groundfish Coastal habitat destruction (wetlands/mangr oves) Land-based pollution (mainly from large rivers)

Number of countries involved

6 6

Descriptive or commonly used name for the arrangement

Guianas-Brazil shrimp and groundfish arrangement Guianas-Brazil coastal habitat conservation arrangement Guianas-Brazil LBS arrangement

Collective importance for countries involved

3 2

Incompleteness of governance arrangement (score/category)

Priority for intervention to improve governance

Observations

DECISION MAKING

System architecture completeness index >>

<< System priority for intervention index

REVIEW AND EVALUATION

IMPLEMENT -ATION

The level 1 assessment: Arrangement summary

Arrangement: Guianas-Brazil shrimp and groundfish arrangement Policy cycle stage Responsible (governance function) organisation or body Meta level FAO WECAFC Ad Hoc preparation of policy WG on Guianas-Brazil advice Shrimp and Groundfish Meta level - Policy None setting or decisionmaking Policy cycle WECAFC Ad Hoc WG preparation of on Guianas-Brazil management advice Shrimp and Groundfish Policy cycle None Management decisionmaking Policy cycle Countries Implementation Policy cycle Review WECAFC Ad Hoc WG of implementation at on Guianas-Brazil strategic and Shrimp and operational levels Groundfish Policy cycle - Provision Countries of data and information Total Issue: Trawl fisheries for shrimp and groundfish

Completeness
Rated on a scale 0 1 = = absent low (ad hoc, irregular, unsupported by formal documentation and/or little known by stakeholders) medium high (clearly identifiable, regular, documented or supported by policy and legislation and/or widely known among stakeholders)

Scale level or levels Subregional

Completeness 1

Observations

Subregional/ system

This WECAFC Working group has been in existence for many years and has been active at the technical level providing several good fishery assessment and considerable advice The CRFM council of Ministers can consider advice and make collective decisions for the three CARICOM countries Countries self-interpret out puts from WECAFC and implement as they see fit. see above

2 3

= =

National
Subregional/ system

3
2

National

Countries have been acquiring and managing data and information for input to the WECAFC WG

11

Level 1 assessment: System summary

GEF IW transboundary system governance architecture - System summary IW category: Total number of countries: System name: Region:

Proposal for clustering assessment Based on extent to which issues share responsible body (as indicated in arrangement summary table) at various policy cycle levels

Complete these columns then assess issues using the arrangements tables

After completing the arrangements tables, complete these columns

Transboundary issue
Trawl fisheries for shrimp and groundfish Coastal habitat destruction (wetlands/man groves) Land-based pollution (mainly from large rivers)

Number of countries involved

6

Descriptive or commonly used name for the arrangement

Guianas-Brazil shrimp and groundfish arrangement Guianas-Brazil coastal habitat conservation arrangement Guianas-Brazil LBS arrangement

Collective importance for countries involved

3

Incompleteness of governance arrangement (score/category)

12 (2)

Priority for intervention to improve governance

6

Observations

18 (3)

3 (1)

System architecture completeness index >>

11 (2) 5

<< System priority for intervention index

Assessing clustering of arrangements

Aims at assessing system level integration based on extent to which issues share a responsible body at various policy cycle levels (as indicated in arrangement summary table)
Clustering of arrangements within each system I1 I2 I3 Data and I2 information I3 I4 Advisory and I2 review I3 I4 Decision I2 I3 I4

The level two assessment steps

Average

Implement- I2 ation I3 I4 Meta advice I2 I3 I4 Meta policy I2 I3 I4 Overall I2 (average of I3 above) I4

Meta policy

Data and info 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Advisory and review

Meta advice

Decision

Implementation

107

Appendix 17. Evaluation

108

109

110

18. Stakeholder identification and analysis template

Sustainable Management of the Shared Living Marine Resources Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions

Case Study for the Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf
National Stakeholder identification [Country]
In order to understand and assess governance processes the roles of and interactions among these actors/stakeholders must be considered. This requires identification of the actors and their roles with reference to the policy cycle that forms the basis of the Large Marine Ecosystem Governance Framework adopted by the CLME Project1. The policy cycle represents the process that is considered to be essential for good governance to take place. There are five stages: (1) Generation of data and Information, (2) Analysis and generation of advice, (3) Decision-making, (4) Implementation, (5) Review and evaluation. These form an iterative process. This is a key part of the governance assessment methodology developed for the CLME Project2 As agreed at the workshop3, each country will complete this template by identifying both regional and national stakeholders involved in the various stages of the policy cycle for each of the four transboundary issues. These stakeholders can be listed in the relevant text boxes on the appropriate pages below. Please list them separated by semicolons. Government departments should be included among the stakeholders. Please underline the body or agency in each text box that has responsibility for making that part of the policy cycle happen. In most cases the stakeholders for the 'review' and 'analysis and advice' stages of the cycle will be the same. If so just leave the review box empty.

Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney, J. Angulo, F. Burrows, B. Chakalall, D. Gil, M. Haughton, S. Heileman, S. Martinez, L. Ostine, A. Oviedo, S. Parsons, T. Phillips, C. Santizo Arroya, B. Simmons, C. Toro. 2007. A large marine ecosystem governance framework. Marine Policy 31: 434 443. Mahon, R., L. Fanning and P. McConney. 2011a. CLME TDA update for fisheries ecosystems: governance issues. CLME Project, Consultant Report. 113 p. 2 Mahon, R., L. Fanning and P. McConney. 2011d. Sustainable Management of the Shared Living Marine Resources Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions: Governance assessment for pilot projects and case studies. CLME Project Working Paper. 3 Case Study for the Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf: Regional workshop for training of facilitators, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, July 11th 15th 2011

111

Regional: National:

Regional: National:

Regional:

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DATA AND INFORM -ATION DECISION MAKING

Regional: National:

National:

REVIEW AND EVALUATION

IMPLEMENT -ATION

Regional: National:

Guianas-Brazil shelf ecosystem stakeholders for the sustainable fisheries issue for [Country] by policy cycle stage

112

Regional: National:

Regional: National:

Regional:

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DATA AND INFORM -ATION DECISION MAKING

Regional: National:

National:

REVIEW AND EVALUATION

IMPLEMENT -ATION

Regional: National:

Guianas-Brazil shelf ecosystem stakeholders for the coastal habitat destruction issue for [Country] by policy cycle stage

113

Regional: National:

Regional: National:

Regional:

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DATA AND INFORM -ATION DECISION MAKING

Regional: National:

National:

REVIEW AND EVALUATION

IMPLEMENT -ATION

Regional: National:

Guianas-Brazil shelf ecosystem stakeholders for the land based pollution issue for [Country] by policy cycle stage

114

Regional: National:

Regional: National:

Regional:

ANALYSIS AND ADVICE DATA AND INFORM -ATION DECISION MAKING

Regional: National:

National:

REVIEW AND EVALUATION

IMPLEMENT -ATION

Regional: National:

Guianas-Brazil shelf ecosystem stakeholders for the piracy issue for [Country] by policy cycle stage

This document presents the results of the sub-regional training on facilitation that was organized in Trinidad and Tobago in the framework of the Case Study on the Shared Stocks of the Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem Project (CLME). It is the first of ten reports that were produced as a result of the case study activities. These documents summarize the outputs of the different steps undertaken to mainstream the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) in the management of the shrimp and ground fish resources of the Northern Brazil Shelf Ecosystem.