Cover photos: ©Pixabay.com

Required citation:

FAO. 2021. Ecosystem approach to fisheries implementation monitoring tool – A tool to monitor implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) management. User manual. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3669en

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(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-134069-1
E-ISBN 978-92-5-134962-5 (MOBI)

© FAO, 2021

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Preparation of this document

As part of the activities of the EAF-Nansen Programme, “Supporting the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Considering Climate and Pollution Impacts (GCP/GLO/690/NOR)”, the Ecosystem approach to fisheries implementation monitoring tool (EAF IMT) was developed to enable partner countries to monitor the progress of implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), and the achievements in managing fisheries in a sustainable manner.

The EAF IMT is a tool for decision support and planning in the fisheries management process. It can be used by countries in strategic and operational planning processes for each of their fisheries. It will assist them to determine where they are making acceptable progress and where there continue to be gaps and difficulties to address. It also serves to monitor the achievements of Outcome 2 of the EAF-Nansen Programme, that “fisheries management institutions manage fisheries according to the EAF principles”.

This tool replaces “the tracking tool”, a first methodology that was developed in 2004 to track the implementation of EAF. This tracking system was initially very complex, and although a “light” version was then proposed, this did not provide a clear assessment, either of compliance with the EAF process, nor the EAF achievement outcomes. Additionally, EAF specificities compared to a traditional management approach were not highlighted or taken into consideration. After several consultations and review, it was agreed to develop a new tool to monitor EAF implementation in general, as well as to serve as a monitoring tool for the EAF-Nansen Programme.

The EAF IMT was developed through an expert process from 2018 to 2020. Concept and methodology workshops were organized to identify and validate the approach, structure and the scoring system. A first draft tool and manual was developed, and the tool was tested in Dar es Salaam, the United Republic of Tanzania, in April 2019, with the participation of regional experts applying it to four western Indian Ocean fisheries.

A second version was developed and training on the EAF IMT was conducted with the partner countries in Abidjan, the Republic of Côte d’ Ivoire, in August 2019, and with three countries in the Gulf of Guinea for their beach seine fisheries. In September 2019, a meeting was organized to validate the revisions, to make final adjustments to the scoring system and to validate the presentation of the results (the dashboard). In November 2019, the tool was presented at the EAF-Nansen Programme Forum in Cotonou, the Republic of Benin and in January 2020, it was applied to develop the baseline and first scoring reference for the small and medium pelagic fishery in the United Republic of Tanzania.

The process of the development of the EAF IMT tool and user guide was led by Matthieu Bernardon, under the supervision, counsel and technical input of Merete Tandstad (EAF-Nansen Programme Coordinator) and an expert task force consisting of Pedro Barros, Tarub Bahri, Marcelo Vasconcelos (all from the Marine and Inland Fisheries Service of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]), Modulf Overvik, Gunnstein Bakke (both from the Directorate of Fisheries, the Kingdom of Norway), Kwame Koranteng (EAF-Nansen Programme consultant) and Rick Fletcher (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia). Further reviews and improvements to the tool and user guide were made by Kwame Koranteng and Rick Fletcher.

Appreciation is also extended to all the participants in the testing workshop and the subsequent training who also contributed to the development of the tool.

The EAF-Nansen Programme

The EAF-Nansen Programme, “Supporting the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Considering Climate and Pollution Impacts”, supports partner countries and regional organizations in Africa and the Bay of Bengal. The Programme improves their capacity to sustainably manage their fisheries and other uses of marine and coastal resources through the implementation of the EAF, taking into consideration the impacts of the climate and pollution.

The Programme is executed by FAO in close collaboration with the Institute of Marine Research of Bergen, the Kingdom of Norway, and funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). The Programme is the current phase (2017 to 2021) of the Nansen Programme which started in 1975.

The EAF-Nansen Programme’s aim is that sustainable fisheries improve food and nutrition security for people in partner countries. It builds on three pillars – science, fisheries management and capacity development – and supports partner countries to produce relevant and timely evidence-based advice to manage fisheries according to the EAF principles, and to further develop their human and organizational capacity to manage fisheries sustainably. In line with the EAF principles, the Programme adopts a broad scope, taking into consideration a wide range of impacts of human activities and natural processes on marine resources and ecosystems, including fisheries, pollution, climate variability and change.

A new state-of-the-art research vessel, the Dr Fridtjof Nansen, is an integral part of the Programme. A comprehensive science plan, covering a broad selection of research areas and directed at producing knowledge for informing policy and management decisions, guides the Programme’s scientific work.

The EAF-Nansen Programme works in partnership with countries, regional organizations, other United Nations agencies as well as other partner projects and institutions.

