Project SUPPORT TO DEVELOP A ... - ACP Fish II - Welcomeacpfish2-eu.org/uploads/projects/id617/TR130228 SL Final TECH... · SUPPORT TO DEVELOP A FISHERIES POLICY FOR SAINT LUCIA (Programme

Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP Countries

Project Funded by the European Union

Pag

ei

Project

SUPPORT TO DEVELOP A FISHERIES POLICY FOR SAINT LUCIA

(Programme Activity No. CAR-1.2-B2c2)

Region: Caribbean Country: St Lucia

Project Report

Final Technical Report

Date: February, 2013

Assignment by

Consultant

Ian Scott



Pag

eii

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................2 1

APPROACH TO THE ASSIGNMENT .......................................................................................................................2 2

COMMENTS ON TERMS OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................3 3

ORGANISATION AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................3 4

4.1 DELIVERY OF TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 CONDUCT AND DETAILS OF THE ASSIGNMENT...................................................................................................................... 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................7 5

ANNEX 1: NATIONAL FISHERIES PLAN ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 ANNEX 2: SECTOR STUDY AND TECHNICAL NATIONAL FISHERIES PLAN ................................................................................................... 26 ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 89 ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................................................ 91 ANNEX 5: PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT, KEY ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS TO ILLUSTRATE FIELD ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVED RESULTS ....... 133 ANNEX 6: INCEPTION REPORT ................................................................................................................................................................ 144 ANNEX 7: TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................................................ 150 ANNEX 8: ITINERARY, INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED .................................................................................................... 163 ANNEX 9: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 166

Acknowledgements The consultant would like to record his appreciation to: (i) the staff of the Department of Fisheries; without their assistance and advice it would not have possible to prepare the various documents; and (ii) the stakeholders who attended the various formal and informal meetings and provided the basis to understand the issues facing the fisheries sector of St Lucia. It is hoped that the output matches their expectations and that it contributes to sustainable fisheries in St Lucia.

Disclaimer

This report including all the annexes has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author Ian Scott and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of St Lucia.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Final Technical Report presents the project “Support to Develop a Fisheries Policy for Saint Lucia” that was completed as part of the EU ACP FISH II work programme by the consultancy company TRAGSATEC. The consultant started his first mission to St Lucia on October 15, 2012, with a second visit between November 26 and December 9. Reporting was completed in the consultant’s home office between December 26 and January 14. To facilitate full review of the draft documents the project was extended from January 31 to February 28.

DOF provided comments to the draft on February 8, 2013; ACP on January 28, 2013. A total of 30 days was allocated. The consultant worked closely with the DOF technical team and the institution provided the logistic support needed for the effective completion of the project as defined in the TO. Apart from professional fees, the project budget included an allocation for incidental expenses. This was used to finance: (i) stakeholder participation (transport as appropriate and lunch) in three workshops and the validation meeting together with the required material; (ii) local travel costs for the Consultant and the technical team: and (iii) the preparation and media presentation of Public Service Announcements promoting sustainable fisheries activity and strategic planning..

The project progressed with: (i) institutional analysis to identify the issues impacting successful implementation of a National Fisheries Plan (NFP): (ii) stakeholder consultation through individual meetings and three formal workshops to provide the views and information needed to draft the sector study and identify key issues; (iii) the preparation of a sector study; (iv) the drafting of the NFP; (v) a stakeholder verification meeting for the draft NFP; and (vi) the finalization of the reports and the preparation of the final technical report and the final report.

A number of issues impacted the completion of the project. (i) The sequencing of the inputs; in retrospect it would have been preferable to have a longer first input with a consequent reduction in the second. (ii) While a number of meetings were held between the consultant and the DOF technical team, there were not as many as initially proposed and DOF participation varied as individual staff members were not always available; and (iii) the delay in progressing plans to spend the available incidental budget.

Another issue was the limited time allocation. It is difficult to complete all the reporting and sequence all the activities, including logistics of stakeholder consultation including spend, in the short time available. While the 14 key activities defined in the ToR were completed, inputs went beyond the days allocated. The consultant produced a number of reports which have been reviewed by the DOF technical team and provide the basis for them to make swift progress in preparing documentation for endorsement by the Permanent Secretary and the Minister. However, it would have been preferable to have a deeper consultation process.

The Plan should form an effective tool to formulate a coherent approach to activities in the sector, replacing the guidance provided by the old Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the 2008 Strategy. The first was overly complex and ambitious and should be replaced with an Evergreen Integrated FMP. The second largely responded to a corporate planning exercise without identifying the role of DOF within the overall process. The positive results of this have been largely limited to improvements in the internal management procedures. The lack of a cohesive plan has led to the lack of funding for project initiatives.

To make progress in the implementation of the Plan a mechanism should be developed for the formal and continuous input of stakeholders into the decision making process. In the longer term the potential to allocate property rights between individual communities should be reviewed. To make the best use of limited resources, implementation of the Plan should be driven by DOF working in full cooperation with other public sector institutions, especially the St Lucia Fish Marketing Corporation (SLFMC) and the St Lucia Fisherfolk Organisation (SLFFO,) potentially within a new institutional framework. Given resource issues, the emphasis in marine fisheries should be on the consolidation of existing effort and the twin needs of sustainable fishing and decent incomes for fishers, rather than development with the objective of increasing the number of vessels and fishers. Given the need to


Pag

e2

provide alternative economic possibilities and improve food security, DOF must look to maximize the development of the aquaculture sector, while recognizing the limits to this due to the various constraints (available land, low technical ability, lack of competitive pricing vis-a-vis imports; the high cost of inputs) and concentrating on specific segments.

It is important that the sector is formalized, with a clear idea of the numbers involved while allowing for the traceability of product to combat praedial larceny.

Fishers have a good landing infrastructure, due to the fruits of cooperation with the Japanese aid agency JICA. However, the facilities need to be maintained and managed effectively if their full benefit is to be felt.

There is space for market development, but again the prospects are limited due to the low level of product and the size of the domestic market. This does not mean that specific market segments (e.g. smoked fish) could not provide employment opportunities while reducing the need for imports and increasing demand for landings. Although in the past, exports of seafood products from St Lucia have been limited, there should be consideration of their potential. This is particularly the case for higher valued products such as tunas, bill fishes and freshwater shrimp, assuming that commercial quantities are available and quality standards are maintained.

BACKGROUND 1

The EU ACP FISH II project aims to contribute to the sustainable and equitable management of fisheries in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, thus leading to reduced poverty and improved food security.

In October, 2012, TRAGSATEC was awarded the contract to complete the project “Support to Develop a Fisheries Policy for Saint Lucia”. The contracting authority for the project is the ACP FISH II Coordination Unit; the beneficiary is the Department of Fisheries of St Lucia.

The purpose of the contract was to strengthen DOF capacity to manage and develop their fisheries through the elaboration of an NFP. As defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR), three specific results were required of the project:

Community-level consultations completed;

Validation workshop organized and report prepared; and

Fisheries Policy and action plan prepared and validated.

The ToR identified 14 tasks, with the need to complete the initial 9 during a first phase and the remainder in the second phase.

The consultancy was completed by Ian Scott - Fisheries Policy Specialist.

APPROACH TO THE ASSIGNMENT 2

On October 15, 2012, the consultant started work in St Lucia to respond to the project terms of reference (Annex 7). The first tasks were to meet the DOF responsible officer, Seon Ferrari (DFO Fisheries Officer and head of the Extension Unit); hold an initial workshop with the technical team; and identify available documentation. This was followed by a day-long review of the fishery around the island, with the consultant accompanied by Seon Ferrari, to see the various landing places and landing complexes around the coast. This allowed confirmation of the schedule and arrangements of the stakeholder workshops that were held in Vieux Fort, Soufrière and Castries the following week. Other activities included interviews with key DFO staff and other key stakeholders (Annex 8). This programme allowed the consultant to consider the need for and the context of strategic planning.

To support the drafting of the sector study, the consultant reviewed existing data and documentation. This was completed at the same time as the organisation and completion of three stakeholder workshops.

Using the information gained the consultant progressed to drafting of the NFP concentrating on the Policy and Strategy. This was presented to the beneficiary on the final working day of the consultant’s first mission. During the first mission, the consultant completed and submitted two draft reports – the Inception Report (Annex 6) and a


Pag

e3

Stakeholder report (Annex 4). Three meetings were held with the technical team, and the opportunity was taken to provide some insights on strategic planning, fishery management planning and sustainable fisheries (Annex 9).

On his return for the second mission, the consultant presented the draft plan to the technical team. There was then preparation for the validation meeting. Following the validation meeting, the beneficiary requested that the NFP be about 10 pages in length to facilitate the understanding of stakeholders and presentation to higher authorities within the Ministry. This led the consultant to review his approach and redraft almost completed documents (Annex 1 and Annex 2). Once the workshops were completed there was a clearer idea of the amount of Incidental Expenditure budget available. On the request of the beneficiary and following approval by ACP II, funds were used to prepare public service announcements related to sustainable fisheries management and their presentation through local media (Annex 9). These PSAs with over 150 “spots” on four media over a period of one month provide strong visibility to the EU assistance.

COMMENTS ON TERMS OF REFERENCES 3

The inception report included a number of comments on the ToR. It was clarified that where the ToR refers to the fishery sector this includes aquaculture. It was also later confirmed that the term “action” plan refers to an NFP consisting of a Policy (Goal, Mission, Vision and Objectives) and a 10-year Strategy (Results and activities) and an indicative National Operational Plan that covers a shorter multi-annual period and comprises tasks needed to contribute to actions in a number of identified axes (action areas). The basis of an NFP is a comprehensive baseline study that assesses the current situation in the context of a vision for the sector, but insufficient time was allocated to complete a comprehensive review with analysis based on readily available information. The potential to implement the NFP will to a large extent be dependent on institutional capacity. Time was not available to undertake a rigorous analysis of DOF. Rather there was a description of the organisation and budget, with comments on the need for institutional strengthening based on comments made by DOF staff and stakeholders. The ToR notes that “there is a need to re-visit, and possibly integrate, the existing Strategic Plan of the Department of Fisheries, the Fisheries Management Plan, other sector-related policies in parallel with conducting a new round of consultations with stakeholders”. This was ambiguous but certainly the resources were not available to the consultant to prepare a new FMP. The Incidental Expenditure (IE) budget was €7,888.

ORGANISATION AND METHODOLOGY 4

4.1 Delivery of Terms of Reference

The table below shows how the consultant responded to the terms of reference.

Terms of Reference Delivery

1 Briefing meeting with the ACP Fish II RFU and officials from the Department of Fisheries including the Focal Point regarding the implementation of the ToR and agree on a detailed work plan.

The briefing meeting took place on the 15th October 2012 between consultant and Seon Ferrari, the head of the DOF Extension Unit who was the nominated leader of the DOF technical team. The consultant and Mr Ferrari worked closely together throughout the project and this greatly facilitated the completion of an effective work plan and the related logistics.

2 In consultation with the Department of Fisheries hold first meeting with the project Technical Team (to be appointed by the Department of Fisheries). The technical team is directly responsible for the coordination of the project and will meet regularly as required.

On the 16th October there was a the first meeting between the consultant and the technical team consisting Seon Ferrari Head, Extension Unit: Shanna Emmanuel Fisheries Biologist; Alina Joseph Fisheries Biologist; Sarita Williams, Head Resource Management Team; Patricia Hubert Medar Data Management; and Leroy Ambois, Mariculture. Bearing in mind one of the aims of the ToR being “to use the opportunities while working with the Technical Team to build capacity in developing fisheries policy”, the


Pag

e4

consultant made a presentation covering Project Objectives; Stakeholder Workshops; Sustainable Fisheries: Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles; Fisheries Management Planning; and Problem Analysis (institutional and stakeholders). The meeting confirmed the proposed work plan.

3 Identify, collect and review current fisheries and marine environmental regulatory and policy framework documents.

DOF and other Government agencies provided a substantial amount of background material, both published and unpublished. This information was supplemented by an internet search. The material allowed the consultant to identify the issues related to sustainability of the fisheries sector in the context of an understanding of a wide range of issues including National policy and strategy, previous fishery development activities, Governance, Institutions, the environment, on-going DOF initiatives, the status of the various sub-sectors and NGO activities. This provided the basis of understanding needed to meet with stakeholders and put their various comments into perspective.

4 Convene meeting with relevant agencies, e.g. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Policy and Planning, fishermen organizations/cooperatives, key stakeholders to introduce the project and visit main fish landing sites (as identified by the Technical Team).

A wide range of meetings were held in the period until the end of the first Mission on 10th November. In a full day field visit on 18th October to Rodney Bay, Gros Islet, Castries, Marisule, Anse la Raye, Canaries, Soufrière, Choiseul, Vieux Fort, Mankote, Micoud, Praslin and Dennery, arranged and accompanied by Seon Ferrari, the consultant had a number of informal meetings with stakeholders and interviewed DOF field staff in Soufrière. The consultant had specific meetings with a number of DOF staff; including Rufus George (Acting Chief Fisheries Officer); Sarita Williams (Acting Deputy DFO); and Leroy Amboise (Mariculture). External persons formally interviewed were St Lucia Fish Marketing Corporation (Vaughan Charles); OECS (Peter Murray); St Lucia Fisherfolk Organisation (Horace Walters & Alva Lynch); and the Sustainable Development and Environment Division, Ministry of Sustainable Development, Energy, Science and Technology (Crispin Dauvergne).

5 Consult and collaborate with the CRFM Secretariat and the OECS Secretariat during the execution of this consultancy for assessing key documents and ensuring a holistic and integrated approach to fisheries management planning in the region.

CRFM documents were consulted. To ensure a holistic approach to fishery management planning the consultant also referred to FAO, WECAFC and ICCAT. The consultant met with the OECS representative in St Lucia.

6 Based on documents collected in Activity (3) above and consultation with different agencies and stakeholders (Activity 4-5 above), conduct an analysis of the current situation to identify gaps, deficiencies and opportunities in the policy and regulatory framework. Consider relevant local, national, regional and international environmental, social and economic trends, impacts and issues that

The information gained from the various sources was analysed in the technical report presenting the sector study and the NFP.


Pag

e5

may have direct or indirect impacts on Saint Lucia’s fisheries or marine resources;

7 With the assistance of the Technical Team, facilitate, organize and make all logistical arrangements for three (3) facilitated stakeholder consultations in Saint Lucia (each 1 day, indicative number of participants in each meeting is 20). The meetings will be held in Castries, Vieux Fort, and Soufrière communities (or as specified by the Technical Team);

The stakeholder work shops were held in the second week of the consultant’s first mission to St Lucia. They were arranged by the Extension Unit; the locations were the DOF offices in: Vieux Fort (23rd October – 37 participants); Soufrière (24th October – 35 participants) and Castries (25th October – 16 participants). This reduced costs as did the preparation of an electronic banner that was displayed in the meetings when the presentation was not being given. DOF staff used private vehicles to attend; a hired bus transported stakeholders from Canaries to the second work shop. Apart from that the only costs were the refreshments and materials. Following the workshops the consultant prepared a report (Annex 4) that summarised the issues identified and presented the problem trees. This was distributed on the 30th October.

8 The Technical Team will be responsible for identifying and inviting the key stakeholders and assisting with logistical arrangements. The consultant will travel (hire vehicle/other) to these consultation meetings and may be accompanied by two officers from the Department of Fisheries;

See above

9 Proceed with drafting of the fisheries policy for review by the Technical Team and later presentation at the national validation meeting;

The draft fisheries policy was prepared in the third week of the consultant’s first mission. It was distributed on 2nd November after an initial presentation to the third meeting of the technical team on the 30th October.

10 Meet with the Technical Team to review the revised Fisheries Policy and develop the Action plan;

The fourth meeting of the technical team was held on the 27th November. The consultant’s presentation covered the previously existing FMP and the 2008 DOF Strategy. The proposed NFP consisted of a Policy, a Strategy and a National Operational Plan. Approval was given to make the presentation to the validation meeting.

11 With the support of the Technical Team organize, facilitate and make all logistical arrangements (transportation for participants as necessary, venue, food) for one National Validation Meeting in Castries to present the draft policy document for discussion (1 day, indicative number of participants is 40). The Technical Team will assist in identifying the venue, inviting key stakeholders, and assisting with the logistics;

The verification workshop (33 participants) took place on the7th December at the DOF offices in Castries. Sandra Grant the ACP II Regional Coordinator participated along with An information note was drafted and sent to DOF on the 26th November, 2012, with a request for distribution to the media.

12 Prepare the Validation Meeting report reflecting the inputs of participants and final recommendations, for distribution to all participants;

The draft NFP was edited to reflect the comments of the verification workshop.

13 Finalize the draft text of the Fisheries Policy and action plan taking into account the comments and recommendations from the meetings;

This document is the Final Technical Report. In addition a Final Report has been prepared.


Pag

e6

14 Present final Fisheries Policy document to the Chief Fisheries Officer and the Technical Team.

The draft documents were sent to the client and the beneficiary in early January, 2013. Comments were received from DOF on February 8 and revised reports were sent to the client and beneficiary on February 14.

An additional activity was the preparation and presentation of Public Service Announcements (Annex 9).

4.2 Conduct and Details of the Assignment

30 working days were allocated to the consultant selected to complete the work. The consultant visited St Lucia twice using a total of 25 invoiced working days (83 % of the total). It should be emphasised that for a variety of reasons the actual working time spent on the project was greater than the allocated budget.

The approach to carrying out the project was based on: (i) detailed consultation with the DOF technical team; (ii) formal stakeholder workshops; (iii) informal meetings with a variety of stakeholders; and (iv) detailed background reading of the available documentation provided by DOF and other entities together with web research (Annex 3). The list of meetings held is shown in Annex 8. The approach to the work was detailed in the Inception Report that was presented on schedule five days after the arrival of the consultant on his first mission, as revised to take account of comments received (Annex 6).

In the first two weeks of the first mission, the consultant gained an understanding of the institutional situation in the St Lucian fisheries sector in order to assess the potential for the implementation of the NFP. There were a number of meetings with the DOF technical team, while key personnel were interviewed to gain greater detail and a better understanding of the issues. Another activity was to gain the information needed to undertake a baseline study of the fisheries sector in the country, with identification of the current state of play and the issues that could be considered in the development of the NFP. Information was gained from the above noted meetings and three formal stakeholder workshops with a total participation of 88 persons. The stakeholder report (Annex 4) was prepared to summarise the findings and subsequently the Sector Study was drafted (Annex 2).

Using the information gained the team progressed to drafting the National Plan (Annexes 1 and 2). The initial approach was to prepare a document of about 30 pages separate from the Sector Plan; however in the final meeting of the second site visit following the validation meeting the beneficiary requested a document of about 10 pages that could be presented to the Minister for his comment and endorsement. This led the consultant to redraft the sector study and change the approach to the Plan with the preparation of two documents – the first a National Fisheries Plan that does not include the National Operational Plan; the second the sector study with a longer Policy (e.g. including indicators, risks and assumptions), Strategy and a sample NOP.

The scheduling of work inputs was complicated by planning of the two missions; in retrospect it would have been better if the second visit had been limited to a single week.

The consultant has received some verbal comments on the draft Plan and these were incorporated into the draft. To allow sufficient time for DOF to review the reports and comment the project was extended from January 31 to February 28. The final reports were sent by the consultant on February 14.

This Final Technical Report has been prepared along with the Final Report, together with the required annexes.

Photos to illustrate the process are in Annex 5. One of the photos shows the “electronic” banner that was displayed at the stakeholder workshops. The beneficiary preferred this option due to the limited time available to prepare one and to reduce spend. Similarly, to reduce expenditure, the workshops and the validation meeting were held in DOF offices.

This approach allowed for a considerable increase to the budget available (€500) for specific visibility activities. The beneficiary opted to use the available budget to prepare and air public service announcements to inform stakeholders of the need for a National Fisheries Plan and responsible fishing (Annex 9). Other IE spend covered materials for the workshops, the refreshments for participants and some travel. Details are contained in the final report.


Pag

e7

DOF has fully supported the team, with an open approach to providing information, arranging meetings and facilitating logistical support (an office with internet connection and transport for travel).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5

Over recent years, DOF activity was largely based on the guidelines provided by the 2006 FMP and the 2008 Strategy. The quality of these two documents was mixed and did not provide clear guidance on a NFP that covers a clear definition of objectives, a time-bound Strategy to achieve those objectives and the context to develop multi-annual action plans. The FMP was both complex and over-ambitious in its proposals (e.g. to develop biological reference points for major stocks) especially given the known limitations on budget and personnel. There was a lack of clarity – with confusion between what is normally considered an FMP and a strategy for sector development. The 2008 Strategy was more of a corporate plan for the DOF rather than a Strategy to develop the fishery sector. Hence there was a concentration of the goals and the detail on internal issues rather than a perspective of how to develop the sector. The Plan was a long time in the making – with several years between the identification for its need and the actual completion. In part, this was due to the perceived need to have baseline information before preparing the Strategy – in reality the collection of that information should have been part of the Strategy. As highlighted by the precautionary approach, the lack of data and information is not a reason for lack of action on implementing fishery management planning. There was no mention of aquaculture.

While the issue of stakeholders is covered in the Strategy, and there appears to have been a lengthy consultation process, the end result concentrated on improved communications while maintaining the top-down decision making process. Accordingly, there has been little to no stakeholder consultation in recent years. This fact is best illustrated by the continued failure to establish the Fisheries Advisory Committee allowed for in the Fishery Law and the associated regulation.

Background reading indicates that the DOF approach to strategic planning with emphasis on a corporate plan is common in Government departments. It is worthwhile noting that DOF appears to have successfully implemented the actions related to strengthening the Institution, with frequent internal evaluations and improved internal communications. But one of the main findings of a recent evaluation of the Ministry was that many staff are unaware of their role or the role of the Ministry.

The project proposals made in recent years by the three units that comprise DOF are of good quality and refer to the FMP or the broader strategy of the Ministry for justification. To-date none of the proposed initiatives have been funded.

The consultant worked closely with DOF and was able to complete the ToR both effectively and efficiently; albeit with some delay due to the need to prepare a separate document and the festive period.

The output provides the Government of St Lucia with the basis for drafting and implementing a Plan of Action that will comprise the operational plan for development of the national fisheries sector according to the funding and personnel available.

In recognition of the limited resources available to the public sector, of paramount importance is the empowerment of the stakeholders, with a strengthening of their social capital and ability to take responsibility for many of the issues related to the sustainable harvest of fishery resources and the use of water resources to develop aquaculture. The prospects for success of the proposals will be severely limited if the recent stakeholder consultation is regarded as a one-off exercise rather than the basis for establishing a permanent effective forum for the involvement of stakeholders in the decision making process.

It is important that the Plan takes on-board the reality that there is a limit to the amount of fishing effort that fishery resources in St Lucian waters can sustain in the medium to long term. While it is the case that the major fishery is concentrated on the take of highly migratory species that are shared with a large number of fishing vessels from other countries, and the proportional catch of St Lucia is insignificant, the case for stronger management on an international scale continues to strengthen. Not only that, but it is acknowledged that the catch around FADs may be limited and the more fishers who share, the lower is the average income per boat and per fisher. This is critical at a time when fishing costs are rising and may be considered as an incentive for unsustainable and irresponsible fishing.


Pag

e8

On that basis, it is recommended that St Lucia moves out of the development mode for its marine fishery (in which it has achieved notable success in the past four decades) to one of consolidation that emphasises the importance not only of fishing sustainably but also that fishers receive a reasonable return for their work and investment.

Progress in developing aquaculture has been slow, reflecting the high risk, the limited availability of farmable area, lack of technical skills and the limited domestic market. The major part of seafood products for consumption in St Lucian by the resident population and tourists is imported and this will continue to be the case. However, this should not mean that farmed product cannot be targeted at specific markets, including the regional tourist industry for higher valued products. This applies equally to the marine catch, and reflects the high international demand for tunas and billfishes.

Similarly, there has been little progress in developing value added product, although there is greater potential for this given the seasonal imbalance between landings and market demand. Again major developments should not be anticipated, however some market segments may prove to be profitable e.g. smoked product and frozen tunas, especially if product quality can be guaranteed.

One sector where there has been substantial progress in recent decades is in the provision of landing infrastructure due to the collaboration and assistance of JICA. The issue here is not the availability of facilities, rather the problems of inefficient management and lack of maintenance. Stakeholders have to be clear that they must take ownership of the facilities and ensure their continued availability in the long term; it is highly unlikely that funds will come available for any major investment in the future.

The benefits of working closely with international donor agencies such as those of Japan, Taiwan, Canada and the EU is ample illustration of the need to fully support further initiatives, although it is important that assistance falls within the framework of the NFP. The lack of international aid will restrict the capacity to implement the NFP. Similarly, St Lucia needs not only to continue it work with regional and international organisations, but where possible strengthen the commitment with for example membership of ICCAT.

The need for DOF to prioritize actions to make the most effective use of the available budget emphasises the need to involve other St Lucian institutions in the process and develop a common approach. A key to success of the implementation of the NFP will be the ability of the different entities to work together within an effective institutional framework, with trained staff and the required budget. The potential for DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO to combine forces in driving the process would be strengthened by mechanism that provide an appropriate mandate, chains of responsibility and the definition of authority. It may be that a Ministry of Fisheries could be appropriate which could assume responsibility for fishery coops and the SLFMC, potentially with other roles related to marine management.

However, responsibilities are not the exclusive area of these three; assistance will be needed from a range of Government ministries. For example, compliance activities must be strengthened to address lack of respect for the regulations.

Other points are:

1. To move as quickly as possible to confirm the NFP (Policy and Strategy) and on the basis of an understanding of the resources available define a multi-annual NOP.

2. To constitute a joint approach between DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO to drive implementation of the NFP working in full collaboration with stakeholders.

3. To facilitate formal stakeholder involvement in the process through forming a National Fisheries Advisory Committee as allowed by the Fisheries Law and Regulations, with the caveat that with Ministerial approval: (i) the mandated membership is widened to reflect the new approach; and (ii) Regional Committees are constituted to work at the local level.

4. To facilitate stakeholder involvement in marketing by constituting an FMC Board that includes stakeholder representation.

5. That DFO takes an active role in the management of the coops and the fishery complexes.


Pag

e9

6. That there is consideration of the options for the administration of the fisheries sector, for example the potential for a Ministry and bringing together fish marketing and fishery cooperative under the same umbrella.

7. To work clearly and effectively with international aid agencies to ensure the success of the work programmes developed with their cooperation; especially at this time those of JICA and the Government of Taiwan.

8. To develop approaches to formalise the fishery sector and limit access to the fish catching sector, preferably based on community fishing rights, with options fully considered during the preparation of an Integrated FMP (IFMP). This IFMP should be realistic and not aspire to outputs that are not possible with the staff available and the limited resources e.g. biological reference points. Emphasis should be on straight forward easily implementable plans based on the traditional knowledge of stakeholders allied with the expertise of the DOF scientists.

9. DOF should prioritize actions and strengthen the management approach to maximise the benefits from its available resources. This would call for a reallocation of budget and personnel.

10. The potential to gain international support could be strengthened by St Lucia working closely with international and regional organisations, especially those that have a remit related to fishery management.


Pag

e10

ANNEX 1: NATIONAL FISHERIES PLAN

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Government of Saint Lucia is committed to the effective and efficient management of a fisheries sector that is comprised of wild caught fisheries and aquaculture as well as ancillary services such as processing, marketing and distribution, which are centred around the public sector, private sector and consumers. Sustainably managed fisheries are a cornerstone of the National economy; providing jobs, food security and business opportunities, particularly for those of us that live in coastal communities and have traditionally derived our sustenance and livelihood from the sea. For the rest of us, the fishery sector is the number one provider of nationally produced protein; the fish is harvested from resources found in our national waters and it is our responsibility along with our neighbours who share many of the stocks to ensure that these are fished responsibly.

The need for sustainable use of fishery resources and to ensure their availability for future generations is emphasized by the trends of globalization, global climate change, economic uncertainty and growing pressure on limited resources. We must have a strategy that will, among other things, bring about sustainable and cost effective fishing practices, enhanced fishers’ skills, increased compliance, improved fisheries enforcement, and the maximisation of the sustainable earnings from the fisheries sector.

The Department of Fisheries (DOF) is mandated with responsibility for the development and sustainable management of the fisheries sector in St. Lucia. In recent years, its activities have been guided by the objectives and goals identified in the 2006 Fisheries Management Plan (FMP)1 and the Fisheries Strategic Plan of 2008.2 The latter provided DOF with direction to improve the implementation of its work programme and meet its mandate, vision and mission for the five year period ending 2012.

The time is now right to draw together the goals and objectives encompassed in those two documents to develop a Strategic approach to meeting the vision of St. Lucians for their fisheries sector in 2022. This approach must reflect a number of basic concepts: we must work with other countries in the Region to ensure that our fish resources are not over-fished; there is a limit to the number of boats and fishers who may profitably harvest the available resources; we must consider the potential for aquaculture; the economic value of the sector may be greatly increased by related activities in such as processing, distribution, vessel repairs and maintenance; and we have to take into account the potential adverse impacts on the fishery sector from external influences, most notably global climate change, pollution and shipping.

1.2 PURPOSE

This National Fisheries Plan (Plan) is the response of St Lucia to the challenge of ensuring the sustainable use of its natural resources in the context of ecosystem protection and support of the long term interests of fishery dependent people through the development of actions that maximise sustainable economic, financial and social benefits. The Plan presents a strategic approach to the challenge of maximizing the Nation’s long term returns from its renewable fishery resources in the context of domestic, regional and global conditions. It defines the objectives of National Fisheries Policy (Policy) together with a Vision and Mission, before going on to address the National Fisheries Strategy (Strategy) that presents a road map on the implementation of the Policy and identifies the results to be achieved and broad actions to be undertaken within the period of the Plan. Subsequently, DFO will drive cooperative efforts by all stakeholders to follow the road map provided by the Strategy with the drawing-up of detailed activities and tasks in a multi-annual National Operational Plan (NOP) that identifies prioritized and sequenced projects in a work plan defined on the basis of the available financial and human resources.

A chief concern is to sustain fisheries as an economic sector that creates employment and income over the medium to long term. We do not look for short term gains that are not maintainable. This approach fits with the sustainable use of the available fishery resources; although environmental considerations go beyond the status of the targeted species by considering sustainability in a wider sense; looking at the potential indirect impacts of fisheries on other elements of the ecosystem.

1 DoF 2006 Plan for the Management of the Fisheries of Saint Lucia

2 DOF 2008 Sustainability of our Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan (2008–20123)


Pag

e11

Today our fisheries sector is largely informal; our aim is to create and maintain durable formal employment in a broad fisheries sector that provides meaningful, dignified and safe jobs.

The rational use and responsible management of our fishery resources will not respond to all of the issues facing St Lucia, but it will contribute to the welfare of fishers and other workers in the sector, their families and their communities. Working with our neighbours and other countries in the Region, we have the obligation to protect the natural renewable resources found in our waters that provide so many benefits to all St Lucians. This leads to a second main point and that is successful implementation of the Plan calls for all stakeholders to assume responsibilities and actively collaborate in a private sector and public sector partnership. In addition, we must work closely with other countries both directly and through other regional organisations to ensure the sustainability of shared stocks.

1.3 THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

DOF requested the assistance of the European Union’s (EU) project Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP1 Countries to draft the Plan, and from October thru December of 2012 a Consultant worked with a DOF technical team that comprised staff from the individual specialist units.

DOF and others have a wide range of data and information and analysis of this provided a strong understanding of the context of the sector.

This was supported by two specific activities. Firstly, reflecting that a critical part of the approach is full consultation with stakeholders, in October, 2012 three workshops (Vieux Fort, Soufrière and Castries) were held to give fishers and others involved in the fishery sector the opportunity to identify issues that should be taken into consideration in the preparation of the Plan. Those issues were presented within a problem tree to facilitate the identification of the root causes and highlight the different policy areas requiring attention. Secondly, key persons within the sector were interviewed to provide a basis for in-depth analysis of the Institutions within the sector. If DOF and other institutions are to assume an important role in the implementation of the Plan there must be a thorough understanding of their capacities and capabilities; institutional weaknesses should not negatively impact Plan delivery.

In early-December, 2012, the draft Plan was presented to stakeholders in a validation workshop held in Castries. On the basis of the comments received, the Plan was finalised by the technical team and the Consultant.

This document covers the Policy and the Strategy; the NOP will be defined according to the identified priorities and the available resources. The all-important task of monitoring and evaluating (M&E) will identify achievements and short comings. DOF personnel will be tasked with oversight of Plan implementation through to identify where the approach must change.

It is stressed that the Plan is a living document. Over the years, needs and priorities will change and it will need regular up-dating which will be contained in revised NOPs.

1.4 RESPONSIBILITIES

Working under the umbrella of MALFF, since its establishment in the mid-1960s DOF has been the main driver of fisheries development; in the process expanding from a single person to encompass Resource Management, Aquaculture, Extension and Administrative units. The professional team is guided by the previously mentioned Strategic Plan and FMP. The St Lucia Fish Marketing Corporation (SLFMC) will be another key player in the implementation of the Strategy. Established in 1985 with assistance of the Canadian International Development Agency, and part of the National Development Corporation, its remit is to support market development and even out supply and demand for national production. The St Lucia Fisherfolk Organization (SLFFO) has also an important role. Launched in 2007 with support from the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), it replaced the National Association of Fishermen’s Cooperative Society Limited, and is the national umbrella organisation for the eight fishery cooperatives. Fishery coops themselves are under the auspices of the Department of Cooperatives of the Ministry of Labour Relations Public Service and Co-operative. These will be vital as we move towards greater stakeholder responsibility and co-management of the resources.

1 African, Caribbean and Pacific


Pag

e12

A number of other bodies have an important part to play in the process. The involvement of the Sustainable Development and Environment Division of the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Energy, Science and Technology will emphasise the link between a healthy fishery sector and a healthy environment and ecosystem. This is especially critical given the on-going concern about the potential negative impacts of global climate change on our country. The Marine Police Unit of the Royal St Lucia Police will ensure compliance with Fishery Regulations introduced to support the legitimate activities of responsible fishermen, and together with the MALFF praedial larceny unit will look to reduce the costs imposed on the fishing sector by widespread theft of catch and equipment. We will liaise with the St Lucia Air & Sea Ports Authority in working to ensure that fishers have the quality of required on-shore support. Gender issues are an important consideration and support will be provided by St Lucian Division of Gender Relations of the Ministry of Health. Non-governmental organisations such as the Soufrière Marine Management Association (SMMA) will be vital in generating stakeholder involvement. Other agencies will be identified as required by the proposed NOP and the various activities and tasks to be undertaken.

Over the past 40 years, the fisheries sector has enjoyed considerable financial and technical support from our International partners. The Governments of Japan, Taiwan, Canada and the European Union, amongst others, have helped to develop our capacity to effectively harvest, land and market St Lucia’s national fishery resources and provide the base for an incipient aquaculture sector that has the potential to contribute to the income diversification strategies of agriculturists. Continued financial and technical support will be vital in implementing the Plan and key in determining our rate of progress.

Fish do not recognise political boundaries. Many of the most important resources are shared with our Caribbean neighbours and the fishing fleets of various nations that harvest the highly migratory species of the Atlantic Ocean. To ensure sustainable management, we must work with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organisation of East Caribbean States (OECS) to ensure effective local management; also the Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT).

With DOF taking the lead, the key St Lucian players have the mandate, professional capacity and joint resources to drive the Plan, and coordinate actions with our International Partners. However, the key to the effective implementation of the Strategy will be the role and responsibilities assumed by all St Lucians. Globally, it is recognized that a cornerstone to the successful implementation of a sustainability strategy is the full involvement of stakeholders with a formal process that seeks and accepts their views and information, and makes effective us of their knowledge to manage fisheries. There is a need to establish effective mechanisms to maintain continuous, formal, stakeholder participation. This concerns not only fishers but all St Lucians including consumers, local community groups, individual community members, school teachers, students and civil society in general who must do their bit to protect our resources.

1.5 STRATEGIC CONTEXT

1.5.1 Legal Framework

The Fisheries Act Chapter 7.15 gives the Minister of responsible for fisheries responsibility for management and development of Saint Lucia’s fisheries sector and the authority to create new regulations for the management of fishery resources. The Saint Lucia Fisheries Regulations Chapter 7.15 provides the specific guidelines for interpreting the Fisheries Act. The existing FMP encompasses both conservation and development issues and identifies a number of options, in terms of actions for the management of various fisheries. More specifically, it provides information on fisheries policy, goals, guiding principles, the legal and institutional framework, fisheries issues and specific management plans for the major fisheries of Saint Lucia.

1.5.2 Policy Framework

While St Lucia does not have a single overarching National Development Strategy, various documents highlight the chief issues. These include consideration of the relative merits of a Strategy compared to a Process that allows for a coordinated set of participatory and continuously evolving processes of analysis, debate, decision-making, capacity


Pag

e13

development, planning, investment, monitoring, and evaluation.1 There is a National Environmental Policy2 that provides the broad framework for environmental management in Saint Lucia, and establishes links with policies and programmes in all relevant sectors of economic and social development. There is also a St. Lucia’s Climate Change Adaptation Policy & Strategy.3

The National Agricultural Policy4 that covers fisheries notes “the need for a radical rethinking and approach to agriculture and rural development…. (that) must espouse a developmental approach that provides scope for “self-propelled”, people centred development. This participatory mode presents more effective models for decision making, institutional building, policy design and implementation”. Among the Policy’s objectives are: increased efficiency and competitiveness; active stakeholder participation; improved technology; national food security; rational usage of resources; the protection, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources; the expansion of production and the market base; and the generation of employment and income in rural areas.

St Lucia is committed to the policies of International and Regional organisations of which it is a member. The OECS provides policy and technical guidance and support for sustainable management of the fishery resources of Member States. At the wider regional level, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) was established to strengthen regional integration in management of marine resources in CARICOM countries. Regional collaboration through the CRFM is considered essential for equitable and sustainable utilisation of the Region’s shared resources. The Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) highlights the need for effective cooperation and collaboration in sustainable utilisation of Caribbean fisheries resources and related ecosystems and the establishment of appropriate measures for their conservation, management, sustainable utilisation and development. Related to this Policy are objectives including the importance of sustainable development, the improved welfare and livelihoods of fishers and fishing communities; eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, building institutional capabilities, and integrating environmental, coastal and marine management considerations into fisheries policy and to mitigate the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. Key factors are the use of fishers’ traditional knowledge in the fishery and habitat management and a precautionary approach with fishing effort not exceeding sustainable potential. Also important is stakeholder participation in the decision making process, good governance, accountability and transparency.

WECAFC identifies a number of issues that impact the potential for sustainable fishery management in the Caribbean5 including: limited human, technical and financial resources; incomplete and outdated policy and legislative frameworks for fisheries and aquaculture; institutional weaknesses of fisheries authorities and other relevant stakeholders; low overall political priority given to fisheries management; limitations on research and information on responsible fisheries and its management; inadequate arrangements for actions related to compliance with regulations; and lack of awareness of the need for responsible fishing.

1.6 STRATEGIC AREAS

During the planning process, consultation allowed stakeholders to identify a large number of issues and problems that were considered to impact on the development prospects of the fisheries sector. By identifying the root causes of these, the DOF technical team identified seven strategic areas for inclusion in the Plan: institutional strengthening; strengthening stakeholder input into the decision making process; improving the average incomes of fish catchers; effective fisheries management; the development of fish farming; modern on-shore ancillary support; and efficient product marketing.

1 UN DESA 2009. Review of Progress Made by Saint Lucia in Addressing Vulnerabilities of SIDS through Implementation of the Mauritius

Strategy for the Further Implementation (MSI) of the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA). 2 Government of Saint Lucia 2004. Ministry of Physical Development, Environment and Housing National Environment Policy (NEP) and

National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) for Saint Lucia. Final Draft. November 2004 3 Government of St Lucia 2003: Saint Lucia National Climate Change Policy and Adaption Plan.

