CHAPTER II. EAFM Plan Preparation

2.1. Developing Goals, Success Indicators, and Benchmarks

1. Developing Goals

Based on the EAFM priority issues determined through Module 2 Sub-chapter 2.5, the objectives can be developed for each EAFM domain. The indicators of success and benchmarks are determined to measure the achievement of each objective. Success indicators are variables, clues, or indexes that measure the current condition of the selected ecosystem components. Each fisheries management objective may consist of one or more indicators. At the same time, the benchmark is the initial condition (baseline) before management action is taken. Success indicators link goals and actions when compared to targets and baselines.

In practice, it is possible to estimate success indicators from data that has been or can be collected, but it should not exclude success indicators that require new data. Success indicators and benchmarks are developed after the goals are approved.

To develop goals, it is necessary to take several actions, namely:

• Identify alternative management objectives, especially for each problem requiring direct management action.

• Determine hierarchy or priority goals if several alternative management objectives exist for each priority issue.

• Stakeholder engagement to obtain input or suggestions regarding the suitability and practicality of management objectives.

• Ensuring that the objectives of fisheries management do not conflict with laws and regulations, national fisheries management objectives, or other policies at a higher level.

• Ensuring that each management objective can be used in the management system to be developed.

Based on the existing issues and problems (objectives, indicators, and benchmarks) related to the management of inland fisheries in Indonesia, they can be grouped into 7 domains as follows:

1. Fish resource environment;

2. fishing technology;

3. social;

4. economy;

5. managed fish species group;

6. governance; And

7. stakeholders;

2. Indicators and Benchmarks

Stakeholders assess the achievement of goals using indicators of success and benchmarks set to see whether each management action can achieve the agreed management objectives. In short, benchmarks are described as targets, baselines, or limits.

Indicators measure the current status at a point in time (e.g., catchment, temperature, and flooded forest area). An indicator can be either quantitative or qualitative from several fishery attributes that can be measured by:

• Direct: It measured directly (for example, the number of fishermen using specific fishing gear);

• Estimates: It estimated using models (modeling of estimated biomass using stock assessment);

• Indirect: It is measured indirectly (management measures/actions related to biomass, such as catch rates or application of the average CPUE to the number of fishermen); or

• Conclusions: only summed up (e.g., the number of collaborative meetings as an indicator of cross-agency cooperation and coordination).

The indicators developed must also meet the SMART criteria:

• Specific (in terms of quantity, quality, and time);

• Measurable (objectively verifiable at an acceptable cost);

• Available (from existing sources or with reasonable extra effort);

• Relevant (towards goals and sensitive to changes); and

• Timely (to ensure timely implementation of management for managers)

Table1. Example indicators for each objective

Source: Essential EAFM Training Course, 2014

Each indicator is assessed regarding the seven domains in the 'The Guidelines for Assessment of Ecosystem-Based Management Indicators.' The collection of new data needed to develop indicators can be done in several approaches:

1. Use existing data, if available;

2. Collect new data, if required, and;

3. Use a participatory approach, if possible.

Measuring Management Performance

Management performance can be measured by comparing indicators with agreed benchmarks (targets, baselines, or limits). It will estimate how well management is performing (Figure 1). The green zone is the desired result (above the target), the yellow is less desirable (below the target but above the threshold), and the red is undesired.

Figure 1. Measuring management performance: trend of an indicator shown against (FAO, 2019)

2.2. Management Actions, Compliance, Finance, and Finalization of the EAFM Plan 

1. Management Actions

In conventional fisheries management, management actions generally focus on fisheries actors to utilize fish resources sustainably, for example, by controlling the type of fishing gear and fishing season. However, in ecosystem-based fisheries management/EAFM, fisheries management actions must include: (i) fisheries management actions related to the environment of fish resources; (ii) fishing technology; (iii) social; (iv) economy; (v) managed group of fish species; (vi) governance; (vii) stakeholders.