Contents

Preparation of this document

The EAF-Nansen Programme

1. Purpose

2. Background

2.1 What is the ecosystem approach to fisheries?

2.2 Key elements of the ecosystem approach to fisheries

2.3 The ecosystem approach to fisheries process

3. General description of the EAF Implementation Monitoring Tool

3.1 Methodology of scoring

4. How to use the EAF Implementation Monitoring Tool

4.1 Ability to achieve

4.1.1 Policies and objectives

4.1.2 Legislation

4.1.3 Enabling regulation

4.1.4 Consultation and participation during the management plan elaboration process

4.1.5 Consultation and participation during the management plan implementation and review

4.1.6 Management plan development

4.1.7 Management plan implementation and review

4.1.8 Compliance

4.1.9 Monitoring and review

4.1.10 Reporting and communication

4.1.11 Environmental drivers

4.1.12 Economic, social and other external drivers

4.2 Ecological well-being

4.2.1 Target species

4.2.2 Retained bycatch (non-target) species/group

4.2.3 Non-retained species (non-endangered, threatened and protected species)

4.2.4 Non-retained species (endangered, threatened and protected species)

4.2.5 General ecosystem – benthic habitat impacts

4.2.6 Ecosystem structure and function impacts

4.3 Human well-being

4.3.1 Livelihood

4.3.2 Food and nutrition security

4.3.3 Health and safety

4.3.4 Gender mainstreaming and social/economic equity

5. Outputs

6. References

7. Glossary

Annexure 1: EAF Implementation Monitoring Tool scoring rationale

Annexure 2: Excel spreadsheet template

Figures

1. The four main steps in the EAF process

2. EAF IMT structure

3. The three components of EAF used in the EAF IMT

4. Structure of the “ability to achieve” component

5. The fisheries management cycle

6. Structure of the EAF ecological well-being component

7. Structure of the human well-being component

8. Entries of the scores and calculations in the Excel spreadsheet for the Ability to achieve component

9. Entries of the scores and calculations in the Excel spreadsheet for the Ecological well-being component

10. Entries of the scores and calculations in the Excel spreadsheet for the Human well-being component

11. EAF IMT Dashboard: Synthesis and components scores

12. EAF IMT Dashboard: Governance scores

13. EAF IMT Dashboard: External drivers scores

14. EAF IMT Dashboard: Ecological well-being score

15. EAF IMT Dashboard: Human well-being score

Tables

1. Policies and objectives

2. Legislation

3. Enabling regulation

4. Consultation and participation planning

5. Consultation and participation – decision-making

6. Management plan development

7. Management plan implementation and review

8. Compliance

9. Monitoring and review

10. Reporting and communication

11. Environmental drivers/scoring category A

12. Environmental drivers/scoring category M

13. Economic, social and other external drivers/scoring category A

14. Economic, social and other external drivers/scoring category M

15. Ability to achieve score

16. Target species/scoring category A

17. Target species/scoring category M

18. Target species/scoring category AO

19. Bycatch species/scoring category A

20. Retained bycatch species/scoring category M

21. Retained bycatch species/scoring category AO

22. Non-retained/discarded species/scoring category A

23. Non-retained species/discards/scoring category M

24. Non-retained species/discards/scoring category AO

25. Non-retained species – ETP species/scoring category A

26. Non-retained species – ETP species/scoring category M

27. Non-retained species – ETP species/scoring category AO

28. Benthic habitat impacts/scoring category A

29. Benthic habitat impacts/scoring category M

30. Benthic habitat impacts/scoring category AO

31. Ecosystem structure and function impacts/scoring category A

32. Ecosystem structure and function impacts/scoring category M

33. Ecosystem structure and function impacts/scoring category AO

34. Ecological well-being score

35. Livelihoods at national level/scoring category A

36. Livelihoods at national level/scoring category M

37. Livelihoods at national level /scoring category AO

38. Livelihoods of the directly dependent communities/scoring category A

39. Livelihoods of the directly dependent communities/scoring category M

40. Livelihoods of the directly dependent communities/scoring category AO

41. Livelihoods for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category A

42. Livelihoods for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category M

43. Livelihoods for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category AO

44. Livelihoods score

45. Food and nutrition security at national level/scoring category A

46. Food and nutrition security at national level/scoring category M

47. Food and nutrition security at national level/scoring category AO

48. Food and nutrition security of the directly dependent communities/scoring category A

49. Food and nutrition security of the directly dependent communities/scoring category M

50. Food and nutrition security of the directly dependent communities/scoring category AO

51. Food and nutrition security for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category A

52. Food and nutrition security for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category M

53. Food and nutrition security for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category AO

54. Food and nutrition security score

55. Health and safety at national level/scoring category A

56. Health and safety at national level/scoring category M

57. Health and safety at national level/scoring category AO

58. Health and safety of the directly dependent communities/scoring category A

59. Health and safety of the directly dependent communities/scoring category M

60. Health and safety of the directly dependent communities/scoring category AO

61. Health and safety for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category A

62. Health and safety for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category M

63. Health and safety for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category AO

64. Health and safety score

65. Gender and equity at national level/scoring category A

66. Gender and equity at national level/scoring category M

67. Gender and equity at national level/scoring category AO

68. Gender and equity of the directly dependent communities/scoring category A

69. Gender and equity of the directly dependent communities/scoring category M

70. Gender and equity of the directly dependent communities/scoring category AO

71. Gender and equity for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category A

72. Gender and equity for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category M

73. Gender and equity for the indirectly dependent communities/scoring category AO

74. Gender and equity score

75. Human well-being score

1. PURPOSE

Working through a number of its projects, particularly the EAF-Nansen Programme, FAO has assisted several countries in Africa to understand, adopt and use an ecosystem approach in the management of their marine and coastal fisheries. The long-term objective of the project, “Supporting the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management considering climate and pollution impacts” (EAF-Nansen Programme, 2017–2021) is that, “sustainable fisheries improve food and nutrition security for people in partner countries”. The programme is working towards the delivery of three mutually reinforcing outcomes that are intended to contribute to the achievement of this objective.

Outcome 1: Fishery research institutions provide relevant and timely scientific advice for management.

Outcome 2: Fisheries management institutions manage fisheries according to the EAF principles.

Outcome 3: Fisheries research and management institutions have appropriate human and organizational capacity to manage fisheries sustainably.

One of the strategies designed to assist in the achievement of these three outcomes, is the development of a tool to track the level of EAF implementation by the partner countries. The EAF IMT has been developed to measure the degree to which each of the EAF principles (as outlined in the EAF-Net Toolbox[1] are being adopted and implemented. The EAF IMT is a tool for decision support and planning in the fisheries management process. It can be used by countries in strategic and operational planning processes for each of their fisheries, helping them to determine where they are making acceptable progress and where there continue to be gaps and difficulties to address.

The EAF IMT can also be used by the EAF-Nansen Programme to identify where training and other support activities should be focused. Importantly, while the tool is designed to generate scores, the most valuable benefit of its application is the discussion that the scoring process generates, and the discipline required to clearly justify each of the scores.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 What is the ecosystem approach to fisheries?

The EAF and other related concepts (e.g. ecosystem-based management, EBM) have developed over the past 20 or more years in response to the need to implement, in a practical manner, the principles of sustainable development (WCED, 1987), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and, more recently, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995). EAF is not a new concept even though it was formally adopted at the FAO Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (FAO, 2002), as a practical approach towards the implementation of the Code of Conduct. Subsequently, the twenty-fifth session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries in 2003 supported the role of FAO in facilitating the process of adoption of the ecosystem approach as the appropriate and practical approach to implement all these agreed principles for the management of fisheries.

According to FAO, the main purpose of the EAF is to:

“Plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardising the options of future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by aquatic ecosystems.

It strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking account of the knowledge and uncertainties of biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems their interactions and applying an integrated approach...” (FAO, 2003).

Importantly, this definition highlights that while the EAF deals with all the ecological consequences of fishing, it also recognizes the social and economic implications of fishing and especially its management arrangements. Moreover, when applied in an explicit and coordinated manner, EAF is designed to assist in understanding how each of these components interact and affect the other.

To assist member countries with the broader adoption of the EAF, the FAO integrated elements from a number of relevant approaches (e.g. Chesson, Clayton and Whitworth, 1999; Charles, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2002) to define a set of operational principles and guidelines for EAF (FAO, 2003, 2005; Garcia and Cochrane, 2009; De Young, Charles and Hjort, 2008). A decade later, while the application of this approach was growing, many fishery managers still saw EAF as too difficult to implement without access to expert guidance (see Bianchi and Skjoldal, 2008; Link, 2010). Crucially, many managers incorrectly perceived the EAF as largely an academic or scientific (ecosystem modelling) exercise (Fletcher, 2008; FAO, 2009).

This perception was not helped by scientists who also frequently equated the EAF with the basis for improving their understanding of all the ecological aspects associated with fishing. It was therefore concluded by FAO that if fishery managers had a better understanding of the EAF process, and easier access to relevant tools, implementation of the EAF should improve (FAO, 2009). This prompted FAO to undertake a number of initiatives to improve uptake, including the development of the EAF Toolbox (FAO, 2011–2020; Fletcher and Bianchi, 2014).