4 MAFF 2006 National Policy & strategic Plan Summary Booklet 2006

5 WECAFC 2012cReview of the State of Fisheries in the WECAFC region. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) Fourteenth

Session. Panama City, Panama, 6-9 February 2012 WECAFC/XIV/2012/2


Pag

e14

1.7 CROSS CUTTING ISSUES

1.7.1 Tourism

Tourism presents both an opportunity and potential issues for the fishery sector. The 300,000 plus international tourists that visit our country each year present a strong market for high value and high quality fisheries and aquaculture production. However, tourists and fishers share the same resources and this gives the potential for conflict of interests. At the end of the day though, both groups share the common goal of maintaining a healthy ecosystem for leisure and work opportunities. The Plan should recognise the potential for conflict and reduce the risk by defining exclusive areas, with both groups collaborating to ensure a healthy resource. The future expansion of tourist infrastructure must take into account the potential adverse impacts of land based pollution on the marine environment, while both groups need to protect coral reefs and mangroves.

1.7.2 Gender

In St Lucia over 40% of households are headed by women who have the main responsibility for the economic welfare of their families. In general, unemployment among women is much higher than the corresponding level for men and although the numbers of women in politics and the civil service has increased the overall participation rate remains low. We acknowledge the importance of ensuring that any increased opportunities in the fishery sector are open to women, especially those with a primary school education with few marketable skills which limits their potential to enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

1.7.3 Climate Change

There is increasing awareness of the risks from climate change; human activity is altering the climate and will continue to do so. In the past century, surface temperatures have increased and climate change is impacting physical and biological systems. While there is uncertainty about the nature of climate change and the extent of rising sea levels, regional climatic change and more extreme meteorological phenomena, the potential for adverse consequences on human activity must be taken into account. This global issue has serious implications for the need to strengthen our national capacity to assess potential risks and to develop and implement strategic approaches to mitigate the possible negative impacts. In the fishery sector a number of risks may be identified for fishing and the type of vessel and landing facilities that are needed. For example, changes in the distribution and availability of fish species, safety-at-sea and safe berthing. In turn, this emphasises the importance of harvesting fish stocks according to the precautionary principle as factors external to fishing mortality may influence catch opportunities.

1.8 NATIONAL FISHERIES PLAN

1.8.1 National Fisheries Policy

Vision Statement

The Vision of the St Lucian Fisheries Sector that guides the goal and the objective reflects the emphasis on sustainability and profitability, and the stress on the combined importance of the production and ancillary sub-sectors and shared responsibilities:

To support strong partnerships between civil society, private sector and public sector, and advance a sustainably governed fisheries sector that will enhance profitability and contribute to food security.

Long Term Strategic Goal

This Goal defines where we want the St Lucian Fisheries Sector to achieve in the long term and to which the Strategy should contribute in the initial 10-year period:

To foster medium to long term economic prosperity in the fisheries sector through the promotion of sustainable fisheries and effective fishing techniques that will result in fishers and fish farmers meeting and exceeding national wage standards while maximising the potential long term economic value of the available aquatic resources to the people of St Lucia.

Emphasis is on the medium to long term as opposed to a short term that could be used to justify over fishing and the licensing of too many vessels in order to respond to the lack of on-shore income earning opportunities. This


Pag

e15

approach also requires greater cognisance of important factors such as the implications of climate change. The final part of the Goal stresses that the fishing sector is one user of the aquatic resources and to maximise all benefits, appropriate consideration has to be taken of the competing claims of other users, especially the tourism sector. Sustainability / long term / St Lucians draws attention to the need to take into account the interests of both current and future generations in making strategic decisions.

Mission Statement

Effective and efficient implementation of the Plan will require input by all stakeholders in order to make best use of all available human and financial resources needed and develop a team approach that will generate synergistic benefits. At the same time, three existing bodies - DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO - must take the lead and drive the process and lead implementation by example.

DOF will collaborate with all stakeholders including fish marketing entities, fisher and fish farmer organisations, and environmental and other fishery sector related agencies to achieve the long term strategic goal by developing the mechanisms and actions required to define, implement and monitor the policies, strategies, norms, regulations, and other instruments needed to ensure the sustainable use of available water resources.

Objectives

In line with the identified strategic areas, seven objectives are defined for the implementation of the Strategy in the 10-year period 2013 -22.

Objective 1: Institutional Strengthening. To structure and support an effective and efficient Institutional Framework that in cooperation and collaboration with other public sector institutions, stakeholders and international agencies successfully implements and monitors a National Fisheries Plan that responds to the needs of sustainable and profitable fish catching, aquaculture and related activities.

Objective 2: Strengthening stakeholder input into the decision making process. To formally and effectively include all fish-related stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Objective 3: Improving the average incomes of fish catchers. To support fishers in improving their incomes by identifying and supporting the implementation of options to reduce operating costs and improve average first hand sales prices.

Objective 4: Fisheries Management. To maintain the resources of marine and freshwater species at a sustainable level in the context of an approach that stresses the importance of protecting ecosystems including habitats and other ecologically sensitive areas and takes into account the potential negative impacts from global climate change.

Objective 5: Aquaculture. To increase the contribution of aquaculture to economic growth, food supply, and the income diversification strategy of small scale farmers.

Objective 6: On-shore Ancillary Support. To provide the on-shore support, including infrastructure, needed by an efficient, effective and profitable fish catching sector.

Objective 7: Marketing. To promote an increase in the value of caught and farmed product through better fish handling, an efficient fish market and value added processing.

1.8.2 National Fisheries Strategy

In the Strategy, the identified sectoral objectives are redefined as the results that must be achieved in the period 2013-22. Once approved, neither the objectives nor the results may be changed unless absolutely necessary. In contrast, the identified actions required to achieve the results may be altered to reflect changed circumstances, new knowledge or better understanding. The results and related actions are shown in Appendix 1.

Result 1: Institutional Strengthening. Over the period of the Plan, DOF and other public sector agencies with direct responsibilities in the fishery sector have received the support (human, financial, logistics, legal framework and training) required for its implementation and have cooperated fully with other public sector institution, stakeholders and international agencies in meeting the objectives.


Pag

e16

In the past, the main actors in the development process have undertaken work largely independent of the others and this has failed to make the best use of available resources and generate synergistic benefits from a coordinated and planned approach. This shortcoming highlights the need to create a clear organizational structure with unambiguous responsibilities and provides the rationale for an integrated approach to development of the fisheries sector with the alignment of diverse activities including those currently fragmented among several ministries and authorities. This will reduce overlaps and uncertainty among those charged with Plan implementation. This is especially important at a time when public finances are stretched by a global economic crisis that has also reduced the available funds and policies of international donor agencies. In confronting the issues that bear on the sustainability of the fishery sector, different institutions should share responsibilities in working towards a common goal and achieving a common set of objectives. The broadening of the ownership of the Plan to a number of Institutions will increase the potential for success while reducing the overall financial cost and the consequent need for funding by central government. For example, a Strategy that highlights the need for DOF to introduce regulations will be largely meaningless if an effective compliance plan for the fish catching sector is not implemented by the Marine Police. Efforts to increase the quality of fish by requiring the use of ice at-sea will yield limited practical benefit unless the chill chain is maintained throughout the distribution process and health and sanitary regulations are enforced; which in turn calls for effective enforcement of regulations in the added value chain.

A number of actions are needed to implement this approach. The Plan should be validated and accepted by all the actors in the process that are prepared to make a formal commitment to its implementation. This forms a basis to determine the appropriate institutional setting for Plan implementation, including the extent to which the affiliations of the main actors may be changed. For example, is there justification for a Ministry dedicated to the fisheries sector and should SLFMC and the fishery cooperatives fall directly within its remit. Whatever the outcome, the mechanisms to coordinate individual actions should be in place at the start of the implementation process. The coordination mechanism should be formal and designed to bring about real actions rather than leaving projects and plans on paper.

The point is made elsewhere that the NOP must be based on a realistic grasp of the human and financial resources available over the planning period. It is counter-intuitive to make proposals that do not have any prospect for implementation; if such was to happen stakeholders could question the credibility of the programme and quickly lose interest. At the same time, the implementing agencies must have the capacity to undertake the activities that are assigned and this implies not only the availability of money and staff but effectiveness in its use, and the skill and commitment of the personnel. In turn, personnel must be provided with the logistical and other support needed for them to carry-out their work. This may require the reassignment of individuals and most certainly an on-going training programme to up-date skills. Given that the performance of staff is important, an on-going performance evaluation programme will be needed to ensure the right people are being used for the tasks in-hand with a need for upward mobility of officers and to attract well-qualified personnel into the sector.

The implementation of a strong communications strategy that provides for structured liaison between the various actors in the process will be central to successful Plan implementation. This relates to internal, inter-institutional and third party communications, with the current ad hoc approach replaced by formal mechanisms. The staff of each entity should be aware of the Plan and their role in achieving the results; planning and the results of works should be known to everyone involved in the process. There should be an external awareness of the actions, the reason for them and the progress being made. Such transparency will pay dividends and garner support for the actions but it is important that the mechanisms feed through from higher level communications to day-to-day relationships at the management level.

Central to success over the ten years will be our ability to gain the support of the international community, especially where capital spend or specific training is needed. We will ensure that new and on-going projects are designed and monitored with full stakeholder participation so that beneficiaries have the willingness to assume their ownership. At the same time, we will look to build confidence in the consistency and coherency of the Plan by ensuring that proposals fit with it and contribute to the realization of the objectives. On that basis, we will fully participate in regional and country-specific initiatives that are implemented by the agencies, while making requests for their assistance for specific actions. The proposed sector approach to Plan implementation will bring the additional


Pag

e17

benefit of reducing the transaction costs associated with external funding, while facilitating the effective monitoring of the results of projects financed by funding agencies.

Result 2: Strengthening stakeholder input into the decision making process. A wide range of stakeholders have participated in the planning and implementation of the Plan through an appropriate formal mechanism and they have a clear idea of how their recommendations and advice have been incorporated into the decision making process.

Globally it is well understood that to maximise the potential for success of policies, strategies and projects, stakeholders must be fully involved in the decision making process on a formal and continual basis. This helps to ensure that actions are decided with the beneficiaries, whose commitment at the end-of-the-day will play a large part in determining the sustainability of the actions. We concur with the National Agriculture Policy’s highlighting of a participatory mode and the emphasis of the CARICOM CFP on the use of traditional knowledge and stakeholder participation in the decision making process. At the same time, we would go beyond that concept and emphasise the need for stakeholder accountability; fishers in particular must take responsibility for their own actions and not expect the Government or other agencies to provide a solution for all their problems. A strong example of this is the maintenance of the fishery complexes and the appropriate use of the facilities that have been provided at substantial cost. The public sector role in this sense is to work with stakeholders to provide the training needed to strengthen specific skills and improve the understanding of the importance of fishing responsibly and sustainably and to develop the mechanisms that provide the basis for stakeholders assuming ownership of resource management.

There are two main obstacles to achieving this result. Firstly, we have not established the fishery advisory committee that is provided under the Fisheries Law and associated Regulations. The legal provision facilitates the speedy implementation of the approach albeit there must be a broadening of the current provision to allow for wider membership and the devolvement of detailed discussion to the local level and regional committees. The National Committee will not only provide advice to the responsible Minister, but strengthen transparency as Government professionals in the various fields present their activities and results. Secondly, it is clear that despite all the efforts made, including the allowance for subsidies and the potential to generate income through fuel sales, existing coops are considered weak and there is a general lack of satisfaction with them and their poor management. The potential benefits of cooperatives are well known with their ability to represent the collective interests of their members including bulk buying to reduce the costs of inputs, while also improving market conditions for fresh fish landings. However, the current set-up has made slow progress with fisher coops and SLFFO (that was formed 5 years ago); despite some promise they continue to fall short in terms of business acumen, ethos and membership. Both SLFFO and the individual coops have critical roles in achieving Plan objectives, including making a meaningful contribution to the management of the fishery complexes and working with their members to develop the ability to manage their small scale enterprises as profitable businesses. The success achieved will be reflected in membership. To support the change it is important that, in the initial years at least, DOF has a direct role and over sight in the day-to-day affairs of the coops, and that those cooperatives work effectively with the national framework of the SLFFO. The idea is to promote transparency and fairness and provide the basis for a growth in membership.

We have already established an approach to this issue in cooperating with the design of JICA’s new project that will concentrate on four main areas: improved information; improved organisation of fishers to facilitate fishery co-management; fishery specific management plans; and improved business plans and marketing plans for fishery organisations. In turn this forms part of a training programme to ensure that the co-ops have the capacity to successfully implement the required activities. All fishers should have the opportunity to be part of a coop – including those involved in aquaculture.

In the medium term we propose to maintain the current subsidies; but only to those coops that belong to the SLFFO and with management that has been proven capable to properly represent the interests of the members. Certification by DFO according to an agreed set of parameters will be required. A strengthened alliance of coops under the auspices of the SLFFO will support group purchases, facilitate credit, improve joint marketing efforts and provide the basis to improve the welfare of fishers through schemes for social security, insurance and pensions.

Result 3: Improving the average incomes of fish catchers. The annual net income of fish catchers has increased at least at the same rate as the average earnings in other sectors.


Pag

e18

Over the past four decades we have made substantial progress turning the St Lucian fishing sector from an artisanal, at times subsistence, activity with low technology that lacked capacity to maximise the potential returns from the harvest of fishing resources found in our waters. We have accomplished this through promoting, amongst other things, the use of fibre glass vessels, outboard engines and fish aggregating devices (FADs) while ensuring the traditional character of the sector has been maintained in the various fishing communities. This has maximised the benefit of the fisheries, with work and wages for thousands rather than the hundreds that would be involved if the sector had been industrialised. Yet, even with small scale fishing activity there is a limit to the fishing effort and the number of fishers that the resources can support with living wages. On that basis, our emphasis must shift from developing the fish catching sector to consolidating what we have and calling it a-day on increasing the number of participants. This is logical, as when landings are stagnant, the more fishers there are the lower the average catch and related earnings. As fishing costs have increased and profits have reduced, it is difficult for the fishers to harvest responsibly and comply with the regulations as they need to live and feed their families. We have provided a rebate on fuel since the 1970s and this has supported the cooperative’s distress fund. However, such an approach does not respond to the need to create an efficient, sustainable fish catching sector – indeed subsidies may contribute to over fishing and economic wastefulness by supporting inefficient fishing operations. In the long term, we aspire to strengthen our credentials for sustainable fishing by identifying appropriate mechanisms to allocate property rights in the fishery (i.e. individuals “own” rights to fish) while protecting the social role of the sector as a source of employment in otherwise marginal communities. Such an allocation could also be used as a mechanism to provide retirement funds as fishing rights could be bought and sold. However, as the situation now stands we are a long way from that and the emphasis must be on consolidation of existing fishing units, improving profitability and developing the business skills of our fishers. This will require a training plan to support the various initiatives, with modules developed for implementation by DOF and SLFFO based on gap analysis.

While we will maintain the fuel and other subsidies, we will look to reduce fuel costs and increase the expected life of investments by promoting improved technology such as four-stroke engines that while costing more reduce fuel use. It has been proven that FADs work and they represent a relatively cheap investment. Again, we are working with JICA to increase the number available and this is tied in to strengthening the capacity for co-management. Also we are looking at the possibilities to place FADs further out with some for the exclusive use of sports fishermen to reduce the potential for conflict. In terms of other fishing costs, as noted above an effective cooperative organisation should be able to reduce these by bulk buying, while efficient management of the landing complexes should increase fishing time.

We will always be interested in initiatives designed to improve efficiency and we will support pilot projects designed to prove the viability of actions. An example is testing of the mother ship approach where a larger vessel with on-board chilled storage tows several smaller vessels to the grounds and acts as a landing platform for fishing trips of 2 to 4 days. While we understand that tradition and culture may prevent fishers from accepting the idea of longer trips, if proven viable this would have the benefits of improving fish quality, increasing catch and reducing fuel costs and result in increased fisher earnings.

Another focus to lowering fishing costs is to reduce the amount of praedial larceny and we plan to extend the role of the Ministry’s praedial larceny unit to combat all types of larceny in the fisheries sector including sea moss culture.

Analysis indicates that our fishers are aging; a large proportion of them are approaching retirement age while there is a lack of young entrants into the sector. There are a number of reasons for the lack of interest in becoming fishermen – the nature of the work, the lack of guaranteed earnings, the attraction of shore-based occupations in the tourist sector and the inability to access credits to establish a small scale business. While it may appear to be a contradiction to have a policy of restricting an increase in the fishing effort, while looking to promote new entrants, the reality is that the sector must continue to have new blood. The future creation of property rights would provide an incentive for older fishers to retire; we need to examine ways in which young persons can replace them. It is likely that access to credit will be easier for those with appropriate training, and we will provide this through the various modules. Further, the capacity to repay loans will be contingent on the profitability of the business – hence the need to increase earnings and reduce outgoings.

Result 4: Fisheries Management. An evergreen integrated FMP based on the precautionary approach and taking into account the potential impact of climate change has been defined and implemented.


Pag

e19

The health of the fishing catching sector and the viability of making new investments is totally dependent on effective resource conservation. If there is no fish there is no industry. Although we lack the capacity to mount full scale research programmes to assess the status of the main stocks, the indications are that highly migratory species such as tunas and billfishes are close to maximum sustainable yields, while our reef fish and key resources such as lobster and sea cucumber are at their maximum. Hence there is a need for a clear and realistic programme to manage our fisheries, with efforts to match catching capacity with the long term sustainable harvest prospects.

The development and implementation of a meaningful FMP will depend to a large extent on a knowledge and understanding of the current complexion of the sector and how the available opportunities must be allocated on a seasonal and fishery basis. The on-going fishery census will provide the detail that has been lacking over recent years and give us reliable data. While we have licensing procedures, large parts of the sector remain informal and one of the first steps will be to remedy this by introducing a system where all actors involved in fisheries are registered. This will bring a number of benefits, including the ability to trace product origin and thus support actions against praedial larceny. By 2015, no vessel, fisherman or trader will be able to operate without the required license.

The FMP covers a number of areas. It is important that it takes into account the claims by and needs of all users especially at-sea so reducing the potential for conflict between fishers and tourists. Extending coastal zone management beyond the current areas such as the SMMA and CAMMA will provide the basis for the definition of user rights, including the authority to fish off FADs. The development of an FMP will involve the confirmation and rationalization of existing technical and administrative management measures with additional rules as required. These should be contained in an FMP that is considered “evergreen” i.e. it is for an indefinite period with annual up-dates providing new information on stock status and confirming management measures.

The capacity to effectively regulate St Lucian fisheries will be enhanced if there is general awareness of the need for action. For example, consumers should understand why they should not buy fish or crustaceans below a certain size or at a particular time of the year. This goes back to responsibilities. St Lucians in general need to protect the use of their own natural resources and ensure that the fishers charged with stewardship are acting in a responsible manner. A public awareness campaign will support consumer education.

Effective management requires enforcement of the regulations and this is one area where over the years we have not achieved a great deal of success. This must change. We anticipate that co-management initiatives with the authorities working with fishers will increase peer pressure to respect regulations and that fishers, aware of the damage illegal activity implies for their own prospects, will report transgressors. At the same time, Government’s enforcement capacity must be improved and DOF will work with the Marine Police and other enforcement agencies to prepare a clearly articulated plan with realistic costs for a risk based approach to enforcement. Local knowledge will be used to identify the main possibilities for infringements and to develop a related surveillance programme. The plan will cover regional issues, including collaboration with neighbouring countries to put a stop to IUU fishing. The harmonization of measures on a regional basis, for example on closed seasons, would reduce the potential for trade being used to circumvent regulations.

Research will be important to inform management decisions. While we do not have the capacity to develop reliable models for stock assessment with the definition of biological reference points to direct harvest strategy, DOF biologists perform valuable work in advising fishers of the biological characteristics of the stocks and advise on the need and appropriateness of management measures (e.g. minimum sizes, closed seasons and closed areas). This is invaluable for the preparation of plans to manage local stocks. For highly migratory stocks we will look to improve the range and quality of our data to feed into the models developed at an international and regional level. The required annual research plan will be discussed with and approved by stakeholders in the Committee as the emphasis will be on a joint approach with fishers providing a great deal of the information on a voluntary basis.

A large part of the national catch is of highly migratory species that are managed by regional bodies. The future will not reduce the authority of these bodies; rather they will perform an increasingly important role in defining total allowable catches and allocating quotas. To protect the interests of our fishermen it is imperative that St Lucia becomes a party in all relevant international bodies, with national participants informing stakeholders of the content and findings of the various meetings.


Pag

e20

Given the high vulnerability of the fisheries sector to global climate change, and the high exposure St Lucia to natural disasters and hurricanes, this will be an important subject for consideration in the IFMP. It will identify fishery specific risks and define mitigation measures e.g. the protection of mangroves and corals.

Result 5: Aquaculture. The number of active aquaculture farms and the average annual production per farm has increased.

Over an extended number of years we have looked to promote the development of aquaculture in St Lucia with the twin aim of contributing to food security and providing an alternative to the income earning strategy of agriculturalists formerly dependent on bananas. Concentration has been on the culture of sea moss in coastal waters and tilapia and macrobrachium in freshwaters. This type of farming is technically possible, as is the culture of other species as proven in other countries, and even though our country has a limited area available for aquaculture and there are other constraints to be overcome, we have the potential and commitment to identify and develop targeted opportunities that have potential in the domestic and international market. We have benefitted strongly from the assistance of Taiwan in providing the new aquaculture facility at Union that adds to the potential to grow the current production of freshwater shrimp and tilapia by providing four times the current levels of demand for fingerlings and PL by farmers. On that basis we will continue the drive for to maximise the potential of existing farmers and encourage new investment in the sector, with the aims of: (i) increasing the production per unit and bring down the sales price and develop the market; and (ii) reaching a critical mass of activity which may be sufficient to generate domestic investment in ancillary activities. As an incentive, fingerlings and Pl are being provided at a subsidised price in the anticipation that this will lead to new investment and increased levels of output. While we do not have the resources to pioneer technical advances in the farming of other species, we will maintain a watching brief on developments in other countries and assess the potential for related initiatives in St Lucia. For example, the potential for such as bivalves (oysters) and brackish or marine water fish species using sea-based cage culture has not been assessed and trials have not been conducted. Given the continued interest in enhancing food security and rural livelihoods, there is need to assess the viability of this type of mariculture development.

New investment will not only be promoted by technical capacity and the potential for profitable sales but also the security of any new investments. Through better planning and coastal management and zoning for specific activities we plan to offer long term licenses to ensure stability. We support the creation of a land bank that ensures that areas not being utilised are available for fish farming.

It is expected that the potential to farm fish profitably with reduced risk will make investors suitable subjects for credit to support new investments. We will work with the sector and the banks to establish an appropriate loan scheme.

We will continue to source alliances with donor countries or organisations to fund and otherwise support the various initiatives.

Result 6: On-shore Ancillary Support. The available infrastructure and supporting services have been managed & maintained effectively & are providing the services required by stakeholders at a competitive price.

While fish catching will continue to provide the main source of work, especially in rural and coastal communities that are outside the main tourist area, we need to maximise the employment and income by generating fishery-related opportunities on-shore in marketing and the ancillary service sector. A coherent plan for sustainable fisheries development must identify the potential to widen the economic base of fishery communities and reduce the pressure to continually increase the number of fishers and fishing boats and the risk of over fishing while at the same time reducing the average earnings per fisher.

Well planned and managed facilities improve fishers’ profitability by increasing their fishing time and protecting their investments when the boats are berthed. Over the past two decades, DOF has established a three-tier hierarchy of fish landing sites, with JICA assistance in the construction of the fishing complexes. While these facilities were not designed with global climate change in mind, their construction provides the basis of an adequate response to what may lay ahead if they are maintained in the required condition and not allowed to deteriorate as has been the case with previous investments in infrastructure.

The challenge in existing facilities is twofold: the effective management of the complexes to maximise their value to users; and their adequate maintenance to ensure their availability in the decades to come. Different from capital


Pag

e21

expenditure, the response to these challenges will to a large extent depend on the ability and willingness of users to pay appropriate fees for services such as berthing, water, fuel, storage etc. and effectively participate in management. Our aim is to have a profitable fish catching sector which generates acceptable levels of income for fishers and gives a return on investment with margins that allow them to pay operating costs while reducing dependence on subsidies that are ultimately paid for by St Lucian tax payers. At the same time, users should only be expected to pay for the efficient provision of services – vessels owners must have confidence in the security offered; there must be a reduced risk of damage during inclement weather; the processes for going to and returning from fishing must be efficient; the services for the supply of fuel, water and ice must be effective and cost competitive.

Currently, the responsibility for the management of landing sites is inadequate to achieve these two important goals

(effective management and maintenance), with conflicting interests and no clear-cut mandate among relevant agencies

and stakeholders. The ideal solution is user management, with fishers assuming responsibility through their representative organisations. JICA’s new project has this as one of its central themes. DOF will take the lead in establishing effective management. Once it has been proven that existing facilities may be used sustainably we will the look at how new additional services may be provided, both at existing complexes and in other places.

Result 7: Marketing. The market for aquatic products has been strengthened through stakeholder representation on the FMC Board; improved quality standards and the quantity of value added produced in St Lucia.

An advantage is the existence of the SLFMC with a professional staff and a developed infrastructure. While it is not meeting its original remit in full, this is a reflection of the reality of the market and to the need for the business to be run on commercial terms. If it is not possible for SLFMC to operate profitability there are limited prospects for its long term survival. We recognize that a coherent marketing strategy understands the conflict between a requirement to purchase all fish on offer, and the need to make a profit. This is not to say that SLFMC cannot respond to the needs of fishers; but its role must be to lead rather than be a buyer of last resort. At the end of the day it needs to respond to market needs rather than those of the producer whose interests should be represented by functioning coops that plan production, help even out any mismatch between demand and supply and guarantee the quality that SLFMC needs in order to maximise the first hands sales price. This will make SLFMC better able to serve the stringent demands of restaurants and support the increase in retail sales through the ever growing supermarket sector.

To ensure that SLFMC focusses on the issues at hand, there is a strong argument not only for its Board to become operative, but for its membership to be widened to include representatives of the fishers.

Attitudes and practices need to change throughout the sector to maximize the value of our natural resources and safeguard the health of consumers. We will continue to assess ways to promote the use of at ice at-sea, and we propose that success would lead to a grading system for landed fish with the price offered reflecting quality. There is little point improving the quality of fish at landing unless the chill chain is maintained until purchase by the final consumer. In the past, we have supported initiatives to improve retail marketing with the provision of specialized outlets in the market in Castries; yet the major part of the sales continue to be made in less-than-hygienic conditions with fresh fish sold without the use of ice in high ambient temperatures. Regulations have to be strengthened, implemented and enforced

With the greater use of FADs the complexion of our catch has changed and non-traditional species have been landed. Initially, consumer resistance due to lack of knowledge on how to prepare such as swordfish and marlin limited the market potential but as time has gone on these species have become more accepted. Our aim is to create a demand for all the species that are available to our fishers and thus maximize the earning potential in the sector.

Two other initiatives will also aim at this objective. Firstly, we will look to create added value not only to increase sales price and support stability in the market but also to generate on-shore activity. We fully understand that the highest value product is the best quality fresh fish; but at times the market is not able to absorb the landed amounts, especially outside the main tourist season. We do not think there will be major development in this respect, unless there is private sector interest in importing primary produced fish for secondary processing into the likes of fish fingers and fish sticks for sale in the Regional market, but the production of such as fish burgers for local fast food outlets and smoked marlin for restaurants may provide some opportunities. SLFMC is well placed to provide supermarkets with quality vacuum packed products that will supplement their product range. Secondly, we will look


Pag

e22

to maximize the value of the landings by selling fish to certain niche markets at the highest price and that will mean targeting export markets. It is acknowledged that St Lucia will continue to have a large deficit in fish trade; the market as a whole will continue to consume more fish than we produce and we will be unable to substitute for the main products – especially canned and salted fish. However, if we have the quality we will be able to export the high value landings such as tunas, billfishes and freshwater prawn to international markets and regional markets, especially those such as Barbados that have a high propensity to import to satisfy tourist demand.

Our capacity to export will depend on the standards that our sector meets. While it is too early to consider the need to have a competent authority that would provide the basis for export to the European Union, all future planning must be based on HACCP standards. SLFMP will provide a working model of this. To support planning for the potential of market diversification we will seek to gain international assistance to complete a comprehensive analysis of current market opportunities for the key species and products.

1.8.3 National Operational Plan

The Strategy redefined policy objectives to develop seven required results from the Plan by 2022, and the related actions that currently may be identified. Subsequent to confirmation of the Policy and the Strategy, a number of action areas will be identified in the NOP. It is emphasised that these action areas reflect that different objectives are not mutually exclusive and they will cut across a number of results and actions. Action areas reflect the priorities and the need for sequential actions with the successful completion of actions being a necessary prerequisite for the start on others. The NOP is more detailed than the Strategy and allocates specific responsibilities and budgets, with a work plan that defines tasks.

1.8.4 Monitoring & Evaluation

To ensure the successful achievement of the Plan, M&E will be needed with adjustments made as required in response to the progress achieved and / or changes taking place in the domestic, regional or global environment. A Plan management unit comprised of personnel from DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO will lead the efforts and report to their respective management and the Fisheries Advisory Committee. The Unit will work together with the collaborating agencies, particularly in monitoring and evaluating the individual action points. The analysis will provide the means for all the stakeholders to judge whether results are being achieved and whether the activities are being completed both efficiently and effectively. M&E provides the basis for shared accountability. The on-going exercise will assess the coherence and relevance of actions to the defined goal and objectives; it will measure effectiveness by assessing the extent to which the Strategy is achieving the objectives and contributing to the Goal; it will evaluate the efficiency of the outputs compared to the cost of the inputs to ensure best-value-for-money; and it will assess the impact of the actions and interventions and the changes that have taken place as a result, whether they be positive or negative, direct or indirect, intended or unintended.



Appendix 1: National Fisheries Strategy 2013-22 – Results and Related Actions

Result 1: Institutional

Strengthening. Over the

period of the Plan, DOF and

other public sector agencies

with direct responsibilities in

the fishery sector have

received the support (human,

financial, logistics, legal

framework and training)

required for its

implementation and have

cooperated fully with other

public sector institutions,

stakeholders and international

agencies in meeting the

objectives.

Result 2: Strengthening

stakeholder input into the

decision making process. A

wide range of stakeholders

have participated in the

planning and implementation

of the Plan through an

appropriate formal

mechanism and they have a

clear idea of how their

recommendations and advice

have been incorporated into

the decision making process.

Result 3: Improving the

average incomes of fish

catchers. The annual net

incomes of fish catchers has

increased at least at the

same level as the average

earnings in other sectors.

Result 4: Fisheries

Management. An evergreen

integrated FMP based on the

precautionary approach and

taking into account the

potential impact of climate

change has been defined and

implemented

RA 1.1: The Plan (2013 – 22)

has been approved and

formalised by the Government

of St Lucia.

RA 1.2: The Institutional

arrangements for the

administration and

management of the fisheries

sector has been reviewed and

revised as considered

appropriate.

RA 1.3: The legal framework

has been reviewed and

changed as appropriate to

provide the basis for the

changes envisaged in the

implementation of the Plan.

RA 1.4: The responsible

Ministry / Department has

been structured and has been

provided with the resources

(finance and human) to

support the effective

implementation, monitoring

and evaluation of the Plan.

RA 1.5: The staff training plan

RA 2.1: A National Fishery

Advisory Committee and

Regional Fishery Advisory

Committees, with significant

stakeholder representation,

have been established and are

functioning as contemplated

in their respective terms of

reference.

RA 2.2: The SLFFO is

functioning as contemplated

in its Articles of Association.

RA 2.3: All Fishery

Cooperatives in St Lucia are

active members of the SLFFO.

RA 2.4: DOF has established a

direct role in the management

of SLFFO & fishery

cooperatives.

RA 2.5: Work between SLFFO

and DOF has provided training

including manuals for the

effective management of

fishery cooperatives.

RA 2.6: A cooperative has

been established for fish

RA3.1: A training plan

designed to assist fishers to

reduce costs and increase

incomes has been devised

and implemented by DOF.

RA3.2: There has been an

increase in the number of

FADs available exclusively to

St Lucian commercial

fishermen.

RA3.3: The fuel subsidy to St

Lucian fishermen has been

maintained by the

Government of St Lucia and

any changes identified in an

evaluation of its process

have been implemented.

RA3.4: Tax incentives for

new investments in fishing

vessels, engines and gear

that are intended to reduce

fishing costs have been

maintained.

RA3.5: Fishermen are

benefitting from the

reduced price of inputs

RA 4.1: The fishery sector has

been formalised with full

registration and licensing of

fishers, fish farmers, buyers,

traders, and retailers.

RA 4.2: Zoning of coastal zone

usage has confirmed the

areas available for fishing and

mariculture.

RA 4.3: An “evergreen”

Integrated FMP has been

prepared and implemented.

RA 4.4: Technical and

administrative management

measures have been

introduced to support

implementation of the IFMP.

RA 4.5: A public awareness

campaign has been

implemented to support the

sustainable use of natural

resources.

RA 4.6: Sport fishermen have

established their own FADs.

RA 4.7: Compliance and

enforcement capacity have


Pag

e24

that has been up-dated

annually has been

implemented to provide staff

with the skills required to

successfully implement the

Strategy.

RA 1.6: Equipment has been

provided that ensures

effective use of available staff

time and provides required

outputs more efficiently.

RA 1.7: Staff in DOF and other

public sector agencies with

direct responsibilities in the

fishery sector has been

evaluated on an annual basis

to assess their success in

contributing to the

implementation of the Plan.

RA 1.8: An effective

communications strategy has

been implemented to ensure

both the internal efficiency of

responsible Ministry /

Department and to strengthen

its external relationships with

other Public Sector bodies and

stakeholders.

RA 1.9: DOF has worked

effectively with international

agencies providing technical

and financial assistance.

1.10: St Lucia is a participating

member of all relevant

international organisations in

the fisheries sector.

farmers.

resulting from cooperative

purchasing.

RA3.6: Fishing time has been

maximised through efficient

management of the

designated landing places

and the ready availability of

spares.


investigation of the

potential to reduce fuel

costs through pilot projects.

RA3.8: Measures have been

introduced to reduce the

risk of larceny of equipment

and product.


assessment of the potential

to provide a credit line for

investment by new entrants

into fish catching.

been strengthened.

RA 4.8: Environmental

regulations have been applied

to reduce the risk of

developments creating a

source of pollution affecting

the fishery sector.

RA 4.9: An annual research

plan has been prepared to

identify the activities to be

undertaken to measure the

needs for and effectiveness of

the IFMP and the results of

research have been

disseminated to all

stakeholders.

RA 4.10: DOF staff represents

the interests of St Lucia and

fishery stakeholders in

regional and international

organisations and meetings.

RA4.11: The IFMP identifies

the approach to the risks

posed by global climate

change.

Result 5: Aquaculture. The number of

active aquaculture farms and the average

Result 6: On-shore Ancillary Support.

The available infrastructure and

Result 7: Marketing. The market for

aquatic products has been


Pag

e25

annual production per farm has increased. supporting services have been managed

& maintained effectively & are providing

the services required by stakeholders at

a competitive price.

strengthened through stakeholder

representation on the FMC Board;

improved quality standards and the

quantity of value added produced in St

Lucia.

RA 5.1: There has been an increase in the

active number of production units for

tilapia, macrobrachium and sea moss.

RA 5.2: There has been an increase in the

annual production of tilapia,

macrobrachium & sea moss.

RA 5.3: There has been an assessment of

the potential for economically viable

farming of other species in St Lucia.

RA 5.4: The economic and technical

feasibility of farming other species in St

Lucia has been promoted with potential

investors.

RA 5.5 There is a guaranteed supply of

essential inputs (fingerlings / PL / feed).

RA 5.6: The hatchery to provide tilapia

fingerlings and macrobrachium PL has

being operated effectively.

RA 5.7: The risk to investments has been

reduced by the issuance of long term

licenses including access to land / sea

area.

RA5.8: Fish farmers continue to benefit

from the subsidised supply of PL and

fingerlings.

RA5.9: There has been an assessment of

the potential to provide a credit line for

investment by new entrants into fish

catching and fish farming.

RA 6.1: There has been an assessment of

the on-shore facilities required to

support the efficient operation of the St.

Lucian catching fleet.

RA 6.2: The management of designated

landing places is effective.

RA 6.3: A maintenance plan for the

landing centres has been successfully

implemented.

RA 6.4: Required new facilities and

services have been provided

RA 7.1: The Board of FMC has been

restructured and reflects greater

stakeholder participation in the

decision making process.

RA 7.2: A grading system has been

introduced following a review of

current procedures.

RA 7.3: DOF has assessed the options

to improve the use of ice at-sea and

has implemented the

recommendations

RA 7.4: Regulations on the processing

and sale of fresh perishable products

have been implemented to cover the

preparation, transportation and retail

of seafood.

RA7.5: Modern, hygienic, fish retail

outlets have been established at

strategic points in the country.

RA 7.6: Underutilised species have

been promoted in the domestic

market.

RA7.7: There is testing of the potential

for value added products.

RA7.8: HACCP standards have been

adopted throughout the sector.

RA7.9: There has been a

comprehensive analysis of market

opportunities.


Pag

e26

ANNEX 2: SECTOR STUDY AND TECHNICAL NATIONAL FISHERIES PLAN

ACRONYMS

ACP African, Caribbean & Pacific

BRP Biological Reference Points

CA Competent Authority

CAMMA Canaries - Anse la Raye Marine Management Area

CARICOM Caribbean Community

CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing

CFO Chief Fisheries Officer

CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species

CPUE Catch per Unit Effort

CRFM Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism

DOF Department of Fisheries

EAF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FAC Fishery Advisory Committee

FADs Fish Aggregating Devices

FAO Food & Agricultural Organisation

FCR Food Conversion Rate

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

FMP Fisheries Management Plan

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environmental Facility

GOSL Government of St Lucia

HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points

Hp Horse Power

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna

IICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture

IPOA International Plan of Action

IUU Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

MAFPFRD Ministry of Agriculture, Food Production, Fisheries and Rural Development

MALFF Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Fisheries & Forestry

MCS Monitoring, Control & Surveillance

MG Management and Organisational Goal

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Marine Police

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

MTESP Medium-Term Economic Strategy Paper

NEMS National Environmental Management Strategy

NEP National Environmental Policy

NFP National Fisheries Policy

NFS National Fisheries Strategy

NOP National Operational Plan

NSDS National Sustainable Development Strategy

OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

OSY Optimal Sustainable Yield

Pl Post-larvae

PSA Public Service Announcements

PSEPA Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area

RMU Resource Management Unit


Pag

e27

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SLFFO St Lucia Fisherfolk Organisation

SLFMC St Lucia Fish Marketing Corporation

SMMA Soufrière Marine Management Area

SPS Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Systems

T Tons

TA Technical Assistance

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

WCAFC Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

WTO World Trade Organisation

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The National Fisheries Plan (Plan) is the response of St Lucia to the challenge of ensuring the sustainable use of its natural resources in the context of ecosystem protection and support of the long term interests of fishery dependent people through the development of activities that maximise sustainable economic, financial and social benefits. The need for sustainable activities is in the context of a national fisheries sector comprised by fish catching, aquaculture and related activities in processing, marketing, distribution, other ancillary services, and the public sector.

The Plan is based on a sector study covering the existing situation in the fishery sector in the context of other strategic considerations such as the national economy and regional and national government goals and objectives for the economy and the fishery industry. The strategic approach to fishery sector development should not only fit with government policy goals but also complement them; thus strengthening the arguments for budgetary support for the sector.

The Plan consists of: National Fisheries Policy (NFP), National Fisheries Strategy (NFS) and National Operational Plan (NOP). The NFP defines a Vision of the fishery sector, a long term goal, and objectives for individual strategic areas. These confirm the required direction of the NFS which is comprised of results that are linked to each identified objective together with related main actions. On the basis of the available human and financial resources, the NOP details the actions that will take place in each planning cycle; defining budget, resources, responsibilities and beneficiaries according to identified priority axes.

The Plan is a living document and the NFS and NOP may be adjusted in the light of experience, progress achieved and the availability of resources; both should be up-dated on a regular basis. On-going monitoring and evaluation procedures should be implemented to measure efficiency and effectiveness. The Plan is not a “wish list” of the things that are needed rather it is realistic appraisal of what may be done over a given period with the available resources.

