Presentation Policy Integration - University College Corkcorepoint.ucc.ie/FinalDeliverables/CapacityBuilding/ICZM... · ... Slide Presentation from the Coastal Research and Policy

Slide Presentation from the Coastal Research and Policy Integration Project (COREPOINT). http://corepoint.ucc.ie/ 1

In the recommendation one reads “Adaptive management during a gradual process which will facilitate adjustment as problems and knowledge develop. This implies the need for a sound scientific basis concerning the evolution of the coastal zone.”g

Within the theoretical background for adaptive management one can find some other definitions that shed some light on the possible uses for adaptive management within a ICZM framework. Coastal management in Belgian is implemented to deal with modest steps and unintended consequences (in this case the porpoise were unintended victims), the decision making was in the first instance top down (from the federal government (2 administrations) and Flemish government (some other administrations)) and in the end bottom up (when they sat down with the stakeholders) As such adaptive governance isand in the end bottom up (when they sat down with the stakeholders). As such, adaptive governance is aimed at integrating science, policy and decision making in systems that assume and manage for change, rather than against change.

The issue of this presentation is the death of sea porpoises in Belgium and their competition with the local fishers fishing for sole.


The Harbour porpoises found in Belgium belong to the North Sea population.

The Belgian part of the North Sea is about 3600Km², the coastline is 65Km long.

If we compare this to the UK situation (the coastline is 12,429 Km) we see that in 2004 there were 472 porpoise strandings.


These are the figures for mid‐2007

As you recall the Belgian coastline is 65Km long and in 2004 we had 41 porpoise strandings! Compare thi t 472 t di i th UK i 2004this to 472 strandings in the UK in 2004.

The figures have been split in to 3 sections.

The figures for 1990‐1998 around 5 porpoise a year

The figures for 1999‐2004 20‐40 porpoise a year

Th fi f 2005 2007 hi h k f 90 i !The figures for 2005‐2007 high peaks of 90 porpoise a year!


What do we know?

In the first period we saw an increase in porpoise sightings, we also recorded on average 5 strandings a year. Most of these dead porpoises had scars so fisherman and their nets were the prime suspects

In the second period we see that porpoise sightings increased, the scientists weren’t sure why. Two hypotheses were proposed. The first hypothesis was that the harbour porpoise populations increased in the North Sea, the second hypothesis was that the population didn’t increase but migrated due to a problem in the central North Sea. ASCOBANS states that “Several by‐catch mortality estimates exceed the ASCOBANS level of unacceptable mortality of 1.7% of the best estimate of population size and are therefore likely to be unsustainable, especially if all associated uncertainties and biases are taken into account.” but how do you estimate the % of by‐catch when you do not have an estimate of the population?

In the third period, research was carried out under several projects and it became clear that the increase in sightings was due to porpoise migrations. This is also the period in which the strandings increased to the level of 90 strandings per year. Due to scientific information and due to the managements plans adopted in periods 1 and 2 we knew that the beach fisheries were to blame. The fact that dogs got caught in the gillnets increased the pressure on the recreational fisheries and lowered their public support.


How did the recreational fishers react?

In the first period when the professional fishers weren’t in the spotlights they remained silent.

In the second period they defended themselves stating that they weren’t to blame stating that the recreational fisheries in France are even more extensive and they even use tractors for their ‘hobby’. They stated that the population of porpoises had increased so mathematically speaking it is logical that the strandings also increased. They stated that porpoise swim, they do not approach the shoreline! And their last argument was that it is a cultural and historic activity.

In the last period the scientific models showed that the Belgian strandings couldn’t come from the French by‐catche as the currents went the wrong way. The sightings did increase but due to migration of the porpoise population not due to the recovery of the population. The argument that porpoises didn’t approach the shoreline were countered by the public who saw more and more porpoises from the piers. And the last argument of the fishers was countered when it became obvious that the recreational gill net fisheries actually weren’t small scale and most of them sold their catches.


Who was involved?

In the first period the problem was mostly an international issue so the Federal government and international NGO’s were active.

In the second period there was a EU Life project along the Belgian coast and these actors were involved in research into gillnet fisheries, recreational fisheries and possible legal solutions.

In the last period the coordination centre in ICZM got involved, the raised the awareness and got the porpoise problem on the political agenda. They then got all the actors together with experts. From this point on all relevant authorities were involved, all actors were involved and scientific and legal experts were consulted.


So what did Belgium do?

I th fi t i d th i d ASCOBANS d k d ith th CFP Th th f i l ill t fi h iIn the first period they signed ASCOBANS and worked with the CFP. Thus the professional gillnet fisheries were managed (they were the prime suspects).

In the second period our knowledge increased concerning the problem and due to the previous management scheme we knew that the professional fisheries weren’t to blame. So the management focussed on the recreational fisheries. The federal administrations wrote an amendment to the Marine Bill prohibiting recreational gill fisheries beyond the low water mark. The Flemish administrations wrote a p g g ydesign police ordinance (a type of by‐law) for the local authorities to implement.

In the third period the professional fisheries were controlled and managed. The recreational fisheries beyond the low water mark were prohibited, but the design ordinance wasn’t implemented by the local authorities. In order to resolve this problem the coordination centre on ICZM raised the issue on the political agenda. They organized workshops with the authorities (all levels) the relevant administrations, the stakeholders and legal and scientific experts This expert group was then used by the cabinet of thethe stakeholders and legal and scientific experts. This expert group was then used by the cabinet of the minister in order to solve the problem. In the end a Flemish decree was written LIMITING the recreational beach fisheries. The political carrying capacity was it seems a bit too low to banish the recreational fisheries.


What were the tools used?

First of all different types of legal frameworks were applied with varying success.

Secondly they used participation methods to create a carrying capacity AND to get the laymen knowledge concerning this issue. Who is fishing, how much, why …

K l d i l i thi i tifi k l d b t l l k l d ! Th lKnowledge was crucial in this case, scientific knowledge but also laymen knowledge! There was also a great amount of knowledge that was gained due to the process of adaptive management. While the actors changed their approach they learned and used this knowledge to create an effective management plan.

We can see a clear shift in power in these last 20 years! The knowledge gained was used to counter the t f th fi h d t ll l d t t harguments of the fishers and eventually lead to a new management scheme.



And to end some questions,

Is adaptive management ad hoc management? If it is does this mean adaptive management is in contradiction with long‐term thinking?

For your information: the difference is that ad hoc management is can be adaptive but the one implementing it just reacts. Adaptive management means you are pragmatic without losing you long term view. You have an overall plan but you’re management schemes don’t always succeed but you learn. You manage for change not against it!

The last question is asked to reflect on you’re current situation, is it possible, is it dangerous the change laws, …..


Documents

Presentation Policy Integration - University College Corkcorepoint.ucc.ie/FinalDeliverables/CapacityBuilding/ICZM... · ... Slide Presentation from the Coastal Research and Policy