Coastal Fisheries Governance Working Paper Review and Recommendations
Delve into the review and recommendations provided in the working paper from the 12th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, focusing on increasing the engagement of non-state actors in Pacific Islands Regional Coastal Fisheries Governance. Explore various options, including new mechanisms like a 5-day RTCMF or a 2-day meeting centered on CBFM. Examine the proposed durations, chairing protocols, agenda topics, and participation criteria for each option.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
12thSPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting REVIEW OF THE COASTAL FISHERIES WORKING GROUP OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING THE ENGAGEMENT OF NON-STATE ACTORS IN PACIFIC ISLANDS REGIONAL COASTAL FISHERIES GOVERNANCE WORKING PAPER 6
Review of the CFWGs operation Background and context are at Section 2 of the Report with supplementary information provided at Attachment C. Section 3 (and Appendix D) of the Report reviews CFWG successes, constraints and effectiveness and Section 4 profiles some lessons arising from the CFWG experience across its 4 meetings between 2017 and 2019. Participants are referred to the Report for additional detail relating to the background and operation of the CFWG across its 4 meetings.
In relation to Options Dictated by our time constraints, the remainder of this presentation focusses on options for a new mechanism to increase the engagement of non-state actors and addressing the directive of the Special RFMM Option 1 (Refer to Table 5 of the Report) A 5-day RTCMF with a 2-day agenda item reserved for CBFM or Option 2 (Refer to Paragraph 57 of the Report) A 2-day meeting focused on CBFM prior to a 3-day RTMCF with the same structure as proposed under Option 1
Duration? Option 1 2 days (14 hrs) within the 5 day RTMCF Option 2 2 days (14 hrs) prior to RTMCF
Both Option 1 and Option 2 (CBFM topic only) Chairing? Convener(s): Representative of a CBO/NGO or co-chairing by two CBO/NGO representatives
Both Option 1 and Option 2 Agenda topics (subject to periodic review)? For example: Lessons learnt (in CB processes) Capacity building gaps and needs Partnerships and relationships Supporting sustainable livelihoods Monitoring success what is success and how to measure it
Both Option 1 and Option 2 Participation? Representatives of CBOs, CSOs, NGOs and SPC members. Other IGOs with demonstrated experience in CBFM Observers? Donors, IGOs
Both Option 1 and Option 2 Reporting? Report, adopted by consensus, presented to the RTMCF If consensus is not possible, opposing views are recorded
Both Option 1 and Option 2 Review of operations and value? At the end of every meeting
HoF12 Decisions: To enable FAME to move forward with arrangements for RTMCF4, HoF12 is invited to make three decisions: Which option? Chairing arrangements? Invitation process?
HoF12 Decisions: Option 1: A 5-day RTCMF with a 2-day agenda item reserved for CBFM or Option 2: A 2-day meeting focused on CBFM prior to a 3-day RTMCF with the same structure as proposed under Option 1 Poll Discussion Decision
HoF12 Decisions: Chairing? SPC FAME invite a highly regarded coastal fisheries individual(s) HoF12 selects a chair or co-chairs SPC and HoF12 Observers liaise post-meeting on a representative(s) from the CSO community Ideally known at least 6 months in advance of the next session Poll Discussion Decision
HoF12 additional guidance Invitations? Use CFWG process (then be reviewed at RTMCF4), which was: SPC called for nominations in advance of each meeting indicating the selection criteria for community representatives and details of the meeting. Done through the CFWG CSO s contacts in the first instance If no nomination was received within 2 weeks, a follow-up communication was sent to government representatives (with copy to the CFWG participants). Nominations received by the CFWG and selection made. National fisheries administrations nominate national CSO/NGO/fisher representatives SPC FAME engage with national/regional NGOs to identify CSO/NGO/fisher representatives