A number of tools have been used in preparing the Plan. A Department of Fisheries (DOF) technical team worked with an International Consultant from the Spanish company TRAGSA that was contracted by the ACP FISH II project1 to provide “Support to Formulate a Fisheries Policy for Santa Lucia”. Given the important that the Plan be developed and implemented with full stakeholder participation, three stakeholder workshops were held in Vieux Fort, Soufrière and Castries to gain stakeholder perspectives and view. In addition, there were informal meetings with a number of private sector stakeholders and individual meetings with personnel from DOF and other public sector institutions. Finally, there was an in-depth revision of available documentation.

The identified issues and concerns were developed into a “problem tree” to detect their root causes and the key areas for strategic consideration. These areas were then redefined as policy objectives, with an associated NFS

1 The overall objective of the ACP Fish II Programme is to contribute to the sustainable and equitable management of fisheries in the African,

Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regions, thus leading to poverty alleviation and improving food security in ACP States.


Pag

e28

covering a ten-year period that responds to the identified problems. Finally priority axes for implementation in an initial three year NOP were drafted.

The responsibility for implementation of the Plan rests on DOF. However, a successful outcome will, to a large extent, depend on the success achieved in coordinating complementary activities by stakeholders in other public sector enterprises and the private sector. The formation of an effective public sector / private sector partnership is all-important at a time when public funding for strategic initiatives is limited and there is a need to harness the energies of everyone to maximise the resources available. Thus the emphasis on the importance of defining a Plan that depends on inputs by DOF working closely with the St Lucia Fish Marketing Corporation (SLFMC), the St Lucia Fisherfolk Organisation (SLFFO) and stakeholders; together with the cooperation of other State entities as required.

This output is a technical report that has been used as a basis for a shorter Plan for presentation to stakeholders. Unless otherwise stated, the term fishery should be taken to mean all fish and shell fish harvested from the sea and freshwater together with aquaculture.

2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

In 2012, the estimated population of St Lucia was 162,178 with annual growth of 0.38%. 22.2 % of the population was aged under-15. 28 % of the population is classified as urban, with an annual growth rate of 1.6% (2010 – 15)1. The main population centre is Castries with 15,000 persons (2009). The national currency is the East Caribbean Dollar which is used by eight of the nine members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). It is pegged to the US$ at the rate of EC$2.70. As reported by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office2 “St Lucia's economy was traditionally reliant on its agricultural sector. However, the banana industry has declined over the last 10-15 years with the erosion of the ACP countries' preferential access to the EU market and increasing competition from Latin American producers…. In recent years, tourism has replaced bananas as the main earner of foreign exchange. In addition to land-based tourism, St Lucia is a prime yachting centre and cruise destination”.

In 2010, Gross Domestic Product was US$985 million. The contribution of the fisheries sector is less than 1%, while the total contribution of the agriculture sector is just above 4%. In 2011, per capita income was US$13,100, annual growth 1.3 % and inflation is 2.8%. In 2011, the Central Bank discount rate was 6.5%.3 At the end of 2011, the prime lending rate was 10.2%. The current account deficit in 2011 was US$220.4 million; 23 % of the US$545.9 million (2011) import value was accounted for by food. 21.7 % of the labour force is in agriculture. Youth (15 to 24) unemployment is 40.8 %.4

An important factor influencing the fishery sector is tourism; not only from the perspective of demand for fishery products but also the potential for conflict in the competition for use of the available resources. In 2010, the recorded number of tourists was 306,000; this was a recovery from the previous year but still below the 320,000 of 2005.5

An EU report6 highlights that low marriage rates in St Lucia has led to a situation whereby over 40% of households are headed by women, undertaking primary, if not sole responsibility for the economic welfare of their families. Unemployment among women is twice that of men with women’s employment concentrated in the service sector and in teaching, nursing, secretarial services and farming. The numbers of women in politics and the civil service has gradually increased though participation remains very low.

1 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/st.html

2http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/north-central-america/st-

lucia?profile=economy 3 Op cit

4 Op cit

5 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/st-lucia/international-tourism-number-of-arrivals-wb-data.html

6 EU 2000.St Lucia - European Community Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for the period 2001 - 2007

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/st.html

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/north-central-america/st-lucia?profile=economy

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/north-central-america/st-lucia?profile=economy

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/st-lucia/international-tourism-number-of-arrivals-wb-data.html


Pag

e29

In its report,1 the St Lucian Division of Gender Relations2 states that “the last Poverty Assessment (2005/6) carried out in St. Lucia indicated that 28.8% of the population was classified as poor, and 1.6% was considered indigent. Four of St. Lucia’s six districts were described as the “most indigent communities”. The rate of unemployment for women at the end of 2007 was 18.6%. The general rate of unemployment peaked at 20% in the year under consideration. Just over 50% of unemployed women fall between the ages of 15 – 34. Most of these women only have a primary school education and few marketable skills which seriously hamper any attempts to enjoy a reasonable standard of living and ultimately deprive them of enjoying their basic human rights”. The report highlights a number of initiatives taken to redress the situation by providing women with specific training and access to micro-credits.

2.3. GOVERNANCE

2.3.1 Legal Framework

The Fisheries Law

The Fisheries Act Chapter 7.15 gives the Minister of responsible for fisheries responsibility for management and development of Saint Lucia’s fisheries sector and the authority to create new regulations for the management of fishery resources. The Saint Lucia Fisheries Regulations Chapter 7.15 provides the specific guidelines for interpreting the Fisheries Act. The Act gives the Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food (MALFF) responsibility for the management and development of St Lucia’s fisheries sector and the authority to create new regulations for the management of fishery resources when necessary. Both the Fisheries Act and Regulations are based on the OECS harmonised legislation.

The Fisheries Act as covered in Chapter 7.15 of Laws of St Lucia (2001) consolidates the Fisheries Act 10 of 1984, Fisheries Regulations – Section 39 Statutory Instrument 9/1994, and Fisheries (Snorkelling Licence) Regulations – Section 39 Statutory Instrument 223/2000 in force 11 November 2000. From the perspective of defining a Plan it is worthwhile to identify a number of articles.

2. The Minister shall take such measures …. to promote the management and development of fisheries, so as to ensure the optimum utilization of the resources. The Chief Fisheries Officer (CFO) shall prepare an FMP that identifies each fishery and assesses the present state of its exploitation, specifies the objectives to be achieved in the management of each fishery; specifies the management and development measures to be taken and specifies the licensing programmes to be followed for each fishery. In the preparation of the FMP there will be consultation with the local stakeholders and the Fishery Advisory Committee (FAC).

5. The Minister may appoint a FAC to advise on the management and development of fisheries. Any FAC appointed shall include the CFO and such other persons as the Minister may consider capable.

11. Local Fishing Licences. A local fishing vessel shall not be used for fishing or related activities in the fishery waters without a valid licence issued under this section in respect of that vessel. An application for a local fishing licence shall not be refused except that it is necessary to do so in order to give effect to any licensing programme specified in the fisheries plan.

18. The Minister may designate an area as a local fisheries management area and designate any local authority, fishers cooperative or fishers’ association or other appropriate body representing fishers in the area as the local fisheries management authority for that area.

21. The Minister may declare any area of the fishery waters to be a fishing priority area, where .. special measures are necessary to ensure that authorised fishing within the area is not impeded or otherwise interfered with.

22. The Minister may declare any area of the fishery waters and, as appropriate, any adjacent or surrounding land, to be a marine reserve where ….special measures are necessary: (a) to afford special protection to the flora

1 June 2010 Division of Gender Relations June 2010. St Lucia’s Report to the 11 th Session of the Regional Conference on Women in Latin

America and the Caribbean. http://www.eclac.org/mujer/noticias/paginas/6/38906/StLucia.pdf 2 Ministry of Health, Wellness, Human Services, National Mobilization, Family Affairs and Gender Relations

http://www.eclac.org/mujer/noticias/paginas/6/38906/SaintLucia.pdf


Pag

e30

and fauna of such areas and to protect and preserve the natural breeding grounds and habitats of aquatic life, with particular regard to flora and fauna in danger of extinction; (b) to allow for the natural regeneration of aquatic life in areas where such life has been depleted; (c) to promote scientific study and research in respect of such areas; or (d) to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of such areas.

26. The Minister may designate such persons as he or she deems fit, including members of the enforcement authority of any country or of any regional or sub-regional marine enforcement entity, to be authorised officers for the purpose of this Act.

39. Regulations. The Minister may make regulations generally for the management and development of fisheries in the fishery waters., such as providing for the licensing, regulation and management of any particular fishery; prescribing fisheries management and conservation measures including prescribed mesh sizes, gear standards, minimum species sizes, closed seasons, closed areas, prohibited methods of fishing or fishing gear and schemes for limiting entry into all or any specified fisheries; and prescribing the constitution, functions and duties of the FAC.

The FAC is described in Section 39 of the Fisheries Regulations. It is to be comprised by: the Permanent Secretary; the CFO; at least three persons from among professional fishers and two other persons. The FAC may invite participation in its meetings as required. The functions of the FAC are to advise the Minister on: (a) the management and development of fisheries; (b) the plan for the management and development of fisheries in the fishery waters and any review of such plan; (c) the need for any amendment to the Act or Regulations; (d) proposals for access agreements, joint venture investments in fisheries, or development projects in the fisheries sector; (e) initiatives for the regional harmonisation of fisheries regimes, including any regional licensing scheme for foreign fishing vessels; and (f) co-ordination of the policies and activities of government departments and ministries with respect to any of the matters contained in this regulation.

The 2006 Fisheries Management Plan (FMP)1 (DOF 2006) (see below) notes that in 2001, TA was provided by the FAO to review the existing legislation, to take into account more recent international fisheries agreements and the national requirements for fisheries management and development. A number of consultations were held with stakeholders and a proposed new Fisheries Act and Fisheries Regulations were developed. In 2006, the draft Act and Regulations were reported to be in their final stages and have been submitted for finalisation by the Attorney General; it would appear that they were not adopted.

2.3.2 Department of Fisheries

Mandate

DOF was originally established as a Fisheries Division within MALFF in 1964 and was staffed by one person. In 1980, it became the Fisheries Management Unit; in the mid-1980s DOF was established. Currently, it has a complement of 32 full-time and 10 part-time staff. Its mandate is defined by the Fisheries Act and the Fisheries Regulations. As noted above this requires the promotion, management and development of fishing and fisheries in St Lucia and covers an FAC, fisheries access agreements, local and foreign fishing licensing, fish processing establishments, fisheries research, fisheries enforcement, the registration of fishing vessels and the preparation, implementation and review of an FMP that has the broad goal of enhancing the social and economic welfare of fishers and their families and improving the nutritional status of the nation.

Finance

The Department’s recurrent budget has fluctuated during the last five years between EC$1.8 million and EC$2.2 million. In the 2007-08 fiscal year, about 12% of the MAFF’s budget was allocated to the fisheries development programme. It has had to rely on external funding for capital expenditures and for capacity building.

1 DoF 2006 Plan for the Management of the Fisheries of Saint Lucia


Pag

e31

DOF generates revenue from sources such as licensing and registration, fines and forfeitures, imports and export licenses and environmental impact assessments done for the Development Control Authority but this accrues to the treasury.

If the Plan is to be realistic there must be full consideration of the level of funding available to DFO to fulfil its mandate and to allow for the complementary activities of other stakeholders in the process. This funding should reflect the priorities identified in the Plan and the role of an effective and efficient fishing sector in meeting National Development objectives such as poverty alleviation, food security, sustainable use of natural resources and the diversification of rural incomes. Fishing is largely based in poorer rural communities that do not benefit greatly from tourism. Capture fisheries and aquaculture can supply top quality product to tourists. Aquaculture can diversify the income of small scale famers. Unsustainable fishing practises increase the risk that the situation in terms of rural incomes, food security and environmental protection may worsen.

Annually, individual departments prepare projects for finance with justification based on the objectives defined in the FMP and the DOF Strategy. However, no finance has been made available. Such projects may need a significant level of additional finance, although some will depend on more effective use of existing resources. Take for example, the three year “Training Programme for Sustainable Fisheries” the budgeted costs of which was E$484,000 with the main ones being the eight courses of two weeks (E$200,000) and internships with national organisations such as the SLFMC and the Soufrière Marine Management Area (SMMA) Agency. The two year “Innovative Rural Livelihoods and Enhanced Food Security through Mariculture Development” project had a budgeted cost of EC$384,500 with the main items being technical assistance (TA) and materials for pilot projects for improved cultivation methods for sea moss and two other species, study tours to view the facilities for the products of interest in other countries and business skills training. The proposed three year project “Enhancing Business Opportunities in Marine Aquaculture” was costed at EC$1.2 million with the main part of the budget intended for materials and equipment for conducting trials on E. cottoni (the introduction of a new species; gel and fertilizer production); spiny lobster ranching; and marine finfish culture. Finally, the estimated budget for the project “Revitalizing the Fisheries Sector to Increase Employment opportunities for Young Fishers and Entrepreneurs” was EC$2.97 million. The most important elements of the proposal and those with the highest cost were: (i) research and planning, including, fisheries study, production assessments, sector plan preparation and publishing; (ii) training and capacity building, including training of trainers, internships, certificate training courses; (iii) TA including fish product and laboratory expertise, systems establishment and the development of training modules / curricula and specialist training courses; and (iv) industry support including the refurbishment of SLFMC Vieux Fort facility (for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) certification /value-added product trials); the purchase of fishing gears for training; the purchase of a training fishing vessel; and the cost of meetings to facilitate financial support mechanisms through existing financial institutions.

It has been calculated that in 2000 the total value of subsidies to the St Lucian fishing sector in the broader sense was US$3.3 million.1 If this continues to be the case there appears to be a clear argument for a review of how available finds are being spent and to ensure that they are directed towards the implementation of a Plan that has as its objective a profitable and efficient fishery sector in the context of sustainable use of the available natural resources.

While it is possible that international agencies may provide financial aid, in the absence of firm commitments it would be remiss to base the implementation of the Plan on this possibility. When international assistance is available this should be in the framework of the Plan with contribution to the achievement of strategic objectives. It is recommended that once the Plan is approved it should be promoted with potential donors to identify possible support.

1 The Pew Charitable Trust. Seas Around Us Project. “Good” subsidies = Fisheries management and services (US$280 k); Fishery research and

development (US$ 234k); Maintenance of MPAs (US700k). “Bad” subsidies = Fishery development and support services (US$ 1,038k); Marketing support and storage infrastructure (US$198k); Tax exemptions (US$200k); Fuel subsidies (US$300k); Rural fisheries community development (US$360k) (Figures gained from various sources).


Pag

e32

Organisation

The CFO is responsible for overall management of DOF reporting to the Minister (MALFF) and the Permanent Secretary. The deputy CFO assists the CFO in the management and supervision of the four DOF sections or units.

The Resource Management Unit holds responsibility for: (i) marine habitat surveys, monitoring and management (reefs, man-groves, beaches, sea grass, etc.); (ii) research on and management of marine fauna (e.g., cetaceans, turtles, conch, sea urchins, lobsters); (iii) research on the biology and ecology of fisheries resources; (iv) the collection, analysis and management of fisheries data; the co-ordination of licensing and registration of fishers and marine users; (v) assists in marine sector management: fishing (commercial/sport) and water-based tourism (diving, whale-watching, etc.); (vi) assists coastal zone management; (vii) provides advice on environment impact assessments (EIA); (vii) assists in resolving conflicts for sustainable resource management; (viii) assists in programmes relating to biodiversity, monitoring and conservation; (ix) assists in fishery management policy development and planning, including activities relating to international conventions and agreements; and (x) assists in the development and implementation of public education / sensitisation activities for schools, resource users and community groups. RMU has a staff complement of five biologists and one fisheries assistant in addition to the data officer, a licensing and registration officer and a data entry clerk and nine part-time data collectors who operate at various fisheries landing sites that comprise the integrated Data Unit.

The Aquaculture Unit is responsible for promoting aquaculture. Services offered include, inter alia: (i) research into the culture of fresh water and marine species; (ii) the transfer of technology to the private sector; (iii) the management of aquaculture facilities to provide research, demonstration and services (fingerlings and post larvae (PL); and (iv) the development of policy related to aquaculture. The Staff complement consists of two Aquaculturists, two fisheries assistants and two pond assistants.

The Extension Unit: (i) provides training to fishers and their communities (e.g. safety at sea, navigation and seamanship); (ii) assists in the supervision and monitoring of data collectors; (iii) provides the link between fishers and DOF; (iv) liaises with and assists enforcement officers about compliance with the Fisheries Law and Regulations; (v) works with Fishers Co-operatives; (vi) assists fishers and their communities in disaster preparedness; (vii) undertakes public education activities with fishers and their communities, schools, resource users and other community groups; and manages the two DOF vessels and the fishing equipment. The complement of the Unit comprises four extension officers and two wardens.

The Administrative Unit provides administrative support to all units within the DOF. The full complement of staff is a senior administrative officer, a secretary, an accounts clerk, a clerk typist and two office assistant

As commented by Trillo et al (2010) “DOF has a range of expertise in the fields of fisheries extension, stock assessment, marine and fisheries biology, coastal zone management, fishing gear technology, fisheries management, marine protected areas and public education. DOF’s service delivery is based on three broad areas: extension, data/information and ancillary services which are delivered to primary, secondary and tertiary level stakeholders. While there is scope for improvement in the quality of all services being delivered to its stakeholders, the quality and quantum of it extension staff is and is likely to remain a major factor that limits service delivery. At the same time, given the existing staffing levels and the increasing demand for ancillary services (such as professional advice on fisheries studies), the quality of the data/information service is more than likely to be compromised. The DOF is equipped with several vessels that are used for enforcement, research and experimental fishing. Presently, there are insufficient personnel responsible for coastal management, aquaculture and fisheries extension to execute the work programme. In addition, qualitative enhancement of the staff, both in terms of professional development to degree level and beyond and personnel management will need to be addressed, as these deficiencies are impacting negatively on the entire Department”.

In structural and operational terms, a number of key elements need to be taken into consideration when reviewing the effectiveness of DOF and the potential and the need to change, including the redistribution of effort and financial resources.


Pag

e33

Communications. Communication was a focus of the 2008 Strategy (DOF 2008) with the management and organisational goal (MG) 3 aimed at providing high quality services to the clientele and to ensure that service requirements are met. Defined objectives were to clearly articulate the role of DOF by developing and implementing a programme to inform the public on its role and the services offered; to develop a customer service plan and train all staff in customer service delivery; to regularly update procedural manuals and implement a mechanism to encourage their use in order to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to service delivery; and to clearly develop/articulate and promote policies, including establishing mechanisms that ensure ready access to required policies and procedures. Public service announcements (PSA) have been prepared to inform stakeholders of specific issues.

An important determinant of the capacity for successful implementation of the Plan will be the ability to maximize the synergistic benefits from effective cooperation with other public sector authorities with responsibilities in the fishery sector; most notably the Marine Police (MP), SLFMC, fishery cooperatives including the SLFFO and the management of the fishery complexes. This calls for formal channels of communication, with the introduction of a meeting schedule to discuss relevant issues.

Another key to successful implementation will be strong communications with stakeholders. It is recommended that the FAC is established but with a different approach from that originally considered with the concept widened to include: (i) the formal continuous involvement of stakeholders; (ii) the formation of advisory committees (covering such as e.g. aquaculture, Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) and cooperatives) and (iii) the formation of local FACs which would meet on a more regular basis that their national counterpart and provide one of the pivotal links between stakeholders, policy makers and fishery managers. With such an approach, there would be a move away from informal and ad hoc meetings with DFO assuming a hand – on approach to driving the implementation of the Plan. Such a format would provide a permanent mechanism for consultation and co-management.

Planning. Currently, planning is based on the implementation of the FMP (DOF 2006) and Strategy (DOF 2008). The detailed annual planning exercise goes beyond the limited planning that is within both documents and there is detailed identification of activities and responsibilities. The identified activities relate to the goals defined in the Strategy and the FMP, although there appears to be some confusion between the two. Proposed activities are also prioritized. However, there is limited attention to monitoring and evaluation (although there is permanent assessment of the staff). Performance indicators and sources of verification are not identified. In addition to the on-going work programme, specific projects1 are defined, with detailed ToR. Such work illustrates the capacity of DOF to plan strategic activities, although at times the justifications for individual actions highlight confused objectives rather than concentration on a specific issue. Given this capacity, it would appear that the major constraint is the lack of budget. While this is understandable given the limitations on national finance, it may also highlight the lack of a strategic approach to planning with confusion between the FMP and the existing strategy.

Training. To maintain staff up-to-date, DOF needs to have a permanent training programme. Training should cover: (i) specific technical training to increase knowledge of specialized areas; and (ii) general training covering such as computerization, development and management of databases, project identification, project preparation, project management, interpersonal relations, conflict management, planning, report writing; management, human resources and negotiation.

Enforcement. DOF employs two fisheries wardens to enforce fisheries regulations on land and at sea. The manpower limitations and financial constraints of both DOF and MP severely impede compliance activities and thus the effectiveness of the fisheries regulations.

Research. In relation to the sustainable harvest of resources, it is of particular importance to provide biological information and advice to local communities on the characteristics of fish species to support the identification and

1 For example: Enhancing Business Opportunities in Marine Aquaculture; Innovative Rural Livelihoods and Enhanced Food Security through

Mariculture Development; Young Fishers Training Programme; Revitalizing the Fisheries Sector to Increase Employment opportunities for Young Fishers and Entrepreneurs


Pag

e34

implementation of local management plan and provide a basis for decision making on the potential for small scale investments. There is a limited capacity for fisheries research. The annual work plan of the Resource Management Unit highlights the range of activities completed (table 1). In addition there is research by the aquaculture unit.

Table 1: Resource Management Unit Annual Work Plan

Data. It is important that DOF has an approach to data acquisition which is targeted and cost-effective. Considerations are: the data needed now and in the future; the benefits of having the data, the extent to which data is already available, the potential to improve the collection of data and the form the data is stored and presented. A


Pag

e35

significant part of DOF resources is used in collecting and inputting data, but the use of the data is uncertain apart from fulfilling the obligation with the FAO. The manual collection of data is inefficient and there is a large risk that the inputted data is not of the quality required. At the same time the full range of data that would be useful is not collected (for example biological data). It is recommended that DOF assesses the potential to use an electronic system to collect data at the beach level for transmission to a central data base that collects and tabulates the inputs. This would allow resources to be reallocated to other DOF priorities while improving the efficiency and quality of inputs and the rapid availability of the analyses.

Logistical support. To make best use of DOF staff the required logistical support needed to support effective and efficient implementation of the Plan and make best use of the available human resources and budget.

Relationship with the Fisheries sector

In the past, there has been little formal involvement of stakeholders in the development process and management of fishery resources. This is an obstacle to the sustainable management of the sector. Globally, it is recognized that one of the keys to the successful implementation of a sustainability strategy is a consultation process that regularly seeks and accepts relevant information, including the traditional knowledge of fishery communities.

One of the Principles of the National Environmental Policy (NEP 2004) relates to stewardship: “all citizens and institutions should feel a sense of responsibility, and there should be a fair sharing of rights and authority among the state, civil society, individuals and the private sector. All stakeholders must recognise that they have a part to play in the processes of environmental management”. Some of the projects presented for finance by DOF in the past two years (e.g. Development of Training Programme for Sustainable Fisheries and Enhancing Business Opportunities in Marine Aquaculture) note the need for project steering committees. There is a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOF and fishery cooperatives on sustainable FAD development.

One of the guiding principles of the previous DOF strategy (DOF 2008) was the commitment “to working closely with all stakeholders in a fair and respectable manner for the sustainable use of the fishery resources and the advancement of the fisheries sector”. While the range of defined duties included “promoting a collaborative approach to freshwater and marine management” while it was noted that “the successful implementation of the Strategic Plan will require close collaboration with the DOF’s numerous stakeholders”. One of the identified critical issues was “insufficient involvement of all levels of stakeholders in the DOF’s decision making process”. This led to one part of the defined two prong approach to strategy implementation of “the design and implementation of work programmes that will promote participatory management and sustainable utilisation of the Country’s fishery resources”. This aim was articulated in Programme Goal 3: “Increase stakeholder participation by promoting a collaborative approach to fisheries resource management and development”.

However the two defined related objectives1 fall short of needs in terms of achieving the goal as they reflect a top down approach (stressing the need to improve awareness and communications) rather than identifying a mechanism to allow for the formal participation of stakeholders in the decision making process.

In 2007, the assistance of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) was requested to conduct an institutional review of the Ministry (the Budhram report). The exercise was repeated after the change of government in 2011. One of the highlights of the 2012 report was that only 37% of the Ministry staff thought they had a good idea of the goals of the Ministry. Based on the results of the institutional review a series of recommendations were provided to the Government at the sectorial level which included: send clear messages to stakeholders on policies, priorities and where the sector is going; and have continuous dialogue with stakeholders on consensus building, direction and accountability.

The need to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement is considered urgent. It is suggested that the present piecemeal approach through individual projects and ad hoc meetings is unlikely to create the conditions for

1 “PG 3.1 To design and implement an appropriate public education and awareness programme; PG 3.2 To provide an effective

means of communicating relevant information to the clientele”.


Pag

e36

stakeholder input into the decision making process that has the aim of their sharing responsibility for the management of the sector with an important part to play in the stewardship of the resources. Stakeholders could be engaged through the implementation of the FAC with complementary regional bodies and select working groups; the latter ensuring that DOF benefits from the local knowledge of the fishers in considering management options that have the goal of reducing the risk of over fishing while making fishing operations more profitable

The development of a public sector / private sector partnership is fundamental in ensuring a stronger approach to co-management. In turn effective combined efforts could reduce government spending while making initiatives more effective. What is important in the participatory management system of fishery resources is that DOF values the interest and information of stakeholders and that each party is objective in assuming responsibilities and applying measures.

2.3.3 Related Agencies

A number of entities have a role to play in the process, including the following.

SLFMC. The establishment of the SLFMC in 1985, with a US$2.5-million grant from Canada, provided local fishermen with processing, storage, and marketing facilities, enabling St. Lucia to become self-sufficient in fresh fish production. SLFMC handles and markets between 40% and 60% of the domestic catch (the proportion varies significantly with differing seasonal and year-on-year catch levels). The National Development Corporation: has been responsible for the management of SLFMC.

Cooperatives. The main institutional framework associated with the sector is provided by fishermen’s cooperatives and their apex body. There are nine registered fishermen’s cooperatives in: Gros Ilet, Castries, Dennery, Micoud, Laborie, Choiseul, Soufriere, Canaries / Anse La Rouge, and Vieux Fort Fisheries, with a current membership in excess of 1,100 in total. These cooperatives (with encouragement from DOF) established the SLFFA to replace the defunct National Association of Fishermen’s Cooperatives. Cooperative members are responsible for landing most of the domestic catch and also organize and sell inputs to fishers.

The Royal St. Lucia Police, including the MP: is responsible for the enforcement of fisheries laws. Besides enforcing domestic fisheries regulations and patrolling the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), waters to prevent illegal fishing by foreign vessels, the Marine Unit monitors the safety of domestic fishing vessels and participates in search and rescue.

Customs and Excise Department: regulates imports/exports of seafood, fishing gear and vessels.

The Ministry of Communications, Works, Transport and Public Utilities: is responsible for regulating coastal infrastructure development and sand mining.

The Development Control Authority: is responsible for coastal planning and sustainable development.

The St Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority: is responsible for the management of designated ports.

The Ministry of Physical Development: Environment and Housing: is responsible for regulating physical development, environmental management – including coastal zone management.

The effective implementation of the Plan will require cooperative, complementary and collaborative work with these and other national and international agencies and stakeholders. The success achieved in collaborative efforts will to a large extent be dependent on a hands-on, rather than policy level, approach. The various stakeholders should not duplicate activities, rather each must work to its strengths and maximise the benefit from combining resources and sharing responsibilities.

The basic concept relates to a team consisting of DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO within the context of stronger permanent stakeholder representation through the FAC, the Board of FMC and the incorporation of individual cooperatives within under the umbrella of the SLFFO. This reduces the potential for split overlapping responsibilities leading to inefficiencies and confusion. A case in point is the management of the fishery complexes and the need to ensure an overarching approach to ensure that the high investments made by JICA and the Government of St Lucia (GOSL) are not wasted.


Pag

e37

The organisations and individuals involved in the fisheries sector must be clearly identified, with their functions, roles and responsibilities explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. This approach will facilitate the strengthening of relations among the different institutions through the improvement of communication and allow better coordination of activities at the local level including activities in those areas where cooperative actions are required.

This role must be strengthened through an appropriate organizational structure, in which the competences are defined and with a participative process for decision-making. Likewise, interrelationships between the different actors must be strengthened through the establishment of networks and the continuous flow of information.

Other actions that may improve the socio-economic situation in fishery communities (e.g. transport and education) are beyond the remit of the Plan, although improvements would contribute to the prospects for its success (e.g. the generation of alternative employment).

There does have to be consideration of cross cutting issues, such as gender, tourism and the environment.

To implement the Plan, St Lucia will continue to need international assistance. In the recent years, a number of International agencies have supported the country in important projects, most notably JICA (infrastructure and training), the Government of Taiwan (aquaculture and training), the EU (TA and training), the Government of Canada (marketing and training) and the Government of France (fishing equipment).

The JICA vision of the Master Plan for the Caribbean beneficiaries (JICA 2010) is “The sustainable use of fisheries resource by coastal community is promoted.” The defined goal is “Coastal community and fisheries department take measures for the sustainable use of fisheries resources.” Three strategies are identified to achieve the goal: (i) Diversification of Fishery: artisanal fishers can realize rational utilization of multi-fisheries resource, in accordance with the resource condition and from the perspective of the sustainability; (ii) Creation of alternative income: excessive fishing effort of overfished fisheries resource in reef and island shelf resource is reduced; and (iii) Community based resource management: encouragement of local community participation toward co-management.

A number of pilot projects are being implemented in the Region: Coastal fisheries resources management: FAD pelagic fishery resource development / management - St. Lucia and Dominica; aquaculture: small scale aquaculture training and extension: study on the low cost input small scale aquaculture – Jamaica & Belize; and fisheries statistics: fisheries statistical systems improvement - St. Vincent and the Grenadines, & Guyana.

From early 2013 JICA will implement a 5 year project that is based on the identification of issues facing the fisheries sectors in the Caribbean. The four main actions axes are: Improved information; improved organisation of fishers to facilitate fishery co-management; fishery specific management plans; and improved business plans and marketing plans for fishery organisations.

St Lucia is party to a number of treaties and conventions (table 2). From the perspective of fisheries management the Caribbean Community & Common Market (CARICOM) and the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) are the most relevant (see section 4.3). St Lucia is not a party to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT).

Any future inputs of bi-lateral and multi-lateral assistance should be developed within the context of the Plan so forming a link between independent actions that are designed to achieve the overall objective while strengthening the potential for synergistic benefits from cooperative actions. Given the size of St Lucia, a relevant vehicle for international aid is the regional approach as, for example, employed by JICA with pilot projects testing potential solutions to common problems in individual countries.


Pag

e38

Table 2: Treaties & Conventions to which St Lucia is a Member

Short Title Long Title

CARICOM Caribbean Community

Stradd. /Highly Migr. Fish St. Agr.

Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

World Heritage Convention

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

Cartagena de Indias Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

Basel Convention Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

IMO Convention Convention on the International Maritime Organization

Lome IV Fourth ACP - EEC Convention

IWC International Whaling Commission

MP Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

OECS Organization of Eastern Caribbean States

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WECAFC Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

Source: http://www.fishbase.de/Country/CountryTreatyList.php?Country=662

In developing and implementing the Plan it must be recognized that the issues facing St Lucia cannot be considered in isolation from the actions of neighbouring and other countries in the Region. About 70 % of the St Lucia catch is of highly migratory species that are harvested throughout the region. Other local stocks may be shared with neighbouring countries while activities in those countries may impact the possibilities in St Lucia and the capacity to enforce regulations e.g. with illegal fishing and black market trade.

On that basis, the Plan has to be considered in a regional context, with attention paid to international obligations; indeed this may be a strong driver of the ability to attract international assistance, especially as it is highly likely that some projects will be regional, as opposed to national, in character.

The design and implementation of the Plan must take into consideration the objectives of international agreements and be in the context of, for example, the Common Fisheries Policy of the Caribbean Community and the Declaration of Santa Lucia on Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing. This implies that St Lucia must itself play a significant role in the development of policy that may influence its own future harvesting and marketing prospects.

As described by Singh-Renton (2010) “several species of commercial importance to CARICOM/ CRFM countries, such as yellowfin tuna, swordfish, billfishes (marlins and sailfish), wahoo (kingfish), skipjack tuna, and sharks, are included in ICCAT’s mandate… The overall total quantity (of catch reported by CARICOM countries) reported over the 10-year period (to 2009) was 135,226 t. ICCAT’s management measures are adopted for enforcement throughout the ICCAT Convention Area that includes the CARICOM/CRFM fishing region. Consequently, ICCAT measures can directly help or hinder fisheries development and management activities within the region”.

The author identifies four advantages to CARICOM member states from membership including influence on policy, negotiations on catch quotas, contributions to ICCAT’s scientific programme and “a predictable and stable future environment for the optimal development of any State’s’ tuna and tuna-like fisheries, including future opportunities for international trade in tuna and tuna-like fish products”. Seven reasons identified for direct participation; the

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=238&country=662&fullname=Caribbean%20Community

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=22&country=662&fullname=Conservation%20and%20Management%20of%20Straddling%20Fish%20Stocks%20and%20Highly%20Migratory%20Fish%20Stocks

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=170&country=662&fullname=Convention%20concerning%20the%20Protection%20of%20the%20World%20Cultural%20and%20Natural%20Heritage

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=74&country=662&fullname=Convention%20for%20the%20Protection%20and%20Development%20of%20the%20Marine%20Environment%20of%20the%20Wider%20Caribbean%20Region

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=74&country=662&fullname=Convention%20for%20the%20Protection%20and%20Development%20of%20the%20Marine%20Environment%20of%20the%20Wider%20Caribbean%20Region

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=17&country=662&fullname=Convention%20on%20Biological%20Diversity

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=37&country=662&fullname=Convention%20on%20International%20Trade%20in%20Endangered%20Species%20of%20Wild%20Fauna%20and%20Flora

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=116&country=662&fullname=Convention%20on%20the%20Control%20of%20Transboundary%20Movements%20of%20Hazardous%20Wastes%20and%20their%20Disposal

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=116&country=662&fullname=Convention%20on%20the%20Control%20of%20Transboundary%20Movements%20of%20Hazardous%20Wastes%20and%20their%20Disposal

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=87&country=662&fullname=Convention%20on%20the%20International%20Maritime%20Organization

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=57&country=662&fullname=Fourth%20ACP%20-%20EEC%20Convention

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=5&country=662&fullname=International%20Whaling%20Commission

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=227&country=662&fullname=Montreal%20Protocol%20%20for%20the%20Protection%20of%20the%20Ozone%20Layer

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=49&country=662&fullname=Organization%20of%20Eastern%20Caribbean%20States

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=20&country=662&fullname=United%20Nations%20Convention%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20the%20Sea

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=85&country=662&fullname=United%20Nations%20Framework%20Convention%20on%20Climate%20Change

http://www.fishbase.de/country/MainFrame.php?ID=246&country=662&fullname=Western%20Central%20Atlantic%20Fishery%20Commission


Pag

e39

overfished nature of many of the resources and the need to establish an historical fishing record; gain access to other, non-tuna resources normally exploited by CARICOM/ CRFM fishing fleets that are increasingly considered for management; reduce the risk to new investments in tuna fisheries; support food security; maintain the supply of high value fresh fish; and increase the credibility of the region in terms of natural resource management.

2.4. POLICY FRAMEWORK

2.4.1 National Development Policy

Renard (2008) notes that there is “is not a single overarching document to guide national development in St Lucia, but the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Economic Planning, Investment and National Development has embarked on a process to formulate a five-year national development plan…. Elements of a national development plan were formulated and debated … in July 2007, which brought together political leaders, governmental agencies, local private sector interests, development partners and potential investors. In addition, the medium-term economic strategy paper (mtesp), the annual budget speeches, the annual estimates of expenditure (budget) and the corporate plans of individual ministries provide very explicit statements of national policy in a number of critical areas. In particular, these documents define the types and levels of public sector investments in the various sectors, the human and technical resources allocated to various programmes and services, the main institutional arrangements for implementation, as was as the fiscal measures and their roles as incentives and disincentives to achieve specific development objectives”.

GOSL (2009) notes that “The lessons learned from St Lucia’s experience in planning for and implementing development initiatives and interventions raises a fundamental question. Is a NSDS1 necessary especially for SIDS,2 which are deficit in human expertise and financial resources? Should the NSDS be replaced by a PROCESS, which allows for a coordinated set of participatory and continuously evolving processes of analysis, debate, decision-making, capacity development, planning, investment, monitoring, and evaluation? Achieving sustainable development entails particular attention by St Lucia to an agenda with certain priorities including: increasing FDI3 flows, particularly to build infrastructure and expand export capacity; the removal of all existing tariff and non-tariff barriers; support to overcome supply-side constraints; expanding levels of technical expertise; and providing greater support for social sector development with special attention to health, focusing on HIV/AIDS - education, population issues and women’s empowerment; and cooperating to establish food security. The major shortcoming of past efforts and a critical challenge to sustainable development for St Lucia is finding adequate resources to undertake all that is required”.

In his 2009 Budget Address, the then Prime Minister, Hon. Stephenson King,4 “outlined the following sustainable development principles: 1. Formulating a strategic vision to provide long term direction and vision, 2. Setting clear objectives which involves converting the strategic vision into specific performance outcomes, 3. Creating a national development strategy, designed to achieve the desired outcomes of national growth, development and social change, 4. Implementing and executing the chosen strategy effectively and efficiently, and 5. Evaluating performance and initiating corrective adjustments in vision, long term direction, objectives, strategy and implementation activities, in light of actual experience, changing conditions, new ideas and new opportunities”.

From the mid-2000s, there has been a National Environmental Policy (NEP) and a National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) (NEP 2005). The NEP “provides the broad framework for environmental management in St Lucia, and establishes links with policies and programmes in all relevant sectors of economic and social development. (NEMS) aims to provide the specific directions and mechanisms for more effective policy implementation and includes specific results expected and actions necessary to realise the policy objectives”.

GOSL (2004) emphasises two points: “Stewardship: all citizens and institutions should feel a sense of responsibility, and there should be a fair sharing of rights and authority among the state, civil society, individuals and the private

1 National Sustainable Development Strategy

2 Small Island Developing States

3 Foreign Direct Investment

4 http://www.pm.gov.lc/pmsitemap.htm

http://www.pm.gov.lc/pmsitemap.htm


Pag

e40

sector. All stakeholders must recognise that they have a part to play in the processes of environmental management. Collaboration and participation: public policy must promote the participation of stakeholders, facilitate the development of collaboration and partnerships among relevant actors, and encourage community involvement in management whenever desirable and practical. Voluntary compliance must be promoted and encouraged to the maximum extent possible”.

St. Lucia’s Climate Change Adaptation Policy & Strategy (GOSL 2003) is based on an acceptance that climate change is occurring and that it will continue to occur even if immediate steps are taken to reduce global warming. It is also accepted that the effects thereof are likely to have a profound, and in sum, adverse, impact on the economic, social, and environmental aspects of life in St. Lucia and other Small Island Developing States….Although a country of limited economic, financial and technological resources, we are prepared to adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to planning for, and ameliorating the effects of, climate change. ”

2.4.2 National Agricultural Policy

Singh et al (2005) write “In pursuit of its agricultural diversification goals, the Government of St Lucia in 2002 identified a number of targets and measures including: a 10 % reduction in the food trade deficit by 2005; increasing the consumption of local production, non-banana agricultural exports; expanding agro industry; and a 20% increased utilization of locally-produced agricultural commodities by the tourism sector. In 2003 the Government of St Lucia refined its agricultural policy within the OECS Agricultural Policy Framework. The result was a comprehensive set of strategies aimed fostering growth and modernization of the sector”. The authors concluded that “A review of the policies proposals for the Agricultural Sector in St Lucia reveals a rather comprehensive framework, one that addresses all of the major issues impacting on the performance of the sector. What is unique and commendable is the inclusion of the specific objectives to be pursued in each area as well as the policy instruments that the Government plans to employ to achieve the goals… Given the resource limitations of the country, both financial and technical, there is need to prioritize the various policy areas and instruments into an action plan that was time and resource bound with clear deliverables”.

