Working Session II started with a discussion of the need to define small-scale fisheries. The characteristics of small-scale fisheries in Asia vary significantly from country to country. Instead of trying to develop a definition it was decided, in order to be more useful, to catalogue small-scale fishing activities covered in each country under the general term small-scale fisheries.
The development process from centralized, government-based, top-down fisheries management to decentralized, community-based, bottom-up fisheries management is not just a movement from A to B. It is a devolving process, with several layers and feedback loops. Activity planning is an output of this reiterative process. It is a dynamic, three-dimensional process and the needed timeframe as well as the financial support it requires largely depend on the situation in each country.
Decentralized fisheries management has to be implemented at two levels, i.e. the policy level and the activity level. At the policy level the process needs political will to change the fisheries management setup. There was a discussion on whether political support, particularly financial support, was needed. It was felt that, once the communities act, the governments and bureaucrats show interest. At the activity level the process needs to maintain the cooperative spirit within the communities. Only through constant contact with the community could the needed motivation be established to move forward in managing small-scale fisheries.
In the ASEAN region the implementation of management schemes moves through the political system. However, it was agreed that many politicians are not aware of the needed process and of the financial implications to implement community-based fisheries management.
Although it was not a particular subject of the meeting, the discussion also covered the need for clearly defined objectives for the decentralization process. Political will may be based on different objectives to solve the problem. It may be an excuse not to deal with fisheries problems at the local level, i.e. let the communities solve their own problems. The objectives of such decentralization process may include, among others, prosperity, social wellbeing, improvement of human quality of health or increased productivity.
The participants saw the need to provide support to the communities with infrastructure like streets or telephones. This largely depends on the situation in each country. The group agreed that the communities should not receive financial support for establishing management structures like fishing cooperatives or for running these organizations.
It was agreed that management arrangements have to come under the legal system of the country, with clear policies at all levels. In most cases, political support would go hand in hand with financial assistance.
The discussion on grouping the activities identified on the first day was continued and six areas or fields of action, as described earlier, were identified.