2.2 Key elements of the ecosystem approach to fisheries

The main purpose of applying the EAF in fisheries management is to more effectively plan, develop and manage fisheries. One of the principal outputs of EAF implementation will generally be a comprehensive fishery management system that seeks to ensure the sustainable use of all ecological, social and economic systems related to the fishery, not just the targeted species.

According to FAO guidelines, every fishery management system must be underpinned by a fisheries management plan. The management plan is considered as:

“A formal or informal arrangement between a fishery management authority and interested parties which identifies the partners in the fishery and their respective roles, details the agreed objectives of the fishery, and specifies the management rules and regulations which apply to it and provides other details about the fishery which are relevant to the task of the management authority” (FAO, 1997).

The level and types of management action need to be appropriate to the issue. A critical element in the EAF implementation process for fisheries management is that it helps determine what (if any) management actions are appropriate for each issue given the current level of risk, available knowledge and the management system.

2.3 The ecosystem approach to fisheries process

The EAF seeks to improve all fishery management processes by adopting risk management principles. The process is designed to help determine what level of management action, or non-action, and future research is appropriate given the level of risk, opportunities and the current level of knowledge available. The EAF process consists of four main steps, as shown in Figure 1.

Step 1. Initiation and scope: based on government and stakeholder input, generate an agreed and clear definition of the fishery (scale and type) plus a shared understanding of the social, economic and ecological objectives to be achieved.

Step 2. Identification of assets, issues and priorities: identify all relevant resource “assets”, community outcomes and the issues affecting their management (generated either by the fishery or external factors) and determine priorities for direct action to best achieve objectives.

Step 3. Development of management system: develop a management system to cost-effectively and holistically deal with all high priority issues that includes clear operational objectives and the ability to monitor and assess performance.

Step 4. Implementation, monitoring and performance review: document the actions to implement the management system, monitor their completion, and evaluate and report on their performance in delivering acceptable community outcomes.

3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EAF IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING TOOL

The structure of the EAF IMT is based on the three main EAF components of the “component tree” of risk analysis: ecological well-being, human well-being and ability to achieve, as elaborated below.

• “Ability to achieve” refers to the management and institutional “systems” in place, or proposed (also called governance), to deliver the outcomes wanted. It also takes into account the external “drivers” (not controlled by the fishery) which may be affecting performance.

• “Ecological well-being” refers to all ecological “assets” (e.g. stocks, habitats, ecosystems) relevant to the fishery and the ecosystem where it occurs, as well as the issues and impacts generated by the fishery that may be affecting them.

• “Human well-being” is defined by FAO as “a condition in which all members of society are able to determine and meet their needs and have a large range of choices to meet their potential” (Garcia et al., 2003). There are a lot of elements of human well-being and they are grouped into four categories (livelihood, food and nutrition security, health and safety, and gender and equity).

The component tree is a way to structure various issues associated with a fishery system into their related groups (governance systems and external drivers, ecological assets, human well-being [social and economic outcomes]) in a visual and structured manner. It helps to minimize the chance of missing all relevant issues. The components in the generic trees represent the more common types of issues that have been previously recognized to be relevant and are useful as starting points (FAO, 2011–2020).

3.1 Methodology of scoring

Ecological and human well-being

The scoring protocol used for each of the five elements of ecological well-being (target species, bycatch species, non-retained species, benthic habitats and ecosystem structure and function), and the four categories of human well-being (livelihood, food and nutrition security, health and safety, gender mainstreaming and equity) have three scoring categories that reflect the EAF risk-based methodology.

• Category A (assessment). Identification and assessment of EAF issues against agreed objectives

This category evaluates if there is already sufficient understanding about the relevant EAF issues for each fishery, including having confidence in their identification and assessment of their risks. This category is especially relevant when initiating the implementation of EAF.

• Category M (management). Management measures appropriate to risks, developed and implemented

This category measures if the management procedures and systems are appropriate given the current risks identified for each EAF issue, and if these measures are now being implemented. This category will be more relevant to measure after the assessment phase has been completed.

• Category AO (achieving objectives). Moving towards agreed objectives

This category evaluates the outcomes of the management system, and to what degree the management system is moving towards delivering each of the agreed objectives and desired outcomes. This category is likely to be relevant and measureable after the management measures have been in place for a suitable period of time.

Note that it is not necessary (and may not be useful) to do Category M, and definitely not Category AO, unless you have progressed sufficiently and had your management in place for some time.

Ability to achieve

External drivers: Because external drivers only impact the ability to achieve agreed objectives for ecological and human well-being (as outlined above), only two of the assessment categories are relevant:

• Category A (assessment) – identification and assessment of EAF issues against agreed objectives

• Category M (management) – management measures appropriate to risks, developed and implemented.

Governance: The governance elements (policies and objectives, legislation, enabling regulations, reporting and communication) are scored directly using a single scoring table based on the extent to which these have been developed in accordance with EAF principles.

Use of the scoring systems and categories

This tool is designed to assist with strategic planning to enable partner countries to improve their adoption of EAF, not as a compliance tool. It can be used in different ways, depending on the circumstances and requirements of a specific country. The EAF IMT allows for the level of EAF implementation to be assessed at multiple levels, including the EAF component level and the global or entire EAF level. It also allows for this scoring to be done at the category (assessment, management and outcome) levels. The scoring procedure for each EAF component can also use equal weightings, or they can be adjusted based on specific priorities within the partner country.

How should the EAF IMT be applied?

One of the most critical elements of the EAF is that it encourages a high level of participation from all relevant stakeholders. It is expected that the EAF IMT can also be used to assist with this engagement as stakeholder input can be achieved through a variety of means, including community meetings, formal stakeholder workshops and focused discussions using EAF presentation materials. Experience with the use of other EAF planning tools has found that a two-stage process is often the most effective in achieving useful outcomes.

Stage 1: A small group of experts

Considering the levels of information that are needed to complete the full EAF IMT, it is recommended that a small group with relevant expertise, knowledge and experience, provide comprehensive input to undertake an initial assessment for each fishery. This group could be selected from members of the EAF National Task Group (NTG) or the entire membership of the NTG. Ideally, it should be a group of six to ten people (made up of scientists, fisheries managers and fishers) with a champion to lead the exercise.

During this process, it could be determined whether all, or only some, scoring categories are relevant for the fishery. For each of these, using the EAF IMT scoring template, agree on indicative scores and document suitably detailed justifications for these together with the source materials that were used. Use the scoring rationale template (Annexure 1)

Stage 2: Validation of scoring during a workshop

The second stage is a more inclusive process with wider participation of stakeholders, to review and validate the score and the justification provided.

During this workshop, it is often valuable to have a dedicated facilitator. Prior stakeholder training sessions could also be useful to introduce the tool and to facilitate the comprehension and the participation of stakeholders.

When to use this tool

The tool should be applied as a regular part of the fisheries management cycle. It needs to be linked to the work being undertaken to improve the management systems and operational planning. Once these management plans are developed and operational, the tool may not always need to be applied annually, but it is important that its use is considered a part of the normal management review cycle.