The opening paragraph of the brief on National Agricultural Policy (MALFF 2008), that also covers the fishery sector, states: “The rapid structural changes in the global and regional economies, coupled with the advances in information and communication technology, the integration of value chains, from farm to table and the new and emerging development challenges to the country’s rural and agricultural economy, signal the need for a radical rethinking and approach to agriculture and rural development. Such shift must espouse a developmental approach that provides scope for “self-propelled”, people centred development. This participatory mode presents more effective models for decision making, institutional building, policy design and implementation; as well as the monitoring and evaluation of the rural and agricultural development process”. The defined vision is “A vibrant agri-food chain or system that provides adequate supplies of safe, high quality, nutritious food and non-food products and services ,at stable and affordable prices, that assure financial security to producers and is socially and environmentally responsible thereby promoting development in rural areas and conservation of resources”, while the defined policy goal is “To promote economic development, generate employment and enhance the viability of rural communities”.

The agricultural policy is designed to achieve seven broad objectives, with objective one comprising core strategies and identified measures. Objective 1: To increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the island’s agriculture (fostering a commercialized and an agri-entrepreneurial approach to farming (strengthen the agricultural research system and technology adoption to make it more responsive to farmers’ needs; Increase the effectiveness of publicly and private service providers to ensure that research and technology developments are more accessible; Facilitate increased access to investment finance; Developing and managing information system; Improve the production, distribution and marketing infrastructure; Strengthen marketing organizations and institutions); Foster inter-sectoral linkages; Create the environment to enable non-state actors to effectively participate in the development and decision making process; Facilitate credit and agricultural finance; Finding a solution to farm labour problem.; Eliminating and minimizing the effects of praedial larceny; Assist farming community to mitigate and manage risks; Promote gender equality; Encouraging succession planning and youth involvement in agribusiness); Objective 2: To promote the development, adaptation and adoption of improved/appropriate technology; Objective 3: To enhance


Pag

e41

national food security; Objective 4: To rationalize the use of land in the country; Objective 5: To protect, conserve and ensure sustainable use of natural resources; Objective 6: To expand the agricultural production and market base; and Objective 7: To generate new opportunities for employment and income generation in rural areas.

2.4.3 Fisheries Policy

Regional

CARICOM

CARICOM’s Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy has the vision of “effective cooperation and collaboration among Participating Parties in the conservation, management and sustainable utilisation of the fisheries resources and related ecosystems in the Caribbean region in order to secure the maximum benefits from those resources for the Caribbean peoples and for the Caribbean region as a whole”.

The related goal is “to establish, within the context of the Revised Treaty, appropriate measures for: the conservation, management, sustainable utilisation and development of fisheries resources and related ecosystems; the building of capacity amongst fishers and the optimisation of the social and economic returns from their fisheries; and the promotion of competitive trade and stable market conditions”.

The objectives are to: “Promote the sustainable development of fishing and aquaculture industries in the Caribbean region as a means of, inter alia, increasing trade and export earnings, protecting food and nutrition security, assuring supply to Caribbean markets and improving income and employment opportunities; Develop harmonised measures and operating procedures for sustainable fisheries management, post-harvest practices, fisheries research and fisheries trade and the administration of the fishing industry; Improve the welfare and livelihoods of fishers and fishing communities; Prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, including by promoting the establishment and maintenance of effective monitoring, control, and surveillance systems; Build the institutional capabilities of Participating Parties, inter alia, to conduct research, collect and analyse data, improve networking and collaboration among Participating Parties, formulate and implement policies and make decisions; Integrate environmental, coastal and marine management considerations into fisheries policy so as to safeguard fisheries and associated ecosystems from anthropogenic threats and to mitigate the impacts of climate change and natural disasters; Transform the fisheries sector towards being market-oriented, internationally-competitive and environmentally-sustainable, based on the highest international standards of quality assurance and sanitary and phyto-sanitary systems (SPS); Strengthen, upgrade and modernise fisheries legislation; and Facilitate the establishment of a regime for SPS for the fisheries sector”.

Six key principles are defined: “Use of the best available scientific information in fisheries management decision-making, taking into consideration traditional knowledge concerning the resources and their habitats as well as environmental, economic and social factors; Application of internationally - recognized standards and approaches, in particular the precautionary approach to fisheries management and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management; The principle that the level of fishing effort should not exceed that commensurate with the sustainable use of fisheries resources; The participatory approach, including consideration of the particular rights and special needs of traditional, subsistence, artisanal and small scale fishers; Principles of good governance, accountability and transparency, including the equitable allocation of rights, obligations, responsibilities and benefits; and The principle of subsidiarity, in particular that the Competent Agency will only perform those tasks which cannot be more effectively achieved by individual Participating Parties”.

With regard to fisheries sector development there is a need to improve the welfare and socio-economic conditions of fishers and fishing communities, including, inter alia, by: “Improving the business, financial and insurance environment; Promoting and facilitating joint ventures; Promoting access to training; Supporting capital investment; Promoting the involvement of stakeholders, in particular in planning and management activities, including by supporting the formation and strengthening of fisherfolk organisations; and Supporting and protecting the rights of traditional, subsistence, artisanal and small-scale fishers”.

Other elements considered important to the development of the Fisheries Strategy are:


Pag

e42

Collect and compile fisheries catch and fishing effort, registration and licensing data as well as biological, ecological, economic, social, aquaculture and any other relevant data.

Conduct research in order to: i) ascertain the status of fish stocks; ii) determine the effects of environmental changes on fisheries and aquatic ecosystems; iii) analyse the effectiveness of management and conservation measures; iv) evaluate the social and economic performance of fisheries and aquaculture; v) determine the development potential of underutilized and unutilized fisheries resources; and develop and maintain national and regional databases.

The formulation, adoption, implementation and revision of conservation and management measures and, where appropriate, fisheries management and development plans on the basis of the best available information, including traditional knowledge.

The formulation, adoption, implementation of conservation and management measures and development strategies on the basis of fisheries management and development plans and other fishery-specific conservation, management and recovery plans.

Consideration of the status of available fisheries resources and existing fishing capacity when registering and licensing fishing vessels, fishers and other operators in the fisheries and aquaculture sector.

In order to maintain the balance between fishing capacity and fisheries resources, the establishment and maintenance of: a national register of fishing vessels flying its flag; a national licensing system for fishing vessels flying its flag; a record of licenses or authorizations issued to fishing vessels, fishers and other operators in the fisheries and aquaculture sector; and the development of such necessary inspection and enforcement measures as are necessary to ensure compliance.

The promotion of public awareness of good conservation, exploitation and management policies and practices.

Marketing issues covering: harmonized food quality assurance legislation; harmonized intra-regional SPS measures; common marketing standards for fisheries and aquaculture products; and national or common policies, measures and standards to: encourage stable market conditions; promote the production and marketing of fishery products; develop new and existing markets in fishery products including external markets for the Caribbean region’s fisheries products; enhance intelligence on developments in internal and external markets at all levels; facilitate trade between the Participating Parties; strengthen relevant human, institutional and technological capacities, including the transfer and development of relevant technologies; and otherwise improve the management of fish-handling practices, marketing or trade in the Participating Parties.

The Castries Declaration on IUU fishing (CRFM 2010) has the aim of establishing a comprehensive and integrated approach to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing by emphasising the primary responsibility of the flag state; encouraging the phased implementation of measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing through the development of national and regional plans of actions in accordance with the IPOA-IUU; adopt conservation measures consistent with the long-term sustainable use of fish stocks and the protection of the environment in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention and other relevant regional and international agreements and documents; adopt, review and revise as appropriate, relevant legislation and regulations regarding compliance with fisheries management measures and to provide sanctions; identify, reduce and ultimately eliminate the economic incentives derived from IUU fishing at the national, regional and global levels; implement monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) schemes with a view to increasing the cost effectiveness of surveillance activities, such as encouraging the fishers and other stakeholders to report any suspected IUU fishing activities they observe; adopt internationally agreed market-related measures in accordance with international law including principles, rights and obligations established in WTO agreements, as called for in the IPOA-IUU; develop a comprehensive database of fishing vessels in good standing and vessels involved in IUU related activities; seek technical assistance and training to promote the development of fisheries management regimes at the local, national and regional levels, to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing; ensure the participation and coordination of all its Member States, including stakeholders such as industry, fishing communities and non-governmental organizations, either directly or indirectly in combating IUU


Pag

e43

fishing; and ensure that plans of action are implemented in a transparent manner in accordance with Article 6.13 of the FAO Code of Conduct.

WECAFC

WECAFC (2011) describes the findings of a workshop convened to improve fisheries management and utilization in the wider Caribbean region with respect to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (CCRF). A number of issues were identified that impact the potential for sustainable fishery management.

Limited human, technical and financial resources;

Incomplete and outdated policy and legislative frameworks for fisheries and aquaculture:

Institutional weaknesses of fisheries authorities and other relevant stakeholders.

Low overall priority given to fisheries and ocean resource management and development;

Uncoordinated research efforts and access to information on responsible fisheries and its management;

Inadequate / insufficient MCS arrangements;

Lack of awareness of the CCRF among Fisheries Authorities staff and other sector stakeholders, including fisheries policy makers;

Lack of attention paid to the CCRF in fisheries management; and

Limited participation (and implementation) of Caribbean States in existing international fisheries instruments such as the UNFSA and Compliance Agreement.

Recommendations to Governments in the Caribbean Region were:

Increase commitment to the sustainable management of fisheries and follow-up on the implementation of binding / non-binding fisheries instruments.

Fishery and aquaculture legal and policy frameworks that are being developed should be based on the principles and consistent with the objectives of the CCRF, whilst being in line with the CCCFP and the St Lucia Declaration on IUU fishing.

The absence of updated legal frameworks should not delay efforts to promote the implementation of the CCRF.

Governments (including Fisheries authorities) should be mindful of the international binding and non-binding agreements related to fisheries and work towards their adoption and implementation, as appropriate; the latter may be converted into a binding nature at regional level to ensure and enhance their effectiveness.

Political will for and commitment to the implementation of the CCRF, its ancillary instruments and other relevant international agreements and conventions, be increased in the region.

Linkages and collaboration be improved between the fisheries sector and other sectors in terms of implementation of certain aspects of the CCRF, such as the integration of fisheries into coastal zone management.

Linkages and collaboration be strengthened among fisheries authorities and other government ministries and departments to improve a general understanding of the CCRF and facilitate its implementation.

Fisher folk organizations, in particular those of small-scale fishers, at local, national and regional level be strengthened in order to become true partners in the implementation of the CCRF and responsible fisheries management in general.

Efforts be made to better document the features and contributions of the small-scale fisheries sector in the region, capturing in particular the socio-economic aspects.

Efforts be increased by fisheries authorities and other stakeholders to mainstream fisheries into national poverty reduction and development plans, strategies and programmes.

Fisheries Authorities should aim to incorporate the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF), including adaptive management concepts in the management of their fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Special attention should be given to valuing traditional fisheries knowledge in the EAF processes.


Pag

e44

NPOAs-Sharks be developed in Caribbean countries that catch substantial quantities of sharks in their fisheries and that all Caribbean countries improve their data collection on shark catches and landings, as well as the skills to identify different species, in line with the FAO Technical Guidelines on the IPOA sharks and ICCAT recommendations.

The precautionary approach be applied for deep sea sharks fisheries, in order to avoid fishing to depletion of stocks we do not know enough about as yet.

Priority is to be given to certain social-economic and ecological objectives in the region as resources are limited.

WECAFC (WECAFC 2012a) agreed to take actions and measures to strengthen implementation of existing international fisheries instruments and those that may be developed in the future, including the following: 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (FAO Compliance Agreement); 1995 United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement); 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (Port State Measures Agreement); 2003 FAO Technical Guidelines on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries; 2008 FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas; and 2010 FAO International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards.

The issue of IUU fishing was considered at the WEAFC meeting in Panama in February 2012 (WEAFC 2012b) which emphasized the importance of making progress in addressing IUU fishing. The Commission expressed its concern with the declining trend in fish stocks and catches of a number of commercially and recreationally important fish species. The urgent need for increased cooperation to improve management was underlined. Members called for support to smaller countries by the Commission in data collection and analysis, in order to complement the work carried out with the CRFM.

National Fisheries Policy

Pre 2000

Mohammed E.

& W. Joseph note that in “the 1980s the government embarked on a program of increased development of the industry. The overall policy was to increase local production through improved gear and boat technology and to diversify the industry by introducing aquaculture production. It was the intention to reduce the quantities of fish imported. There were also improvements in infra-structural facilities, cold storage, marketing and distribution of fish. The fisheries policy since the 1990s is to “promote self-sufficiency through increased production of marine and aquaculture products, and to develop the fishing industry and implement measures to ensure its sustainability” Since the inshore resources are found to be depleted, the offshore large pelagic fishery is seen as the avenue for future development. A conservative approach to development also includes the establishment of marine reserves and fishing priority areas and a co-management approach to assessment and management of the sea urchin (Tripneustes ventricosus) resources”.

Fisheries Management Plan

Article 4 of the Fisheries Law requires the preparation of an FMP; and it defines the required content. The FMP (DOF 2006) “encompasses both conservation and development issues. It provides information on fisheries policy; goals; guiding principles; legal and institutional framework (including identification of the main stakeholders); fisheries issues and outlines of specific management plans for the major fisheries of St Lucia…It is ..an update of the FMP, which was produced after broad consultation among fisheries stakeholders during 1997 and 1998. This is in keeping with the recommendation from the 1997/98 consultations that the Plan should be reviewed and updated intermittently, as required, or at least every 5 years”.

The identified steps in the Fisheries Management Planning Process are: Formulation / revision: DOF formulates or revises draft FMP; Appraisal: FAC appraises draft FMP; Public review: Draft FMP: reviewed by stakeholders;


Pag

e45

Approval: The Minister reviews the final draft and forwards it to Cabinet for approval; Implementation and monitoring: The Minister releases the final FMP; and Evaluation: Periodic evaluation (at least once every five years) by DOF, FAC, other stakeholders, and feedback from the public.

The stated goals for fisheries management are:

To contribute to the attainment of self-sufficiency and food security;

To maintain or restore populations of marine and freshwater species at levels that can produce optimum sustainable yields;

To sustainably optimise the net incomes of the fishers and the communities involved in fisheries, and related economic activities;

To sustainably optimise employment opportunities for those dependent on fisheries and aquaculture for their livelihoods;

To preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as habitats and other ecologically sensitive areas, especially mangrove forests, seagrass beds, reefs and other spawning and nursery areas;

To sustainably optimise the amount of fish protein available for domestic consumption; and

To improve on fisheries infrastructure and promote the use of appropriate fishing technologies with a view to sustainably optimize catch.

Specific FMPs are defined for 13 fisheries (shallow-shelf and reef fishes, deep-slope fishes, large pelagics, cetaceans, coastal pelagics, lobster, conch, sea urchins, flying fish, turtles, sea moss, freshwater shrimp and freshwater fish). For each fishery there is analysis covering the key issues of species life history, fishing methods, management unit, resource status, catch history, current regulations, management objectives, performance indicators, management strategy, and stakeholders with a related action plan.

In parts there appears to be confusion between an FMP and a Management Plan for the Fisheries Sector; this leads to a failure to focus on the real issue which is to ensure the sustainable use of fisheries, although there is evidence of some co-management initiatives in the lobster and sea urchin fisheries. A number of observations can be made: (i) While there is a good indication of the process for developing an FMP, there is no indication that this has been followed; (ii) There is no evidence that stakeholders have been consulted about the plan; (iii) there has not been an up-date or an evaluation since 2006; (iv) a FAC has not been established; (v) there is no economic analysis or assessment of the available catching capacity; and (vi) there is no prioritization of actions i.e. the activities that should take place in the context of the reality of available resources.

The planned activities are beyond national capacities. For example, in the deep slope and bank fishery the defined management strategy (conduct stock assessments, establish target and limit reference points for the fishery, based on research, revise regulations to improve on the use of such management tools as limited entry, size limits, mesh size regulations, close seasons, close areas and marine reserves to protect the fish stocks, and identify the stakeholders in the Fishery and promote participatory management) is overly ambitious; DOF does not have the skills or the personnel to undertake “bio-economic assessments and use the information to refine the management strategy to maintain and improve on earnings of the operators in the Fishery” in response to the identified issue of “insufficient data/information on the incomes / revenues being earned and costs in the Fishery”. DOF must establish an economics unit to consider these types of issues

Given the manpower available to DOF and the limitations on compliance, it is concluded that the existing FMP is a long list of how things would be approached if there was sufficient time, manpower and finance; but to all intents and purposes the existing FMP has limited benefit.

Trillo et al (2010) comment that the “lack of information and expertise for the estimation of appropriate levels of fishing capacity based on the status of existing resources … poses a potential threat to the industry. Further, migratory species contribute almost two-thirds of annual production however St Lucia is unable to participate fully in international and regional management bodies whose decisions can adversely impact on the local fishing sector”.


Pag

e46

Fisheries management is important and as expressed in the FAO precautionary principle the lack of information is not a reason for lack of action. An integrated FMP should be developed in St Lucia, with emphasis on: (i) the identification of key issues; using a risk based approach to identify the foci of attention; (ii) full stakeholder involvement with a real move towards co-management; (iii) St Lucia’s incorporation into the international decision making process (ICCAT) to reflect that almost three-quarters of the national catch consists of highly migratory species,; (iv) the promotion of a regional approach to fishery management; (v) ensuring the implementation of a workable compliance plan; (vi) zoning to ensure, inter alia, a division between sports and commercial fishing and reduce the potential for user conflicts; and (vii) the preparation of a realistic objectives with the identification of indicators of success and an approach to monitoring and evaluation.

The Strategic Plan – Sustainability of our Fisheries Sector

The Strategic Plan (DOF 2008) was designed to improve DOF’s capacity to implement work programmes by strengthening and strategically position the entity to better provide the requisite services for sustainable development of St Lucia’s fisheries sector. The longer-term objective of the Plan was “to improve the socio-economic opportunities for the Country’s fishers and fishing communities”. Additionally, it was to provide high level support for the FMP which “contains goals and objectives that are consistent with enhancing the social and economic welfare of fishers and their families as well as improving the nutrition of the nation”.

The Strategic Plan, that was prepared over six years, includes three Programme Goals that allow DOF to “focus on a strategic approach which will ensure integrated management of the fisheries sector” each with related objectives. In addition there are three Management and Organisational Goals to support “the provision of adequate human, physical and financial resources to the DOF’s staff … ensuring that the DOF delivers its services to its key stakeholder groups in an efficient and effective manner”, again with related objectives.

The output does not appear to be a strategic plan for the sustainability of the St Lucian fishing sector; rather it is a corporate plan which has the aim of strengthening DOFs capacity to respond to strategic needs. Hence the Management and Organisational Goals are detailed while there is limited concentration on issues confronting the sector. The Strategy does guide the definition of annual work programmes in each of the Units but there does not appear to be any evaluation of the success in achieving the various objectives e.g. it would be relevant to question the effectiveness of the means for communicating relevant information to the clientele; the success of restoring and / or maintaining populations of marine and freshwater species at levels that produce optimum sustainable yields (OSY); and whether the OSY is: (i) the economic term (maximising the resource rent so with a lower catch than the biological maximum sustainable yield (MSY)); or (ii) the environmental concept which is the largest long term economic yield of a renewable resource that does not decrease the abilities of the target population and the environment to support it. Given the emphasis on socio-economic factors in the fisheries management decision making process and the lack of mechanisms (e.g. tax and / or license fees) to reallocate resource rent (i.e. a return that is higher than normal profit due to access to the fishery being limited) it is suggested that MSY is appropriate. At the same time the limits on data and the nature of a large part of the harvest consisting highly migratory species limits the potential for science based management. There can be proxy biological reference points (BRPs) that are suitable for the local stocks and relate to size and age rather than population, but these need to be defined in terms of limit, trigger and target reference points together with the stakeholders who will then have a better understanding of the need or management measures (such as minimum landing sizes, closed areas and closed seasons).

2.5 THE FISHERY SECTOR

2.5.1 Fishing Area

St Lucia is in the Caribbe4an which is covered by FAO fishing area 32 (Figure 1). As reported by Sea Around1: the country’s EEZ is 15,484 km² (Figure 2); the shelf area is 811 km²; and the Inshore Fishing Area is 416 km².

1 http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/662.aspx

http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/662.aspx


Pag

e47

Figure 1: FAO Fishing Area 32

Source: WECAF 2012

Figure 2: St Lucia: Exclusive Economic Zone

Source: http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/Countries/StLuciaB/StLuciaCP

The EEZ is limited in size. The water is warm all-year, an oceanographic factor that is known to reduce the density of fish populations and reduce their reproduction and hence the feasibility of industrial fishing operations. St Lucia has not developed the capacity to fish a long distance from shore and vessels are mainly artisanal in nature undertaking short day trips. The oceanographic conditions are, however, usually favourable to their operation, with predominantly calm waters apart from the hurricanes and tropical storms that occur mainly in a season from August to October. In the two most recent years though, stronger currents and winds have reduced fishing opportunities.

2.5.2 Fisheries Resources

http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/Countries/StLuciaB/StLuciaCP


Pag

e48

The St Lucian fish catching sector has a great dependence on the seasonal fisheries between November and June for highly migratory fish species, such as dolphin fish, wahoo, tuna species and flying fish. Billfishes and cetaceans (pilot whale and dolphin species) are also captured. Most resources are shared with neighbouring Eastern Caribbean countries; but yellowfin and skipjack tunas, billfishes and some whales migrate over a much wider area of the Atlantic. This fishery has been the main focus in terms of fisheries expansion with the introduction of FADs.

WECAFC (2012c) notes that:

A number of institutional arrangements promote and facilitate the responsible utilization of the fisheries and other aquatic resources within Area 31 e.g. WECAFC, ICCAT, CRFM, CFMC, OLDEPESCA, OSPESCA, ACS, OECS and NOAA. This leads to some assessment work: WECAFC undertakes the assessment for shrimp, groundfish and flying fish; CRFM for other regional pelagics, conch, lobster and shrimp; and OSPESCA for lobster resources. However, despite the relatively large number of existing arrangements, information that can be used for management purposes still needs to be improved. The launching of the GEF-funded Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem Project in 2009 is likely to provide valuable assistance to the Caribbean countries to improve the knowledge on and the management of their shared fisheries resources.

Another important feature in the Region regards the spreading of the invasive species the Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans). This contributes to a deep change in the ecosystem, competing with native species and causing a reduction in the recruitment of native species. Lionfish is having negative effects on coral reefs and control efforts are underway or under discussion, but studies are carried out throughout the Area to monitor the spreading and increase knowledge on the species.

Uncertainty about the status of many stocks in the Area remains high and the collection and processing of fisheries-related data can be substantially improved.

A number of fisheries resources are known to suffer from overexploitation. Moreover, coastal habitat destruction through tourism, pollution and urban development is commonly reported. These factors have led to overall ecosystem degradation, especially of coral reefs and associated fisheries.

WEAFC (2012c) notes that

Total landings in Area 31 increased steadily from about 0.5 million t. in 1950 to a peak of near 2.5 million t. in 1984. This was followed by a rapid decline between 1984 and 1992, and catches stabilized subsequently at around 1.5 million t. until 2003. They further declined to 1.3 million t. in 2009. The decrease was mainly due to the diminished catch of coastal fish (including groupers, snappers and mugilidae) and small pelagic fish (herrings, sardines and anchovies).

Although catches of stromboid conchs (Strombus spp.) fluctuate widely, they appear to have declined since their historical maximum of 40,000t in 1995 down to 23,000t in 2009. This apparent decline is partly in response to the listing of queen conch (Strombus gigas) on Appendix II of CITES in 1992.

St Lucia’s coastal waters provide a habitat for many different types of fish. Shallow shelf and reef fish are found concentrated on fringing and patch reef systems as well as within seagrass beds and mangroves. Deep slope and bank fish are found on the island’s shelf, along its slopes and/or deep banks located in the north-west, north-east and southern sections of the island. Coastal pelagics are captured primarily in the calm waters of the island’s west coast. St Lucia has developed a variety of co-management arrangements with stakeholders, and this approach is seen as an effective means of overcoming manpower constraints and engendering the commitment and sensitization of the relevant actors in marine and coastal resource management. Examples include the co-management arrangement in place for the sea urchin fishery; sustainable harvesting of a mangrove resource by a local fisheries management authority; and the implementation and active operation of self-financing marine management areas (SMMA and CAMMA).

DOF describes a number of the shallow shelf and reef fisheries where the catch comprises between 40 and 60 finfish species, in addition to lobsters and octopuses. This fishery occurs in depths of less than 50 m.


Pag

e49

Many types of snapper live at various depths. Species such as mutton, dog and lane snappers are found on the reefs and are usually caught in fish traps/pots. The popular red snappers inhabit deeper water and are usually caught using bottom longline off the banks, (also called bank fishing). These are fished for all year round.

The white sea urchin (Tripneustes ventricosus) inhabits sea grass beds and are occasionally found on shallow reefs. Their main diet is seagrass. They are harvested by divers; scuba gear is not permitted. The roe (eggs / flesh / nana inside) is removed and prepared in various ways (mainly roasted) before it is eaten. The open season for sea urchins is usually in September/October, but this is determined by the abundance and maturity of sea urchins. During or before an open period, a size limit is established to prevent the harvesting of juveniles urchins.

There are several lobster species in St Lucia, with the Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus) is the most targeted species. This lobster is nocturnal. Lobsters inhabit reef areas and the main method of capture is by fish traps/pots that are left to soak over a number of days and then retrieved. It is a high price fishery and with the catch sold mainly to hotels. The open season for the lobster fishery is August 2nd to the end of February or as otherwise stipulated in the Gazette. A minimum carapace length of 9.5cm (from back of eye ridge to end of shell) is in place to ensure that lobsters reach maturity and reproduce before they are captured. In addition, moulting and egg bearing lobsters should not be harvested. No SCUBA gear or spear guns are allowed to harvest lobsters.

Six species of sea turtles are known to nest on the beaches in the Caribbean, and four have been sighted in St Lucian waters and there is evidence that at least three nest on the island’s beaches (Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas, Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, and Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coraiacea. Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta, is occasionally sighted in the waters of St Lucia. Like many other Caribbean nations, St Lucia traditionally has a sea turtle fishery, where turtles are targeted for their meat. The open season for the capturing of turtles is October 1st to February 28th. There are a number of management provisions: no person should: disturb, remove from the sea, make available to sell, sell, buy, or at any time have any turtle eggs; interfere with or disturb any turtle nest, or a turtle that is nesting; remove from the sea, make available to sell, sell, buy, or at any time have any undersized turtle; nor set any net or seine or any other equipment for fishing, catching or taking any turtle or even with the intention to do so.

The queen conch (Strombus gigas), is a single species, near-shore fisheries. Two populations have been identified, one in the north and one in the south. Conch is harvested year-round by the use of SCUBA gear and free diving on the island shelf between 20-50 meters deep. When necessary, measures can be instituted to protect the fishery e.g. a closed season. Regulations include; a permit from DOF is required to use SCUBA gear; conch should be harvested no smaller than 18cm or 180mm in length (shell length); any conch which does not have a flared lip on its shell, is immature and should not be harvested; and all conch be landed whole.

Along the west coast of the island, schools of coastal pelagic species (including jacks, ballyhoo and sardines) congregate seasonally. These fish are captured using encircling nets (beach seine and fillet nets) operated out of one or more canoes near to shore. Like the reef fish resource, the management unit for the coastal pelagics is the island shelf, except for the larvae, that are probably distributed at the level of the Eastern Caribbean. Mesh size restrictions are in place for the nets used in the fishery and the maximum length for the soak period is also restricted. Fishing Priority Areas have been legislated for prime seine fishing bays in an effort to minimize the potential for conflict with other coastal users, such as yachting.

2.5.3 The Catching Sector

As described by Mohammed and Joseph, in the 1980s St Lucia established a fishery development programme with a focus on improving gear and boat technology to increase production and to diversify the industry through aquaculture, while reducing imports. There were also improvements in infra-structural facilities, cold storage, marketing and distribution of fish. In the late 1990s the stated policy was to “promote self-sufficiency through increased production of marine and aquaculture products, and to develop the fishing industry and implement measures to ensure its sustainability.” As the inshore resources were found to be depleted, attention was directed at the offshore fishery for highly migratory pelagic species. Sustainability credentials were established with the establishment of marine reserves and fishing priority areas and the co-management of the sea urchin.


Pag

e50

This policy has resulted in the fish catching sector undergoing significant change in recent years, with an increase in the size of the fleet, and the number of fishers; larger fishing vessels; more efficient fishing gear and methods; and the introduction of FADs. There has been a move away from the traditional wooden canoe to the open fibreglass pirogue, both powered by two stroke outboard engines (40 - 115 hp) with increased engine capacity reflecting the changes in vessel carrying capacity and the distance to the fishing grounds. There are also some larger long liners. There is an on-going project to increase the number of 4-stroke engines that are more fuel efficient and last longer. DOF calculations indicate their financial benefits over 2 or 3 years (Seon Ferrari; personal comment). The estimated cost of a pirogue is EC$12,000 and a 75 hp engine EC$10,000. The main operating cost is fuel with up to EC$500 spend per trip.

At the end of 2011, 643 vessels were registered of which three-quarters were pirogues. Vieux Fort, Soufrière, Dennery, Castries and Choiseul were the most important base ports. The vessels were operated by 1,381 full time fishers, 914 part timers and 207 owners. This indicates there is some multi-ownership of vessels. It is acknowledged that the data on fishers may not be accurate, and the currently on-going fishery census will confirm the figures (Tables 3, 4 & 5). Fishers are paid on a share basis, so if there are reduced net earnings their income will go down.

A number of gears are used. The shallow reef species are caught with fish traps and hand lines. Antillean z-traps, made of galvanized metal wire, are mainly used for demersals. Smaller traditional woven bamboo z-traps are also common. The minimum mesh size for these traps is 38 mm. It is illegal to use spear guns and trammel nets to target demersal reef species. The deep slope fish species are caught by an artisanal, bottom-set longline, by vertical longlines, and by Antillean z-type fish pots. Coastal pelagics are caught with encircling nets, such as gillnets/fillet nets and beach seines. Cast nets are also used to catch fish primarily as bait for other fisheries. Large, offshore pelagics are caught by trolling and by non-mechanized longlines. They may also be taken by seine nets. Most fishermen who go to sea have hand harpoons, and opportunistically target cetaceans.

A major issue identified DOF that has drafted a number of related projects is the number of aging fishers. If the sector is to be maintained, there is a need for young entrants. However, while there is expected to be some progression within family units, there is a lack of a formal training course to encourage entry into the fisheries sector with a particular need to stimulate business innovation and entrepreneurship, modern technologies and best practices to reduce the level of negative impacts on the fish populations and fisheries habitats.

Table 3: St Lucia: Catching Fleet by Vessel Type: 2011

Source: DOF


Pag

e51

Table 4: St Lucia: Number of Fishers 2011

Source: DOF

Table 5: St Lucia: Fishers by Type 2011

Source: DOF

DFO has proposed to produce a longer-term and broader scoped, institutionalized fisheries training scheme though existing national adult education and skills development institutions such as the National Skills Development Centre, the National Enrichment and Learning Programme and Sir Arthur Lewis Community College. Such initiatives complement the National policy of focusing on youth and adult education. Improved training and understanding is aimed at moving away from traditional practices and allow the national fishery sector to fully harvest the fishing resources within the country’s EEZ and, potentially, in international waters. There should be practical training


Pag

e52

sessions in various aspects of fishing, gear/methods, fish handling and FADs construction, deployment and maintenance. The practical knowledge and skills acquired will enable the participants to conduct fishing activities in accordance with the FAO Code of Conduct for responsible fishing which ensures the sustainability of fishery resources. Introduction to experimental fishing techniques will be done to encourage participants to engage in new fishing methods and target unexploited resources, for example Diamondback squid fishing.

FADs are deployed at sea to attract migratory, pelagic fish. They have a pole with a photosensitive light, a flag and a radar reflector to prevent collision with marine vessels. The FAD is anchored in place using hundreds of meters of rope, chain and cable connected to a heavy anchor. Below the sea surface, some “kites” are attached to attract small fish, which in turn attract bigger fish. This creates a food chain with the fisher at the top, fishing near the FAD. FADs can guarantee fishers: increased fish landing during “low” fishing season; increased revenue; and better collaboration and co-operation; reduced levels of conflict and reduce fishing effort near-shore; and reduced fuel and operating costs. There are 10 of these (Figure 3) and JICA proposes to deploy more. The cost for a FAD located in 1,500 m of water is about EC$6,000.

Figure 3: St Lucia: Location of FADs 2010

2.5.4 Fishing Trips and Landings

DOF has comprehensive annual statistics that are estimated from the work of the data collectors that is available as a time series since 1981.

In 2011, there was a 6 % decrease in the quantity of fish landed compared to the previous year. There appears to have been a shift in the regime resulting in unusually high landings of small dophinfish which may be due to higher-than-normal presence of sargarssum seaweed, while there was a decline in the availability of major species such as snapper, tunas etc. showed considerable declines possibly related to persistently strong currents and large sea swells / rough seas that led to a 13% decrease in the number of fishing trips (table 6).

There were however a difference by landing site. For example there was a 36 % reduction in trips from Dennery and 33 % from Castries, but increases in Anse la Raye (17%) and “other” sites (25 %). But this was not reflected in landings – with increases in, for example, Castries (24 %) and “other” sites (22 %),; but reductions in Dennery (25%),


Pag

e53

Gros Islet (39 %) and Soufrieres (26 %). There was a small increase in the overall ex-vessel price of the fish by 2 %, which was not enough to cover the level of inflation meaning that overall fisher’s incomes were squeezed.

Total landings in 2011 were 1,692 t, with the most important species being tunas (32 %), dolphin fish (28 %) and wahoo (12 %) (table 7). The total value was EC$24.8 million (table 9); or an average of EC$803 per fishing trip. Of course this figure masks wide discrepancies between fleet segments but is a strong indication of the potential marginal financial return on some of the trips especially considering the increased cost of fuel. This emphasises the current need for subsidies (see below).

From 1991 thru 2011, annual landings varied between 883 t (1994) and 1,967 t (2001) (table 8). Growth in the mid-1990s resulted from technical innovation in fishing vessels and engines that led to the increased catch of highly migratory species. From 2008, the introduction of FADs had the same effect.

Table 6: St Lucia: Number of Fishing Trips 2011

Source: DOF

Table 7: St Lucia: Fish Landings by Main Species 2011 (t)

Note: "Othersites" include all non-sampled sites - Canaries, Banannes, Laborie, Praslin, Marisule, Savannes Bay, Roseau and other minor sites in Vieux Fort for which extrapolations are made. "Other" refers to all other species not individually listed. It includes nearshore pelagics, reef species and porpoise species.

Source: DOF

Table 8: St Lucia; Fish Landings by Main Species 1991 – 2010 (t)

Source: DOF


Pag

e54

Table 9: St Lucia: Value of Fish Landings 2011 (EC$)

Source: DOF

The catch of “traditional” species (conch, lobster, snapper and “others”) has remained fairly constant with annual variations, suggesting that they are being harvested at their maximum. On that basis, it appears that the only way of increasing the national catch is through highly migratory species, which themselves are the targets of many other fisheries in the region. Accordingly, taking a precautionary approach it may be concluded that if the incomes of fishers are to be maintained and if possible increased there must be a limit on effort in the fishery.

It may be argued that St Lucia should not unilaterally reduce effort and potentially help the fishers of neighbouring countries to take more; but that is not the point. There is over investment in the St Lucian fish catching sector and a high risk that fishers incomes will decline with a consequent pressure to increase catch in both near-shore and more distant waters to the prejudice of the stocks. This is especially the case if there are annual variations in fish availability due to the influence of environmental and ecosystem changes.

2.5.5 On-shore infrastructure

Fish is landed at 17 landing sites located around the island; each is categorized as primary (1), secondary (2) or tertiary (3).1 The FAO (2007) reports that a “major fisheries facility opened in 2000 at the main fish landing base of Vieux Fort and provides cold storage and processing facilities, a fish market, fishermen's facilities (lockers, a gear mending shed, fueling point and cooperative building) and a protected harbour for the area's expanding fleet. Fisheries complex facilities were also opened in Soufriere and Choiseul in 2003. In addition, approval has been obtained for the construction of such facilities in Anse la Raye, which is expected to commence in 2008”. There are now facilities at most of the primary and secondary landing sites offering changing rooms, a fish market, gear repair facilities and a cooperative facility for the fishermen. At 5 landing sites, cold storage and/or ice making facilities are found. The main cold storage and processing facilities have been established in Vieux Fort and Castries. Together, they offer 625 t of cold storage capacity. The Governments of Japan and of Canada provided substantial financial and technical assistance for infrastructure development. Some vessels now use ice at sea, and fish is often transported on ice. The use of ice continues to be promoted among fishers. Fishers continue to complain about the state of the facilities. For example, in a visit of the Prime Minister to Vieux-Fort in March, 20122 fishers expressed concern about the upkeep of the fishery complex and the state of repair, for example, of the lockers. The Prime Minister reminded them that there is shared responsibility in ensuring that the facility continues to operate at a high standard.

2.5.6 Subsidies

A number of subsidies support the fishing catching sector. There is duty free import of many inputs such as fishing gear and materials, safety/communication/ navigational aids, fishing vessels and engines, and the fitting of ice boxes. The main benefit is the fuel duty rebate of 0.75¢/gal for up to 4,500 gallons.

Economic theory points to the inconsistency of subsidies with an aim to maximise the economic benefit of the fish catching sector to a country. The financing of inefficient units leads to the dissipation of resource rent (i.e. that amount of profit greater than the normal profit that covers a return to investment) that in an optimally managed

1 Banannes (3), Castries (1), Dennery (1), Gros Islet (1), Micoud (2), Choiseul (2), Laborie (2), Soufriere (2), Vieux Fort (1); others(3) [Anse la

Raye, Canaries, River Doree, Savannes Bay, Marisule, Monchy, Praslin, Roseau] 2 http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/press-release/prime-minister-and-agriculture-minister-meet-vieux-fort-fishers

http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/press-release/prime-minister-and-agriculture-minister-meet-vieux-fort-fishers


Pag

e55

fishery could be redistributed to the owners of the resource (i.e. all St Lucians) either directly through taxation or indirectly by fishers assuming some of the costs associated with administration, management and research. As St Lucia concentrates on social aspects, with an aim of fishing to biological maximum sustainable yield, resource rent is unlikely. However, subsidies will be counter-productive to the sustainability of fisheries by encouraging over fishing of the resources. At this time however, it is considered that political considerations would prevent the suspension of subsidies, although that should not imply that measures should not be taken to reduce the risk of over fishing, the creation of a profitable fishing sector and the eventual elimination of subsidies.

2.5.7 Aquaculture

Since the 1960s with initial work on silver tilapia, there has been effort to assess and develop fish farming in St Lucia with the twin aim of contributing to food security and providing an alternative to the income earning strategy of agriculturalists. Concentration has been on the culture of sea moss in coastal waters and tilapia and macrobrachium in freshwaters. It has been proven that such farming is technically possible, as is the culture of other species as proven in other countries. However, the potential in St Lucia is restricted due to the limited area available, high investment costs, small domestic market, limited ability to compete with other countries due to the high price of feed, juvenile and post larva (PL) and manpower.

The current status of the sector is shown in table 10. Activity supports 120 people in the private sector; there is no data on the full time equivalent number of jobs or on the dependency on income from aquaculture. Just 5.1 t of tilapia was produced, with respective figures for macrobrachium and seamoss of 5.8 t and 2,400 lbs. The total value was EC$273,800. 52,000 fingerlings were produced and 552,000 Shrimp Pl. A total of 17 acres of farm ponds are active: 3.8 in shrimp and the remainder in tilapia. The ponds are 500 m² to 4,000 m²; the minimum commercial size is considered to be 1,000 m². The estimated start- up cost per ¼ ha.is EC$3,000 to EC$10,000; the actual cost is largely dependent on the site. It is reported that GOSL would like to establish a land bank to secure for farming areas not being currently used. The aim is to have 20 has of active farms by 2015.

