CHAPTER III. Communication Strategy

3.1. Communication Strategy

The EAFM plan has been agreed upon and must be implemented immediately to capitalize on good intentions and momentum. Formalizing these arrangements in official documents is important to implement agreed co-management arrangements. In other cases, the legislative need to recognize the EAFM's plan. Conversely, it can be as simple as making a list of activities agreed upon and carried out by community group leaders/customary heads.

It is also important to determine the level of authority of an official document for the EAFM plan to ensure that the specific arrangements are socially recognized and enforced by the appropriate authorities or groups. It could involve management authorities at the national, provincial, district, community, customary institutional levels, or a combination of some levels.

From the EAFM plan that has been prepared (including management actions), a work plan is needed to implement the EAFM plan. Managers will benefit from using an implementation work plan that outlines what needs to be done to implement the EAFM plan, who will implement it, when it will be implemented, and where the work plan/activity will be done. In short, the work plan prepared can explain some things, including (i) What specific tasks/activities/tasks need to be carried out? (ii) Who is the person/institution responsible for carrying out the tasks/activities/tasks? (iii) the specific time the task/activity/task will be completed.

Subjects/components that can be used for work plans may include (i) information/knowledge management; (ii) fishery management and monitoring actions; (iii) strengthening the institution; and (iv) human resource capacity development.

From the EAFM plan that has been prepared along with the work plan, it is necessary to have effective and optimal communication to share this information with the relevant target audience/stakeholders. Communication includes sharing information from the EAFM plan with identified target audiences and identifying ways to adapt management practices to improve EAFM. The communications strategy provides a clear process for sharing results logically and strategically.

Communication strategies can include:

• analysis of the possible internal and external audiences, their characteristics, and a set of priority target audiences;
• The results will be planned by identifying which media and formats to use with each audience group. Then, the approach and delivery style need to be taken;
• a set of key messages illustrating examples and stories that explain results and help to focus on the attention of specific target audiences; and
• a timeline of when the message and presentation format will be released and delivered to the target audience.

The communication media can be meetings, workshops, news articles, internet pages, emails, newsletters, reports, social media, and public relations materials. The consideration must be shown, not only for literacy level but also for social or cultural acceptance. Some things that also need to be considered are how some audiences are more accessible than others; ensure all potential audiences are delivered (including those who are less powerful, weakly literate, and less voiced).

3.2. Reality Check 2

Reality check 2 considers the main principles of EAFM introduced earlier and several indicators supporting environmental management. It emphasizes the need for an effective legal framework; effective compliance and enforcement; institutional networks and coordination mechanisms; appropriate scale; qualified fisheries management institutions and their human capacity; and adequate human and financial resources. If reality checks 2 is absent, the EAFM plan must be modified, or weaknesses should be corrected.

The implementation is based on agreed plans and activities. Then, the quality and effectiveness of performance are shaped by some issues of governance or "ability to achieve." As part of the EAFM process.

In this module, a reality check is carried out to determine if all the essential elements needed by EAFM implementation are in place.

Table6. EAFM Principles in practice

Source: FAO Inland EAFM Handbook for Trainees, 2019

1. Good Governance

Adequate legal framework

At the international level, the rules/regulatory instruments are contained in several agreements:

• Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992
• Agenda 21 of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992
• FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Rome, 1995 (CCRF)
• Voluntary Guidelines for securing sustainable artisanal fisheries (VGSSF)
• Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure (VGGT)
• Convention on biological diversity (CBD)

In Indonesia, several rules and regulations have become the legal framework for the implementation of EAFM in inland waters, including:

• UU no. 45 of 2009 concerning fisheries
• UU no. 11 of 1974 concerning irrigation
• UU no. 17 of 2019 concerning Water Resources
• UU no. 7 of 2016 concerning the protection of fishermen
• KP Ministerial Decree No. 1 of 2021 concerning Protected Fish Species
• KP Ministerial Regulation 48 of 2020 concerning the Organization and Working Procedures of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
• KP Ministerial Regulation No. 18 of 2021 concerning the Placement of Fishing Equipment and Fishing Auxiliary Equipment in the Fishery Management Area of ​​the Republic of Indonesia and the Open Seas and Arrangement of Fishing Andons
• KP Ministerial Regulation. No. 10 of 2021 concerning Standards for Business Activities and Products in Implementing Risk-Based Business Licensing in the Maritime and Fisheries Sector.
• KP Ministerial Regulation No. 22 of 2021 concerning the Preparation of Fisheries Management Plans and Fisheries Management Institutions in the Fisheries Management Area of ​​the Indonesia Republic

At the provincial and district levels, several regions already have a legal framework for implementing EAFM in inland waters. The legal framework should be able to regulate and support cross-sector and cross-stakeholder collaborative management (co-management).

