Science to Governance
An approach to consider, review and
comment on
Nico E. Willemse
BCLME SAP Implementation Project
From TDA/ SAPScience
development
to SAP implementation
to Governance
TDA Process
- Science driven to
identify root causes
and key threats to
the ecosystem in a
transboundary
context
- Does not include
ecosystem goods
and services
valuation nor,
- Policy analysis (for
e.g. in SEA where
policies, plans and
programmes are
analysed)
SAP Development
Process
- Still quite science
driven to identify
knowledge gaps
- Makes policy
recommendations
based on science
- In many cases very
fisheries heavy due to
regional and national
fish stocks decline and
reliance on fish for
food and income
SAP Implementation
- Many times this is
rushed due to time
lost with approvals,
funds arriving 2-5
years later, etc.
- No time to review
and revise the TDA
and SAP to reflect
contemporary
trends and changes
- Learning-by-doing
approach that can
cost time and
money or, spending
money on
something that is no
longer relevant.
- If the TDA/ SAP is
revised as first action
of SAP,
implementation would
entail;
1. Reviewing draft
outputs from the
TDA/ SAP process to
adjust for changes in
the environment;
2. Facilitate stakeholder
sessions to review,
comment and
endorse outputs and;
3. Seek approval of
proposed SAP
instruments for
improved governance
Northern boundary - Cabinda
Science identified the distribution
of commercially important
transboundary stocks:
1. Cape hakes, M. capensis and M.
paradoxus
2. Cape monkfish, Lophius
vomerinus
3. Cape horse mackerel, Trachurus
capensis
The proposed governance
mechanisms;
1. Developing a management plan
for the Orange River Mouth
(ORM) area [completed], and a
Marine TFCA proposed offshore
ORM by the Southern African
Development Community;
2. BCC project to explore possibility
of protecting the Cunene River
Mouth (CRM) [dialogue];
3. Ang and Nam to do joint
management plan for H. mackerel
[commencing];
4. Nam and SA looking at whether
hakes are one or separate stocks
[initiated]
ANGOLA
CRM
NAMIBIA
ORM
SOUTH AFRICA
Southern boundary – Port Elizabeth
EXAMPLE
1
Transboundary fish stock surveys
Survey results are processed and analysed to
recommend Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
TAC recommendation based on 95%
confidence limits
Recommendations go to a National Advisory
Council for approval, BUT with no social and
economic analyses, purely scientific
Recommendation accepted as is
If not, back to scientist for more analysis and
“new” recommendation
TACs issued to companies and ready for fishing
WHY IS IT SENT BACK?
PERHAPS decision makers cannot translate
science into social and economic benefits –
they only hear about state of the stocks
EXAMPLE
1
Back to the drawing board to include social and economic
considerations – WHAT TO LOOK AT?
Conduct an economic and social
valuation of the recommended TAC and
consider what effect will this TAC have
on the following…
Economic benefits
• Tax revenues
• GDP contribution
• Export earnings
• Number of jobs
• Total income to workers
• Marine Resources Fund
• Development goals (MDGs)
• Monetary value of ecosystem goods and
services
Are we progressing toward
national development
targets, e.g. conservation, job
creation, education, etc.
Social benefits
• No of people with access to education
• No of people with access to health facilities
• No with secure incomes – food on the
table, roof, clothes
• No of people trained or capacitated
• Poverty and unemployment reduction
• Local economic development through reinvestment projects
Are we progressing toward
regional development targets
and meeting regional
obligations
Are we addressing
international obligations
under conventions, protocols,
etc.
EXAMPLE
Following the analyses, the technical team can propose more
than 1 scenario for decision makers to consider – one idea to
consider
Scenario 1
“Go Green”
•
•
•
•
Considers ONLY the
sustainability of the
resource with no increased
social and economic
benefits
Not very popular at all
Many times not regarded
as pro development
May – or may not –
consider alternative
conservation approaches
but not recommend them,
e.g. refugia, closed
seasons, etc.
Scenario 2
“Balancing Act”
•
•
•
•
Recognises the need for
trade-offs and promotes a
“conservation for
development” approach
Considers social and
economic benefits beyond
business as usual
Balancing is tricky – needs
to cater for short-term
needs while ensuring longterm sustainability
Recognises that
populations are growing an
so the demand for food
Scenario 3
“Human-centered”
•
•
•
•
•
“Get as much as you can
and get out” approach
Caused collapse of many
fisheries around the world
Can lead to over
capitalisation of fishing
sectors during boom and
lot of debt during bust
In absence of good income
generating alternatives,
NOT the way to go
No conservation – the
ocean will provide.
Lessons for consideration
• Decision makers are interested in people, their welfare and wellbeing;
• Demonstrate the future potential of resources as driver for poverty
alleviation and employment;
• Decision makers rely on us to empower them – if they don’t have the
information they are not empowered;
• To enable regional level S-to-G national policies and laws should be
harmonised to address transboundary resource monitoring, assessment and
use;
• Approaches need to be standardised to ensure consistency in data collection,
cleaning, process, analysis, use and storage. Standard survey protocols and
guidelines need to be in place to ensure continuity of a standardised approach
regionally;
• The details of S-to-G approaches may be region-specific but a standard
guideline for GEF IW may be worth considering to facilitate this
• Involve stakeholders so they can understand the challenges of making
decisions about resources use. Decision makers are under pressure to deliver
on social and economic goals and many people do not understand this
C’mon! Together
we can do
this!...has anyone
seen the
economist?