Taiwan has provided assistance in developing aquaculture in St Lucia since July 2007, although assistance began in 1988. To support the development strategy the main purposes of the recently opened Union Aquaculture Facility are to produce enough high quality baby shrimps and tilapia for farmers at a low cost, and to introduce new technology of fish farming. The facility includes 8 fish ponds (500 square meters each), 8 nursing ponds (20 square meters each), and a baby shrimp hatchery. The total cost of the facility was about EC$ 2.7 million. It is able to produce at least 500,000 fingerlings and 8,000,000 Pl per year.1

As identified by DOF2 the main constraints affecting the development of the seamoss industry include the identification of appropriate target groups for technology transfer and empowerment, the need for a baseline study and surveys of coastal areas available for expansion and development of new farms, review of the main legal instruments regarding seabed tenure and water rights, new more efficient farming methods and strain selection including the introduction of commercial seaweed cultivars currently grown in the region and showing higher yields, faster growth, and better gel quality.

1 http://www.aiddata.org/content/Project?id=93536595

2 Enhancing Business Opportunities in Marine Aquaculture

http://www.aiddata.org/content/Project?id=93536595


Pag

e56

Table 10: St Lucia – The Aquaculture Sector 2011

Source: DFO

As described by DOF1 the department “has promoted the farming of tilapia and shrimp (Macrobrachium rosenbergi) with the assistance of the Taiwanese government. The aim is to increase the importance of aquaculture as a rural economic activity. DOF mariculture activities have focused on the growing of .. seamoss .. on ropes. This cultivation started in 1981, initially using several species of Gracilaira. Production systems evolved from floating rafts to floating longlines and farmers then turned their focus to a fast growing species, Gracilaria terete . In the mid 1990’s, DOF in collaboration with the Caribbean Natural Resource Institute (CANARI) identified Euchema isiforme as a preferred species and it was introduced from Belize and quickly replaced the Gracilaria. Farmers utilise simple, low cost production and product preparation methods for to dry seamoss and bottle products for sale to local restaurants, supermarkets, and beverage manufacturers. The Praslin Seamoss Association secured a market with St. Lucia Distillers for various grades of seamoss gel .. the price is based on gel thickness. The group also produces bottled seamoss drinks labelled as “Vita Moss, Seamoss Drink” in ginger, guava, passion fruit, peanut and sorrel flavours. The ability of this group to respond to these market opportunities is varied and calls for more consistent production levels, better organisation, and improved standards among seamoss farmers and an upgrade in the processing facilities. In addition to seamoss cultivation, the potential for other species such as bivalves (oysters) and brackish or marine water fish species using sea-based cage culture has not been fully assessed; trials have not been conducted. There is need to determine the viability of such .. mariculture development, given the continued interest in enhancing food security and rural livelihoods. There may be marine species and mariculture methods which are practical and sustainable to St Lucia … which can cater to an increase in local and external demands ... There is also a need to identify and address some of the capacity building and institutional needs required for enhancing levels and quality of production and the range of products generated through mariculture, and how it could take better advantage of local and foreign markets for high value products”.

A project proposed by DOF comprised a number of actions over a two year period including: “(i) a feasibility assessment of the mariculture sector to identify the way forward in terms of environmentally sustainable and economically and socially viable initiatives to generate business opportunities for persons in rural and coastal communities; (ii) conduct a market analysis for seamoss and at least 4 other animal and/or plant species identified in the feasibility assessment to identify marketing opportunities, approaches, costs and benefits for these key species; (iii) define a National Mariculture development strategy and action plan, including specific strategic interventions, detailed activities indicating costs, resources required, lead and support agencies; (iv) provide technical support and logistical support to facilitate the development of a National Seamoss Farmers Association that seeks to provide a

1 Innovative Rural Livelihoods and Enhanced Food Security through Mariculture Development


Pag

e57

representative body for facilitating farmer development and coordinating the marketing of seamoss and its products; (v) conduct trials for improved cultivation methods for seamoss and for culture of two other species identified as those most suitable for production based on the feasibility assessment: (vi) support two 4-day to mariculture operations overseas that have products relevant to the potential in St Lucia; (vi) provide business skills training for seamoss producers; and (vii) facilitate arrangements with lending institutions / grant agencies to support business development”.

Other identified projects include: “conducting pilot production and marketing trials for the introduction of Eucheuma cottoni cultivation and preparation of gels for local processors and export markets; Conversion of Eucheuma cottoni into liquid fertilizers and trials in existing farms; Finfish (Red Drum) cultivation using cage culture techniques and sale to tourism and export markets; Lobster ranching with use of habitat enhancement structures for higher levels of grow-out of juvenile; moving from pilot trials to rurally-based business enterprise development involving youth and other vulnerable groups, enabling the production of high-demand mariculture products to supply both local and overseas markets; and providing capacity building and other aspects of business and organizational support within the mariculture industry to stimulate long-term economic viability and self sufficiency of these enterprises”.

2.5.8 Fish Marketing & Processing

Distribution

The main line of distribution is from the vessel to the consumer either directly or via the SLFMC or intermediary and on to retail sales outlets (stalls, stands and supermarkets) and the catering trade including hotels. SLFMC has the mandate to purchase fish of acceptable quality, but loses competitive edge against middlemen who pay cash for their purchases. To this extent, at times SLFMC is a buyer of the last resort and this limits its capacity to develop a detailed market plan. The enterprise survives due to Government subsidy. Its sees a need to maintain fish supply to the national population by importing lower valued products allowing it to generate profits by the sale of higher valued items in export markets. It handles about one-half of all fish landed.

The retailing of fish is from stalls in the main population centres and along the side of the road. While there are improved retail market facilities in Castries, their cost leads to the main sales largely taking place from unhygienic wooden stands with the minimal use of ice. There is reported to be increased interest on the part of the expanding supermarket sector in retailing fish. This could be beneficial if it drove quality standards in the market.

There is some difficulty in developing sales of locally farmed macrobrachium due to the pricing point of the producers being too high for both SLFMC and many of the restaurants. In addition the SLFMC reports that it does not have the mandate to market production from aquaculture.

Processing

As commented by Trillo et al, “ the extent of value added processing in the fishery sector in St Lucia is very modest. By far the most important enterprise is represented by the operation of the SLFMC which produces frozen “cut” fish. The latter are gutted fish, frozen and then sliced into fish “steaks”. Most of the annual throughput of the SLFMC, which varies but recently has totalled around 20% of the domestic catch (i.e. around 300 tons), has been in this product form. For retailing purposes fish steaks are packed in clear plastic bags. Other companies active in the sector e.g. Caribbean Seafoods and the Superior Fish Co essentially are importers who also handle domestically caught fish. There is scope in future for domestic production of further products as import substitutes, notably frozen fillets, loins and other cuts, and in the longer term for chilled fish products, which would entail the development of a chilled fish chain. (Canned fish labelled as St Lucia origin for consolidated foods are understood to be purely a labelling exercise)”

Consumption & Consumer Preferences

According to the FAO, the total supply of fish for direct human consumption in 2003 was 4,753 t comprising 1,440 t of national production and 3,303 t of imports less 13 t of exports. This was equivalent to annual per capita consumption of 31.9 kg (product weight). With an indicative annual supply of 3,400 t in recent years and a population of 162,000, the estimated per capita consumption is 20.1 kg. However, a large part of the supply satisfies the demand from tourists. There are no estimates of the volume accounted for by this market, but taking an


Pag

e58

example of 1 kg consumption per tourist, then national consumption would be about 19.1 kg. To maintain this level with population growth of 0.38 % means that by 2023 an additional 119 mt of fish will be needed and it is suggested that this be considered the minimum target for national aquaculture production.

Supply

Total

As shown by table 10, typically imports are of equal or greater importance to domestic production as a source of supply. Between 2003 and 2008, annual average landings were about 1,500 t (landed weight) and imports were about 1,700 t (product weight). The position appeared to be changing in 2009 (figure 4) with the positive results of FAD fishing and the reduction in the number of tourists; but it appears that the relative importance has switched again due to a decline in the availability of some species and a recovery in tourist numbers.

Table 11: St Lucia: Summary of Supply to Domestic Market

Source: Trillo et al

Figure 4: St Lucia: Imports v Landings as a Source of Supply

Source: Trillo et al

Exports

Trillo et al (2010) state “currently there are no exports of fish or fish products of any significance. In practice there may be no logic to export when there are large levels of imports and a significant proportion of sales of domestically caught fish are to the tourist market through hotels and restaurant outlets (i.e. in effect the latter represent an export market with far fewer risks and costs with respect to marketing)” and “whilst SLFMC is in possession of the only significant processing capacity in the country is not currently HACCP compliant, is confronted by endemic financial losses whilst current statutory obligations of fish purchase remain in force, and lacks marketing and commercial skills required for even basic export marketing activity. Overall therefore it is difficult to envisage export activity in the short and medium term. A more appropriate strategy would be for the company to first develop products to substitute for imports on the domestic market”.


Pag

e59

Such comments ignore the potential of increasing the value of fish landings by targeting high value export markets and reducing the trade deficit in value terms by importing low valued product. Export development is though hampered by the lack of HACCP certification and that standard should be implemented at all levels of the domestic industry so as to reduce the risk to local consumers and in turn this would increase the potential for exports. However, given the likely low level of exports and the limited budget, it is considered that the definition and development of a national competent authority as required to make exports to the EU would be unlikely to prove cost effective.

Imports

The most important drivers for imports of fish and shellfish are population, national production, income, the number of tourists and tradition. Import statistics, by value, are available for the main products up until 2008. The most important products in 2008 were: prepared and preserved fish (US$3.1 million) mainly with canned tunas (US$2.6 million); frozen fish (whole and fillets) US$1.8 million); dried fish (US$2.3 million) and frozen shrimps and prawns (US$1.7 million). Compare these data with those for St Vincent and the Grenadines (2010 – dried fish (US$1 million; canned fish US$0.6 million) and Barbados (2010 - frozen fish US$5.9 million; canned fish US$6.8 million; dried fish US$3.6 million; and frozen crustaceans US$1.6 million). While St Lucia will not achieve great overseas sales there may be regional opportunities that allow for the export of high value products with substitution on the domestic market of lower valued.

Previously, NLFMC had a monopoly on imports but the market is now open and supermarkets and restaurants can make direct purchases. It appears clear that imports will continue to be the major supply of supply to the St Lucian market for fish and shellfish, with relative shifts reflecting the number of tourists.

2.6 ENVIRONMENT

There is increasing awareness of the risks from climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization concluded that human activity is altering the climate and will continue to do so. In the past century, surface temperatures have increased and climate change is impacting physical and biological systems. Scientists consider that this process will lead to rising sea levels, regional climatic changes (with an increase in temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns), and more extreme meteorological phenomena such as droughts, floods and storms with greater magnitude. While there is uncertainty about the nature and extent of climate change, its potential consequences on human activity should be taken into account, especially in planning related to coastal communities. In relation to the fish catching sector a number of points may be considered such as the impact on the distribution and availability of fish species, safety-at-sea and safe berthing, which together factor into the potential number of working days and the type of vessel and landing facilities that may be needed. In turn, this emphasises the need to manage the harvest of fish stocks according to the precautionary principle as factors external to fishing mortality may influence catch opportunities.

Tulsie et al (ND) note that for St Lucia “broadly defined, the coastal zone of the island covers both the marine and terrestrial components of the coast such as habitable land. It “…includes extensive areas of complex and specialized ecosystems such as mangroves, coral reefs and sea grass beds, which are highly sensitive to human intervention” and “some of the critical habitats (such as the coral reefs and the mangals) of the coastal zone … are important fisheries ecosystems. Other important fisheries ecosystems are the seabed and the open ocean. Due to a number of reasons including over-fishing, habitat degradation, environmental stress impacting on age of maturity, spawning frequency and success, fry production and survival, resistance to disease and other possible biological conditions, some fish species have been identified as being under threat of population collapse”.

The authors go on to identify the potential impacts of climate change on the critical habitats of the coastal zone and the fisheries sector and outline some of the implications of those impacts for St. Lucia.

Beaches are important to St. Lucia for several reasons. They serve as: recreational areas for both locals and visitors, buffer zones protecting the coastal land and infrastructure from wave action; they provide sources of fine aggregate for construction; fish landing sites and habitats for some types of terrestrial and marine


Pag

e60

life. They are also an important component of the tourism package. The island’s beaches are however being degraded through activities such as excessive sand mining and through development on beaches and near shore areas. Identified risks are: reduction or removal of the buffer zone protecting coastal land and infrastructure from wave action; damage to coastal infrastructure; disincentive to investment in tourism and other types of coastal development; loss of sources of fine aggregate for construction; destruction of critical fish landing sites and habitats for some types of terrestrial and marine life; and loss of income and the livelihood of small fishermen.

Coral reefs play a vital role in coastal stability and serve as fish breeding and nursery grounds, avifauna habitat, silt traps and nutrient exporters. However, coral reefs and sea grass beds (and subsequently near shore fisheries) also face threats from nutrient loading and other types of chemical pollution resulting from land and water based activities, such as agriculture and fishing and tourism related activities including diving and snorkelling. Risks identified are: reduction in the extent of coastal reefs and increased mortality among existing species; destruction of the habitats of some marine species; threat to the survival of eco-tourism sector and near shore fisheries; loss of income and the livelihood of small fishermen; loss of natural coastal stabilizer that will result in greater threat to coastal infrastructure and coastal property; coastal land loss as a result of greater exposure of the shoreline to wave action and thus greater threat to coastal settlements; and increased exposure of vegetation to salination and wind borne salt.

Mangals provide important fishery and avifauna habitats but this fact has not discouraged deforestation for developmental purposes. Such destruction has been due largely to the facts that many of these systems are located on lands under private ownership and that there is a general absence of legal demarcation of Marine Reserves island wide. Risks identified are the same as for coral reefs.

The authors note that “the degree of climate change impacts on the coastal zone will to a large extent be determined by the existing condition of the resource base and by the degree of stress to which it has already being subjected. These stresses include both the major non-human causes of stress such as storm surges associated with tropical cyclones and also the human induced stresses such as the pollution of rivers and the fouling of coastal areas that result in the degradation of the coastal resources. These actions produce adverse impacts on the ecosystems on which the human populations depend and seriously reduce the ability of these ecosystems to adapt to the effects of climate change. Adaptation involves developing and institutionalizing various levels of capacity, as well as developing expertise and building knowledge through research and monitoring. Similarly, actions to optimize the health and sustainability of important ecosystems sensitive to climate change – such as coral reefs and/or moist forests – will be most effective if begun early while these systems are still relatively intact. Anticipatory approaches can also greatly reduce the need for forced ad hoc responses at a later date when loss of resources and poorly planned development will likely limit the range of adaptation options available”.

St Lucia has a long history in looking to protect its coastal environment. In 1986, nineteen marine reserves were declared in St Lucia and a further six in 1990. A revised list of twenty-four marine reserves (including those previously listed) was declared in 2000. All marine reserves are no take areas. However, in two cases, with written permission from the CFO to authorised groups under special conditions, some level of take (low) is allowed (DOF 2007).

DOF was actively involved in the formation and development of the Soufriere Marine Management Area (SMMA) and Canaries and Anse-La-Raye Marine Management Area (CAMMA) which were established to: conserve coastal and marine resources within their respective geographical limits; promote the sustainable use of these marine resources while enhancing their economic, social and cultural benefits; and manage conflicts that may occur among users of these resources. As reported on their web site (SMMA 2012) the SMMA is “a Local Fisheries Management Authority responsible for managing over 22km of coastline in St Lucia. This area includes SMMA) and CAMMA. The SMMA Inc. extends services to all water-based tourism interests such as yachting, fishing, scuba diving, beach recreation, and the tourism fraternity in general as part of Government’s policy for national development. Indeed, one of the primary mandates of the organization is to enhance the equitable economic, social and cultural benefits generated from the sustainable use of the coastal and marine resources of Soufriere at the local and national level. Enshrined in this broad mandate is the need for the SMMA Inc. to take necessary steps to mitigate anthropogenic


Pag

e61

impacts on the marine and coastal resources of the area and to protect the fragile marine ecosystem while ensuring all stakeholders benefit from hassle-free use of the area. This speaks to the need to develop guidelines for best practice and sustainable use of resources within the marine managed area. The SMMA Inc. is also a small non-profit organization that depends exclusively on user fees for all costs, salaries and maintenance of infrastructure in the protected area”. The web site identifies a number of issues: the “re-emergence of user conflicts due to an influx of new marine resource users that have fast boats to provide day trips that include swimming and snorkeling within the marine managed area. These new entrants lack traditional attachment to the resource, instead seeing speed and high passenger numbers as a key business strategy. However this comes at the cost of insufficient care, consideration and attention to the safety of other resource users as well as carrying capacity of a few popular recreational areas within the marine managed are … it appears that key government officials/agencies do not understand that too much use of the resource will result in environmental damage and threaten the sustainability of the livelihoods of persons involved in marine based tourism and eventually the St. Lucian economy”; the erosion of the respect for the zoning arrangements and specificities of the use of these areas; an inadequate operational protocol; the absence of an information and educational programme and shaky stakeholder involvement. These issues appear to reflect those that are affecting the fish catching sector and reinforce the call for cooperative work and stakeholder involvement.

CAMMA comprises several zones: Marine Reserves (no take areas), fishing priority areas, yacht mooring areas, recreational areas and multiple use areas.

The Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area (PSEPA) includes three marine reserves: Maria Islet Reef; Man Koté Mangrove and Savannes Bay Mangrove. The Man Koté Mangrove of 39.37 hectares is a mangrove wetland managed under the combined efforts of the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, the Department of Forestry, DOF Fisheries and the Aupicon Charcoal Producers Group. The Group has practiced sustainable harvesting (select cutting and replanting) of mangrove trees.

There has been some beach management activity in the Grande Anse Beach and Mangrove area via the activities of the Desbarras Sea Turtle Watching Group, working in collaboration with the St Lucia Heritage Tourism Programme and DOF.

2.7. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS

During the planning process, consultation with stakeholders led to the identification of a large number of issues that were considered to impact on the development prospects of the sector.

Issues are grouped into a number of strategic areas

1. Institutional Strengthening. The need to strengthen fisheries administration that suffered from poor communications, the lack of a fisheries Policy and bureaucracy. It was considered that DOF should provide training and education to cover specific skills and general abilities.

2. Strengthening stakeholder input into the decision making process. The existing cooperatives were considered weak and there was a general lack of satisfaction with them and their poor management.

3. Improving the average incomes of fish catchers and fish farmers. The low profitability of fish catching due to high fishing costs associated with low earnings. Contributing factors were identified as an inadequate number of FADs, the financial costs of theft; the high costs of inputs including fuel, reduced fishing time and the need for new more technically efficient vessels.

4. Fisheries Management. The need to improve fisheries management. Issues with other sectors (competition for space, interactions with users and contamination) were identified along with the need to improve research and introduce fishery management measures. Environmental interactions as well as improved compliance with the Law and Regulations were considered important.

5. Fish Farming. It is important to assess the potential of fish farming in St Lucia and the constraints to the development of a vibrant sub-sector.

6. On-shore Ancillary Support. Inadequate landing places facilities and their management. Problems at landing sites included cleanliness, the absence of services, poor management and poor security. Stakeholders considered market facilities to be poor with the need for more space and additional facilities.


Pag

e62

7. Marketing. Fish marketing was considered weak due to limitations in the market infrastructure, the lack of value added production, concern about current marketing and the need to improve fish quality.

The identification of these seven strategic areas led to the definition of the sector objectives within the Policy. In turn, in the NFS the objectives were redefined as seven required results from the Plan by 2022, and the related activities that may currently be identified. Subsequent to confirmation of the NFP and the NFS and in the light of the resources available, a number of action areas (axes) are identified in the NOP. It is emphasised that these action areas reflect that different objectives are not mutually exclusive and they cut across a number of results and identified activities. Action areas reflect the priorities and the need for sequential actions with some the successful completion of actions being a necessary prerequisite for the start on others. The NOP is more detailed that the NFS and allocates specific responsibilities and budgets, with a work plan that defines tasks.

2.8. NATIONAL FISHERIES PLAN

2.8.1 Guiding Principles

The Fisheries Sector that consists of fish catching, aquaculture and all related marketing and service activities is, and will remain, an important part of the St Lucian economy. The core guiding principle and priority of the Plan is to maximise the long term benefit of the country’s natural resources to its citizens. This requires attention in two major areas to recognizes the rights and needs of the present and future generations: (i) efficiency to increase the average incomes of fishers and make best use of their time; and (ii) the sustainability of fisheries activities with the management and development of the sector grounded on responsible fishing in the context of an eco-system based approach.

Given the situation of the resources, the focus in the fish catching sector needs to move beyond development per se with efforts to increase catch and at-sea efficiency towards consolidation of the existing number of vessels and fishers and ensuring a reasonable sustainable income for participants. There should be a clear understanding that fish catching is not an employer of the last resort and should not be used as a social instrument to provide employment; there is a limit to the opportunities available. Accordingly, focus should shift to making the existing catching units more efficient so improving net earnings and to generate on-shore fishery related employment in marketing and processing to provide economic options. Given the combined demand for fish from locals and tourists, there will be the continued need for fish imports. However, these may present an opportunity with secondary processing of imported frozen fish into consumer products, although the size of the market is a limiting factor. It is not expected that aquaculture will have the potential to grow to the extent needed to meet market demand. This is because of its competitive position and the issues in the availability of high quality feed and the continued supply of fingerlings and Pl together, the limited area of land suitable for freshwater farming and the high cost of investment in at-sea facilities. At the same time, aquaculture does present an opportunity to contribute to the diversification of small holder incomes, provide some subsistence and commercial production and to penetrate specific market segments, such experienced with sea moss.

Another factor that guides the definition and implementation of the Plan is the need to be consistent with National Policy, whether this is implicit or explicit. Fisheries provide an important source of income and employment, particularly in rural communities remote from the main tourist areas. If fisheries are managed correctly they have all the facets needed to fit with and align to a national strategy focussed on stakeholder empowerment, greater efficiency and wider opportunities.

This implies the need for: (i) a strategic vision; (ii) clear objectives; (iii) a development strategy; (iv) highlighting sustainable development; (v) cooperating to establish food security; (vi) improving technical expertise; (vii) considering the potential impacts of climate change; (viii) an efficient and competitive fishery sector; (ix) the development, adaptation and adoption of improved / appropriate technology; (x) the rational use of the Nation’s aquatic resources; (xi) the protection, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources; (xii) increased production and a strengthened market base; (xiii) new opportunities for employment and income in rural areas; (xiii) increasing the benefits from the fishing sector with actions related to developing on-shore activity; and (xiv) honouring International commitments.


Pag

e63

The definition of a coherent plan for sustainable fisheries development will provide the guidance necessary to implement initiatives that will foster greater socio-economic security for stakeholders.

2.8.2 National Fisheries Policy

Long Term Strategic Goal

This Goal defines where the St Lucian Fisheries Sector wishes to be and to achieve in the long term and to which the NFS should contribute in the initial 10-year period:

To foster medium to long term economic prosperity in the fisheries sector through the promotion of sustainable fisheries and effective fishing techniques that will result in fishers and fish farmers meeting and exceeding national wage standards while maximising the potential long term economic value of the available aquatic resources to the people of St Lucia.

Emphasis is on the medium to long term as opposed to a short term that could be used to justify over fishing and the licensing of too many vessels in order to respond to the lack of on-shore income earning opportunities. This approach also requires greater cognisance of important factors such as the implications of climate change. The final part of the Goal stresses that the fishing sector is one user of the aquatic resources and to maximise all benefits, appropriate consideration has to be taken of the competing claims of other users, especially the tourism sector. Sustainability / long term / St Lucians draws attention to the need to take into account the interests of both current and future generations in making strategic decisions.

Vision

The Vision of the St Lucian Fisheries Sector that guides the goal and the objective reflects the emphasis on sustainability and profitability, the stress on the combined importance of the production and ancillary sub-sectors, and shared responsibilities:

To support strong partnerships between civil society, private sector and public sector, and advance a sustainably governed fisheries sector that will enhance profitability and contribute to food security.

Mission

Effective and efficient implementation of the Plan will require input by all stakeholders in order to make best use of all available human and financial resources needed and develop a team approach that will generate synergistic benefits. At the same time, three existing bodies - DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO - must take the lead and drive the process and lead implementation by example.

DOF will collaborate with all stakeholders including fish marketing entities, fisher and fish farmer organisations, and environmental and other fishery sector related agencies to achieve the long term strategic goal by developing the mechanisms and actions required to define, implement and monitor the policies, strategies, norms, regulations, and other instruments needed to ensure the sustainable use of available water resources.

Objectives

In line with the identified strategic areas, seven objectives are defined for the implementation of the NFS in the 10-year period 2013 -22.

Objective 1: Institutional Strengthening. To structure and support an effective and efficient Institutional Framework that in cooperation and collaboration with other public sector institutions, stakeholders and international agencies successfully implements and monitors a National Fisheries Plan that responds to the needs of sustainable and profitable fish catching, fish farming and related activities.

Objective 2: Strengthening stakeholder input into the decision making process. To formally and effectively include all fish-related stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Objective 3: Improving the average incomes of fish catchers. To support fishers in improving their incomes by identifying and supporting the implementation of options to reduce operating costs and improve average first hand sales prices.


Pag

e64

Objective 4: Fisheries Management. To maintain the resources of marine and freshwater species at a sustainable level in the context of an approach that stresses the importance of protecting ecosystems including habitats and other ecologically sensitive areas and takes into account the potential negative impacts from global climate change.

Objective 5: Aquaculture. To increase the contribution of fish farming to economic growth, food supply, and the income diversification strategy of small scale farmers.

Objective 6: On-shore Ancillary Support. To provide the on-shore support, including infrastructure, needed by an efficient, effective and profitable fish catching sector.

Objective 7: Marketing. To promote an increase in the value of caught and farmed product through better fish handling, an efficient fish market and value added processing.

Indicators

A number of indicators are identified to assess the progress being made in achieving the goal and mission. These relate to such factors as the income and employment generated by the fishery sector, annual production, the number of fishers and aquaculturists, the status of the stocks that are fished, impact assessments on other elements of the ecosystem, DOF’s institutional capacity, the nature of cooperation between the different entities, and the mechanisms introduced to ensure continuous formal involvement of stakeholders in the decision making process. Indicators are also identified for the seven objectives. With the implementation of the Plan, sources of verification for each of the indicators should be identified with attention paid to ensuring that the required data and information are available.

Risks and Assumptions

For the goal, mission and objectives a number of risks and assumptions have been identified. The main ones relate to:

1. The different parts of the public and private sectors are prepared to work together in a constructive way. 2. The Government of St Lucia recognises the importance of the fisheries sector and allocates the necessary

human and financial resources while facilitating the necessary legal and institutional changes. 3. Fishers fish responsibly. 4. Fishery management measures aimed at sustainable fisheries are successfully introduced and the

regulations enforced. 5. Public and private sector finance is available for investment in fish catching, aquaculture, fish marketing and

the associated supporting infrastructure and services. 6. National aquaculture production is able to compete in price and quality. 7. There is a stable national policy and DOF is maintained with its existing functions. 8. DOF receives the funding required to implement the Plan from either national or international resources. 9. DOF accepts the need for internal restructuring. 10. DOF and the Government of St Lucia accept the need for a formal mechanism for stakeholder consultation. 11. Other Institutions support implementation of the Plan. 12. Stakeholders respond positively to the opportunity to participate on a formal and continuous basis.

2.9 National Fisheries Strategy

2.9.1 Purpose

The NFS is intended as a road map to support all stakeholders, including DFO, to work together towards implementing the NFS and achieving the defined Objectives over the next 10 years. The purpose of the NFS is to define how the NFP will be implemented and provide a guide for the NOP that will prepared for shorter periods. It considers how to bring policy, law, regulations, institutional arrangements and stakeholders together into a coherent, transparent approach that may be monitored and evaluated by all stakeholders.

In considering the practical implementation of the NFS there has to be a clear understanding of potential constraints such as: (i) the current status of the fisheries sector and the need to take a number of initiatives that form a new


Pag

e65

approach; (ii) the need for sector-wide institutional strengthening to provide the basis for the implementation of the initiatives on a formal, continuous and long term basis; and (iii) the need to identify sources of funding.

The objectives, results and related actions are not mutually exclusive; the activities relating to some will have a bearing on others. Some issues are common to all or some of the objectives, such as human resource development, stakeholder organisation, participatory planning and finance.

Again, it is emphasised that the achievement of the Goal, Objectives is only attainable through wide and effective cooperation between institutions and stakeholders.

For the purposes of the NFS, the objectives defined in the NFP are restructured into results that must be achieved by the end of the planning period. These are shown below together with the rational for the intervention and the identified activities. A summary of the NFS is shown in Appendix 2.

1. Result 1: Institutional Strengthening. Over the period of the Plan, DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO have received the support (human, financial, logistics, legal framework and training) required for its implementation and have cooperated fully with other public sector institution, stakeholders and international agencies in meeting the objectives.

2. Result 2: Strengthening stakeholder input into the decision making process. A wide range of stakeholders have participated in the planning and implementation of the Plan through an appropriate formal mechanism and they have a clear idea of how their recommendations and advice have been incorporated into the decision making process.

3. Result 3: Improving the average incomes of fish catchers. The annual net incomes of fish catchers have increased at least at the same level as the average earnings in other sectors.

4. Result 4: Fisheries Management. An evergreen integrated FMP based on the precautionary approach and taking into account the potential impact of climate change has been defined and implemented.

5. Result 5: Aquaculture. The number of active fish farms and the average annual production per fish farm has increased.

6. Result 6: On-shore Ancillary Support. The available infrastructure and supporting services have been managed & maintained effectively & are providing the services required by stakeholders at a competitive price.

7. Result 7: Marketing. The market for aquatic products has been strengthened through stakeholder representation on the SLFMC Board; improved quality standards and the quantity of value added produced in St Lucia.

These results provide the basis for actions aimed at: sustainable capture fisheries and aquaculture; the fishery sector providing stronger benefits to fisheries communities; reduced poverty; a participatory system of management; the substitution of imports by national product; the potential for an increase in national fish consumption; and equitable aquaculture development. The results are not mutually exclusive.

On the basis of an understanding of the various issues and the concerns expressed during wide consultation, the conclusion is that significant progress is required in each of these Results if the fishery sector is to be environmentally sustainable while maximizing the economic return from the use of St Lucia’s resources.


Analysis

In the past, the main actors in the development process have undertaken work largely independent of the others and this has failed to make the best use of available resources and generate synergistic benefits from a coordinated and planned approach. This shortcoming highlights the need to create a clear organizational structure with unambiguous responsibilities and provides the rationale for an integrated approach to development of the fisheries


Pag

e66

sector with the alignment of diverse activities including those currently fragmented among several ministries and authorities. This will reduce overlaps and uncertainty among those charged with Plan implementation. This is especially important at a time when public finances are stretched by a global economic crisis that has also reduced the available funds and policies of international donor agencies. In confronting the issues that bear on the sustainability of the fishery sector, different institutions should share responsibilities in working towards a common goal and achieving a common set of objectives. The broadening of the ownership of the Plan to a number of Institutions will increase the potential for success while reducing the overall financial cost and the consequent need for funding by central government. For example, an NFS that highlights the need for DOF to introduce regulations will be largely meaningless if an effective compliance plan is not implemented by the Marine Police. Efforts to increase the quality of fish by requiring the use of ice at-sea will yield limited practical benefit unless the chill chain is maintained throughout the distribution process and health and sanitary regulations are enforced.

A number of actions are needed to implement this approach. The Plan should be validated and accepted by all the actors in the process that are prepared to make a formal commitment to its implementation. This forms a basis to determine the appropriate institutional setting for Plan implementation, including the extent to which the affiliations of the main actors may be changed. For example, does the fishery sector merit its own Ministry and should SLFMC and the fishery cooperatives fall directly within its remit? Whatever the outcome, the mechanisms to coordinate individual actions should be in place at the start of the implementation process. The coordination mechanism should be formal and designed to bring about real actions rather than leaving projects and plans on paper.

The point is made elsewhere that the NOP must be based on a realistic grasp of the human and financial resources available over the planning period. It is counter-intuitive to make proposals that do not have any prospect for implementation; if such was to happen stakeholders could question the credibility of the programme and quickly lose interest. At the same time, the implementing agencies must have the capacity to undertake the activities that are assigned and this implies not only the availability of money and staff but effectiveness in its use, and the skill and commitment of the personnel. In turn, personnel must be provided with the logistical and other support needed for them to carry-out their work. This may require the reassignment of individuals and most certainly an on-going training programme to up-date skills. Given that the performance of staff is important, an on-going performance evaluation programme will be needed to ensure the right people are being used for the tasks in-hand with a need for upward mobility of officers and to attract well-qualified personnel into the sector.

The implementation of a strong communications strategy that provides for structured liaison between the various actors in the process will be central to successful Plan implementation. This relates to internal, inter-institutional and third party communications, with the current ad hoc approach replaced by formal mechanisms. The staff of each entity should be aware of the Plan and their role in achieving the results; planning and the results of works should be known to everyone involved in the process. There should be an external awareness of the activities, the reason for them and the progress being made. Such transparency will pay dividends and garner support for the actions but it is important that the mechanisms feed through from higher level communications to day-to-day relationships at the management level.

Central to success over the ten years will be the ability to gain the support of the international community, especially where capital spend or specific training is needed. New and on-going projects should be designed and monitored with full stakeholder participation so that beneficiaries have the willingness to assume their ownership. At the same time, there is a need to build confidence in the consistency and coherency of the Plan by ensuring that proposals fit with it and contribute to the realization of the objectives. On that basis, there is a need to fully participate in regional and country-specific initiatives that are implemented by the agencies, while making requests for their assistance for specific actions. The proposed sector approach to Plan implementation will bring the additional benefit of reducing the transaction costs associated with external funding, while facilitating the effective monitoring of the results of projects financed by funding agencies.

Actions

RA 1.1: The Plan (2013 – 22) has been approved and formalised by the Government of St Lucia.


Pag

e67

RA 1.2: The Institutional arrangements for the administration and management of the fisheries sector has been reviewed and revised as considered appropriate. RA 1.3: The legal framework has been reviewed and changed as appropriate to provide the basis for the changes envisaged in the implementation of the Plan. RA 1.4: The responsible Ministry / Department has been structured and has been provided with the resources (finance and human) to support the effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Plan. RA 1.5: The staff training plan that has been up-dated annually has been implemented to provide staff with the skills required to successfully implement the NFS. RA 1.6: Equipment has been provided that makes ensures effective use of available staff time and provides required outputs more efficiently. RA 1.7: Staff has been evaluated on an annual basis to assess their success in contributing to the implementation of the Plan. RA 1.8: An effective communications strategy has been implemented to ensure both the internal efficiency of responsible Ministry / Department and to strengthen its external relationships with other Public Sector bodies and stakeholders. RA 1.9: DOF has worked effectively with JICA and other international agencies providing technical and financial assistance. RA 1.10: St Lucia is a participating member of all relevant international organisations in the fisheries sector.


Analysis

Globally it is well understood that to maximise the potential for success of policies, strategies and projects, stakeholders must be fully involved in the decision making process on a formal and continuous basis. This helps to ensure that activities are decided with the beneficiaries, whose commitment at the end-of-the-day will play a large part in determining the sustainability of the actions. The National Agriculture Policy’s highlights the participatory mode while an emphasis of the CARICOM CFP is on the use of traditional knowledge and stakeholder participation in the decision making process. At the same time, there is a need to go beyond that concept and emphasise the need for stakeholder accountability; fishers in particular must take responsibility for their own actions and not expect the Government or other agencies to provide a solution for all their problems. A strong example of this is the maintenance of the fishery complexes and the appropriate use of the facilities that have been provided at substantial cost. The public sector role in this sense is to work with stakeholders to provide the training needed to strengthen specific skills and improve the understanding of the importance of fishing responsibly and sustainably and to develop the mechanisms that provide the basis for stakeholders assuming ownership of resource management.

There are two main obstacles to achieving this result. Firstly, the fishery advisory committee that is provided under the Fisheries Law and associated Regulations has not been established; although the existing legislation facilitates the speedy implementation of the new approach, albeit with a broadening of the current provision to allow for wider membership and the devolvement of detailed discussion to the local level and regional committees. The National Committee would not only provide advice to the responsible Minister, but strengthen transparency as Government professionals in the various fields present their activities and results. Secondly, it is clear that despite all the efforts made, including the allowance for subsidies and the potential to generate income through fuel sales, existing coops are weak and there is a general lack of satisfaction with them and their poor management. The potential benefits of cooperatives are well known with their potential to represent the collective interests of their members including bulk buying to reduce the costs of inputs, while also improving market conditions for fresh fish landings. However, the current set-up has made slow progress with fisher coops and SLFFO that was formed 5 years ago; despite some promise they continue to fall short on business acumen, ethos and membership. Both SLFFO and


Pag

e68

the individual coops have critical roles in achieving Plan objectives, including making a meaningful contribution to the management of the fishery complexes and working with their members to develop their ability to manage their small scale enterprises as profitable businesses. The success achieved will be reflected in membership. To support the change it is important that, in the initial years at least, DOF has a direct role and over sight in the day-to-day affairs of the coops, and that those cooperatives work effectively with the national framework of the SLFFO. The idea is to promote transparency and fairness and provide the basis for a growth in membership.

Such an approach to this issue has been established with cooperation in the design of JICA’s new project that will concentrate on four main areas: improved information; improved organisation of fishers to facilitate fishery co-management; fishery specific management plans; and improved business plans and marketing plans for fishery organisations. In turn this forms part of a training programme to ensure that the co-ops have the capacity to successfully implement the required activities. All fishers should have the opportunity to be part of a coop – including those involved in aquaculture.

In the medium term it is proposed to maintain the current subsidies; but only to those coops that belong to the SLFFO and with management that has been proven capable to properly represent the interests of the members. A strengthened alliance of coops under the auspices of the SLFFO will support group purchases, facilitate credit, improve joint marketing efforts and provide the basis to improve the welfare of fishers through schemes for social security, insurance and pensions.

Actions

RA 2.1: A National Fishery Advisory Committee and Regional Fishery Advisory Committees, with significant stakeholder representation, have been established and are functioning as contemplated in their respective terms of reference. RA 2.2: The SLFFO is functioning as contemplated in its Articles of Association. RA 2.3: All Fishery Cooperatives in St Lucia are active members of the SLFFO. RA 2.4: DOF has established a direct role in the management of SLFFO & fishery cooperatives. RA 2.5: Work between SLFFO and DOF has provided training including manuals for the effective management of fishery cooperatives. RA 2.6: A cooperative has been established for fish farmers.

Result 3: Improving the average incomes of fish catchers. The annual net incomes of fish catchers has increased at least at the same level as the average earnings in other sectors.

Analysis

Over the past four decades substantial progress has been made in changing the St Lucian fishing sector from an artisanal, at times subsistence, activity with low technology that lacked capacity to maximise the potential returns from the harvest of fishing resources found in our waters. This was accomplished through promoting, amongst other things, the use of fibre glass vessels, outboard engines and the introduction of FADs while ensuring the traditional character of the sector was maintained in the various fishing communities along the coast. This has maximised the benefit of the fisheries, with work and wages for thousands rather than the hundreds that would be involved if the sector had been industrialised. Yet, even with small scale fishing activity there is a limit to the fishing effort and the number of fishers that the resources can support with living wages. On that basis, emphasis must shift from developing the fish catching sector to consolidating what there is and calling it a-day on increasing the number of participants. This is logical, as the more fishers the lower the average catch and related earnings. As fishing costs have increased and profits have reduced, it is difficult for the fishers to harvest responsibly and comply with the regulations as they need to live and feed their families. There has been a rebate on fuel since the 1970s and this has supported the cooperative’s distress fund. However, such an approach does not respond to the need to create an efficient, sustainable fish catching sector – indeed subsidies may contribute to over fishing and economic wastefulness by supporting inefficient fishing operations. In the long term, the credentials for sustainable fishing should be strengthened by identifying appropriate mechanisms to allocate property rights in the fishery (i.e. individuals “own” rights to fish) while protecting the social role of the sector as a source of employment in otherwise


Pag

e69

marginal communities. Such an allocation could also be used as a mechanism to provide retirement funds as fishing rights could be bought and sold. However, the current situation is a long way from that and the emphasis must be on consolidation of existing fishing units, improving profitability and developing the business skills of our fishers. This will require a training plan to support the various initiatives, with modules developed for implementation by DOF and SLFFO based on gap analysis.