In the long term, EAFM may require existing legal instruments that impact the fishery and need to be reconsidered, and adjustments can be made when necessary. In addition, it is also necessary to regulate interactions between sectors through primary laws, for example, the legal framework governing the utilization of inland water ecosystems (water, fish, weirs, hydropower, environment, etc.).

Reviewing and confirming the legal basis for all plans, agreements, and proposed activities is an important activity to be carried out by the implementation team, focusing on each level (district/city, province, national and international). The team must identify relevant laws and decisions/regulations related to their respective management areas considering that there is often no interaction and integration between the fisheries and the environmental sectors. So there is no consolidated and comprehensive regulatory framework.

EAFM plans are often implemented across some sectors, and some laws will be relevant to a FMU, not just fisheries-related rules (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Sectors that may have legislation relevant to EAFM. Laws related to the environment often apply in all sectors (FAO, 2019)

Stakeholders approve rules and regulations

One of the keys to implementing an EAFM plan is having rules and regulations approved (or at least recognized) by stakeholders. It can provide a higher likelihood/probability of compliance. Through the planning steps of EAFM, namely linking management actions to core objectives and issues,  the need for and reasons for having appropriate rules and regulations should become clear to all stakeholders.

Effective compliance and enforcement

EAFM is underpinned by effective compliance, and this involves:

• Participatory compliance and enforcement by stakeholders through co-management;
• Enforceable legislation and control mechanisms (e.g., the gear that permitted);
• The extension (working with fishers to raise awareness and compliance);
• Data collection systems (e.g., landing site monitoring, catch certification, daily log book filling);
• Communication systems (e.g., radio, cellular telephone, etc.);
• Market inspection;
• cross-regional cooperation (e.g., fisheries commission at WPPNRI PD level)

As with all other components of the EAFM process, participation is key. By being part of the plan, each stakeholder is more likely to have a sense of belonging to the proposed co-management measures and should be more compliant. Stakeholders may sometimes become part of the law enforcement team, although care may be needed to clarify their roles and responsibilities.

One important thing is to build collaborative inter-agency mechanisms to manage and facilitate compliance. The Partnership provides compliance authority and an interagency mechanism to develop and coordinate compliance plans. Partnerships can provide the necessary conditions for good communication and transparency. Partners can easily share knowledge and information about fisheries and their utilization. It is also essential to start the partnership process with a meeting with the heads of all the key agencies involved in the fishery. It is used to assess their commitment. Partnerships of 10 or fewer people tend to be easier to manage.

The leading institution is usually a fishery institution. The long-term goal of compliance should be to encourage voluntary compliance by the fishing community/industry with laws and regulations governing fisheries (both formal and traditional/customary rules/social rules). It is highly recommended that the partnerships established for FMUs provide a strategic overview of compliance issues and help identify and use compliance assets/instruments more effectively (i.e., Inspectors, monitoring data, etc.). The partnership system must be built at the district level, closest to fishing activities.

Effective governance arrangements

Cooperation and coordination will require structural arrangements that formalize coordination and facilitate participation vertically across different jurisdictions (e.g., community to national) and horizontally across related agencies involved in EAFM (e.g., across fisheries, environment, and Water Resources).

2. Ecological, Human Scale, And Appropriate Governance

In the first step (module 2), the spatial scale and boundaries of the FMU are agreed upon. However, EAFM should be implemented in a multi-spatial and multitemporal context that reflects the natural hierarchy of ecosystems (e.g., across watershed level boundaries, such as watersheds, sub-basins, rivers, lakes, floodplains, and other bodies of water). Zooming in and out is a real issue is needs to be considered. In an ecosystem, parts of one or another ecosystem that may be outside the FMU can impact the condition of fisheries in the FMU. So, EAFM often "improves" or at least considers several external factors. If the FMU does not include impacts from other fisheries components, large-scale commercial fishing will easily break the co-managing for artisanal fishing.