4. HOW TO USE THE EAF IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING TOOL

This section is broken down into three parts, one for each of the EAF components:

1. Ability to achieve;

2. Ecological well-being; and

3. Human well-being.

Generally, the “ability to achieve” component appears in last position, in particular in the representation of the tree of the EAF. In the EAF IMT, however, and for reasons of consistency and logical sequence, the “ability to achieve” component is placed first. Experience demonstrates that it is preferable to first review all the elements of governance.

4.1 Ability to achieve

This represents the management and institutional “systems” in place or proposed to deliver the wanted outcomes (e.g. access and tenure systems, compliance, democratic processes, conflict resolution, stakeholder participation), along with the external “drivers” (not controlled by the fishery) which may be affecting performance. This component contains two subcomponents: governance and external drivers.

As shown in the figure below, the governance subcomponent contains 12 elements to evaluate:

1. Policies and objectives;

2. Legislation;

3. Enabling regulation;

4. Consultation and participation during the management plan elaboration process;

5. Consultation and participation during the implementation and review;

6. Management plan development;

7. Management plan implementation and review;

8. Compliance;

9. Monitoring and review;

10. Reporting and communication;

11. Environmental drivers;

12. Economic, social and other external drivers.

4.1.1 Policies and objectives

Desired outcome: There are adequate policies in place, including a set of agreed objectives, which explicitly define desired ecological, social and economic outcomes for the fishery.

4.1.2 legislation

Desired outcome: There are suitably binding and effective legal instruments that enable an efficient management system to be developed, implemented and enforced.

4.1.3 Enabling regulation

Desired outcome: There are suitably binding and effective regulations, that enable an efficient management system to be implemented and enforced.

4.1.4 Consultation and participation during the management plan elaboration process

Desired outcome: The decision-making process includes effective stakeholder consultation and appropriate participation and use of the best available knowledge during the management plan elaboration process. This should be done by recognizing and respecting existing forms of organization, traditional and local knowledge and practices of communities, including indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities.

4.1.5 Consultation and participation during the management plan implementation and review

Desired outcome: The decision-making process includes effective stakeholder consultation and appropriate participation and the use of the best available knowledge during the management plan implementation and review. This should be done by recognizing and respecting existing forms of organization, traditional and local knowledge and practices of communities, including indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities.

4.1.6 Management plan development

Desired outcomes: There is a clear set of appropriately binding management measures and arrangements (e.g. allocation of access, catch control, harvest strategy, etc.) designed, to achieve each of the agreed objectives.

4.1.7 Management plan implementation and review

Desired outcomes: There is a clear set of appropriately binding management measures and arrangements (e.g. allocation of access, catch control, harvest strategy, etc.) implemented and reviewed to achieve each of the agreed objectives. The fisheries management cycle (FMC) is operational. The FMC is a tool for implementing the fisheries management plan and sets out the main activities that research and management are to undertake periodically, and when they are to be undertaken.

4.1.8 Compliance

Desired outcome: There are appropriate control, surveillance and enforcement mechanisms ensuring sufficient compliance with the fishery’s management plan. Local, national and regional scale should be considered.

4.1.9 Monitoring and review

Desired outcome: There is an effective monitoring and review programme to assess the performance of the management plan towards achieving the agreed objectives.

4.1.10 Reporting and communication

Desired outcome: There is an effective reporting and communication programme to keep stakeholders informed about the status of the fishery, performance and any change in the management settings.

4.1.11 Environmental drivers

Desired EAF outcomes: Understanding the potential impacts of environmental drivers on the fishery (e.g. climate change and pollution) and incorporating measures appropriate to the risk within the fishery management plan.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks of the environmental drivers on the fishery achieving appropriate outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures appropriately consider environmental risks

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risk related to the impacts of environmental drivers on the fishery, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

4.1.12 Economic, social and other external drivers

Desired EAF outcome: Understanding the potential impacts of external socio-economic or other drivers on the fishery and incorporating measures appropriate to the risk within the fishery management plan.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks of the economic, social and other external drivers on the fishery achieving appropriate outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures appropriately consider socio-economic risks or opportunities

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risk concerning the impacts of the economic, social and other external drivers on the fishery, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Now that all the elements of the “ability to achieve” component have been noted, all the scores and the detailed justification of each score are summarized in Table 15. The EAF Implementation Monitoring Tool scoring rationale (Annexure 1) can also be used.

4.2 Ecological well-being

This component concerns all ecological “assets” (e.g. stocks, habitats, ecosystems) relevant to the fishery and the ecosystem in which it occurs, and the issues and impacts being generated by the fishery that may be affecting them.

This component has three subcomponents and six elements to evaluate:

1. Retained species:

a. Target species

b. Bycatch species

2. Non-retained species:

a. Discards and

b. Endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species

3. General ecosystem

a. Benthic habitats

b. Ecosystem structure and function.

4.2.1 Target species

Target species are defined as those species that are primarily sought by the fishers in a particular fishery, or are the subject of directed fishing effort in a fishery. There may be primary as well as secondary target species (Garcia, 2009).

Desired outcome: Each of the target species (stock) is at or above agreed reference and performance level (e.g. threshold reference point) for each of the agreed objectives (e.g. ecological: biomass maximum sustainable yield [BMSY]; economic: biomass maximum economic yield [BMEY]; social: spatial distribution, etc).

A. Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based upon all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the assessment of risk status of the target species and the associated management advice.

B. Management measures appropriate to risk developed and implemented

Expected EAF outcome: Management measures appropriate to address the target species risks, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

C. Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards meeting agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

4.2.2 Retained bycatch (non-target) species/group

Defined as those species that are retained by the fishery, other than those that are being targeted.

Desired outcome: Keep stock level of bycatch species above suitable reference level (e.g. BMSY) and the catch level does not hinder recovery if bycatch species are below biological limit.

If there is no bycatch species/group in the fishery, or if the total level of retained bycatch is less than five percent of the total catch by weight, then only the assessment scoring category needs to be formally evaluated. For scoring Categories M and AO it would be not applicable.

A. Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the assessment of risk status of the bycatch species and the associated management advice.

B. Management measures appropriate to risks developed and implemented

Expected EAF outcome: Management measures appropriate to addressing the bycatch species risk, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented. If there is no retained bycatch species/group in the fishery, this category is not applicable.

C. Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards meeting agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

If there is no retained bycatch species/group in the fishery, then this aspect will not be evaluated and will be not applicable.

4.2.3 Non-retained species (non-endangered, threatened and protected species)

These are non-ETP species that have no economic value and are all discarded. Note, this does not include the discarded individuals of those species that are generally retained. These impacts are covered above.

Desired outcome: The impact of the fishery on non-retained species is at acceptable levels and meets relevant international obligations and treaties.

If there are no non-retained species/group in the fishery, or if the level of discards is less than five percent of the total catch by weight, then only an assessment needs to be completed. If the assessment indicates no risk issues, then the M and OA scores will be not applicable.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the assessment of risk of fishery impacts on discards and the associated management advice.