Table 2. Typical EAFm management measures/actions

Source: FAO Inland EAFM Handbook for Tarinees, 2019

When meeting the EAFM management objectives, EAFM management actions can include management plans and actions carried out through management strategies such as inland water spatial planning. In many cases, several management actions can achieve specific objectives, and data can be collected through brainstorming sessions with community members, assisted by stakeholder groups and relevant government agencies. Determining management actions using the tree diagram method (Figure 2) can be used to encourage community members to propose management actions that will solve specific problems. Preparing a list of all possible management actions for each objective is essential, paying attention to their ease of implementation, the likelihood of success, feasibility, and cost.

Figure 2. Example of a tree diagram in problem identification (FAO, 2019).

EAFM management actions can contain plans and actions taken through other management strategies such as Watershed Managers, Fish Protection Zones, and Integrated Landscape Planning/RTRW if they align with EAFM management objectives.

Decisions or Rules of Control

Co-management actions that will be carried out should be accompanied by rules regarding how each stakeholder will implement these actions. In practice, these are often developed later during the process. The rules will regulate/direct the actions to be taken under different conditions, as determined by performance indicators. In artisanal fisheries, management actions must be pragmatic (e.g., linked to stricter enforcement if certain actions don't work).

The key is to try and agree on what might happen and how to react to the indicator's value changes. It provides a level of certainty for stakeholders. The rules are very important to know and understand widely. In certain cases, the decision rule can be quantitative (e.g., changing the duration of a community fishery's closed season as a predetermined fraction of abundance, determined by catch assessments made by fishers in the community) or, qualitatively, for example, a certain value of an indicator triggers a decision to do co-management review

Managerial Action, Rules, and Regulations

It is good to practice and develop a set of rules and regulations as a companion document to the EAFM plan. As the EAFM plan is intended as a long-term reference (although with regular adaptations and changes), the management actions in the EAFM plan should be fairly general, such as limiting gill mesh size or determining areas or cover periods.

The exact specifications of these measures are best laid down in a rule and regulation (e.g., minimum mesh size = 5 cm; 4-week closing season from June 1). It is easy to change the decision rules and regulations than the EAFM plan (although this depends on how the EAFM plan).

The regulations may be formal or informal, created by communities for EAFM plans. They may prove more effective than top-down laws and regulations with good community support.

2. Compliance and Enforcement

Compliance and enforcement are different but complementary concepts. Compliance is achieved when the actions of fishermen and/or stakeholders in the fisheries sector comply with relevant laws and regulations. Meanwhile, the enforcement is enforcing or ensuring compliance and/or compliance with rules and regulations. Compliance becomes a result of voluntary acceptance and action following management rules and regulations.

When rules and regulations are violated, enforcement is the action against those responsible for non-compliance. Balancing compliance with enforcement requires that resource managers make compliance a more favorable outcome than enforcement. Any compliance and enforcement system must be accountable, legal, fair, and flexible. Compliance can achieve best when fishers perceive management as legal and fair. The science is reliable and credible. It means that there are effective monitoring, control, and surveillance activities, and effective penalties reduce the economic incentives for violations.

Law enforcement systems can be used to increase compliance with the rules governing the use of resources by monitoring user behavior and punishing those who engage in prohibited activity. By increasing the weight and likelihood of sanctions and increasing the opportunity cost of non-compliance, enforcement systems act directly on resource users to encourage compliance with established rules. The enforcement system also shapes compliance indirectly. By shaping the perception of the overall level of compliance, the enforcement system influences the level of "contingent compliance," with individuals basing their decision to comply with rules on the (perceived) level of compliance by others. Through the design of the sanction mechanism and the perception of "fairness" by law enforcers, the enforcement system also forms a legitimation perception.

Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance (MCS)

In the jargon of fisheries, enforcement, and compliance, management actions are known as "Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance (MCS)." The MCS is a mechanism for implementing agreed management actions. The MCS component consists of the following:

1. Monitoring – collection and analysis of compliance-relevant information;

2. Control – rules governing fisheries; And

3. Supervision – observing and supervising to ensure compliance with fishing regulations.

It should be noted that the use of the term "Monitoring" has a different meaning/scope than that used in the term "Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)." Compliance monitoring can be considered a special part of the larger monitoring for M&E. The compliance monitoring includes gathering information about what is happening in the fishery.