While fuel and other subsidies should be maintained, work should focus on reducing fuel costs and increasing the expected life of investments by promoting improved technology such as four-stroke engines that while costing more reduce fuel use. It has been proven that FADs work and they represent a relatively cheap investment. Work with JICA will increase the number available and this is tied in to strengthening the capacity for co-management. Also the possibilities to place FADs further out should be investigated with some for the exclusive use of sports fishermen to reduce the potential for conflict. In terms of other fishing costs, as noted above an effective cooperative organisation should be able to reduce these by bulk buying, while efficient management of the landing complexes should increase fishing time.

There must be interest in initiatives designed to improve efficiency with support for pilot projects designed to prove the viability of actions. An example is testing of the mother ship approach where a larger vessel with on-board chilled storage tows several smaller vessels to the grounds and acts as a landing platform for fishing trips of 2 to 4 days. While tradition and culture may prevent fishers from accepting the idea of longer trips, if proven viable this would have the benefits of improving fish quality, increasing catch and reducing fuel costs and result in increased fisher earnings.

Another focus to reduce fishing costs is to reduce the amount of praedial larceny and there is a need to extend the role of the Ministry’s praedial larceny unit to combat this crime.

Analysis indicates that the fishers are aging, with a large proportion of them approaching retirement age while there is a lack of young entrants into the sector. There are a number of reasons for the lack of interest in becoming fishermen – the nature of the work, the lack of guaranteed earnings, the attraction of shore-based occupations in the tourist sector and the inability to access credits to establish a small scale business. While it may appear to be a contradiction to have a policy of restricting an increase in the fishing effort, while looking to promote new entrants, the reality is that the sector must continue to have new blood. The future creation of property rights would provide an incentive for older fishers to retire; we need to examine ways in which young persons can replace them. It is likely that access to credit will be easier for those with appropriate training, and this should be provided through various modules. Further, the capacity to repay loans will be contingent on the profitability of the business – hence the need to increase earnings and reduce outgoings.

Actions

RA3.1: A training plan designed to assist fishers to reduce costs and increase incomes has been devised and implemented by DOF. RA3.2: There has been an increase in the number of FADs available exclusively to St Lucian commercial fishermen. RA3.3: The fuel subsidy to St Lucian fishermen has been maintained by the Government of St Lucia and any changes identified in an evaluation of its process have been implemented. RA3.4: Tax incentives for new investments in fishing vessels, engines and gear that are intended to reduce fishing costs have been maintained. RA3.5: Fishermen are benefitting from the reduced price of inputs resulting from cooperative purchasing. RA3.6: Fishing time has been maximised through efficient management of the designated landing places and the ready availability of spares. RA3.7: There has been an investigation of the potential to reduce fuel costs through pilot projects. RA3.8: Measures have been introduced to reduce the risk of larceny of equipment and product. RA3.9: There has been an assessment of the potential to provide a credit line for investment by new entrants into fish catching.


Pag

e70

5.1.1 Result 4: Fisheries Management. An evergreen integrated FMP based on the precautionary approach and taking into account the potential impact of climate change has been defined and implemented.

Analysis

The health of the fishing catching sector and the viability of making new investments is totally dependent on effective resource conservation. If there is no fish there is no industry. Although St Lucia lacks the capacity to mount full scale research programmes to assess the status of the main stocks, the indications are that highly migratory species such as tunas and billfishes are close to maximum sustainable yields, while reef fish and key resources such as lobster and sea urchins are at their maximum. Hence there is a need for a clear and realistic programme to manage the fisheries, with efforts to match catching capacity with the long term sustainable harvest prospects.

The development and implementation of a meaningful FMP will depend to a large extent on a knowledge and understanding of the current complexion of the sector and how the available opportunities must be allocated on a seasonal and fishery basis. The on-going fishery census will provide the detail that has been lacking over recent years and provide reliable data. While there are licensing procedures, large parts of the sector remain informal and one of the first steps to remedy this should be the introduction of a system where all actors involved in fisheries are registered. This will bring a number of benefits, including the ability to trace product origin and thus support actions against praedial larceny. By 2015, no vessel, fisherman or trader should be able to operate without the required license.

The FMP covers a number of areas. It is important that it takes into account the claims by and needs of all users especially at-sea so reducing the potential for conflict between fishers and tourists. Extending coastal zone management beyond the current areas such as the SMMA and CMMA provide the basis for the definition of user rights, including the authority to fish off FADs. The development of an FMP will involve the confirmation and rationalization of existing technical and administrative management measures with additional rules as required. These should be contained in an FMP that is considered “evergreen” i.e. it is for an indefinite period with annual up-dates providing new information on stock status and confirming management measures.

The capacity to effectively regulate St Lucian fisheries will be enhanced if there is general awareness of the need for action. For example, consumers should understand why they should not buy fish or crustaceans below a certain size or at a particular time of the year. This goes back to responsibilities. St Lucians in general need to protect the use of their own natural resources and ensure that the fishers charged with stewardship are acting in a responsible manner. A public awareness campaign will support consumer education.

Effective management requires enforcement of the regulations and this is one area where over the years there has not been a great deal of success. This must change. Co-management initiatives with the authorities working with fishers will increase peer pressure to respect regulations and that fishers, aware of the damage illegal activity implies for their own prospects, will report transgressors. At the same time, Government’s enforcement capacity must be improved and DOF should work with the Marine Police to prepare a clearly articulated plan with realistic costs for a risk based approach to enforcement. Local knowledge should be used to identify the main possibilities for infringements and to develop a related surveillance programme. The FMP should cover regional issues, with collaboration with neighbouring countries to put a stop to IUU fishing. The harmonization of measures on a regional basis, for example on closed seasons, would reduce the potential for trade being used to circumvent regulations.

Research will be important to inform management decisions. While there is not the capacity to develop reliable models for stock assessment with the definition of biological reference points to direct harvest strategy, DOF biologists perform valuable work in advising fishers of the biological characteristics of the stocks and advise on the need and appropriateness of management measures (e.g. minimum sizes, closed seasons and closed areas). This is invaluable for the preparation of plans to manage local stocks. For highly migratory stock there is a need to improve the range and quality of St Lucian data to feed into the models developed at an international and regional level. The required annual research plan should be discussed with and approved by stakeholders in the Committee as the emphasis will be on a joint approach with fishers providing a great deal of the information on a voluntary basis.

A large part of the national catch is of highly migratory species that are managed by regional bodies. The future will not reduce the authority of these bodies; rather they will perform an increasingly important role in defining total


Pag

e71

allowable catches and allocating quotas. To protect the interests of their fishermen it is imperative that St Lucia becomes a party in all relevant international bodies, with national participants informing stakeholders of the content and findings of the various meetings.

Given the high vulnerability of the fisheries sector to global climate change, and the high exposure St Lucia to natural disasters and hurricanes, this will be an important subject for consideration in the IFMP. It will identify fishery specific risks and define mitigation measures e.g. the protection of mangroves and corals.

Actions

RA 4.1: The fishery sector has been formalised with full registration and licensing of fishers, fish farmers, buyers, traders, and retailers. RA 4.2: Zoning of coastal zone usage has confirmed the areas available for fishing and mariculture. RA 4.3: An “evergreen” Integrated FMP has been prepared and implemented. RA 4.4: Technical and administrative management measures have been introduced to support implementation of the IFMP. RA 4.5: A public awareness campaign has been implemented to support the sustainable use of natural resources. RA 4.6: Sport fishermen have established their own FADs. RA 4.7: Compliance and enforcement capacity have been strengthened. RA 4.8: Environmental regulations have been applied to reduce the risk of developments creating a source of pollution affecting the fishery sector. RA 4.9: An annual research plan has been prepared to identify the activities to be undertaken to measure the needs for and effectiveness of the IFMP and the results of research have been disseminated to all stakeholders. RA 4.10: DOF staff represents the interests of St Lucia and fishery stakeholders in regional and international organisations and meetings. RA4.11: The FMP identifies the approach to the risks posed by global climate change.

5.1.2 Result 5: Aquaculture. The number of active aquaculture farms and the average annual production per farm has increased.

Analysis

Over an extended number of years, the development of aquaculture in St Lucia has been promoted with the twin aims of contributing to food security and providing an alternative to the income earning strategy of agriculturalists formerly dependent on bananas. Concentration has been on the culture of sea moss in coastal waters and tilapia and macrobrachium in freshwaters. Without doubt, this type of farming is technically possible, as is the culture of other species as proven in other countries. However, the reality of St Lucia, with the limited area available, high investment costs, small domestic market, limited ability to compete with other countries due to the high price of feed, juvenile and post larva (PL) and manpower means that ambitions should be realistic. It is recognised that it is highly unlikely that St Lucia will be able to substantially add to our fish production through farming. However, there should be a commitment to identify and develop targeted opportunities that are technically feasible and have potential in domestic and international marketing. St Lucia has benefitted strongly from the assistance of Taiwan in providing the new aquaculture facility at Union that adds to the potential to grow the current production of freshwater shrimp and tilapia by providing four times the current levels of demand for fingerlings and PL by farmers. On that basis, there should be a drive to maximise the potential of existing farmers and encourage new investment in the sector, with the aims of (i) increasing the production per unit and bring down the sales price and develop the market; and (ii) reaching a critical mass of activity which may be sufficient to generate domestic investment in ancillary activities. As an incentive, fingerlings and Pl are being provided at a subsidised price in the anticipation that this will lead to new investment and increased levels of output. While there are not the resources to pioneer technical advances in the farming of other species, there should be a watching brief on developments in other countries to assess the potential for related initiatives in St Lucia. For example, the potential for such as bivalves (oysters) and brackish or marine water fish species using sea-based cage culture has not been assessed and trials have not been conducted. Given the continued interest in enhancing food security and rural livelihoods, there is need to assess the viability of this type of mariculture development.


Pag

e72

New investment will not only be promoted by technical capacity and the potential for profitable sales but also the security of any new investments. Through better planning and coastal management and zoning for specific activities long term licenses should be available to ensure stability. A land bank would ensure that areas not being utilised are available for fish farming.

It is expected that the potential to farm fish profitably with reduced risk will make investors suitable subjects for credit to support new investments. DOF should work with the sector and the banks to establish an appropriate loan scheme.

There should be alliances with donor countries and organisations to fund and otherwise support the various initiatives.

Actions

RA 5.1: There has been an increase in the active number of production units for tilapia, macrobrachium and sea moss. RA 5.2: There has been an increase in the annual production of tilapia, macrobrachium & sea moss. RA 5.3: There has been an assessment of the potential for economically viable farming of other species in St Lucia. RA 5.4: The economic and technical feasibility of farming other species in St Lucia has been promoted with potential investors. RA 5.5 There is a guaranteed supply of essential inputs (fingerlings / PL / feed). RA 5.6: The hatchery to provide tilapia fingerlings and macrobrachium PL has being operated effectively. RA 5.7: The risk to investments has been reduced by the issuance of long term licenses including access to land / sea area. RA5.8: Fish farmers continue to benefit from the subsidised supply of PL and fingerlings. RA5.9: There has been an assessment of the potential to provide a credit line for investment by new entrants into fish catching and fish farming.

5.1.3 Result 6: On-shore Ancillary Support. The available infrastructure and supporting services have been managed & maintained effectively & are providing the services required by stakeholders at a competitive price.

Analysis

While fish catching will continue to provide the main source of work, especially in rural and coastal communities that are outside the main tourist area, there is a need to maximise the employment and income by generating fishery-related opportunities on-shore in marketing and the ancillary service sector. A coherent plan for sustainable fisheries development must identify the potential to widen the economic base of fishery communities and reduce the pressure to continually increase the number of fishers and fishing boats and the risk of over fishing while at the same time reducing the average earnings per fisher.

Well planned and managed facilities improve fishers’ profitability by increasing their fishing time and protecting their investments when the boats are berthed. Over the past two decades, DOF has established a three-tier hierarchy of fish landing sites, with JICA assistance in the construction of the five fishing complexes. While these facilities were not designed with global climate change in mind, their construction provides the basis of an adequate response to what may lay ahead if they are maintained in the required condition and not allowed to deteriorate as has been the case with previous investments in infrastructure.

The challenge in existing facilities is twofold: the effective management of the complexes to maximise their value to users; and their adequate maintenance to ensure their availability in the decades to come. Different from capital expenditure, the response to these challenges will to a large extent depend on the ability and willingness of users to pay appropriate fees for services such as berthing, water, fuel, storage etc and effectively participate in management. The aim should be to have a profitable fish catching sector which generates acceptable levels of income for fishers and gives a return on investment with margins that allow them to pay operating costs while reducing dependence on subsidies that are ultimately paid for by St Lucian tax payers. At the same time, users should only be expected to pay for the efficient provision of services – vessels owners must have confidence in the security offered; there must be a reduced risk of damage during inclement weather; the processes for going to and


Pag

e73

returning from fishing must be efficient; the services for the supply of fuel, water and ice must be effective and cost competitive.

Currently, the responsibility for the management of landing sites is uncertain, with conflicting interests and no clear-cut mandate. The ideal solution is user management, with fishers assuming responsibility through their representative organisations. JICA’s new project has this as one of its central themes. In the intervening time, DOF must take the lead in establishing effective management through the involvement of the Extension Unit in the overall management of the landing sites. Once it has been proven that existing facilities may be used sustainably there is a need to look at how new additional services may be provided, both at existing complexes and in other places.

Actions

RA 6.1: There has been an assessment of the on-shore facilities required to support the efficient operation of the St. Lucian catching fleet. RA 6.2: The management of designated landing places is effective. RA 6.3: A maintenance plan for the landing centres has been successfully implemented. RA 6.4: Required new facilities and services have been provided.

5.1.4 Result 7: Marketing. The market for aquatic products has been strengthened through stakeholder representation on the FMC Board; improved quality standards and the quantity of value added produced in St Lucia.

Analysis

An advantage is the existence of the SLFMC with a professional staff and a developed infrastructure. While it is not meeting its original remit in full, this is a reflection of the reality of the market and to the need for the business to be run on commercial terms. If it is not possible for SLFMC to operate profitability there are limited prospects for its long term survival. It is recognized that a coherent marketing strategy must understand the conflict between a requirement to purchase all fish on offer, and the need to make a profit. This is not to say that SLFMC cannot respond to the needs of fishers; but its role must be to lead rather than be a buyer of last resort. At the end of the day it needs to respond to market needs rather than those of the producer whose interests should be represented by functioning coops that plan production, help even out any mismatch between demand and supply and guarantee the quality that SLFMC needs in order to maximise the first hands sales price. This will make SLFMC better able to serve the stringent demands of restaurants and support the increase in retail sales through the ever growing supermarket sector.

To ensure that SLFMC focusses on the issues at hand, there is a strong argument not only for its Board to become operative, but for its membership to be widened to include representatives of the fishers.

Attitudes and practices need to change throughout the sector to maximize the value of the natural resources and safeguard the health of consumers. There is a need to promote the use of at ice at-sea, with success leading to a grading system for landed fish with the price offered reflecting quality. There is little point improving the quality of fish at landing unless the chill chain is maintained until purchase by the final consumer. In the past, there have been initiatives to improve retail marketing with the provision of specialized outlets in the market in Castries; yet the major part of the sales continue to be made in less-than-hygienic conditions with fresh fish sold without the use of ice in high ambient temperatures. Regulations have to be strengthened, implemented and enforced.

There are many comments on the way landings are utilised. With the greater use of FADs the complexion of the catch has changed and non-traditional species have been landed. Initially, consumer resistance due to lack of knowledge on how to prepare such as swordfish and marlin limited the market potential but as time has gone on these species have become more accepted. The aim should be to create a demand for all the species that are available to fishers and thus maximize the earning potential in the sector.

Two other initiatives will also aim at this objective. Firstly, to create added value to not only increase sales price and support stability in the market but also to generate on-shore activity. The highest value product is the best quality


Pag

e74

fresh fish; but at times the market is not able to absorb the landed amounts, especially outside the main tourist season. There will not be any major developments in this respect (unless there is private sector interest in importing primary produced fish for secondary processing into the likes of fish fingers and fish sticks for sale in the Regional market) but the production of such as fish burgers for local fast food outlets and smoked marlin for restaurants may provide some opportunities. SLFMC is well placed to provide supermarkets with quality vacuum packed products that will supplement their product range. Secondly, there is a need to maximize the value of the landings by selling fish at the highest price and that will mean targeting export markets. It is acknowledged that St Lucia will continue to have a large deficit in fish trade; the market as a whole will continue to consume more fish than produced and it is not possible to substitute for the main products – especially canned and salted fish. However, with the required quality there would be the potential to export the high value landings such as tunas, billfishes, lobster and freshwater prawn to international markets and regional markets, especially those such as Barbados that have a high propensity to import to satisfy tourist demand.

The capacity to export will depend on the standards of the sector. While it is too early to consider the need to have a competent authority that would provide the basis for export to the European Union, all future planning must be based on HACCP standards. SLFMP should provide a working model of this. To support planning for the potential of market diversification there will be a need for international assistance to complete a comprehensive analysis of current market opportunities for the key species and products.

Actions

RA 7.1: The Board of FMC has been restructured and reflects greater stakeholder participation in the decision making process. RA 7.2: A grading system has been introduced following a review of current procedures. RA 7.3: DOF has assessed the options to improve the use of ice at-sea and has implemented the recommendations RA 7.4: Regulations on the processing and sale of fresh perishable products have been implemented to cover the preparation, transportation and retail of seafood. RA7.5: Modern, hygienic, fish retail outlets have been established at strategic points in the country. RA 7.6: Underutilised species have been promoted in the domestic market. RA7.7: There is testing of the potential for value added products. RA7.8: HACCP standards have been adopted throughout the sector. RA7.9: There has been a comprehensive analysis of market opportunities.

5.2 National Operational Plan

The NFS redefined policy objectives to develop seven required results from the Plan by 2022, and the related activities that currently may be identified. Subsequent to confirmation of the NFP and the NFS, a number of action areas will be identified in the NOP. These action areas reflect that different objectives are not mutually exclusive and they will cut across a number of results and identified activities. Action areas reflect the priorities and the need for sequential actions with the successful completion of actions being a necessary prerequisite for the start on others. The NOP is more detailed that the NFS and allocates specific responsibilities and budgets, with a work plan that defines tasks.

The progress made will only become evident over the medium to long term. On that basis, the NOP should identify priority actions for the initial 3 year period to create the bases, with other activities dependent on the progress achieved. The definition of axes provides for detail to be incorporated into the Plan. Such detail is not appropriate for the longer term approach given the uncertainties of available human resources and funding and the need to sequence actions with the implementation of some activities dependent on the success achieved in others. In addition, the approach to strategic planning should be both proactive and pragmatic; situations change, new factors come into play, progress may not be as quick as initially considered possible. Hence, the need for an on-going and continual planning process with a particular unit charged with the responsibility for implementation. Among this units responsibilities would be the identification and application for external aid and to ensure that implementation of the NFS benefits to the maximum possible from capital and technical assistance. At the same time, once the Plan is validated and formalised, external aid should contribute to the identified goal and objectives rather than follow a


Pag

e75

different path. This is especially important if such aid is linked to the use of St Lucian resources that should be dedicated to achieving the defined results. In short, the goal, objectives and results should not change; there is latitude in adding or redefining activities and the specific tasks.

2.9.3. Monitoring & Evaluation

To ensure the successful achievement of the Plan, M&E will be needed with adjustments made as required in response to the progress achieved and / or changes taking place in the domestic, regional or global environment. A Plan management unit comprised of personnel from DOF, SLFMC and SLFFO will lead the efforts and report to their respective management and the FAC. The Unit will work together with the collaborating agencies, particularly in monitoring and evaluating the individual action points. The analysis will provide the means for all the stakeholders to judge whether results are being achieved and whether the activities are being completed both efficiently and effectively. M&E provides the basis for shared accountability. The on-going exercise will assess the coherence and relevance of actions to the defined goal and objectives; it will measure effectiveness by assessing the extent to which the NFS is achieving the objectives and contributing to the Goal; it will evaluate the efficiency of the outputs compared to the cost of the inputs to ensure best-value-for-money; and it will assess the impact of the actions and interventions and the changes that have taken place as a result, whether they be positive or negative, direct or indirect, intended or unintended.



Appendix 2.1: National Fisheries Policy: Logical Framework – Goal, Vision, Mission, Objectives, Verifiable Indicators, Risks & Assumptions

Objectively Verifiable Indicators Sources of Verification Risks & Assumptions

Goal (long term) To foster medium to long term economic prosperity in the fisheries sector through the promotion of sustainable fisheries and effective fishing techniques that will result in fishers and fish farmers meeting and exceeding national wage standards while maximising the potential long term economic value of the available aquatic resources to the people of St Lucia.

1. Changes in employment and income in the fish catching and aquaculture sectors relative to other economic sectors.

2. The share of fishers and aquaculturists in agricultural GDP.

3. The annual catch and value of marine species.

4. The number of fishers and fishing vessels.

5. The annual production (quantity & value) from aquaculture.

6. The number of aquacultures.

7. Per capita consumption of domestically produced fish & shellfish.

8. Resource assessments identifying if fish stocks targeted by St Lucia are overfished and/or overfishing is occurring.

1. National statistical data.

2. Catch and earnings data.

3. Vessel and fisher licensing

records.

4. DOF surveys on aquaculture.

5. Resource assessments

(national and regional).

6. Anecdotal information from

fishers (catch, size of fish, level

of recruitment).

7. Reports on other parts of the

ecosystem (e.g. coral,

mangroves, marine parks).

1. The different parts of the public and private sectors are prepared to work together in a constructive way.

2. The Government of St Lucia recognises the importance of the fisheries sector and allocates the necessary human and financial resources while facilitating the necessary legal and institutional changes.

3. Fishers fish responsibly.

4. Fishery management measures aimed at sustainable fisheries are successfully introduced and the regulations enforced.

5. Public and private sector finance is available for investment in fish catching, aquaculture, fish marketing and the associated supporting infrastructure and services.

Vision To support strong partnerships between civil society, private sector and public sector, and advance a sustainably governed fisheries sector that will enhance profitability and contribute to food security.


Pag

e77

9. Studies indicate that fishery related activity is carried out in harmony with other elements of the ecosystem.

6. National aquaculture production is able to compete in price and quality with imports.

Mission DOF will collaborate with all stakeholders including fish marketing entities, fisher and fish farmer organisations, and environmental and other fishery sector related agencies to achieve the long term strategic goal by developing the mechanisms and actions required to define, implement and monitor the policies, strategies, norms, regulations, and other instruments needed to ensure the sustainable use of available water resources.

1. Annual monitoring exercises show the progress and success of implementing the measures and activities identified in the Plan.

2. The extent that the legal framework (primary legislation and supporting secondary legislation) has been amended to provide the basis for implementation of the Plan.

3. The budget and manpower allocated to DOF.

4. The extent of the structuring of DOF to facilitate the effective implementation of the Plan.

5. Annual work plans and related monitoring and evaluation exercises.

6. The number of memorandums of understanding agreed between DOF and other public and private sector institutions.

7. The number of minuted inter-institutional meetings.

8. The implementation of mechanisms for continuous formal stakeholder consultation.

1. M&E of the implementation of the NFP.

2. Legislation and regulatory framework.

3. National Budget.

4. DOF organisational chart and manpower.

5. DOF work plans.

6. MOUs.

7. There is a stable national policy and DOF is maintained with its existing functions.

8. DOF receives the funding required to implement the Plan from either national or international resources.

9. DOF accepts the need for internal restructuring.

10. DOF and the Government of St Lucia accept the need for a formal mechanism for stakeholder consultation.

11. Other Institutions support implementation of the Plan.

12. Stakeholders respond positively to the opportunity to participate on a formal and continuous basis.


Pag

e78

Objective 1: Institutional Strengthening

To structure and support an effective and efficient Institutional Framework that in cooperation and collaboration with other public sector institutions, stakeholders and international agencies successfully implements and monitors a National Fisheries Plan that responds to the needs of a sustainable and profitable fish catching, aquaculture and related activities.

1. The DOF annual budget.

2. The degree of DOF restructuring to facilitate implementation of the Plan.

3. Staff of the required calibre is available to take a lead role in the implementation of the Plan.

4. The number and type of training activities for DOF staff.

5. The changes to the legal framework to support implementation of the NFS.

6. The number of MOUs signed with key institutions to facilitate implementation of the Plan.

7. Minuted meetings between DOF and other Institutions and the number of activities implemented, monitored and evaluated.

8. Monitoring and evaluation of the implemented DOF communications strategy.

9. Regional and national fishery advisory committees are functioning as planned and their recommendations are used to inform the DOF decision-making process.

10. The results of annual monitoring and evaluation of the progress being achieved in the implementation of

1. Budget data.

2. Organisational chart.

3. Periodic staff reviews; defined requirements for new staff.

4. Annual training plan.

5. The legal framework.

6. MOUs

1. The Government of St Lucia supports the need for institutional strengthening and change.

2. Other institutions are prepared to commit to implementation of the strategy and to fully cooperate with DOF.

3. DOF accepts the need to reorganise and restructure.

4. DOF staff embraces the changes.

5. There is public sector acceptance of greater formal stakeholder input into the decision making process.


Pag

e79

the Plan.

Objective 2: Strengthening stakeholder input into the decision making process

To formally and effectively include all fish-related stakeholders in the decision-making process.

1. The existence of Advisory Committees, their membership, their ToRs and the use of their advice.

2. A fully functioning St Lucia Fisherfolk Organisation.

3. Stakeholder representation on the board of the SLFMC.

4. The number of active fishery cooperatives.

5. The membership of fisher cooperatives.

1. ToR of FAC.

2. SLFFO reports.

3. SLFMC Board meeting minutes.

4. Dept. Of Cooperatives.

5. Cooperative records.

1. There is public sector acceptance of greater formal stakeholder input into the decision making process.

2. Stakeholders accept the need to participate more effectively in the decision making process at the community and national levels.

3. Cooperative managers have the capacity to instigate change.

Objective 3: Improving the average incomes of fish catchers.

To support fishers in improving their incomes by identifying and supporting the implementation of options to reduce operating costs and improve average first hand sales prices.

1. The number of fishers.

2. Fishery production and first hand sales values.

3. The average cost of inputs.

4. Income and inflation data for St Lucia.

1. Ad hoc surveys.

2. DOF landing data.

3. National statistics.

1. The proportional increase in the number of fishers is not higher than the increase in the total value of the outputs from the sub-sectors.

2. Fishers accept and adopt the measures identified to reduce operating costs.

3. Funds are available to implement the pilot projects needed to test concepts aimed at reducing operating costs.

4. The Government of St Lucia maintains the policy of providing fuel subsidies to fishers.

Objective 4: Fisheries To maintain the resources of marine 1. There are a national IFMP and local 1. Documents and national 1. DOF has the capacity and interest to


Pag

e80

Management and freshwater species at a sustainable level in the context of an approach that stresses the importance of protecting ecosystems including habitats and other ecologically sensitive areas and takes into account considerations of the potential negative impacts from global climate change.

FMPs.

2. All vessels are fishing with a license (vessel, gear, fishers).

3. All fish buyers are functioning with a license.

4. It is possible to trace fish to landing place / vessel.

5. There is a MOU between DOF and the Marine Police on the implementation of a compliance plan.

6. The number of functioning co-management committees.

7. The data collection system has been computerised and a Fisheries Information System is in place.

8. The number of projects covering assessment of marine resources harvested by the St Lucian fishers.

9. The visibility material promoting sustainable fisheries that has been distributed and disseminated.

gazette.

2. DOF reports.

3. Traceability exercises.

4. MOU.

5. SLFFO.

6. FIS.

7. Resource assessments.

8. Visibility material.

define and implement an IFMP.

2. There is funding available.

3. The Marine Police are willing to cooperate in the implementation of a compliance plan.

4. Stakeholder participation in co-management is accepted.

5. Stakeholder participation in co-management is effective.

6. The judiciary is effective in sanctioning infringements of regulations.


Pag

e81

Objective 5: Aquaculture.

To increase the contribution of aquaculture to economic growth, food supply, and the income diversification strategy of small scale farmers.

1. The number of production units in operation and active.

2. The number of persons employed in the production units on a full time or part time basis.

3. The annual level of investment in aquaculture

4. Annual production of tilapia, macro brachium and sea moss.

5. The annual value of the production of tilapia, macro brachium and sea moss.

6. The quantity and quality of nationally produced fish meal.

7. The quantity and quality of nationally produced fingerlings and post larvae.

8. Effective monitoring of aquaculture activity by trained personnel.

9. The number of training courses for aquaculturists.

1. DOF surveys.

2. Farm data.

3. DOF surveys.

4. Staff work reports.

5. Annual training plans.

1. The development of aquaculture is a national and DOF priority.

2. DOF has the technical capacity to implement the strategy.

3. The Government of St Lucia maintains financial support to aquaculture following the completion of the Taiwanese project.

4. Funds are available for investment in aquaculture.

5. The Government of St Lucia continues to support the development of aquaculture with appropriate subsidies.

6. Aquaculturists increase their production levels to benefit from economies of scale.

Objective 6: On-shore Ancillary Support

To provide the on-shore support, including infrastructure, needed by an efficient, effective and profitable fish catching sector.

1. The increase in the number of facilities available.

2. The hours when services are available.

3. Minutes of landing site management committees.

1. Investment reports.

2. Stakeholders and service providers.

3. Minutes

1. DOF is prepared to take a more active role in the management of landing facilities.

2. Finance is available to implement any new investment plan.

Objective 7: To promote an increase in the value of 1. The existence of a marketing strategy 1. The market strategy. 1. Funding is available to improve


Pag

e82

Marketing. caught and farmed product through better fish handling, an efficient fish market and value added processing.

that has been implemented, monitored and evaluated.

2. The MOU between DOF, FMC and Fishery Cooperatives.

3. The number of vessels regularly using and ice and the average daily amount of ice used in fish landing centres.

4. The amount invested in added value production.

5. The production of added value fish products.

6. The availability of market information.

7. The number of fish retail outlets that meet the required standard.

8. The number of enterprises applying HACCP standards.

9. The level of imports.

2. MOU.

3. SLFMC reports.

4. Annual DOF survey.

5. National trade data.

marketing.

2. Stakeholders work together to develop the market.

3. DOF, FMC and the Cooperatives have the willingness to work together and the capacity and means to define and implement the market strategy.



Pag

e83

Appendix 2.2: National Fisheries Strategy: Results & Actions 2013 - 22



Result 3: Improving the average incomes of fish catchers. The annual net incomes of fish catchers has increased at least at the same rate as the average earnings in other sectors.

Result 4: Fisheries Management. An evergreen integrated FMP based on the precautionary approach and taking into account the potential impact of climate change has been defined and implemented

RA 1.1: The Plan (2013 – 22) has been approved and formalised by the Government of St Lucia.

RA 1.2: The Institutional arrangements for the administration and management of the fisheries sector has been reviewed and revised as considered appropriate.

RA 1.3: The legal framework has been reviewed and changed as appropriate to provide the basis for the changes envisaged in the implementation of the Plan.

RA 1.4: The responsible Ministry / Department has been structured and has been provided with the resources (finance and human) to support the effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Plan.

RA 1.5: The staff training plan that has been up-dated

RA 2.1: A National Fishery Advisory Committee and Regional Fishery Advisory Committees, with significant stakeholder representation, have been established and are functioning as contemplated in their respective terms of reference.

RA 2.2: The SLFFO is functioning as contemplated in its Articles of Association.

RA 2.3: All Fishery Cooperatives in St Lucia are active members of the SLFFO.

RA 2.4: DOF has established a direct role in the management of SLFFO & fishery cooperatives.

RA 2.5: Work between SLFFO and DOF has provided training including manuals for the effective management of fishery cooperatives.

RA 2.6: A cooperative has been established for fish

RA3.1: A training plan designed to assist fishers to reduce costs and increase incomes has been devised and implemented by DOF.

RA3.2: There has been an increase in the number of FADs available exclusively to St Lucian commercial fishermen.

RA3.3: The fuel subsidy to St Lucian fishermen has been maintained by the Government of St Lucia and any changes identified in an evaluation of its process have been implemented.

RA3.4: Tax incentives for new investments in fishing vessels, engines and gear that are intended to reduce fishing costs have been maintained.

RA3.5: Fishermen are benefitting from the reduced price of inputs resulting from cooperative

RA 4.1: The fishery sector has been formalised with full registration and licensing of fishers, fish farmers, buyers, traders, and retailers.

RA 4.2: Zoning of coastal zone usage has confirmed the areas available for fishing and mariculture.

RA 4.3: An “evergreen” Integrated FMP has been prepared and implemented.

RA 4.4: Technical and administrative management measures have been introduced to support implementation of the IFMP.

RA 4.5: A public awareness campaign has been implemented to support the sustainable use of natural resources.

RA 4.6: Sport fishermen have established their own FADs.

RA 4.7: Compliance and enforcement capacity have



Pag

e84

annually has been implemented to provide staff with the skills required to successfully implement the Strategy.

RA 1.6: Equipment has been provided that makes ensures effective use of available staff time and provides required outputs more efficiently.

RA 1.7: Staff has been evaluated on an annual basis to assess their success in contributing to the implementation of the Plan.

RA 1.8: An effective communications strategy has been implemented to ensure both the internal efficiency of responsible Ministry / Department and to strengthen its external relationships with other Public Sector bodies and stakeholders.

RA 1.9: DOF has worked effectively with JICA and other international agencies providing technical and financial assistance.

RA 1.10: St Lucia is a participating member of all relevant international organisations in the fisheries sector.

farmers.

purchasing.

RA3.6: Fishing time has been maximised through efficient management of the designated landing places and the ready availability of spares.

RA3.7: There has been an investigation of the potential to reduce fuel costs through pilot projects.

RA3.8: Measures have been introduced to reduce the risk of larceny of equipment and product.

RA3.9: There has been an assessment of the potential to provide a credit line for investment by new entrants into fish catching.

been strengthened.

RA 4.8: Environmental regulations have been applied to reduce the risk of developments creating a source of pollution affecting the fishery sector.

RA 4.9: An annual research plan has been prepared to identify the activities to be undertaken to measure the needs for and effectiveness of the IFMP and the results of research have been disseminated to all stakeholders.

RA 4.10: DOF staff represents the interests of St Lucia and fishery stakeholders in regional and international organisations and meetings.

RA4.11: The FMP identifies the approach to the risks posed by global climate change.

Result 5: Aquaculture. The number of active aquaculture and the average annual production per farm has increased.

Result 6: On-shore Ancillary Support. The available infrastructure and supporting services have been managed & maintained effectively & are providing the services required by stakeholders at a competitive price.

Result 7: Marketing. The market for aquatic products has been strengthened through stakeholder representation on the FMC Board; improved quality standards and the quantity of value added produced in St Lucia.

RA 5.1: There has been an increase in RA 6.1: There has been an assessment RA 7.1: The Board of FMC has been



Pag

e85

the active number of production units for tilapia, macrobrachium and sea moss.

RA 5.2: There has been an increase in the annual production of tilapia, macrobrachium & sea moss.

RA 5.3: There has been an assessment of the potential for economically viable farming of other species in St Lucia.

RA 5.4: The economic and technical feasibility of farming other species in St Lucia has been promoted with potential investors.

RA 5.5 There is a guaranteed supply of essential inputs (fingerlings / PL / feed).

RA 5.6: The hatchery to provide tilapia fingerlings and macrobrachium PL has being operated effectively.

RA 5.7: The risk to investments has been reduced by the issuance of long term licenses including access to land / sea area.

RA5.8: Fish farmers continue to benefit from the subsidised supply of PL and fingerlings.

RA5.9: There has been an assessment of the potential to provide a credit line for investment by new entrants into fish catching and fish farming.

of the on-shore facilities required to support the efficient operation of the St. Lucian catching fleet.

RA 6.2: The management of designated landing places is effective.

RA 6.3: A maintenance plan for the landing centres has been successfully implemented.

RA 6.4: Required new facilities and services have been provided

restructured and reflects greater stakeholder participation in the decision making process.

RA 7.2: A grading system has been introduced following a review of current procedures.

RA 7.3: DOF has assessed the options to improve the use of ice at-sea and has implemented the recommendations

RA 7.4: Regulations on the processing and sale of fresh perishable products have been implemented to cover the preparation, transportation and retail of seafood.

RA7.5: Modern, hygienic, fish retail outlets have been established at strategic points in the country.

RA 7.6: Underutilised species have been promoted in the domestic market.

RA7.7: There is testing of the potential for value added products.

RA7.8: HACCP standards have been adopted throughout the sector.

RA7.9: There has been a comprehensive analysis of market opportunities.



Pag

e86

Appendix 2.3: Draft National Operational Plan 2013 - 15

AX1:

Institutional Strengthening

AX2: Data Collection

AX3: Fish Catching

AX4: Fisheries

Management

AX5: Aquaculture

A6: Fish Marketing &

infrastructure

A7: Training and

Education

Responsibility

CFO, Extension Unit, FMC, SLFFO, Coops, Municipalities, Stakeholders.

Resource Unit, Extension unit, SLFFO, Coops, stakeholders

Extension Unit, SLFFO, coops stakeholders

CFO, Resource Unit, Extension Unit, SMMA, SLFFO, coops, stakeholders

Aquaculture unit, extension unit, stakeholders

Extension unit, FMC, SLFFO, Coops, FMC, stakeholders

Extension unit, aquaculture unit, resources unit, SLFFO, coops, stakeholders

Resources ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Tasks AXA1.1: There has been an evaluation of the need and potential to replace DOF with a dedicated Ministry with action as required.

AXA 2.1: Data collection has been fully computerized with the introduction of electronic log books completed by DOF staff with data tabulated and analysed on specific soft ware.

AXA3.1: The number of FADS for the exclusive use St Lucian commercial fishers has been increased to 12.

AXA 4.1.:An Integrated Fisheries Management Plan has been prepared in full cooperation with stakeholders.

AXA 5.1: The species most suited for farming in St Lucia have been identified

AXA 6.1: Business Plans have been developed & implemented for the SLFFO, individual cooperatives & individual fishery complexes.

A7.1: A training programme has been developed including training modules and implemented to facilitate the entry of young fishers into the sector.

AXA1.2: There has been a revision of the legal framework to support actions in implementation of the Strategy

AXA 2.2: Fishers and aquaculturists are contributing to the collection of data.

AXA 3.2: There has been a pilot project to test the viability of a mother ship operation to fish FADs.

AXA 4.2: The fishery sector has been formalized with the licensing of all vessels, gear, engines, farms, buyers, sellers, transporters, traders and

AXA5.2: There has been a feasibility analysis of the options for aquaculture development

AXA 6.2: There has been promotion of underutilized species that may be harvested by the St Lucian fleet

A7.2: A training programme has been developed including training modules and implemented to facilitate the entry of new entrants into



Pag

e87

processors. aquaculture

AXA1.3: There has been an assessment of the human resource needs to support the fisheries administration in the implementation of the Plan (e.g. Economist, Planners)

AXA 2.3: Data are disseminated to stakeholders.

AXA 3.3: There have been trials on equipment to facilitate the use of ice at-sea

AXA 4.3: Approaches to co-management of specific fisheries continue to be implemented.

AXA5.3: Model business plans have been prepared for aquaculture production units.

AXA 6.3: There has been a market analysis for sea moss, tilapia & macrobrachium to input into aquaculture investment plans.

AXA 7.3: There has been a study tour of interested investors in aquaculture to appropriate countries in the region.

AXA1.4: The National Fishery Advisory Committee and the Regional Fishery Advisory Committees have been established and are functioning.

AXA 2.4: Data are used as indicators of Plan implementation

AXA 4.4: User rights for FADs have been defined and are included in the respective legislation.

AXA 5.4: Work has continued to improve the cultivation methods of key species.

AXA 6.4: FMC has introduced a grading scheme

AXA 7.4: There has been an awareness campaign to promote the importance of sustainable fisheries and responsible fishing

AXA 1.5: DOF is actively involvement in supporting the development of SLFFO.

AXA4.5: St Lucia is a member of ICCAT.

AXA 6.5: Infrastructural needs have been identified up to the year 2022.

AXA 1.6: The Board of FMC has been constituted with full stakeholder participation.

AXA 6.6: Fish quality standards for all steps of the distribution chain have been defined and



Pag

e88

implemented.