Management measures appropriate to risks developed and implemented

Expected EAF outcome: Management measures appropriate to addressing the non-retained species’ risks, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented. If there are no discard species in the fishery, then this aspect will not be evaluated and will be not applicable.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards meeting agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

If there are no discarded species in the fishery this aspect is not applicable.

4.2.4 Non-retained species (endangered, threatened and protected species)

ETP species recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party.

Desired outcome: The impact of the fishery on ETP species is at acceptable levels and meets relevant international obligations and treaties.

If there is robust information to confirm that there are no catches of ETP species/group in the fishery, then only the assessment scoring is needed. The other categories would be not applicable.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the assessment of risk of fishery impacts on ETP species and the associated management advice.

Management measures appropriate to risks developed and implemented

Expected EAF outcome: Management measures appropriate to addressing the non-retained species’ risks, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

If there is no catch of ETP species in the fishery, then this aspect will not be evaluated and is not applicable.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards meeting agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

If there is no catch of ETP species in the fishery, then this aspect will not be evaluated and is not applicable.

4.2.5 General ecosystem – benthic habitat impacts

Desired Outcome: The fishery does not cause an unacceptable impact on habitats.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

If there is no interaction with the benthic habitats (e.g. as in pelagic trawling), then this aspect will not be totally evaluated. Only the assessment scoring category will be completed; scoring categories M and AO will be not applicable.

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the assessment of risk of impacts of the fishery on benthic habitats and the associated management advice.

Management measures appropriate to risks developed and implemented

If there is no interaction with the benthic habitats, then this aspect will not be evaluated and is not applicable.

Expected EAF outcome: Management measures appropriate to addressing the benthic habitat impacts’ risks, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards meeting agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

If there is no interaction with the benthic habitat, then this aspect will not be evaluated and is not applicable.

4.2.6 Ecosystem structure and function impacts

Desired outcome: The fishery does not cause unacceptable impacts on the wider ecosystem (including trophic structure and function).

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the assessment of risk of impacts of the fishery on ecosystem structure and function and the associated management advice.

Management measures appropriate to risks developed and implemented

Expected EAF outcome: Management measures appropriate to addressing the ecosystem structure and function risk level, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards meeting agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

4.3 Human well-being

Human well-being is one of the key drivers in an EAF and is defined by FAO as: “a condition in which all members of society are able to determine and meet their needs and have a large range of choices to meet their potential” (Garcia et al., 2003). In other words, ecosystem health is fundamental for human health and well-being. In EAF, it is essential to maintain the capacity of aquatic resources to produce food and employment fundamental to human health. There are a lot of elements of human well-being and they are grouped into four categories:

1. Livelihood

2. Food and nutrition security

3. health and safety

4. Gender and equity.

Each element will be reviewed and scored at three different levels:

1. at national level;

2. at the scale of directly dependent fishing communities;

3. at the scale of indirectly dependent fishing communities.

4.3.1. Livelihood

Livelihood is defined as a set of activities performed to live, involving securing water, food, fodder, medicine, shelter, clothing and the capacity to acquire these necessities, working either individually or as a group by using endowments (both human and material) for meeting the requirements of the individual and his/her household on a sustainable basis with dignity (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2010).

Carney (1998) defines sustainable livelihood as follows:

“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain and enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base”.

Assessing livelihood in the human (social and economic) well-being dimension of fisheries management concerns the following possible objectives which are generally met in the EAF framework:

• improving sector employment;

• fighting/reducing poverty (poverty alleviation);

• enhancing quality of life and income;

• improving economic performance;

• maximizing sustainable yield;

• minimizing management costs;

• improving productivity;

• minimizing conflict and social exclusion;

• increasing the resilience of livelihoods.

National level

Desired outcome: Livelihoods are enhanced at country level.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based upon all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities at national level in achieving appropriate livelihoods outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risk for livelihoods at national level, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Directly dependent communities

The directly dependent communities are made up of persons directly engaged in the primary activity of fishing (fishers and owners of fishing vessels and equipment, along with the fishing crew).

Desired outcome: Livelihoods of the communities that depend directly on the fishery are enhanced.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities for the directly dependent communities in achieving appropriate livelihoods outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risk and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures (e.g. safety at sea, social infrastructure, etc.) appropriate to addressing the risk for directly dependent communities’ livelihoods, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Indirectly dependent communities

The indirectly dependent communities consist of persons dependent on fishing activities, but not directly in engaged in fishing (e.g. processors, mechanics, net repairers, boat carpenters, etc.).

Desired outcome: Livelihoods of communities that depend indirectly on the fishery are enhanced.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities of indirectly dependent communities in achieving appropriate livelihoods outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risks, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

4.3.2. Food and nutrition security

Food and nutrition security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FSN Forum, 2007).

In this context, assessing food and nutrition security in the human (social and economic) well-being dimension of ecosystem and fisheries management concerns the following objectives: eliminate hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition[2].

In certain fisheries, food and nutrition security could not be an objective. In this case, food and nutrition security will not be reviewed and scored and it is not applicable.

National level

Desired outcome: Food and nutrition security is enhanced at national level.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities at national level in achieving appropriate food and nutrition security outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risk for food and nutrition security at national level, which are consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Directly dependent communities

The directly dependent communities are made up of persons directly engaged in the primary activity of fishing (fishers and owners of fishing vessels and equipment, along with the fishing crew).

Desired outcome: Enhance the food and nutrition security of the directly dependent communities.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities for the directly dependent communities in achieving appropriate food and nutrition security outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risk of directly dependent communities becoming food insecure, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Indirectly dependent communities

The indirectly dependent communities consist of persons dependent on fishing activities, but not directly in engaged in fishing (e.g. processors, mechanics, net repairers, boat carpenters, etc.).

Desired outcome: Enhance the food and nutrition security of the indirectly dependent communities.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities for indirectly dependent communities to achieve agreed food and nutrition security objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risks of food insecurity, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

4.3.3. Health and safety

In this context, assessing health and safety in the human (social and economic) well-being dimension of ecosystem and fisheries management, concerns the following possible objectives which are generally met in the EAF framework:

• improve security and safety at sea;

• improve occupational health and working conditions;

• expand the social protection systems towards universal coverage of social protection.

National level

Desired outcome: Health and safety are enhanced at national level.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities at national level to achieve appropriate health and safety outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risk for health and safety at national level, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Directly dependent communities

The directly dependent communities are made up of persons directly engaged in the primary activity of fishing (fishers and owners of fishing vessels and equipment, along with the fishing crew).

Desired outcome: Enhance the health and safety of communities that depend directly on the fishery for their livelihood.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities for the directly dependent communities to achieve appropriate health and safety outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures (e.g. safety at sea, social infrastructure, etc.) appropriate to addressing the risks for local directly dependent communities’ health and safety, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Indirectly dependent communities

The indirectly dependent communities consist of persons dependent on fishing activities, but not directly in engaged in fishing (e.g. processors, mechanics, net repairers, boat carpenters, etc.).