One of EAFM's challenges is designing ways to ensure that environmental and fisheries institutional actions at every level of government are aligned and consistent with agreed EAFM policy objectives. In many cases, there are gaps between national planning and policy objectives, practical objectives, and implementation by local governments. It requires a consistent approach at the national and sub-national levels and strengthening frameworks that harmonize policy and management objectives.

3. Increased The Participation

Co-management is a partnership arrangement in which the local community of resource users, government, other stakeholders, and other external agencies share responsibility and authority for managing the fishery at different levels.

Empowering and organizing them is very important in working with fishing communities and other stakeholders. It involves increasing awareness, knowledge, skills, and capacities so that stakeholders have the power and mechanisms to act and make rational decisions. Stakeholders must be able to take ownership of decisions and outcomes and act responsibly.

Community development is an internal process of growth and development that can be fostered through: (i) information sharing and dissemination, (ii) training, (iii) facilitation and mentoring, and (iv) networking.

EAFM requires ongoing community participation. It can be achieved by mobilizing. The following types of activities can initiate community mobilization and/or strengthen communities or stakeholders participating in the EAFM process:

• Environmental education;
• Social communication;
• Network building;
• Organizational development;
• HR capacity development; And
• Sustainable financing.

4. Multiple Goals – Different Goals and Exchanges between Goals

Because EAFM encompasses the ecological, human, and governance dimensions of sustainable development, conflicting goals of co-management will emerge. As an example:

• Ecological objectives: break down fishing effort and number of fishing vessels;
• Economic goals: to make fishermen and their supporting value chains more economically viable;
• Social goals: increase employment; And
• Governance objective: increase the revenue collected from the fishing sector.

The first two objectives must be compatible, i.e., reducing fishing effort should result in increased catch per unit effort, particularly of high-value species. However, it may not result in increased employment. Other interventions may be required in such cases, such as promoting alternative livelihoods for those affected by co-management.

As raised in all EAFM descriptions, developing a package of co-management actions is important to achieve an acceptable trade-off of all the desired objectives.

With limited natural resources such as fisheries, it is not always possible to have: (i) healthy fish stocks, (ii) a healthy environment, (iii) a dynamic economy, and (iv) full employment, at the same time, despite the overarching policy that might try to suggest the best.

5. Coordination and Cooperation

The explanation in this EAFM module emphasizes that EAFM needs cooperation between fisheries and environmental agencies to ensure coordination, consultation, and cooperation, including joint decision-making with other sectors that interact with each other. Understanding these inter-agency relationships is important when considering institutional adaptation to EAFM because any successful change requires understanding how the institutional system works and what factors must be considered.

Ideally, a structure for fisheries management should be established to cover a large enough scale area such as a watershed, large lake, or transboundary water body, i.e., an integrated management plan can be developed by a regional/watershed advisory board and serve as a basis for centralized decision making.

Improved coordination, cooperation, and communication within and between related agencies and groups of resource users is urgently needed, both in the planning and implementation processes. It requires clear roles and responsibilities, increased coordination, and integration between agencies and other beneficiaries.

6. Adaptive Management

As emphasized earlier, adopting an adaptive management approach is very important. One of the keys is having a good M&E system in place and then developing effective targets and indicators linked to co-management objectives. When effective targets and indicators are in place, co-management performance can be tracked and adapted based on lessons learned during implementation.

7. Precautionary Approach

The precautionary approach establishes that a lack of information is not a reason for delaying management action. Data on inland fisheries are often of poor quality, especially in cases where most fishers are artisanal fisheries and may not market their fish through clear channels (such as fish landing sites).

The precautionary approach also dictates that management should be more conservative (i.e., risk-averse) and that there is more uncertainty. For example, if the impact of a particular gear on a critical habitat is not well known, a conservative approach would limit the use of the gear to the extent possible if that type of gear does prove to harm the habitat.