The controls are rules of fishery resources that can be utilized, as provided for national fisheries laws, EAFM plans, and other arrangements (such as customary rules).

Supervision involves regulating and supervising fishing activities to ensure that fishing regulations and management measures are followed. These activities ensure that fisheries are not over-exploited, fishing activity is minimized, and co-management measures are implemented.

It provides the basis by which fisheries management (through the MCS) is implemented. MCS requires:

• Cooperation and coordination across agencies, fisherman groups, and stakeholders who have an agreement;

• training and financial resources (financial);

• education and awareness raising;

• supervision; and

• effective sanctions both by the authorities and the community (social sanctions)

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Compliance and Enforcement

Law enforcement can be done on a "top-down" basis (i.e., enforcement of fisheries patrols) and/or "bottom-up" (i.e., local fish keepers and through co-management). Meanwhile, national and local governments have responsibility for law enforcement. Regulations enforcement by fishermen mostly happens when governments lack the financial or human resources for MCS.

In some cases, fishers are appointed to enforce the law; in other cases, they may be provided with a "hotline" to call and report illegal activity. Fishing groups now routinely use mobile phone cameras to document illegal activities. Resource users may also decide to enforce their regulations when they believe they can benefit from regulatory compliance.

Self-enforcement should be formally empowered by agreement with the responsible government agency. Without legal law, it will be dangerous for law enforcement to take it into their own hands.

Law enforcement is much more than the mere presence of armed police who have the authority to arrest people; it involves the application of multiple approaches by various institutions and stakeholders to change or modify behavior. Law enforcement interventions can be called 'soft' countermeasures or 'hard' sanctions.

The soft enforcement approach promotes voluntary compliance with legal requirements without going to court. Soft enforcement focuses on the social and cultural dynamics of compliance that can be used to: (a) maintain widespread compliance, (b) encourage voluntary compliance, and (c) achieve general deterrence.

Negative or 'hard enforcement' uses legal sanctions imposed by courts or regulatory authorities for deterrence. The 'hard enforcement' approach aims to identify, find and sFMUress violators using all possible legal instruments.

Table 3. Examples of 'soft enforcement' and 'hard enforcement.'

Source: FAO Inland EAFM Handbook for Trainees, 2019

3. Financing

Developing EAFM requires a fund, so it requires a guaranteed funding source. Funds must be available to support various planning, implementation, and coordination activities. Funding, especially sufficient in time and sustainable funding, is critical to the EAFM process sustainability. In the early stages of implementation, funding may come from external organizations or large development projects. This source of funding may or may not be sustainable in the long term. The programs often fail when outside funding sources cease. Therefore, it is important to implement alternative sustainable financing mechanisms. The community must support and accept the EAFM process so that stakeholders are confident enough to invest the time and money.

The option for the financing mechanism to be used in a particular case should be based on an analysis of several feasibility factors:

• Finance (required funding, income generation, income stream, annual needs);

• Legal (legal support for financing mechanism, new law needed);

• Administrative (level of difficulty to collect and enforce, complications and costs, the potential for corruption, staffing requirements);

• Social (who will pay, willingness to pay, equity, impact);

• Political (government support, monitored by external sources); and

• Environmental impact.

Based on the situation and support from the government, the following are some alternative sources of available revenue:

Table4. Depending on the situation, and government support, several sources may be available

Source: FAO Inland EAFM Handbook for Trainees, 2019

4. EAFM Plan Finalization

The EAFM completion process culminated in the materials needed to develop the EAFM plan. This plan is defined in one document, including all elements required to implement EAFM.

The template below shows the main elements typical of an EAFM plan. Most of the information for the plan should have been gathered through stakeholder consultation, research, and secondary data.

Action through a consultative process to develop an EAFM plan is as important as the output. It fosters ownership of the plan and other stakeholders' trust and builds a good working relationship between stakeholders. It also allows roles and responsibilities to be clarified and can shape relationships between key players such as research institutes and fisheries, thereby making each other's work more closely aligned with the needs of end users.

Table 5. EAFM Plan Template

Source: FAO Inland EAFM Handbook for Trainees, 2019