Desired outcome: The health and safety of the indirectly dependent communities enhanced.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities of indirectly dependent communities to achieve appropriate health and safety outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risk, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

4.3.4. Gender mainstreaming and social/economic equity

In this context, assessing gender mainstreaming and social equity in the human (social and economic) well-being dimension of ecosystem and fisheries management, concerns the following possible objectives:

• Achieve equality between women and men in sustainable agricultural production and rural development for the elimination of hunger and poverty (FAO, 2013).

• Women participate equally with men as decision-makers in fisheries institutions and in shaping laws, policies and programmes (FAO, 2013).

• Women and men have equal access to and control over decent employment and income, land and fisheries resources.

• Women and men have equal access to goods and services for fisheries development, and to markets.

• Ensure the equal right of women and men to the enjoyment of all human rights, while acknowledging differences between women and men and taking specific measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality when necessary (FAO, 2012).

• Ensure that women and girls have equal tenure rights and access to land and fisheries independent of their civil and marital status.

• Equitable tenure rights and access to fisheries for all, women and men, youth and vulnerable and traditionally marginalized people, within the national context.

National level

Desired outcome: Gender mainstreaming and social/economic equity at national level.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities at national level to achieve appropriate gender and equity outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risks for gender and equity at national level, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Directly dependent communities

The directly dependent communities are made up of persons directly engaged in the primary activity of fishing (fishers and owners of fishing vessels and equipment, along with the fishing crew).

Desired outcome: Enhance the gender mainstreaming and social/economic equity of the directly dependent communities.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities for the directly dependent communities to achieve appropriate gender and equity outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures (e.g. safety at sea, social infrastructure, etc.) appropriate to addressing the risks for local dependent communities’ gender and equity, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

Indirectly dependent communities

The indirectly dependent communities consist of persons dependent on fishing activities, but not directly in engaged in fishing (e.g. processors, mechanics, net repairers, boat carpenters, etc.).

Desired outcome: Enhance the gender and equity of the indirectly dependent communities.

Appropriate assessment completed against agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: Based on all the available information and relative to the context of the fishery (size, scale and scope) there is sufficient confidence in the identification and assessment of the risks and opportunities for indirectly dependent communities to achieve appropriate gender and equity outcomes and other agreed objectives.

Fisheries management and other measures developed and implemented appropriate to risks and constraints/conflicts

Expected EAF outcome: Fishery management and other measures appropriate to addressing the risks, which are also consistent with each of the other agreed objectives, have been developed and implemented.

Achieving agreed objectives

Expected EAF outcome: The management system progresses towards delivering agreed objectives and desired outcomes.

5. OUTPUTS

An Excel spreadsheet is included in the tool, to calculate the assessment results for the fishery under consideration, and for all the components. It also allows the user to graphically view the scores for each component (Annexure 2).

After scoring all the elements, the scores are inserted in the Excel sheet. The calculation is done automatically and a dashboard allows the user to view the results, making use of graphs for each component and each assessment category. As an example, the required entries for a sample fishery and the calculations are shown in Figures 8 to 10 for the “Ability to achieve”, “Ecological well-being” and “Human well-being” components, respectively.

In this example, the total score for “Governance” is 19 out of 30 (or 63 percent), the “External drivers” score is 7 out of 12 (58 percent), and the “Ability to achieve” component score is 26 out of 42 (62 percent).

The same principle is applied to all the components.

The Ecological well-being component score is 22 out of 54 (41 percent).

The Human well-being component score is 56 out of 108 (52 percent).

The graphical representations of the scores are compiled in the dashboard spreadsheet.

In the dashboard, a spider web graphical representation of the results is also produced. This allows users to visualize the scores of the various elements of each component. In the graph, the higher the score, the closer it is to the periphery of the web; while the low scores are towards the centre of the web. For the example above, the graphs are shown in Figures 12, 14 and 15 for Governance, Ecological well-being and Human well-being scores, respectively.

The Ability to achieve component is represented in two graphs – the web graph for the Governance score and the bar graph for the External drivers score. Two graphs are used because the methodology for scoring the two is different.

The graphic above represents the score of the different elements by scoring categories (assessment, management and achieving objectives).

6. REFERENCES

Alcamo, J., Ash, N.J., Butler, C.D., Callicott, J.B., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S.R., Castilla, J.C., et al. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, Covelo and London, Island Press. 266 pp. (also available at http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf).

Australian Government Publishing Service. 1991. Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups Final Report – Fisheries. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service. 202 pp.

Bianchi, G. & Skjoldal, H.R., eds. 2008. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO-CABI, Rome. 384 pp.

Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? London, Department for International Development.

Chambers, R. & Conway, G. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper No. 296. Brighton, UK, Institute of Development Studies.

Charles, A.T. 2001. Sustainable fishery systems. Fish and aquatic resources series 5. Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Science. 370 pp.

Chesson, J., Clayton, H. & Whitworth, B. 1999. Evaluation of fisheries management systems with respect to sustainable development. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 980–984.

Choudhury, K. & Jansen, L.J.M. 1999. Terminology for integrated resources planning and management. Rome, FAO and Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme. 69 pp.

CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research). 1999. The CIFOR criteria and indicators generic template. Jakarta, Indonesia, CIFOR. 53 pp.

Cochrane, K.L. & Garcia, S.M., eds. 2009. A fishery managers’ handbook. Second edition. Rome, FAO and Wiley-Blackwell.

De Young, C., Charles, A. & Hjort, A. 2008. Human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. An overview of context, concepts, tools and methods. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 489. 152 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0163e.pdf).

Duffus, J.H. 2001. Risk assessment terminology. Chemistry International, 23(2). (also available at www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2001/march/risk_assessment.html).

FAO. 1993. Guidelines for land-use planning. FAO Development Series No. 1. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/t0715e/t0715e00.htm).

FAO. 1995. Guidelines for responsible management of fisheries. In Report of the “Expert Consultation on Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries Management”, Wellington, New Zealand, 23–27 January 1995. FAO Fisheries Report No. 519. Rome.

FAO. 1997. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4. 82 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/w4230e/w4230e00.htm).

FAO. 1998. Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 382. Rome. 113 pp.

FAO. 2002. Report of the “Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem”, Reykjavik, Iceland, 1–4 October 2001. FAO Fisheries Report No. 658. Rome. 128 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/y2198t/y2198t01.htm).

FAO. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4, Suppl. 2. Rome. 112 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4470e.pdf).

FAO. 2009. Report of the “Workshop on Toolbox for Applying the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries”, Rome, 26–29 February 2008. FAO Fisheries Report No. 884. Rome 52pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/i0946e/i0946e00.htm).

FAO. 2011–2020. EAF-Net. EAF Toolbox. FI Institutional Websites. [online]. Rome. Updated 27 May 2011. [Cited 12 October 2020]. http://www.fao.org/fishery/

FAO. 2012. Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. Rome. 47 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/i2801e/i2801e.pdf).

FAO. 2013. FAO policy on gender equality. Attaining food security goals in agriculture and rural development. Rome. 32 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3205e.pdf).