AXA 1.7: Management boards have been established and are functioning under the Presidency of the CFO for the fishery complexes at Gros Point, Dennery, Vieux Fort, Choiseul and Soufrieres.

AXA 1.8: There is a pre-cooperative for aquaculturists.



Pag

e89

ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cazaubon N. 2012 Understanding threats, resolving conflicts and building collaborative solutions, in the Soufriere Marine Management Area (SMMA) and the Canaries & Anse La Raye Marine Management Area (CAMMA) in St. Lucia West Indies. Soufriere Marine Management Association Inc.

DOF 2004 (updated:18th January 2012). General Challenges faced by Saint Lucian fishers.

DOF 2005a. Note on Fishing Methods

DOF 2005b. Fishing Methods

DoF 2006. Plan for the Management of the Fisheries of Saint Lucia

DOF 2007. Marine Protected Areas

DOF 2008. Sustainability of our Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan (2008–2013)

DOF 2010a. Request for New Initiatives Capital Projects / Programmes. Development of Training Programme for Sustainable Fisheries

DOF 2010b. Request for Funding of New Initiative Capital Project: Young Fishers Training Programme

DOF 2011. Request for New Initiatives Capital Projects / Programmes . Innovative Rural Livelihoods and Enhanced Food Security through Mariculture Development

DOF 2012 Seamoss Farming in St.Lucia

DOF 2012a. Policy Brief. Fisheries Development & Management

DOF 2012b. Request for New Initiatives Capital Projects / Programmes. Enhancing Business Opportunities in Marine Aquaculture

DOF 2012c. Request for New Initiatives Capital Projects / Programmes. Revitalizing the Fisheries Sector to Increase Employment opportunities for Young Fishers and Entrepreneurs

DoF NDa. Whaling Traditions & policies in Saint Lucia.

DOF NDb. Memorandum Of Understanding between the Department Of Fisheries, Ministry Of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry And Fisheries, Saint Lucia and [Fishers’ Co-Operatives on Saint Lucia] Regarding [Sustainable FAD Development]

FAO 2007 Country Profile St Lucia

Felix M-L The Aquaculture Industry in St Lucia, West Indies

GOSL 2001. Chapter 7.15 Fisheries Law

GOSL 2003. Saint Lucia National Climate Change Policy and Adaption Plan

GOSL November 2004. Ministry of Physical Development, Environment and Housing National Environment Policy (NEP) and National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) for Saint Lucia. Final Draft.

GOSL November 2009. Review of the Progress Made in Addressing Vulnerabilities of SIDS Through Implementation of the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation (MSI) of the Barbados Program of Action (BPOA)

http://www.fishbase.de/Country/CountryTreatyList.php?Country=662. Treaties and Conventions to which Saint Lucia (LCA) is a Member (accessed 16 October)

http://www.mpaglobal.org/index.php?country_id=662&conv_code=&site_code=&action=searchResults&submit=Go List of MPAs in St Lucia (accessed 16 October)

http://www.seaaroundus.org/Subsidy/default.aspx?GeoEntityID=177 Sea Around Us Project. Fisheries subsidies in Saint Lucia (accessed 16 October)

JICA / CRFM / IC Net Ltd 2011. Progress Report (2) Study on Formulation of Master Plan on Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources for Coastal Community Development in the Caribbean

MAFF 2006 National Policy & strategic Plan Summary Booklet 2006

http://www.fishbase.de/Country/CountryTreatyList.php?Country=662

http://www.mpaglobal.org/index.php?country_id=662&conv_code=&site_code=&action=searchResults&submit=Go

http://www.seaaroundus.org/Subsidy/default.aspx?GeoEntityID=177



Pag

e90

MALFF 2008. Policy Brief National Agricultural Policy 2009 – 2015

MALFF 2010 St Lucia Annual Agricultural Review 2009

Mohammed E. & W. Joseph ND.

. St. Lucia, Eastern Caribbean: Reconstructed Fisheries Catches and Fishing Effort,

1942-2001

MPDEH 2001Saint Lucia National Report to the World Summit On Sustainable Development

MPDEH 2002 Saint Lucia’s National Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Strategy

MPDEH ND. Saint Lucia’s Initial National Communication on Climate Change

Mystic Man Tours ND. Cost of Material for Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) Construction and Deployment

Phillips T., H. Guiste (Eds) 2007 Report of the National Consultation to Launch a National Fisherfolk Organization in St. Lucia CRFM Technical & Advisory Document – Number 2007/ 9

Renard Y. 2008 Saint Lucia: A Plan of Action for Localising and Achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). OECS/ UNDP

Singh, R.H., Rankine, L.B., Seepersad, G. 2005 A Review of Agricultural Policies: Case Study of St Lucia CARICOM

Singh-Renton, S. 2010. Sustainable Development and conservation of Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the Caribbean – The Role of ICCAT. CRFM Technical & Advisory Document, No. 2010/ 2.

Sumaila U. & D. Pauly (eds.) 2006. Catching More Bait: A Bottom-Up Re Estimation Of Global Fisheries Subsidies (2nd Version) Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(6)

Trillo M., M Caldeyro, A. Marter 2010 Five-Year Strategic Management & Action Plan for the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry And Fisheries Ref: EC N° 2009/209284 The Institutional Assessment. Technical Diagnosis Report – Section 1. TRANSTEC

Trillo M., M Caldeyro, A. Marter 2010 Five-Year Strategic Management & Action Plan for the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry And Fisheries Ref: EC N° 2009/209284 The Institutional Assessment. Technical Diagnosis Report – Section 2. TRANSTEC

Trillo M., M Caldeyro, A. Marter 2010 Five-Year Strategic Management & Action Plan for the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry And Fisheries Ref: EC N° 2009/209284 TRANSTEC

Tulsie B., C. d’Auvergne, D. Barrow ND St Lucia’s Initial National communication on Climate Change

Walters H, Fisheries Development in St Lucia



Pag

e91

ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This brief report describes the approach and findings of the stakeholder consultation through three workshops that took place between October 23 and 25, 2012.

4.2 ITINERARY

Workshops were held in Vieux Fort, Soufrière and Castries. The total number of stakeholders present at these meetings was 79 (Appendix 1).

4.3 APPROACH

The first two workshops followed the same pattern. There were opening words from Seon Ferrari, the DoF Fisheries Officer charged with the extension unit. The consultant, Ian Scott, then explained the approach to the participants. They were asked to split into groups and identify the main problems facing the fishery sector by writing on cards, to be confirmed with them by the group facilitator. The facilitator subsequently presented the identified issues to all participants. Scott pinned each card to a board to categorise them by subject. The floor was then opened to open discussion about the identified issues with debate about their nature and the potential for solution. Subsequently, the comments were reviewed by the consultant to identify areas and refine the categorisation of issues. Due to the lower number of participants in the Castries workshop the meeting did not divide into groups. This allowed for a more comprehensive discussion of the various issues.

Appendix 2 lists all the comments made, together with those identified in January, 2012 when the DoF extension unit updated their 2004 findings that identified the general challenges faced by Saint Lucian fishers.The problem tree was then developed (Appendix 3).

4.4 WORKSHOP FINDINGS

On reviewing the outputs from the workshops, the consultant concluded that 6 main policy areas could be identified. These were developed into a chart (see annex 3), using the software Smart Draw. The chart is large and is best viewed in sections. It will be revised and corrected as required. Many of the identified issues could be included in a number of policy areas; the National Fisheries Strategy will identify cross cutting issues. Opinions will vary on where some of the identified problems “fit”.

The issues can be grouped:

1. Low Profitability of fish catching

a. High fishing costs

i. Need for more & better FADs

ii. Financial Costs of Theft

iii. High costs of inputs

iv. Reduced fishing time

b. Low earnings

i. The need for new vessels

2. Inadequate landing places facilities and their management

a. Problems at Landing Sites



Pag

e92

i. Cleanliness

ii. Services

iii. Management

iv. Poor security

b. Inadequate Facilities

i. Poor market facilities

ii. Space (need for additional facilities)

iii. Others

3. Limited stakeholder participation

a. Weak Coops

i. Not satisfied with coops

ii. Poor management

b. Lack of stakeholder participation

4. Need to strengthen fisheries administration

a. Poor communications

b. Lack of fisheries Policy

c. DoF bureaucracy

d. Training & Education

i. Specific training

ii. General training

5. The need to improve fisheries management

a. Issues with other sectors

i. Competition for space

ii. Interactions with users

iii. Contamination

b. Research

c. Improved Management

i. Administrative measures

ii. Technical measures

d. Environmental Interactions

e. Regulations & Compliance

i. Weak enforcement

ii. Identify measures to reduce theft

iii. Weak compliance

6. Weaknesses in fish marketing

a. Limitations of market infrastructure

b. Lack of value added production

c. Concern about current marketing

d. Improve fish quality



Pag

e93

4.5 STRATEGY 2008 - 13

These issue compare to the DoF 2008 -13 Strategy that identified 3 programme goals and 3 management and organizational goals (internal DoF), with associated objectives and proposed actions (Appendix 4). There is a objective analysis of the existing Strategy and the FMP in the baseline study.

1. Programme Goal 1 Enhance the management of marine and aquaculture related resources to ensure

sustainable development of the fisheries sector.

2. Programme Goal 2 Promote the use of appropriate methods and technologies within the fisheries sector.

3. Programme Goal 3 Increase stakeholder participation by promoting a collaborative approach to fisheries

resource management and development

4. Management and Organisational Goal 1 Enhance the human resource capacity within the DOF to effectively

implement its work programmes;

5. Management and Organisational Goal 2 Foster the provision of adequate physical and financial resources to

staff for the effective implementation of work programme

6. Management and Organisational Goal 3 Provide high quality services to clientele and ensure that service

requirements are met

Although much work needs to be done, it appears clear that there will be a significant difference between the draft Strategy in existence and the one under preparation, especially in emphasis and focus.

4.6 CONCLUSIONS

The derived problem tree identifies a number of areas that together present the concerns of stakeholders. At the same time, in the definition of the corresponding objective tree (identifying the Principal Objective, Axes, Action Lines and Activities) other factors will be taken into consideration to ensure that the derived Strategy and Action Plan respond to the needs of the St Lucia fishery sector in the medium term, and provide the basis for the prioritization of activities and, where necessary, institutional strengthening and change to support effective implementation.

This approach to the definition of the strategy allows for the incorporation of fishery management planning in consideration of the needs of an overall strategic approach centred on the need to promote sustainable activity in the sector.



Pag

e94

Appendix 1: Participants

Vieux Port

Name Position

Ian Scott Consultant

Seon Ferrari DoF

Rita Harrison DoF

Ignatius James DoF

Allena Joseph DoF

Shana Emmanuel DoF

Elvis Baptiste DoF

Shepherd Joseph DoF

Hardin Pierre DoF

Joseph Luisy VFT Fisher

Desmond Edmund VFT Fisher

Peter Joseph Marine Police

Kentry Frederick Marine Police

Davis Posean Saint Lucia National Trust

Eustace Donerille VFT Fish Vendor

Phillip Phillip VFT Fish Vendor

Martin Mandesir VFT Fisher

Francis Joseph VFT Fisher

Daniel George VFT Fisher

Jeanmarl Joseph VFT Fisher

Kurius George VFT Fisher

Albert Edmund VFT Fisher

Samuel Maxkall VFT Fisher

Adrian Luisy VFT Fisher

Klinus Joseph VFT Fisher

Raymond Morrock VFT Fisher

Eusebius Promesse VFT Fisher

Mac Clement VFT Fisher

Kaygiana Toussant Charlery VFT Fish Coop

Tony Alexander Laborie Fisher

George Antoine Laborie Fisher

Stephen McFarlane Laborie Fisher

Christian Leon Laborie Fisher

Twain Edward Laborie Village Council

Trevis Derose Micoud

Klangyu St Juste Micoud

Flavia Florence Micoud

Soufrieres


Seon Ferrari DoF

Rita Harrison DoF

Tiffany Francis DoF

Elvis Baptiste DoF



Pag

e95

Shepherd Joseph DoF

Hardin Pierre DoF

Maximilian Sylvester Soufrière

Anselm Weekes Soufrière

Vincent Nathaniel Soufrière

Raphael Desir Soufrière

Marvin Prospere Soufrière

Francis Flood Soufrière

Flora Louisy Soufrière

Methodius Paul Soufrière SMMA

Sonia Cazaubon Soufrière SMMA

Comida Louisy Soufrière

Hilary Joseph Soufrière

Denis Edward Canaries

Damian Jules Canaries

Mark Prospere Soufrière

Jason Longville Canaries

Moses Denis Soufrière

Darnel Bobb Soufrière Town Council; S. Foundation

Boniface Paul Soufrière

Peter James Canaries

Sylvanus Manlouis Canaries

Protus Prospere Soufrière

Victor Haynes Soufrière

Justin Mitchel Canaries

Marvin Tourissant Canaries

James Joseph Canaries

Julian Alexis Soufrière

Hugh Jules Canaries

Frederick Solomon Canaries

Castries


Seon Ferrari DoF

Rita Harrison DoF

Shepherd Joseph DoF

Cherian Leon DoF

Shonna Emmanuel DoF

Petronila Polius DoF

Kenny President DoF

Melissa Gabriel DoF

Felix Chilcot Laborie Fishers & Consumers. National Fisher Folk

Allan Auguste Marine Police

Horace Walters Castries Co-op

Alva Lynch Castries Co-op

Lindel Reggie Dennery Co-op

Ernest Inglis Castries

Elvis King Gros Islet Co-op



Pag

e96

Appendix 2: Identified Problems

VF Vieux Fort

SO Soufrieres

CA Castries

ISSUE

CA Institutional strengthening of coops

CA Poor management of coops

CA Lack of fishers on executive of coops

CA Lack of information

CA Fishers do not understand role of / cooperate with PMU

CA Fishers see PMU as obstacle

CA Lack of MP patrols in east coast waters

CA Inadequate support from MP

CA Approach of MP to fishers

CA Enforcement of safety measures by MP / DoF

CA Strengthen laws for fish pot thieves

CA Too much political influence in decision making process; not enough being done to address fishers problems

CA DoF bureaucracy and late payment of fuel rebates

CA Need to strengthen fisheries extension with greater engagement with fishers

CA More technical support from DoF / Gov

CA Climate change

CA Lack of climate change mitigation strategies

CA Cost of fishing operations including fuel

CA Time to pay fuel rebate

CA Need for safety equipment

CA More FADs – especially east coast

CA Need for financial assistance to buy new vessels

CA Illegal gear use

CA Over exploitation of near shore fisheries

CA Illegal fishing of turtle and lobster

CA Disregard for traditional knowledge

CA Certification required for fishers

CA Fishers attitude towards sale

CA Need better use of ice at sea; iced fish compulsory

CA Need to provide market support to reduce time retailing by fishermen

CA New markets for fish – less imports

CA Increase value added fish products

CA Need processing – seamoss

CA Niche marketing e.g. conch

CA Need grading of fish by FMC and late FMC payment

CA Illegal export to Martinique

CA Impact of tourism e.g. Sandals condos

CA No pensions in fisheries

CA Lack of training including for young , fishermen – GPS, flares, traps

DoF Poor financial management of Fishers’ Co-ops



Pag

e97

DoF Department of Co-operative

DoF Land based sources of pollution affecting fish habitat (biodiversity)

DoF Possible climate change/global warming effects on fish food chain

DoF High cost of fuel/high operating cost.

DoF Distance to travel to and from fishing areas/banks

DoF Theft of: engines, boats, catch and gear [livelihood]

DoF Bad weather with rough seas destroy fishing gear [nets, pots].

DoF Availability of some fishing inputs: fishing tackle, bait

DoF Unavailability of outboard engine spare parts

DoF Limited carrying capacity (for fish) of open fishing vessels

DoF Insufficient gear and equipment storage space on vessels

DoF Availability of ice for overnight storage of catch

DoF Insufficient storage/repair space for gear/equipment

DoF Insufficient berthing/mooring space (Canaries?)

DoF Unsanitary conditions/facilities for the sale of fish

DoF Idlers/loiterers being mistaken for fishers. Fishers blamed for deeds

DoF Department of Fisheries

DoF Lack of certification process to become a fisher

DoF Increase in numbers of fishers, more means less

DoF Affected by activities of marine traffic; Oil Tankers/ Huge ships

DoF Availability (time, quantity, size) of bait fish for fishing activities

DoF Trade in fish (Jacks) from SVG

DoF During peak of high fishing season, prices are lowest

DoF Limited bargaining power for bulk sale of fish.

DoF Saint Lucia Fish Marketing Corporation

DoF Seasonality of fishing activities. Jan. to June is high season...FADs?

DoF Loss of traditional fishing areas to developments: Hotels, Marine Reserves

DoF Limited benefits from fisher co-ops [insurance, pension]

DoF Limited knowledge of and contributions to pension funds

DoF Little cohesiveness of fishers result in limited bargaining power

DoF Education level limits benefits from training opportunities

DoF Lack of participation in programmes organised for fishers

DoF Limited training opportunities in use of safety equipment

SO Breeding pond lobsters

SO All boats to be screened by MP for fishing equipment

SO Better rescue team; MP associate fishers with drug dealers

SO MP lack respect for fishers

SO Water pollution from on-shore activities

SO River pollution affecting reefs

SO Hotel pollution killing fish

SO Poor water quality in SMMA & CMMA

SO Developments approved that impact SMMA

SO Land based sources of pollution

SO Too many marine reserves

SO Marine reserves buoys affecting net fisheries

SO Theft of fish from pots and nets & gear

SO Theft of fishing gear



Pag

e98

SO Cost of fuel

SO Higher fuel rebates

SO Cheaper fishing inputs

SO Fuel price too high

SO Price of fishing equipment

SO Fuel too expensive; rebate too low

SO Need higher sales value

SO Availability of spare parts

SO Engine parts not readily available

SO Uptake of new fishing technology

SO Need more FADS

SO New design for FADs

SO Not enough FADS

SO Safety equipment needed

SO Pollution at landing site

SO Need more moorings/ buoys

SO Gas station in Canaries

SO Secure equipment storage

SO Poor management of fishery complexes

SO Theft – engines, gear, fishers catch etc

SO Lack of stakeholder involvement in management of CAMMA

SO Improved awareness of boundary / CAMMA zones

SO Foreign boats fishing our waters

SO Too many rec. boats in fishing priority areas

SO Sports fishers should have their own FADs

SO Ghost fishing

SO Understanding value of seine / fillet operation

SO Too many juvenile fish being caught

SO Fishing in marine reserve

SO No community fishing rights on FADs

SO Too many small fish being caught

SO Depleted resources

SO Need more fishing areas

SO Need access to Maria island fishing Area

SO Lobster size “too big”

SO Incentive to destroy invasive species

SO Hess tankers affect fishing

SO Need to regulate mesh sizes

SO HACCP standards for export markets

SO Increase market

SO Difficulty selling fish in Soufriere

SO Hoteliers preventing fishers from using the beach

SO Yachts interfering with fishing gear

SO Obstruction by hotels in fishing waters

SO Tourist dive leaders interfering with fishing pots

SO Pollution – noise / rubbish – from pleasure vessels

SO Water taxis affect nets



Pag

e99

SO Big boats cut gear near FADs

SO Sports fishers destroying lines

SO Sport fishermen trolling flying fishnets

SO Sports fishers fishing FADs

SO SRDF water sports zones in fishing priority area

SO Increasing water based tourism

SO Problems with sports fishers

SO Problems with water taxis

SO Hotel water sports workers no sea experience

SO Pirogue drivers no experience

SO Insurance for loss of gear

SO Pension scheme

SO Resistance to change

SO Conflict old / young fishers

SO Help for fishers in times of natural disasters

SO Poor money management

SO Training GPS, safety at sea, first aid

VF High cost to join VFT co-op

VF Lack of knowledge of fisheries by in-house policy makers in coops

VF The process of boat reg too long.

VF Lack of knowledge of fishing industry

VF Lack of understanding of role of MP

VF Not enough MP patrols

VF Better warning system and assistance from coast guard

VF Inadequate technical support for fishers

VF Need coordinated activity between DoF and MP

VF Lack of research on different fishing practices

VF Impact of natural disasters

VF Pollution of coastal waters from activities on land

VF Global & climatic change

VF Fuel costs / inputs higher; fish landing s lower

VF Costs of inputs too high

VF Remove quota on gas rebate

VF Price of fishing equipment

VF Earnings insufficient to support a family.

VF Credit for fish purchases too long

VF No parts for engines

VF Need better technology – long range phones &VMS

VF Not enough FADs

VF A FAD closer to VFT

VF High price of fuel

VF High price of fishing gear

VF Poor access to finance including Young people cannot access loans to enter fishery.

VF Theft of fishing gear

VF Cleanliness and maintenance of landing sites

VF Contamination of landing site – fuel / chemicals etc

VF Too much pollution at landing site



Pag

e10

0

VF Need to improve fish complex – freezers etc

VF Repair maintenance area for boats and engines

VF Lack of light at night

VF Need proper shed for nets

VF No adherence to pot safety docking (speed)

VF Fuel station not open at all times

VF Water problem – taps locked early morning

VF No maintenance of facilities

VF Poor management of fishing facilities

VF Too many people in landing area and insecure

VF Security of equipment on fishing vessels

VF Lack of security for fishing gear in sea – pots, nets etc

VF Delay in issuing fisher IDs

VF Not enough follow up done at DoF

VF Fishing industry not well organised at a management level

VF Poorly functioning fishery cooperatives.

VF Not satisfied with fish coops

VF A National fishers group to take care of fishers ideas etc

VF No procedure for reporting pot theft

VF Government emphasizes the importance of other sector and not fisheries

VF Lack of fisheries policy

VF DFO personnel are not passionate about their work which is important.

VF Need improved or greater collaboration between DoF and stakeholders

VF Lack of synergy between stakeholders

VF Proper rescue arrangements

VF Search and rescue for fishers inadequate

VF Inadequate communication between inter government agencies

VF Lack of Gov support after natural disasters

VF SLFMC takes too long to pay

VF Season for selling fish too short

VF Better communication between DoF and fishers on issues. E.g. closed seasons.

VF Scarcity of fish

VF Too many small fish caught

VF None existence / lack of certification for fishers

VF Need minimum landing sizes for fish

VF Need to protect breeding areas for fish

VF Need to review lobster landing sizes

VF DoF needs to regulate pot fishery

VF Every pot fisher should be registered

VF Vessels may have two names but no license number (J6)

VF Ban on the importation of spear guns

VF Unsafe fishing practices

VF Low quality of fish at point of sale

VF Non-compliance with fish handling standards

VF Lack of hygienic vending facilities

VF Help to handle and process fish better

VF Distance between the port and the food market



Pag

e10

1

VF Fish market needs to be up-to-standard

VF Proper area for vendors to purchase fish

VF Improve fish processing, buying and selling with better / more infrastructure

VF Low value of fish at FMC

VF Duty free fish from OECS (widen market for local fish)

VF Under-utilization of available species such as diamond back squid and swordfish.

VF Limited value added of fish

VF Nothing in place for sports fishermen

VF Need demarcation of fishing areas and shipping lanes

VF No social benefits e.g. social security, pensions, insurance, health care

VF DoF should ensure that fisheries should pay NIC

VF No fish vessel insurance

VF Stakeholder resistance to change

VF Low status of fishers

VF Lack of public sector finance for the fisheries sector & communities

VF Not enough interest in educational opportunities

VF Scholarships / assistance to fishers families & children

VF Not enough education programmes for young fishers

VF Not enough education for fisher folk

VF Need to educate fishermen on safety at sea

VF Training for fishers and fishing staff has dried up

VF Lack of business acumen

VF Fishermen to respect weather reports



Pag

e10

2

Appendix 3: Draft Problem Tree

ISSUE 1: LOW PROFITABILITY OF FISH CATCHING



Pag

e10

3



Pag

e10

4



Pag

e10

5

ISSUE 2: INADEQUATE LANDING PLACE FACILITIES & THEIR MANAGEMENT



Pag

e10

6



Pag

e10

7



Pag

e10

8

ISSUE 3: LIMITED STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION



Pag

e10

9



Pag

e11

0



Pag

e11

1

ISSUE 4: NEED TO STRENGTHEN FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION



Pag

e11

2



Pag

e11

3



Pag

e11

4



Pag

e11

5



Pag

e11

6

ISSUE 5: THE NEED TO IMPROVE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT



Pag

e11

7



Pag

e11

8



Pag

e11

9



Pag

e12

0



Pag

e12

1



Pag

e12

2



Pag

e12

3



Pag

e12

4



Pag

e12

5



Pag

e12

6

ISSUE 6: WEAKNESSES IN FISH MARKETING



Pag

e12

7



Pag

e12

8



Pag

e12

9



Pag

e13

0



Pag

e13

1

Appendix 4: St Lucia Fisheries Strategy 2008 -13; Action Plan



Pag

e13

2



Pag

e13

3

ANNEX 5: PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT, KEY ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS TO ILLUSTRATE FIELD ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVED RESULTS

October 17: The first meeting of the DOF technical team.

18 October. One of the two DOF vessels (supplied by JICA). The consultant has suggested that this may be appropriate to test the concept of a mother ship operation with the vessel towing a small number of vessels to fish off FADSs for several days with the intention of (i) reducing fuel costs; (ii) improving quality; (iii) extending fishing time. This would fit with one part of the NFS which is to increase the gross earnings of fishermen.



Pag

e13

4

18 October. The fish marketing facility at Gros Islet

October 18. A small fish landing place south of Castries. Note the old wooden planked vessels.



Pag

e13

5

October 18. Choiseul – built with JICA assistance

October 18. Choiseul – design problems



Pag

e13

6

October 18. Soufriere: FAD advisory

October 18. Soufriere: Recently landed fish



Pag

e13

7

October 18. Vieux Fort: Vessel landing

October 18. The Vieux Fort Fish Landing Complex



Pag

e13

8

October 18. Vieux Fort: New 4-stroke engine

October 18. West coast beach with no infrastructure



Pag

e13

9

October 23. Vieux Fort Stakeholder Meeting. (Note the electronic Project Banner).

October 23. Vieux Fort Stakeholder Meeting – Problem trees



Pag

e14

0

October 24. Soufrière: Stakeholder Meeting

October 24. Soufrière: Stakeholder Meeting



Pag

e14

1

October 25. Castries: Stakeholder Meeting

October 25. Castries: Stakeholder Meeting



Pag

e14

2

December 7, Verification Meeting Castries; Sarita Williams- Peter Acting Deputy CFO opening the meeting

December 7, Verification Meeting Castries; The consultant making the presentation of the NFP



Pag

e14

3

December 7, Verification Meeting Castries: Some of the Participants



Pag

e14

4

ANNEX 6: INCEPTION REPORT

6.1 BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2012, TRAGSA signed a contract to complete the project “Support to Formulate a Fisheries Policy for Santa Lucia”. The contracting authority for the project is the ACP FISH II Coordination Unit; the beneficiary is the Department of Fisheries (DoF) within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Production, Fisheries and Rural Development (MAFPFRD).

The overall objective of the ACP Fish II Programme is to contribute to the sustainable and equitable management of fisheries in ACP regions, thus leading to poverty alleviation and improving food security in ACP States. The purpose of this contract is to strengthen the capacity of the Fisheries Administration of Saint Lucia to manage and develop their fisheries through the elaboration of a national fisheries policy.

As defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR), three specific results are required of the project:


Validation workshop organized and report prepared;


The ToR identifies 14 tasks, with the consultant completing the initial 9 during a first phase and the remainder in a second phase. In planning project inputs, the timing of the two phases has allowed for a period for DoF to thoroughly review the draft Plan (Policy and Strategy).

The consultant is Ian Scott is Key expert (KE) 1. He arrived in St Lucia to commence work on Sunday, October14.

The emphasis in the initial week of the project was on: (i) meeting with the technical team; (ii) discussing various aspects of the ToR, including potential visibility activities; (iii) outlining the work programme; (iv) drafting the methodology for the workshops; (v) field visit covering the primary, secondary and tertiary landing sites in St Lucia (apart from the north-east where there is poor access to small fishery communities); (vi) background reading and the collection of information including the identification of gaps; (vii) discussing the project budget; (viii) brief institutional assessment; and (ix) preparing the Inception Report. Further inputs until the provisional final date for the consultants’ input (December 12, 2012) have been sequenced to allow for an orderly and planned approach to project completion.

In the first week DoF has fully supported the consultant, providing information, arranging meetings and facilitating logistical support (an office with internet connection and transport for the field visit).

6.2 COMMENTS ON TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. The ToR refers to the fishery sector which includes aquaculture. 2. Section 1.4 of the ToR notes that the need for a Fisheries Policy and accompanying strategic action plan, with

phase 2 of the project allowing for revision of the Fisheries Policy and the preparation of the action plan. The consultant interprets “action” plan as an operational plan for implementation of the strategy. This will have to be realistic in terms of assessing the resources available. On that basis, the consultant proposes that in place of a Fisheries Policy, the output is a National Fisheries Plan that consists of three elements: (i) National Fisheries Policy (NFP): vision, primary objectives and secondary objectives; (ii) the National Fisheries & Aquaculture Strategy (NFAS): the strategic approach to meeting the NFP objectives in the period 2013 - 23; and (iii) a National Fisheries Plan of Action (NFPA): implementation of the strategy in the first 5 year period (2013 – 18), with the prioritisation of activities, the identification of different policy axes, and the allocation of available resources



Pag

e14

5

(funding and manpower), together with the need for annual monitoring, sources of verification and needs in terms of annual monitoring.

3. The basis of a National Fisheries Plan is a comprehensive baseline study that assesses the current situation in the context of a vision for the sector in e.g. 5, 10 and 15 years. Insufficient time has been allocated to complete a rigorous baseline study; any analysis will be based on readily available information.

4. The potential to implement the Strategy will to a large extent be dependent on institutional capacity. Time is not available to undertake a rigorous analysis of DoF, rather there will be a description of the organisation and budget, with comments on the need for institutional strengthening based on comments made by DoF officials and stakeholders.

5. The ToR notes that “there is a need to re-visit, and possibly integrate, the existing Strategic Plan of the Department of Fisheries, the Fisheries Management Plan, other sector-related policies in parallel with conducting a new round of consultations with stakeholders”. Initial indications from DoF were that an expected output of the present consultancy would be an up-date of the FMP. While the current FMP will be assessed and it is highly likely that the need for an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan will be identified as a priority in the NFAS and NFAPA, it is beyond the scope of this consultancy to draft the required document. However, it appears clear that DoF will require technical assistance to complete this work, and it is recommended that it applies to ACP II for aid (a further 30 day consultancy).

6. The Incidental Expenditure (IE) budget is EUR7,888. This includes an amount for the visibility budget (Section 4.2.2 notes that projects should follow the EU requirements and guidelines for communication and visibility). The ACP II project manager advised the consultant that €500 was available for such activities. In addition, other expenses are budgeted at €2,300 Euro and include Consultation WSs (venue), Validation WS participants (venue), WS materials, printing, Visibility, communication, Press Release etc. The remainder (€5,088) is available for items such as FA travelling with KE, consultation workshop etc. An estimate of the required budget (see below) is €5,902; which would leave a €2,886 under spend. Following the stakeholder workshops (week 21 – 27 October) there will be a better idea of actual expenditure. However, at this stage, permission is requested to increase the spend on visibility beyond the currently allocated amount to make full use of the amount available.

6.3 THE EXISTING SITUATION

The existing situation in the fisheries sector of St Lucia is described in the ToR and the consultant has not had the opportunity to add to that in relation to marine capture fisheries. However, as noted above the ToR does not consider fish farming. Details provided by DoF indicate that in 2011 5,635 lbs of freshwater shrimp (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) and 2,200 lbs of tilapia were produced in 11.6 ha. and that technical assistance is being provided by the Government of Taiwan. In addition, there is marine production of sea moss (Eucheuma isiforme) with 51 farmers.

DoF has identified a number of issues impacting on the potential to increase aquaculture production:

Water resource availability and management. (Rapid expansion of aquaculture would require the construction of large farms with multiple ponds. These farms will require large volumes of water for their operation. After hurricane Tomas most of the major rivers were heavily silted and have not been de-silted resulting in very low levels of water especially during the dry season)

Flooding of Most valleys during the rainy season. (most of the land suited for large scale aquaculture development is situated in the major valleys on the island. These valleys have become prone to flooding after the passage of Tomas. People are reluctant to build ponds in these areas.)

Lack of government incentives. (the initial investment in pond construction is high and inputs such as feed and stock are costly consequently more incentives should be to encourage the establishment of bigger farms)

Absence of a farmers’ association (preliminary meetings have been held with farmers representatives on the formation of an association. These discussions are ongoing)



Pag

e14

6

6.4 METHODOLOGY

6.4.1 Information Collection

The basis of the policy guidance for the fisheries sector must be clearly founded on a sound analysis of the present and expected future situation. The consultant is gathering reports and other information and this is being supplemented by meetings with key personnel in DoF, other Government institutions and stakeholders. Such meetings are used to identify key issues that will be for special consideration by the consultant. Given the time available, the information on the current situation will largely be a synthesis of existing material, with the most important output being the analysis of that information.

6.4.2 Workshop Methodology

The three proposed stakeholder workshops will be based on the participatory approach. The agenda for each will be:

1. Welcome and thanks for attending.

2. Presentation of the moderator and the technical team.

3. Explanation of the ACP II project and the St Lucia component

4. Explanation of the approach to the St Lucia work; the approach and its importance.

5. Explain the approach to the workshop

6. Ask the participants to split into a number of groups (of 5 to 7 persons).

7. The output from each group is used to identify the major problems in the fishing sector and the fishing

communities. Each group should select a group leader. Each person should identify 5 problems.

8. The group leader then takes all the cards for discussion and eliminates duplicates and rewords cards as required.

There are a maximum of 10 cards per group.

9. The participants reconvene; the moderator takes all the cards and works through them with the participants to

classify each card by policy issue (to be identified).

10. There is an open debate on the identified problems.

It will be important to manage the expectations of the participants to ensure that they understand the expected outputs of the project and the subsequent actions and that the work the beginning of a process to guide the implementation of DoF policy in the medium term, with the potential for implementation to a large extent on the resources available.

A brief report will be prepared on the findings of the workshops. These findings will be explicitly covered in the Policy and Strategy documents.

6.4.3 Stakeholder Report

It is proposed that the draft report will be sent for the consideration of DoF on October 29th, 2012. It will cover the findings of the 3 stakeholder workshops and the informal conversations with stakeholders during field work.

6.4.4 The National Fisheries Plan

The draft plan consisting Policy and Strategy will be sent to DoF by November 12th. Prior to the consultant’s departure on November 4th there will be a meeting with the technical team to outline findings.

On the basis of comments received, the document will be revised in the first two days of the second site visit that is scheduled from November 26th 2012.



Pag

e14

7

The expectation is to draft a single document consisting Policy, Strategy and Action Plan with a content not exceeding 30 pages. Supporting material and analysis will be contained in the appendices.

Inter alia, the analysis of the situation with perspectives for the future will cover: training needs; the level of attainment of relevant standards; investments: past trends and future perspectives; and important constraints and areas for strategic consideration. This will be supported by two analyses – PESTELI (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Ecological, Legislative and Industrial) and SWOT (Internalities (Strengths and Weaknesses) and Externalities (Opportunities and Threats). It is important to highlight that the strategy to be drafted will be based on real possibilities for implementation including the availability of resources (human and financial). Proposals for the Plan of Action will have to be SMART i.e. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-based.

6.4.5 The Verification Meeting

It is proposed to hold the verification meeting on Wednesday, 5th December. As required by the ToR, the Consultant will provide all necessary information in press-release style (“information note”) on the project objectives and results, the activities to undertake, the main axes or strategic goals proposed and the future role of the beneficiaries. DoF will receive the information note at least 3 days before the workshop. The consultants will maintain the Project Manager informed of the preparations for the visibility meeting.

6.4.6 Visibility Strategy

The visibility strategy will mainly focus on the verification meeting, with the material to be provided and other elements defined once the available budget is confirmed. In the stakeholder workshops, visibility will consist of the projection of a banner style power point slide and stickers on workshop folders with the project name and associated logos. The project will be mentioned in all the pre-workshop publicity and in press releases that will be prepared by the consultant to report on findings.

6.5 SET UP AND MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL TEAM

The DoF technical team is Sarita Williams Head Resource Management Team, Seon Ferrari Fisheries Officer, Shanna Emmanuel, Alina Joseph Fisheries Biologist, Patricia Hubert Medar, Data Management and Leroy Ambois, Aquaculture / Mariculture. The first meeting was held with the consultant on October 17.

The technical team has been / will be consulted individually. Some will participate in the stakeholder workshops. All team members will revise the draft reports and participate in the validation meeting.

6.6 PROPOSED WORK PLAN

The following outline schedule is proposed.

Phase 1

o 15 October: Project start

o 17 October: Department of Fisheries Workshop (Meeting technical team 1)

o 17 October: The Visibility Strategy

o 18 October: Site visit to review current situation in the sector

o 19 October: Preparation, Submission of Inception Report

o 22 October: Meeting technical team 2 Discussion of Inception Report

o 22 – 26 October: Meetings other public sector bodies / international agencies (as time allows)

o 23 October: Stakeholder workshop – Vieux Fort. Venue: DOF VFt Conference Room, Start time: 15.00

[Stakeholders: VFt, Micoud & Laborie]



Pag

e14

8

o 24 October: Stakeholder workshop – Soufriere. Venue: Soufriere Fish Landing Facility. Start time: 14.00

[Stakeholders: Soufriere, Canaries & Choiseul]

o 25 October: Stakeholder workshop – Castries. Venue: Castries DOF. Start time: 10.00 [Stakeholders:Castries,

Gros Islet, Anse la Raye & Dennery]

o 26 October: Preparation of brief report on stakeholder issues

o 29 October: Discussion on stakeholder issues (Meeting technical team 3)

o 27 October – 9 November: Report preparation

o 2 November: Discussion of main findings (Meeting technical team 4)

o 4 November: Consultant departs St Lucia.

o 12 November: Submission of Report: National Fisheries Plan: Policy & Strategy

Phase 2

o 25 November: Consultant arrives St Lucia.

o 26 November: Department of Fisheries Workshop: Discussion of Draft Report & Action Plan (National

Operational Plan) (Meeting technical team 6)

o 27 November: Revision & submission of Final Plan (Policy & Strategy)

o 28 November – 1 December: Preparation of Action Plan

o 4 December – Discussion of Draft Action Plan (Meeting technical team 7)

o 5 December: Verification workshop – Castries

o 8 December: Submission of Draft Final Technical Report & Draft Final Report (Meeting technical team 8)

o 9 December: Consultant Departs St Lucia

o > 9 December: Review of the Draft Final Technical Report & Draft Final Report

6.7 RESULTS OF INITIAL DOCUMENT REVIEW, CONSULTATIONS AND TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS

There are a substantial number of documents to review and given the programme meeting schedule and the need to prepare budgets, templates etc. the time available prior to drafting of this inception report has been limited. Similarly, it would be precipitate to comment on training needs.

Activities in the first 5 working days are detailed below.

October

14 S Consultant arrives St Lucia

15 M 10.00 Meeting with Seon Ferrari 12.00 – 16.00 Internet Search; Background reading

16 T 09.00 – 14.00 Preparation of presentation for DoF workshop

17 W 08.30 – 10.00 Report reading 10.00 – 13.00 First meeting technical team 16.00 – 16.30 Leroy Ambois, Mariculture

18 T 08.00 – 17.00 Visit to fish landing sites Rodney Bay, Gros Islet, Castries, Marisule, Anse la Raye, Canaries, Soufriere, Chioseul, Vieux Fort, Mankote, Micoud, Praslin, Dennery 19.00 – 20.00 Peter Murray OECS

19 F 11.00 Patricia Hubert Medar 15.00 Verl James Administration Preparation of the Inception report.



Pag

e14

9

6.8 KEY ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED / RESOLVED

At this stage no key issues have been identified.

6.9 FINANCIAL STATEMENT

The estimated budget for Incidental Expenditure is provided below.

Purpose Amount €

Visibility. The project manager has advised that a budget of €500 has been allowed for visibility activities.

500

KE in-country subsistence. Any travel (currently estimated at a maximum of travel on four individual days) by the KE outside the normal place of posting, will not require an overnight stay and will be less than 100 km from base and do covered by the contract price).

