ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 529–535

0964-5691/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

�CorrespoE-mail ad

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Managing the managers: improving the structureand operation of small fisheries departments,

especially in SIDS

Robin Mahon�, Patrick McConney

Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies,

Cave Hill Campus, Barbados

Abstract

Many countries, especially Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other developing

countries have small fisheries departments (SFDs). These are responsible for a substantial

proportion of the world’s fisheries. They are often modelled after large fisheries departments in

developed countries with large fisheries. A small fisheries department cannot be a small version

of a large one, it must be differently structured with relatively less emphasis on technical skills

and more on people-related skills and planning: e.g., facilitation, mediation and project

management. There is also the need for SFDs to pursue management planning, comanage-

ment and simplified, consensual approaches to fishery management. These require skills and

an emphasis on processes that are often lacking. There are several factors that contribute to

the resistance to change in this direction. Among these is the lack of the literature on fisheries

planning process and especially on planning and running a small fisheries department. This is a

key area requiring attention if these primary custodians of the world’s fisheries are to play

their part effectively.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As fisheries management evolved, it became clear that it was about managingpeople, not fish. The people in question were the fishers. This perspective then

see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ocecoaman.2004.09.001

nding author. Fax: +246424 4204.

dress: rmahon@caribsurf.com (R. Mahon).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Mahon, P. McConney / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 529–535530

broadened to include other fishery stakeholders. Now we must question whetherthese are the only groups of people in need of management. Could the managersthemselves need managing?This paper focuses on issues affecting the management of fisheries when the

fisheries departments are small,1 as is typical in most Small Island Developing States(SIDS), but also in many developing countries regardless of size. SIDS are stewardsof a large amount of ocean space relative to land space, population and economicoutput. Consequently, even if proportional in size to their populations, fisheriesdepartments of SIDS are small relative to the ocean space they must manage andto the importance of fisheries in the national economy, especially national foodsecurity [1].The fisheries management issues for SIDS have become increasingly urgent as they

struggle to cope with their commitments, binding or otherwise, to internationalfisheries agreements and programmes of action such as the FAO Code of Conductfor Responsible Fisheries, the FAO Compliance Agreement, the UN Fish StocksAgreement, IPA on IUU Fishing [2–5]. Following the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) which highlighted the need for action in fisheries and set timetargets for stock rebuilding, ecosystem-based management and implementation ofIPOAs, the urgency is even greater.

2. Problems with fisheries department structure and function in SIDS

In order to assess the likelihood that SIDS will meet WSSD fisheries targets, thereis the need to evaluate whether their Fisheries Departments are up to the task and, ifit is concluded that they are not, to determine why not? Is it simply that they areunder-funded and need to be made larger with better-trained staff? Or is it that theirsize is appropriate to the value of the resource base and/or the national economy andthat their structure and function is inappropriate to their size.It is very likely that in many cases the answer to the first question is yes. This is

often the assumption of capacity building programmes that focus on nationalgovernment departments. However, the data to determine if fisheries administrationsare under-funded relative to resource value or to other productive sectors is notreadily available, or at least has not been assembled for this purpose. This questionraises a whole host of other questions [5]. For example, what is an appropriate levelof expenditure on the management of a productive sector, and more specifically, onfisheries to ensure sustainability and optimal benefits? Unless these issues areaddressed, fisheries administrators will always claim they are very under-funded andcannot get the job done with the resources that they have. Thus, failure ispreprogrammed. It is appropriate for fisheries administrators to seek increasedresources to carry out the work of their departments, but within some time-frame,

1Small means departments with up to 10 professionals with some specialised training in one of the areas

listed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Mahon, P. McConney / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 529–535 531

there needs to be acceptance of the resources available and planning for the mostefficient use of those resources.It is towards addressing the second question, regarding the appropriateness of

structure and operation of fisheries departments in SIDS, that most attention will bedevoted in this paper. It is our view that there are often serious deficiencies in thestructure and function of small fisheries departments (SFDs) that must be addressedif SIDS are to make a timely progress towards WSSD targets.Much of the problem in the structure of SFDs is that they are modelled on large

fisheries departments in large and/or developed countries, often with largecommercial fisheries. The model is one having a range of professional capability inthe form of different persons to cover the full range of technical areas including:biology and stock assessment, economics, sociology, fishing technology, post-harvesttechnology, marketing and distribution, international relations and communitydevelopment. This model is based on the conventional approach to fisheriesmanagement with heavy dependence on stock assessment and economic modelling,requiring intensive data collection, technical analysis and top-down enforcement [7].There are at least two reasons that this model has been inherited or transplanted toSFDs: (1) This is the model that is predominant in the fisheries literature. (2)Fisheries managers in SFDs train in these countries and bring these models home toimplement. The tendency for SFDs to be modelled on large ones is also reinforced bymany development agencies and donors who seek to have their own organizationalstructures mirrored in recipient organizations.Within the above model, assuming that the department has progressed past the