FAO. 2014. FAO Fisheries Glossary. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO. Terminology (A9.1FI)/ CPAM. Rome.

FAO. 2020a. FAO term portal. [online]. Rome. [Cited 12 October 2020]. http://www.fao.org/faoterm/en/?defaultCollId=21

FAO. 2020b. FAO fisheries glossary. [online]. Rome. [Cited 12 October 2020]. http://www.fao.org/faoterm/collection/fisheries/en/

Fletcher, W.J., Chesson, J., Fisher, M., Sainsbury, K.J., Hundloe, T., Smith, A.D.M. & Whitworth, B. 2002. National ESD reporting framework for Australian fisheries: The “How To” guide for wild capture fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145. Canberra, Australia.

Fletcher, W.J. 2008. Implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: lessons learned from applying a practical EAFM framework in Australia and the Pacific. In G. Bianchi & H.R. Skjoldal, eds. The ecosystem approach to fisheries, p. 112–124. Rome, FAO-CABI.

Fletcher, W.J. & Bianchi, G. 2014. The FAO-EAF Toolbox: making the ecosystem approach accessible to all fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management, 90: 20–26.

FSN Forum. 2007. Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition. [online]. Rome. [Cited 12 October 2020]. http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/resources

Garcia, S.M. 1996. The precautionary approach to fisheries and its implications for fishery research, technology and management: An updated review. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 350.2. Rome. 76pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/W1238E01.htm#ch1).

Garcia, S.M. 1997. Indicators for sustainable development in fisheries. In FAO. 1997. Land quality indicators and their use in sustainable agriculture and rural development, p. 131–162. Rome, FAO.

Garcia, S.M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T. & Lasserre, G. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 443. Rome, FAO. 71 pp.

Garcia, S.M. 2009. Glossary. In K.L. Cochrane, & S.M. Garcia, eds. A fishery managers’ handbook. Second edition, p. 473–505. Rome, FAO and Wiley-Blackwell.

ISO (International Organisation of Standards). 2009. Risk management. Principles and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organisation of Standards. 24 pp.

Link, J.S. 2010. Ecosystem-based fisheries management. Confronting tradeoffs. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGlade, J.M. 1999. Ecosystem analysis and the governance of natural resources. In J.M. McGlade, ed. Advanced ecological theory: principles and applications, p. 308–336. Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Merriam-webster. Dictionary. [online]. Springfield, USA. [Cited 13 October 2020]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1996. Synthesis report for the study on economic aspects of management of marine living resources by Ad Hoc Exp. Group on Fisheries, AGR/FI/EG (96) 1. Paris, OECD.

Oxford University Press. 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English. Third edition. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.

Prescott-Allen, R. 2001. The wellbeing of nations: a country-by-country index of quality of life and the environment. Washington, DC, Island Press. 342 pp. (also available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/7942).

Scialabba, N. 1998. Integrated coastal area management and agriculture, forestry and fisheries. FAO Guidelines. Environment and Natural Resources Service. Rome, FAO. 256 p. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/w8440e/W8440E01.htm#P0_0).

Sutinen, J.G., ed. 2000. A framework for monitoring and assessing socio-economics and governance of large marine ecosystems. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-158. 32 pp.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. 400 pp. (also available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf).

7. GLOSSARY

Assessment: A process that connects knowledge and action regarding a problem. It is a review and analysis of information for the purpose of informing the decision-making process. It may not require new research and involves assembling, organizing, summarizing, interpreting and reconciling existing knowledge and communicating it to the policymaker or other actors concerned with the problem (Cochrane and Garcia, 2009).

Bycatch: Species taken in a fishery that is targeting other species or on a different size range of the same species. That part of the bycatch with no economic value is discarded and returned to the sea, usually dead or dying (FAO, 1998; Australian Government Publishing Service, 1991).

Benthic habitat: The ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water such as an ocean, including the sediment surface and some sub-surface layers. Organisms living in this zone are called benthos and include micro-organisms (e.g. bacteria and fungi) as well as larger invertebrates, such as crustaceans and polychaetes. Organisms here generally live in close relationship with the substrate and many are permanently attached to the bottom.

Broad fishery objective: Statement of what harvesting a particular resource attempts to achieve in terms of the fish resources and in terms of ecological, economic and social objectives.

Discard: To release or return fish to the sea, dead or alive, whether or not such fish are brought fully on board a fishing vessel (FAO, 1998, p. 113).

Ecosystem: A spatio-temporal system of the biosphere, including its living components (plants, animals, micro-organisms) and the non-living components of their environment, with their relationships, as determined by past and present environmental forcing functions and interactions amongst biota (Cochrane and Garcia, 2009, p. 505).

Ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF): An extension of conventional fisheries management recognizing more explicitly the interdependence between human well-being and ecosystem health and the need to maintain ecosystems’ productivity for present and future generations, e.g. conserving critical habitats, reducing pollution and degradations, minimizing waste and protecting endangered species. The purpose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiplicity of societal needs and desires, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from a full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems. 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 (FAO, 2003).

Ecosystem function: An intrinsic ecosystem characteristic related to the set of conditions and processes whereby an ecosystem maintains its integrity (such as primary productivity, food chain and biogeochemical cycles). Ecosystem functions include such processes as decomposition, production, nutrient cycling and fluxes of nutrients and energy (Alcamo et al., 2003).

Ecosystem productivity: The rate at which material is produced by an ecosystem over a specified period. In a strict sense, this term refers to the amount of energy fixed by plants in the system, but the term often refers to the ability of an ecosystem to produce goods and services to meet human needs.

Ecosystem well-being: A condition in which the ecosystem maintains its diversity and quality – and thus its capacity to support people and the rest of life ¬ and its potential to adapt to change and provide a wide range of choices and opportunities for the future (Prescott-Allen, 2001).

Equity: In a broad sense, the just distribution of resources, rights, duties, opportunities, and obligations in society at large, i.e. social justice. In an applied sense at micro level, as for example, in the sharing of fisheries resources, an allocation rule based on the concepts of parity, proportionality and priority (FAO, 2014).

ETP species (endangered, threatened or protected species): Species recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party.

Fisheries management cycle (FMC): All the activities that a fisheries administration is expected to carry out periodically as part of its mandate to manage the fisheries. The FMC is promoted as being at the core of fisheries management and refers to the number of activities that should take place at pre-established, regular times to ensure implementation of the management plan.

Fishery: The sum of all fishing activities on a given resource, for example, a hake or shrimp fishery. It may also refer to the activities of a single type or style of fishing on a particular resource, for example, a beach seine fishery or trawl fishery. The term is used in both senses in this document and, where necessary, the particular application is specified (FAO, 2020a). In other terms, “A unit determined by an authority or other entity that is engaged in raising and/or harvesting fish. Typically, the unit is defined in terms of some or all of the following: people involved, species or type of fish, area of water or seabed, method of fishing, class of boats and purpose of the activities” (Fletcher et al., 2002).