0

KE travel. DoF personnel are using their own vehicles and the project is paying the DoF rate of EC1.23 / mile (€0.41). Estimated total mileage is 600.

246

Workshops. The workshops will take place at the DoF or Community meeting rooms and there will be no charge. Refreshments will be provided at an estimated cost of €12 per person. While the number of participants is currently uncertain it would seem appropriate to consider a total for the 4 workshops of 150 i.e. €1,800. A budget of €750 is allowed for workshop material (cards, pens, felt tips, drawing pins etc). A budget of €500 is allowed for media activities.

3,050

Local stakeholders will not have a cost of attending the three workshops. A total of 60 “lump sums” of € to facilitate attendance at the verification workshop and the meals of DoF officials accompanying the consultant on site visits including stakeholder workshops outside Castries. .

1,856

DoF Staff. The cost of the DoF attending the workshops and other consultations is included above. Where a DoF staff member accompanies the KE on a field visit s/he is paid 10 % of the per diem to cover meals etc. No request will be made to CU for approval of this expenditure; signed receipts will be provided for each payment.

0

Report Printing. The cost of producing up to three extra copies of the Final Technical Report, to be presented to the Department of Fisheries, upon formal request from local authorities.

250

TOTAL 5,902

6.10 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations are: (i) there should be consideration of a further consultancy to support DoF to prepare an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan; (ii) the visibility budget should be increased to the amount available in making use of the full allocated budget; (iii) for the draft policy and strategy to be completed by November 12; (iv) the second phase to start on November 26 with review of the draft document with the technical team; (vi) for the validation workshop to be on December 5; (v) for the draft final report to be available on December 7; (vi) for all project activities to be completed by 31 January 2012.



Pag

e15

0

ANNEX 7: TERMS OF REFERENCE

7.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

7.1.1 Beneficiary country

The direct beneficiary country for the implementation of this contract is Saint Lucia.

7.1.2 Contracting Authority

ACP FISH II Coordination Unit

36/21 Av. de Tervuren

5th Floor

Brussels 1040, Belgium

Tel.: +32 (0)2.7390060

Fax: +32 (0)2.7390068

7.1.3 Relevant country background

Saint Lucia is a small island developing state located in Windward islands, south of Martinique and north of St. Vincent in the Caribbean Sea. The island's total land area is 616 square kilometers. The topography of Saint Lucia is diverse with the highest peak Mt. Gimie reaching almost 1000m above sea level and rain forest covering much of the interior. Agricultural land is mostly available in the valleys and along the 158 km coastline. The developing state has a population of around 174,000 (UN, 2010) and manages a growth rate of around 0.3% per year in recent years. Due to its location in the hurricane belt and also in an active volcanic region, Saint Lucia is vulnerable to natural hazards such as tropical storms, hurricanes, floods, landslides and earthquakes. Damaging natural events occur frequently and may have a heavy impact on the small scale farmers and fishers which has, in turn, a significant knock-on effect on household food security. Tourism is the country’s biggest employer and main source of foreign exchange but this is also subject to external shocks and leaves the island vulnerable to forces outside of its control.

Saint Lucia has a narrow coastal shelf area of 522 km2 and a total Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) of 4,700 km2. The western coast is characterized by a narrow, steep, insular shelf in contrast to the eastern coast, which has a fairly extensive, less steep, insular shelf. The southern coast has a wider shelf area extending southwards. Similar to other islands of the Lesser Antilles, two water bodies wash its shores, the Atlantic Ocean on the east and the Caribbean Sea on the west. Two important fishing banks with a total shelf area of 14 km2 are located a few miles south and northeast within the 200-m depth contour.

Saint Lucia is classed as an upper middle income country (World Bank, 2011). The island nation is ranked 83 out of 187 in the 2011 UNDP HDI listing with an index of 0.723 being below the average 0.741 for countries in the high human development group and below the average of 0.731 for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is also recognized as a small vulnerable state, ranking 10 on the World Bank’s Relative Vulnerability list. GDP per capita is around 12,900 USD (est. 2011 CIA fact book) with a real growth noted around 2% per annum. The public debt-to-GDP ratio is about 77% (Eastern Caribbean Central Bank 2011 data).

The most productive economic sectors in terms of their contribution to national GDP comprise transport and communication (17.8%), hotel and restaurants (16.7%), real estate (13.5%), and wholesale and retail trade (9.2%). The fisheries sector, though not a top contributor to the GDP, contributed at least 6.06 EC$ million (at constant prices) which accounted for 0.73% of the total GDP.



Pag

e15

1

7.1.4 Current state of affairs in the relevant sector

The fisheries sector in Saint Lucia is artisanal in nature. In 2010 there were 2,319 registered fishers (62% full-time) and approximately 120 fish vendors and processors. Saint Lucia has a limited continental shelf, hence, catch composition is mainly migratory pelagic species, comprising over 65% of total annual landings. The main species are tuna (35%), dolphin fish (14%), wahoo (12%), flying fish (5%), conch (3%), snapper (2%), lobster and shark (1% each). Much of the coastal pelagic fishery (jacks, ballyhoo) is conducted on the West Coast using beach seines and gillnets. Other common fishing gears are fish traps (finfish and lobster), spear gun and hand line. The catch is landed by approximately 690 fiberglass pirogues and wooden canoes powered by outboard motors (40-115 hp). Fish is landed at 17 fish landing sites, producing 1,799.6 MT of fish in 2010.

The Fisheries Department within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Production, Fisheries and Rural Development is the lead governmental agency responsible for fisheries development and management. The Government is committed to the conservation and sustainable use of its fisheries resources for the long-term benefit of the people of Saint Lucia.

The Mission of the Fisheries Department is to promote self-sufficiency through increased production of Marine and Aquaculture products, and to develop the fishing industry and implement measures to ensure its sustainability. Activities will include: modernization of the fisheries infrastructure and fishing vessels; the use of improved fishing gear and methods; regulation of fishing gear; protection of marine biodiversity; regulation of other marine based activities so as to mitigate negative impacts on the fishery sector and ensure the overall educational advancement of fishers; development of appropriate fresh water marine aquaculture programs.

Management and development of the fisheries sector is guided by a number of policies and programmes which have been put in place over the years. The main documents are two important pieces of legislation which are based on the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) harmonized legislation, the Fisheries Act, No. 10 of 1984 and the Fisheries Regulations SI No. 9 of 1994. These instruments address fisheries access agreements, local and foreign fishing licensing, fish processing establishments, fisheries research, prohibited fishing gears and methods, marine reserves and fishing priority areas, fisheries enforcement, and restrictions for certain utilized resources. Additionally, there is the Strategic Plan1 for the Department of Fisheries (2008) and a somewhat outdated resource-based national Fisheries Management Plan (2006)2. The latter is formatted along the lines of a template that was devised through a regional CARICOM fisheries project.

Although there are these legal instruments in place, Saint Lucia still experiences a number of challenges in the formulation and implementation of fisheries policies, development, and management strategies. Due mainly to inadequate institutional capacity and resources to support effective stakeholder participation; insufficient data, manpower, and scientific and technical resources to sustain resource management; limited MCS capabilities makes it difficult for OECS countries to combat IUU fishing; and inadequate policy framework, that needs to be rooted in a participatory approach and able to respond to anticipated impacts such as global trade liberalisation, rapid expanding water-based tourism, climate change and global economic challenges.

The ability to deal with these issues and take advantage of opportunities in the fishing sector is enhanced through the development of a fisheries policy document to guide strategic fisheries management decision-making. There is a need to re-visit, and possibly integrate, the existing Strategic Plan of the Department of Fisheries, the Fisheries Management Plan, other sector-related policies in parallel with conducting a new round of consultations with stakeholders. The results of the review of the internal framework combined with external analysis and results of the

1 “Sustainability of our Fisheries Sector” – [draft] Strategic Plan (2008–2013), Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry and Fisheries,

Government of Saint Lucia, West Indies, August 2008 2 Plan for the Management of the Fisheries of Saint Lucia. 2006



Pag

e15

2

stakeholder consultations, will build, for the first time, a comprehensive Fisheries Policy and accompanying strategic action plan for Saint Lucia. This updated and immediately relevant document will guide public and private sector agencies in the short to medium term in achieving sustainable fisheries contributing to economic development on the island.

7.1.5 Related programmes and other donor activities

Regional cooperation in managing marine and fisheries resources in Saint Lucia is promoted mainly through the OECS Economic Union and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

Saint Lucia is part of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Economic Union, which was created in 1981 with the Treaty of Basseterre. It is an inter-governmental organization dedicated to economic harmonization and integration, protection of human and legal rights, and the encouragement of good governance between countries and dependences in the Eastern Caribbean. OECS member states are also members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). A framework for sub-regional management of fisheries resources by the OECS began with the development of a harmonized fisheries law in 1982/83. Since then, through a number of efforts such as the Castries Declaration (1989), the Common Fisheries Surveillance Zones Agreements (1991), the St. George’s Declaration of principles for Environmental Sustainability in the OECS (2007), Standard Operational Procedures, and others, member states have recognized the need to act jointly to ensure proper management and conservation of the living marine resources in their EEZ1. The New OECS Treaty (2010) shows member states’, including Saint Lucia’s commitment to sustainable oceans governance programme for the sustainable management of oceans resources and the protection of the marine environment. Member states have not only agreed to nationally developing, adopting, and monitoring the implementation of comprehensive policies and strategies; they also endeavour to coordinate, harmonize, and undertake joint actions and pursue joint policies.

In March 2003, CARICOM established the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) to promote and facilitate the responsible utilization of the Region’s fisheries and other aquatic resources for the economic and social benefits of the current and future population of the region. Among the high priority programme areas of the CRFM Strategic Plan is Fisheries Resource Management and Development to improve national fishery management policies and plans with inputs from principal stakeholders. Recently, governments of the CARICOM region finalized the 2011 draft agreement establishing the Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy and the Castries (Saint Lucia) Declaration on Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and this should be used as a basis to inform development of a national policy statement for Saint Lucia.

There has been collaboration with the government of Japan in recent years, particularly in the construction of new fish landing sites and centres, training in fisheries management, fishing technology and quality assurance and fish product development. EU assistance has also facilitated advancements in Fish Aggregating Devises (FADs) as a means of reducing the cost of fishing and encouraging deep water fishing to avoid the capture of coastal fish species and juvenile pelagic fish.

In the conduct of this assignment, the consultant is expected to take into account the overarching OECS harmonized policy, the Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy, and regional and international agreements on fisheries governance, exploitation and surveillance.

7.2 OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE & EXPECTED RESULTS

1 Peter A. Murray 2004



Pag

e15

3

7.2.1 Overall objective

The overall objective of the ACP Fish II Programme is to contribute to the sustainable and equitable management of fisheries in ACP regions, thus leading to poverty alleviation and improving food security in ACP States.

7.2.2 Purpose

The purpose of this contract is to strengthen the capacity of the Fisheries Administration of Saint Lucia to manage and develop their fisheries through the elaboration of a national fisheries policy.

7.2.3 Results to be achieved by the Consultant

The Consultant will achieve the following results as part of this assignment:


Validation workshop organized and report prepared;


7.3 ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS

7.3.1 Assumptions underlying the project intervention

The need for this intervention was clearly identified in the Regional Needs Assessment workshop with fisheries administrations and representatives of Regional Fisheries Bodies carried out in Belize City, October 2009. The need for this activity was further confirmed by consultation with the Department of Fisheries. The assumption is that beneficiary states and stakeholders are well aware of the intervention and are prepared to allocate official hours to its implementation.

Since ACP FISH II is a demand-driven Programme, it is assumed that the Department of Fisheries and counterpart institutions will take all the necessary measures to ensure their fulfilment of obligations and responsibilities as set forth under this project. Failure to meet that requirement is likely to result in the project not achieving the necessary results.

7.3.2 Risks

Risks for the implementation of this contract are minimised, since the intervention was identified and endorsed in cooperation with the Department of Fisheries. However, a sudden change in Fisheries Administration and government might negatively impact the assignment implementation, limiting its impact. The participatory planning approach adopted in the development of this intervention will continue through implementation to ensure that risks of overlap and lack of co-ordination with other initiatives of governments and RFBs will be minimised. Likewise, the chosen methodology is consistent with the Department of Fisheries and regional on-going approach. There is also the risk of unpredictable weather conditions or natural disasters that might affect the completion of this task in a timely fashion.

7.4 SCOPE OF THE WORK

7.4.1 General

Project description

This assignment will support the Department of Fisheries and stakeholders of Saint Lucia to prepare a Fisheries Policy and action plan to guide the future management and development of the fisheries and aquaculture sector. The approach to the development and the actual content of the policy document should be consistent with international best practice of policy processes, as stipulated in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF)



Pag

e15

4

from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and takes into consideration an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF). In a rapidly changing external environment the policy guidance for the fisheries sector must be clearly founded and based on a sound analysis of the present and expected future situation.

The proposed Phase 1 of the assignment will involve the collection, review, and analysis of all relevant national, regional, and international documentation for this assignment. Attention should be paid to the base documents (Fisheries Management Plan1 and Strategic Plan2) which will lay the documentary foundation for preparing the policy document. The Policy document should take into account:

a) national fisheries sector governance regime; b) cross-sectoral policies / issues on the marine ecosystem should be considered such as national non-fisheries

(external) institutional environment (e.g. environmental protection, forest, agriculture, wildlife protection, national parks, coastal zone management, pollution control, agriculture, tourism, seafood health, trade, coast guard, customs, mines and minerals);

c) existing international legal and policy framework for fisheries policy and management (UNCLOS, FAO Compliance agreement, UN Fish Stock Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity, CITES, the Convention on the Migratory Species of Wild Animals, RAMSAR);

d) existing obligations through regional fisheries bodies to which these countries are either party or a cooperating non-contracting party;

e) existing regional legal / policy frameworks and Agreements governing fisheries and economic development and trade (e.g., CARICOM instruments, the CRFM and the OECS Economic Union, St. George’s Declaration, Draft Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy, and the Castries Declaration on IUU fishing);

f) include non-binding instruments such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the UN General Assembly resolutions addressing fishing issues, and others; and

g) Issues such as IUU fishing and MCS and the improvement of standards for national regional and international trade in fish and fish products.

This phase will also involve the establishment of the Technical Team created under the guidance of the Chief Fisheries Officer of the Department of Fisheries. The exact composition of this group will be agreed at the initial start-up briefing meeting. A critical role of the Technical Team will be the identification of existing information, assist in the identification of stakeholders to be consulted, and approve all documents before presentation at consultations meetings (including the final draft document).

The project activities should be implemented following a capacity-building approach at all stages aiming to build the capacity of the DoF staff in policy processes. The consultant will develop a working methodology for the participation of staff in all steps of the process of formulation and validation of the Fisheries Policy. Following this methodology, technical information on the principles and methods used in the process of formulation and validation of a policy document will be provided and shared with relevant officers. The preparation of the policy document will require effective consultations with a range of stakeholder groups and it is these interactions which will ensure that the policy is up-to-date and contains the issues of importance at present and into the future for the stakeholders themselves. There will be a series of consultations with key stakeholders: 3

1 Fisheries Management Plan for the fisheries of Saint Lucia, (September, 2006) 2 “Sustainability of our Fisheries Sector” – [draft] Strategic Plan (2008–2013), Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry and Fisheries,

Government of Saint Lucia, West Indies, August 2008



Pag

e15

5

consultation meetings (each of 1 day) will be held in Castries, Vieux Fort, and Soufrière an effort to reach key stakeholder groups during this phase.

The Department of Fisheries will provide logistical support (sending invitation letters, distribution of documents, arrange meetings, etc.), where necessary, to the KE during this project. Approval will be required for fisheries staff to be funded by the ACP Fish II Programme to join the KE in all consultation meetings or field visits as part of this assignment. Other Fisheries staff may join the KE in meetings and field visits at the expense of the respective Governments.

In completing this assignment the KE will collaborate with Regional Fisheries Bodies with regional and sub-regional responsibility in supporting national administrations in developing national fisheries policy. These bodies will be able to provide inputs in the revision of the national policy. Also, it is important to liaise with national agencies responsible for national and agriculture policies. The draft Fisheries Policy will be available at the close of Phase 1.

During the second phase, the KE will collaborate with the Technical Team to draft the associated Action Plan. At a National Validation Meeting, organized in collaboration with the FD, the draft policy will be presented to stakeholders and the Fisheries Administration. This is an opportunity for the participants to propose modifications to the proposed draft Fisheries Policy.

Technical Assistance will be provided through a Senior Fisheries Policy Specialist. Although there are no formal training activities as part of this assignment, the KE will be expected to use the opportunities while working with the Technical Team to build capacity in developing fisheries policy.

The final output from the Consultant will be a draft Fisheries Policy which the Department of Fisheries may refine before submission to the authorities for approval. All copies of presentations and any other media used in consultations and workshops held as part of the work will be provided to the RFU and Technical Team and be deemed as property of the project and the agencies involved.

Geographical area to be covered

The project will cover Saint Lucia

Target groups

Target group for this project is the Department of Fisheries

7.4.2 Specific activities

Specific activities

The assignment may be completed in 2 phases and the Consultant should propose the timing of the phases. The Consultant will undertake the following activities: Phase 1 1. Briefing meeting with the ACP Fish II RFU and officials from the Department of Fisheries including the Focal Point regarding the implementation of the TOR and agree on a detailed work plan; 2. In consultation with the Department of Fisheries hold first meeting with the project Technical Team (to be appointed by the Department of Fisheries). The technical team is directly responsible for the coordination of the project and will meet regularly as required; 3. Identify, collect and review current fisheries and marine environmental regulatory and policy framework documents; 4. Convene meeting with relevant agencies, e.g. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Policy and Planning, fishermen organizations/cooperatives, key stakeholders to introduce the project and visit main fish landing sites (as identified by the Technical Team);

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CE0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSoufri%25C3%25A8re%2C_Saint_Lucia&ei=28kZT_HQLpSCtgfl0cWiCw&usg=AFQjCNHOSOfzrceGhEQwp03vDKhqgM_8zw



Pag

e15

6

5. Consult and collaborate with the CRFM Secretariat and the OECS Secretariat during the execution of this consultancy for assessing key documents and ensuring a holistic and integrated approach to fisheries management planning in the region; 6. Based on documents collected in Activity (3) above and consultation with different agencies and stakeholders (Activity 4-5 above), conduct an analysis of the current situation to identify gaps, deficiencies and opportunities in the policy and regulatory framework. Consider relevant local, national, regional and international environmental, social and economic trends, impacts and issues that may have direct or indirect impacts on Saint Lucia’s fisheries or marine resources; 7. With the assistance of the Technical Team, facilitate, organize and make all logistical arrangements for three (3) facilitated stakeholder consultations in Saint Lucia (each 1 day, indicative number of participants in each meeting is 20). The meetings will be held in Castries, Vieux Fort, and Soufrière communities (or as specified by the Technical Team); 8. The Technical Team will be responsible for identifying and inviting the key stakeholders and assisting with logistical arrangements. The consultant will travel (hire vehicle/other) to these consultation meetings and may be accompanied by two officers from the Department of Fisheries; 9. Proceed with drafting of the fisheries policy for review by the Technical Team and later presentation at the national validation meeting; Phase 2 10. Meet with the Technical Team to review the revised Fisheries Policy and develop the Action plan; 11. With the support of the Technical Team organize, facilitate and make all logistical arrangements (transportation for participants as necessary, venue, food) for one National Validation Meeting in Castries to present the draft policy document for discussion (1 day, indicative number of participants is 40). The Technical Team will assist in identifying the venue, inviting key stakeholders, and assisting with the logistics; 12. Prepare the Validation Meeting report reflecting the inputs of participants and final recommendations, for distribution to all participants; 13. Finalize the draft text of the Fisheries Policy and action plan taking into account the comments and recommendations from the meetings; 14. Present final Fisheries Policy document to the Chief Fisheries Officer and the Technical Team.

Communication and project visibility a) ACP FISH II projects should follow the EU requirements and guidelines for communication and visibility

available on the Programme website at http://acpfish2-eu.org/index.php?page=templates&hl=en. The CU will provide ACP FISH II templates for various communication products.

b) Given the important communication potential of the National Validation Workshop for disseminating the results and activities of the Project and ACP FISH II Programme, the following activities will be requested:

1) The Consultant will provide all necessary information in press-release style (“Information Note”) on the

project objectives and results, activities to undertake, the main axes or strategic goals proposed and the

future role of the beneficiaries.

2) The Department of Fisheries will receive the Information Note at least 3 days before the National

Validation Workshop, through their Government communication/press bodies or officials, in order to

mobilise local media and to assure full coverage of the event. Financial support to media coverage is

included in the “Incidental Expenditure”. Receipt(s) of the incurred cost for media coverage will be

required to verify the costs incurred.

c) The Consultant will provide photographic record of the workshop activities.

https://exchange.acpfish2-eu.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://acpfish2-eu.org/index.php?page=templates%26hl=en



Pag

e15

7

7.4.3 Project management

Responsible body

The Coordination Unit (CU) of the ACP Fish II Programme, based in Brussels, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat is responsible for managing the implementation of this assignment.

Management structure

The ACP Fish II Programme is implemented through the CU in Brussels and six Regional Facilitation Units (RFUs) across the ACP States. The RFU in Belize City, Belize covering ACP Member States in the Caribbean will closely supervise the implementation of this intervention and equally monitor its execution pursuant to these Terms of Reference. For the purposes of this assignment, the ACP Fish II Programme Coordinator will act as the Project Manager.

Within the Beneficiary country, the Technical Team will supervise the implementation of the assignment and monitor activities in-country.

All contractual communications including requests for contract modifications or changes to the Terms of Reference during the execution period of the contract must be addressed with a formal request to the CU and copied to the RFU. Beneficiaries’ support for these changes is required.

Facilities to be provided by the Contracting Authority and/or other parties

Not applicable.

7.5 LOGISTICS AND TIMING

7.5.1 Location

The place of posting will be Castries, Saint Lucia. Missions and field visits (if foreseen) in the country will be carried out according to the approved timeline and work plan presented by the Consultant.

7.5.2 Commencement date & Period of implementation

The intended commencement date of this assignment is 3 September 2012 and the period of implementation of field activities will be 4 months from the date of signature of the contract. Please refer to Articles 4 and 5 of the Special Conditions for the actual commencement date and period of implementation.

7.6 REQUIREMENTS

7.6.1 Personnel

Key experts

All experts who have a crucial role in implementing this assignment are referred to as key experts. Their profiles are described as follows:

Key expert 1: Fisheries Policy Specialist

Qualifications and skills

Post-graduate degree, or equivalent, in fisheries management, economics, maritime law or a field directly related to the assignment;

High level of proficiency in spoken and written English and (basic competency in Kweyol would be an advantage);

Proven skills as a Team Leader.



Pag

e15

8

General professional experience

Minimum of 10 years experience in fisheries policy and management with particular expertise in fisheries policy development

Proven report-writing, communication and project management skills

Specific professional experience

Experience in drafting fisheries policy or strategic planning documents (minimum 5 assignments);

Experience in participatory methodologies and consultative processes as part of fisheries policy development (minimum 3 assignments);

Related experience in the Caribbean region is required and specific experience with CARICOM and OECS or in St Lucia will be considered an advantage;

Experience in carrying out consultancy assignments for the EU or other equivalent international development organisations (minimum 3 assignments).

The indicative number of missions outside the normal place of posting requiring overnights for this expert is 2. There will be in-country field visits outside the normal place of posting not requiring overnights for this expert (if the case).

Indicative number of working days by expert and task

No. Indicative Task Key Expert 1 (Days)

Phase 1

1 Briefing and debriefing with DoF 1

2 Review current fisheries regulatory and policy framework 3

3 Consultation with government agencies and stakeholders 4

4 Conduct 3 facilitated stakeholder meetings 5

4 Preparation of Draft Fisheries Policy and action plan 6

Phase 2

5 Prepare Action Plan 4

6 Prepare for and facilitate 1-day national validation meeting

2

7 Finalize fisheries policy document 3

8 Preparation of Technical reports 2

Total 30

Additional information

a) Key Experts are expected to spend at least 80% of the total indicative number of working days in the country; b) Note that civil servants and other staff of the public administration of the beneficiary country cannot be recruited

as experts, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the European Commission; c) The Consultant must complete a timesheet using the ACP Fish II template provided by the CU at the start of the

implementation period. The Consultant is entitled to work a maximum of 6 days per week. Mobilisation and demobilisation days will not be considered as working days. Only in case of travel for mobilisation longer than 24 hours, the additional days spent for mobilisation will be considered as working days.

Other experts

No other experts will be recruited under this assignment.



Pag

e15

9

Support staff & backstopping

Backstopping costs are considered to be included in the fee rates of the experts.

7.6.2 Office accommodation

Office accommodation of a reasonable standard and of approximately 10 square metres for each expert working on the assignment is to be provided by the beneficiary country.

7.6.3 Facilities to be provided by the Consultant

The Consultant shall ensure that experts are adequately supported and equipped. In particular it shall ensure that there is sufficient administrative, secretarial and interpreting provision to enable experts to concentrate on their primary responsibilities. It must also transfer funds as necessary to support its activities under the assignment and to ensure that its employees are paid regularly and in a timely fashion.

If the Consultant is a consortium, the arrangements should allow for the maximum flexibility in project implementation. Arrangements offering each consortium member a fixed percentage of the work to be undertaken under the contract should be avoided.

7.6.4 Equipment

No equipment is to be purchased on behalf of the Contracting Authority or beneficiary country as part of this service contract or transferred to the Contracting Authority or beneficiary country at the end of the contract. Any equipment related to this contract which is to be acquired by the beneficiary country must be purchased by means of a separate supply tender procedure.

7.6.5 Incidental expenditure

The Provision for incidental expenditure covers the ancillary and exceptional eligible expenditure incurred under this contract. It cannot be used for costs which should be covered by the Consultant as part of its fee rates, as specified above. Its use is governed by the provisions in the General Conditions and the notes in Annex V of the contract. It may cover:

a) KEY EXPERTS

Travel costs and daily subsistence allowances (per diems) for missions for Key Experts, outside the normal place of posting, to be undertaken as part of this contract. If applicable, indicate if the provision includes costs for environmental measures, for example CO2 offsetting.

Travel costs for field visits for the Key Experts (car or boat rental, fuel and domestic flights or other appropriate means of transport).

Any subsistence allowances to be paid for missions undertaken as part of this contract must not exceed the per diem rates published on the European Union (EU) website at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/per_diems/index_en.htm

b) WORKSHOP/TRAINING/CONSULTATIONS ORGANISATION

The cost of organisation of the Stakeholder Consultations and National Validation Workshops, including cost for venue, communication and media activities, transport (domestic travel or car or boat rental to/from);

The payment of a lump-sum to participants requiring an overnight stay to cover accommodation and meals. This lump-sum payment will be up to 175 EUR and must not exceed the published EU per diem rate for the country;

The payment of a lump sum, up to 10% of the published EU per diem rate for the country, to all participants not requiring an overnight stay, to cover the cost of transport and meals;



Pag

e16

0

In the two cases above, an attendance list signed by each participant and a separate list stating that the lump-sum was received (with an indication of the amount) shall be used to justify the expenditure.

c) FUNDING OF NATIONAL/REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION OFFICERS ACCOMPANYING KEY EXPERTS ON MISSIONS.

Exceptionally, the cost of flights, accommodation and meals for the representatives of fisheries administrations or regional fisheries bodies accompanying the Key Experts on regional or national missions or in-country field visits, under the following conditions:

i) Request of a prior approval to the CU, attaching to this request the declaration issued by local fisheries administrations stating that the cost of this extra activity for their officers cannot be covered given the internal budget restrictions. The administration should acknowledge, despite this, the need of the attendance of its officer for an effective project implementation.

ii) The total cost for accommodation and meals based on actual cost (invoices to be provided) cannot exceed the EU per diem rate for the country.

iii) If private or administration’s means of transport are used by the representatives of fisheries administrations or regional fisheries bodies accompanying the Key Experts on regional or national missions, fuel cost will be reimbursed upon receipt of the officer’s reimbursement request based on distance travelled and local price for fuel per unit. In case of field visits, not requiring overnights, the same procedures apply for meal and transport costs.

d) TRANSLATION

Not required

e) OTHER

The cost of producing communication items (banner, flyer, posters), and other technical documents outside normal editing formats to be used in consultations and workshops

The cost of producing up to three extra copies of the Final Technical Report, to be presented to the Department of Fisheries, upon formal request from local authorities.

The Provision for incidental expenditure for this contract is EUR 7.888 This amount must be included without modification in the Budget breakdown.

7.6.6 Expenditure verification

The Provision for expenditure verification relates to the fees of the auditor who has been charged with the expenditure verification of this contract in order to proceed with the payment of further pre-financing instalments if any and/or interim payments if any.

The Provision for expenditure verification for this contract is 1.200 EUR. This amount must be included without modification in the Budget breakdown.

This provision cannot be decreased but can be increased during the execution of the contract.

7.7 REPORTS

7.7.1 Reporting requirements

Please refer to Article 26 of the General Conditions. There must be a final report, a final invoice and the financial report accompanied by an expenditure verification report at the end of the period of implementation of the tasks. The approved Final Technical Report (FTR) must be annexed to the Final Report (FR). The final report must be submitted to the CU after receiving the approval of the Final Technical Report (FTR). Note that this final report is additional to any required in Section 4.2 of these Terms of Reference.



Pag

e16

1

The Final Report (FR) shall consist of a narrative section and a financial section. The financial section must contain details of the time inputs of the experts, of the incidental expenditure and of the provision for expenditure verification.

The Consultant shall provide the following reports:

Name of report Content Time of submission

Inception Report Analysis of existing situation and plan of work for the project

No later than 5 days after the KE arriving in the place of posting. Comments, if any, on the IR must be provided by the DoF, RFU and CU within 5 days from receipt.

Draft Final Technical Report

Description of achievements, problems encountered, recommendations and technical proposals suggested by the consultant, taking into account changes and comments from the RFU, CU and the fisheries administrations or regional fisheries bodies, produced within 14 days from delivery of the DFTR.

Within 10 days after receiving comments on the Draft Final Technical report (DFTR)

Final Report Short description of achievements including problems encountered and recommendations and suggestions; together with the Final Technical Report and a final invoice and the financial report accompanied by the expenditure verification report.

After receiving the approval of the Final Technical Report (FTR).

7.7.2 Submission & approval of reports

One electronic copy of the reports referred to above must be submitted to the Project Manager identified in the contract (CU), RFU, DoF. Two hard copies of the approved Final Technical Report must be submitted to the Project Manager identified in the contract (CU), one hard copy to the RFU and two copies to the FA. The original and a hard copy of the Final Report (FR) must be submitted to the CU together with its annexes and supporting documents. All reports must be written in English. The Project Manager is responsible for approving the reports. The cost of producing such material will be included in the fees.

7.8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

7.8.1 Definition of indicators

The results to be achieved by the Consultant are included in Section 2.3 above. Progress to achieving these results will be measured through the following indicators:

i. Quality of KEs fielded (in terms of demonstrated relevant skills and experience); ii. Speed of mobilization to the beneficiary country will indicate a positive start to the assignment;

iii. Respect of project milestones and time schedule; iv. Quality of the technical outputs; v. Quality and timeliness of backstopping support from Head Office of the Consultancy Company;



Pag

e16

2

vi. Meeting of Target Group expectations.

The Consultant may suggest additional monitoring tools for the contract duration.

7.8.2 Special requirements

Not applicable.



Pag

e16

3

ANNEX 8: ITINERARY, INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED

8.1 CONSULTANT’S SCHEDULE

October


15 M 10.00 Meeting with Seon Ferrari (see minute below) 12.00 – 16.00 Internet Search; Background reading

16 T 09.00 – 14.00 Preparation of presentation for DoF workshop

17 W 08.30 – 10.00 Report reading 10.00 – 13.00 First meeting technical team 16.00 – 16.30 Leroy Ambois, Mariculture

18 T 08.00 – 17.00 Visit to fish landing sites Rodney Bay, Gros Islet, Castries, Marisule, Anse la Raye, Canaries, Soufriere, Chioseul, Vieux Fort, Mankote, Micoud, Praslin, Dennery 19.00 – 20.00 Peter Murray OECS

19 F Meeting Patricia Hubert Medar – Data Meeting Verl James Administration

20 S Report writing

21 S Rest day

22 M Meeting Mikuni Nariaki. Senior Fisheries Expert. JICA. Second meeting technical team

23 T Stakeholder workshop: Vieux Fort

24 W Stakeholder workshop: Soufrière

25 T Stakeholder workshop: Castries

26 F Report writing

27 S Report writing

28 S Rest day

29 M Report writing

30 T Second meeting technical team Meeting: Rufus George Meeting: SLFFO

31 W Report writing Meeting: SLFMC

November

1 T Report writing Meeting Sarita Williams

2 F Meeting Vaughn Serieux: Aquaculture Meeting C. d’Auvergne, Chief Sustainable Development & Environment Officer Report writing

3 S Report writing

4 S Consultant departs St Lucia


26 M 4 th meeting technical team Meeting Mikuni Nariaki. Senior Fisheries Expert. JICA.

27 T Report writing

28 W Report writing

29 T Report writing

30 F Report writing

December

1 S Report writing

2 S Rest day

3 M Report writing

4 T Preparation verification meeting

5 W Preparation verification meeting

6 T Report writing

7 F Verification meeting



Pag

e16

4

Meeting S Grant & Sarita Williams

8 S Rest day

9 S Debriefing Seon Ferrari. Consultant departs St Lucia

January

2

Report writing

3

4

5

6

13

14

14 Final drafts sent to client and beneficiary

February

14 Final Reports sent to client and beneficiary



Pag

e16

5

8.2. PARTICIPANTS STAKEHOLDER WORKHOPS

See Annex 4.

8.3. PARTICIPANTS: VALIDATION WORKSHOP

Name Position


Rita Harrison DoF

Allena Joseph DoF

Shana Emmanuel DoF

Elvis Baptiste DoF

Shepherd Joseph DoF

Hardin Pierre DoF

Leroy Amboise DoF

Sandra Grant ACP II

Jason Longville Canaries F’h

Julian Alexis Souf. F’h

Victor Haynes Souf. F’h

Frederick Solomon Canaries F’h

Anselm Weekes Souf. F’h

Petronila Poluis DoF

Alva Lynch Castries Fish Coop

Nadine Lemoine DOF CIDA

Nikita Laite DOF CIDA

Davis Poleon SL Nat Trust

Luvina St Brice Simon DoF

Nansha Medard DoF

Keisha Simeon DoF

Daniel Medar DoF

Vanessa Anthony DoF

Thomas Nelson DoF

Sarita Williams – Peter DoF

Hugh Jules Canaries

Elisa Williams DoF

Cynthia Labardie DoF

Justina Toussaint EC F&C Co-op

Shernil Louisy DoF

Christopher James Choiseul Fish Coop



Pag

e16

6

Annex 9: Public Service Announcements

Scripts

Fisheries Plan

English

Fisheries policies and plans help develop the fishing industry as they promote a healthy fisheries

environment that can support productive fisheries, recreation, employment and the continuous supply of fish

for now and the future.

For success in the fishing industry, it is important to ensure our fisheries are properly managed and

developed so that fishers have a regular income to support their families and to maintain a local supply of

fish for us all.

Let us all play our part for the success of our National Fisheries Plan. What you have to say is important to

the decisions that are made. Contact the Fisheries Department at 468-4143 and visit us on Facebook. This

message was funded by the European Union.

Kwéyol

Kondwit ek plan pour la pèch ka édé nou developé l’indostwi la pèch, paski yo ka promoté yon

l’enviwonman pèch ki ni bon senté ki ky enkowagé anshy pwéson, ek ky siporté pèch ki ka podwi plee

pwéson, pèch pou fè plési, pou anployman; ek i ka édé nou fè asiwé ki la ni ase pweson apwesan ek pou tan

ki ka vini.

Pou l’indostwi la pèch fè siksé, i enpòtan pou nou fè asiwé ki la pèch nou byen managé ek developé, pou lay

pecher kontiné fè lagan pou pwan ka fami yo; ek pou éde’ payi’a siporté ko’y épi tout pwéson nou méwité.

An nou tout twavay ansam pou fè Plan La Pèch Nasyon’an fè sikse. Sav ki, sa’w ne pou di byen enpòtan

pou say dicisyon’an ki ky fet la. Kouyé Departman La Pèch a kat sis hwit, kat yon, kat twa, ek visité nou

asou Facebook. Konmisyon sa la jwen sipot Lilyon Ewopeyen lan.

Two Primary Objectives

English

Two main objectives of the National Fisheries Plan are to ensure we are all involved in the decisions made

for the fishing industry and to better manage our fisheries resources.

Managing fisheries is about working together to develop and implement measures to improve the ability to

earn a living. The Fisheries Department uses stakeholder knowledge and experiences along with scientific

information to develop and implement fisheries management measures. These measures protect the marine



Pag

e16

7

environment as well as fish when they are breeding or have not reproduced as yet. The goal is to increase

fish populations and to ensure a continuous supply of fish.

Participate and stay informed. Contact the Fisheries Department at 468-4143 and visit us on Facebook. This

message was funded by the European Union.

Kwéyol

De objectif Plan La Pèch Nasyon’an ki byen enpòtan, sé, pou fèh asiwé ki nou tout ka participé a dan sé

dicisyon’an ki ka fet pou l’endostwi la pèch, ek pou pli byen managé wesos natiwel la pèch.

Le nou ka palé mennajé la péch, sa vlé di tout moun ka twavail ansam pou dévèlopé ek mété weg an plas,

pou bay lay pecher an pli mèyè abilité pou fè lavi yo.

Depatman la pèch ka sevi la sajès ek éspayans jan ki ni lantéwé an la pèch, ansam épi étud ki ja fet pou

dévèlopé ek enplimanté wèg pou manageman la pèch.

Sé wèg sa la ka édé nou pwotijé l’enviwonman la mer’a. Yo ka ausi pwotijé sé pwéson’an lè yo ka fè piti,

ek pwéson ki pò kò fè piti. Wéson’an say sa: nou vlay agoumanté popillasyon pwéson an lanmè’a; ek fè

asiwé ki la ni yon bon kantité pwéson kontinuelman pou nou sèvi.

Participé ek fè’e divwa’w pou konèt sa ki ka fèt. Kouyé Depatman la Pèch a kat sis hwit, kat yon, kat twa,

ek visité nou assou Facebook. Konmisyon sa la jwen sipot Lilyon Ewopeyenn lan.

FADs

English

The FAD “F - A – D” (say letters) is a Fish Aggregating Device also called bway, flag or bwa .

It is anchored in place to allow fisherfolk to easily find it without burning too much fuel. [USING LESS

GAS]

It attracts big fishes so that fisherfolk can catch more fish near it.

Catching more fish using less fuel means more money to take home after fishing.

Fisherfolk and the Dept. of Fisheries are working together to maintain FADs in the sea around Saint Lucia.

For more information about FADs please contact the Department of Fisheries at 468-4143. Also visit the

DFO web site.

This message was funded by the European Union.

Kwéyòl

An nou palé de sa yo ka kwiay FAD – ki ausi konet kòn bway, flag, ében bwa.



Pag

e16

8

FAD ni lank an plas pou le pecher jwèn li alèz sans sèvi mwens gas.

FAD ka anmènnèn go pwéson, ek i ka annékòz le pecher pou tjènbé anpil pwéson au pli pwé tere.

Si pecher ka tjènbé pli pwéson ek sèvi mwèns gas yo kai ni pli lajan pou mènnèn la kay yo. Lay pecher ek

jan Dépatmen la pèch ka twavay ansamn pou fè asiwé ki lanmè’a ni asé FAD.

Si ou biswen pli enfomasyon, kouyé Dépatmen la pèch a limewo kat sis hwit, kat yon, kat twa. Ausi visité

nou asou Facebook asou Internet la.

Konmisyon sa la jwen sipot Lilyon Ewopeyen lan.

Media Schedule

Media House Comments

RCI Radio ( Awaiting contract)

DBS TV (40 Spots- Morning News, Before evening news

& B time Spots)

CHOICE TV ( 44 spots, Before the Evening news daily, plus

bonus spot - random Thursday to Saturday )

HOT FM Radio (Creole Ads rotating- 48 Spots on Juke Bois)