Fishery management: The integrated process of information gathering, analysis, planning, decision-making, allocation of resources and formulation and enforcement of fishery regulations by which the fishery management authority controls the present and future behaviour of interested parties in the fisheries to ensure the continued productivity of the living resource (FAO, 1995).

Fishery management plan: An explicit arrangement (formal or informal contract) between the interested parties and the fisheries management authority which makes explicit the objectives and means of management, the nature of the management authority, its powers and responsibilities, its working and consultation procedures, as well as the rights and responsibilities of the interested parties in the fishery (FAO, 1995).

Governance: The activity or process of governing; a condition of ordered rule; those people charged with the duty of governing; or the manner/method/system by which a particular society is governed (McGlade, 1999).

Indicator: A variable that can be monitored in a system, e.g. a fishery to give a measure of the state of the system at any given time. Each indicator should be linked to one or more reference points and used to track the state of the fishery in relation to those reference points. A variable, a pointer, an index of a complex phenomenon. Its fluctuations reveal the variations in components of the ecosystem, the resource or the sector. The position and trend of the indicator in relation to the criteria indicate the present state and dynamics of the system. Ideally, composite indicators are needed, the position and trajectory of which, within a system of reference of related criteria, would allow simple holistic assessment of sustainability. One can distinguish indicators of state of the system, pressure (or stress, driving forces) on the system, and response (reflecting action taken to mitigate, reduce, eliminate or compensate for the stress) (Garcia, 1997).

Indigenous fishing: Fishing undertaken by peoples native to a land or region, for example, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1991).

Livelihood: A means of securing the necessities of life. A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway, 1992; FAO, 2020b).

Management measure: Specific controls applied in the fishery to contribute to achieving set objectives, including some or all of the technical measures (gear regulations, closed areas and time closures), input controls, output controls and user rights (FAO, 2003).

Management objective: A formally established, more or less quantitative target that is actively sought and provides a direction for management action (FAO, 1997).

Maximum Economic Yield (MEY): When relating total revenues from fishing to total cost of fishing in a surplus production model, the value of the largest positive difference between total revenues and total costs of fishing (including the cost of labour and capital) with all inputs valued at their opportunity costs (FAO, 2014).

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken (on average) from a stock under existing (average) environmental conditions without significantly affecting the reproduction process (FAO, 2003).

Monitoring: The collection of information for the purpose of assessment of the progress and success of a land-use plan. Monitoring is used for the purpose of assessing performance of a management plan or compliance scheme and revising them or to gather experience for future plans (FAO, 1993; FAO, 1998) .

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS): Activities undertaken by the fishery enforcement agency to ensure compliance with fishery regulations (FAO, 2014).

Objective: Expresses the object of an action or what is intended to be achieved. Any objective will include explicit statements against which progress can be measured, and identify which things are truly important and the way they inter-relate; quantified objectives are referred to as targets. Natural resource that does not have a barrier to its use (Scialabba, 1998).

Performance measure: A function that relates the value of an indicator to its reference point, and that guides the evaluation of fisheries management performance in relation to stated operational objective.

Policy: A fisheries policy is the definite course or method of action, selected from among alternatives, by a government or its mandated fisheries authority, in light of given conditions including legal and constitutional constraints, to guide and determine present and future development and management actions towards satisfaction of agreed objectives (Merriam-Webster, 2020). Measures by which a national and/or a provincial government attempts to influence or control the behaviour of individuals, companies and communities in the fisheries sector to achieve certain objectives. The measures can be of varied kinds including fiscal measures, (e.g. taxes, subsidies, public investments, etc.); trade measures (e.g. import and export duties; quotas); social measures (health and education services); regulations (i.e. on food quality; means and types of fish harvesting; individual transferable quotas [ITQs]); and others (FAO, 2014).

Risk: The current international standard definition of risk is “the effect of uncertainty on objectives”. Risk is usually expressed in terms of risk sources, their potential events, their potential consequences and relative likelihoods with risk controls being established to maintain or reduce risks (ISO, 2009).

Risk assessment: The overall process for risk identification, risk analysis and the qualitative or quantitative evaluation of risks (ISO, 2009).

Risk monitoring: The process of following up the decisions and actions within risk management to ascertain that risk containment or reduction with respect to a particular hazard is assured (Duffus, 2001).

Reference and performance levels: A particular state (value) of a fishery indicator corresponding to a situation considered as desirable (target reference point: TRP), undesirable (threshold reference point: ThRP) or dangerous/unacceptable (limit reference point: LRP) (Cochrane and Garcia, 2009).

Socio-economic: Pertaining to the combination or interaction of social and economic factors and involves topics such as distributional issues, labour market structure, social and opportunity costs, community dynamics, and decision-making processes (Sutinen, 2000).

Socio-economic benefit: Benefits to humans gained through utilization of resources, including both economic and social benefits (Sutinen, 2000).

Stakeholder: A group of individuals (including governmental and non-governmental institutions, traditional communities, universities, research institutions, development agencies and banks, donors, etc.) with an interest or claim (whether stated or implied) which has the potential of being impacted by or having an impact on a given project and its objectives. Stakeholder groups that have a direct or indirect “stake” can be at the household, community, local, regional, national, or international level (FAO, 1997; Choudhury and Jansen, 1999).

Stock assessment: The process of collecting and analysing biological and statistical information to determine the changes in the abundance of fishery stocks in response to fishing, and, to the extent possible, to predict future trends of stock abundance. Stock assessments are based on resource surveys; knowledge of the habitat requirements, life history, and behaviour of the species; the use of environmental indices to determine impacts on stocks; and catch statistics. Stock assessments are used as a basis to assess and specify the present and probable future condition of a fishery (FAO, 2014).

Target species: Those species that are primarily sought by the fishers in a particular fishery. The subject of directed fishing effort in a fishery. There may be several primary as well as secondary target species (Garcia, 2009).

Tenure: Socially-defined agreements held by individuals or groups (either recognized by law or customary norms) on the rights of access and the rules for use of either a land area or associated resources, such as individual trees, plant species, water, or animals (CIFOR, 1999).

Threshold reference point (TRP): Threshold reference point: Indicates that the state of a fishery and/or a resource is approaching a target reference point (TRP) or a limit reference point (LRP), and that a certain type of action (usually agreed beforehand) needs to be taken. Fairly similar to a LRP in their utility, the TRP’s specific purpose is to provide an early warning, reducing further the risk that the LRP or TRP are inadvertently passed due to uncertainty in the available information or inherent inertia of the management and industry systems. Adding precaution to the management set-up, they might be necessary only for resources or situations involving particularly high risk (Garcia,1996).

Traditional ecological knowledge: The local knowledge held by a group of indigenous people and passed from generation to generation, on the nature and functioning of the ecosystem.

User participation: Where resource users play an active role in the process of management (OECD, 1996).

ANNEXURE 1: EAF IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING TOOL SCORING RATIONALE

ANNEXURE 2: EXCEL SPREADSHEET TEMPLATE

1 www.fao.org/fishery/eaf-net

2 FAO Strategic objective 1