mode of administering economic fisheries development, there is a tendency toperceive fisheries management as a biological problem. Consequently, staff withtraining in the biological and environmental sciences often predominate in SFDs.SFDs are highly susceptible to unpredictable perturbations. Crises that subsume

the time of a few staff can bring the normal operations of a small department to ahalt. Each staff member comprises a significant proportion of the department’sinstitutional memory. The departure of a few individuals in a short time can result inloss of continuity in activities or even strategic directions. This may occur due tofactors such as staff taking-up training opportunities (often not returning) and lowopportunity for advancement in small organizations, or even retirement. This isexacerbated by the difficulty in establishing systems for institutional memory insmall departments due to inadequate resources. There is the tendency for SFDs to behighly influenced by one or a few individuals, either positively or negatively.

3. Appropriate structure and function for small fisheries departments

3.1. Appropriate structure

The answer to the question of how a SFD should be structured is a complex one. Itdepends on a number of contextual factors. These are primarily the scale, value anddiversity of the fisheries to be managed. If there is a large, high-monetary value

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Mahon, P. McConney / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 529–535532

resource then a small island may be able to afford a large, conventional fisheriesdepartment. Most often this is not the case. SIDS are often dealing with a largenumber of small-scale fisheries each with relatively low value [7]. The aggregate valueof these small fisheries may be high, but each one requires management and few arelarge enough to warrant a full conventional management approach. In this situation,a small fisheries department using the conventional approach may have sufficientresources to address one or two fisheries properly. The others may be leftunmanaged. However, it is not uncommon for the resources to be spread acrossall fisheries so that no fishery is well managed.An alternative is to adopt approaches that are much less technically based (lower

demand for data and analysis). It is becoming clear that much can be achieved inmanaging fisheries through effective planning, coordination and consensus buildingusing the basic information on catches and fleets and stakeholder knowledge of thesituation [7,8]. This approach would require a differently structured and staffedfisheries department [6,9]. The key skills would be planning, project development andmanagement, mediation and facilitation. These are seldom taught in natural scienceor technical training programmes.

3.2. Implications of adopting the proposed structure

There are several implications of the structure and operational mode proposedabove. Clearly, there will be greater dependence on technical skills that are externalto the fisheries department. Technical inputs would be hired in on a project basis asneeded, or more likely as opportunities arose. This approach has implicationsoutside of the fisheries department itself, it requires linkages with sources of thetechnical skills that are needed. These skills are available on the internationalmarket, but there are advantages in developing local and regional capacity. Thusconsultants, local NGOs and academic institutions become part of a capacitybuilding strategy. This also leads to increased emphasis on regional coordinatingorganizations that can provide expertise to several SIDS or assist with the linkages toexpertise. Networking among these and other stakeholders also increases inimportance as it becomes necessary for them all to be informed.The balance between national and regional capacity will need to be more carefully

planned and incorporated into national policy. Models of national/regionalarrangements that take advantage of limited resources are only now beginning toemerge [10,11]. This further complicates the matter of national investment inmanagement, because regional institutions must be supported from national funds,usually at the expense of the national institutions. Thus it can be expected that inaddition to collaboration between the two levels, there will be tensions.

3.3. Appropriate operational mode for small fisheries departments?

The structure proposed above for SFDs indicates that their operational emphasiswill be more on coordination than on actual technical activities. This will includemanaging projects and facilitating multi-stakeholder and iterative planning/

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Mahon, P. McConney / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 529–535 533

implementation/review processes. Being much more people-based than the conven-tional approach, this operational mode will require a much greater emphasis onplanning and process.Whereas planning and process are valuable in any approach, they are essential

when dealing with a wide range of stakeholders in a system that depends onconsensus. Planning has numerous benefits, particularly in small departments. Mostof these come under the heading of accountability.Planning facilitates transparency which in turn strengthens accountability as

fisheries department staff cannot easily deviate from what is planned withoutexplaining why. In a similar vein, planning includes prioritization which also reducesthe opportunities for ad hoc activities. SFDs are particularly susceptible to diversionof staff time into such activities. Often these activities may be seen as high priority byindividuals while being of relatively low priority in the overall scheme. Someexamples are foreign travel2 and pursuit of special interests.3

Planning that includes stakeholders increases the chances that they will buy intothe plan (ownership). It also requires that there be information exchange andcapacity building in order to participate effectively in planning. Political will isstimulated by participatory planning as it becomes easier to ‘sell’ the plan to thepolitical directorate if they believe that it reflects popular opinion.Planning and process can stabilize small departments at several levels. In

situations where government ministers and senior bureaucrats frequently movefrom one ministry to another, the existence of plans and established processescan provide stability, particularly when these have a wide stakeholder base. Withinsmall departments, stability can be enhanced by reducing influence of strongpersonalities. Without planning, strong negative personalities lead departmentsastray; strong positive ones focus all the decision making and leadership in oneperson and their agenda. When this person leaves, the department may be left in adysfunctional state.Planning and consensus can shift the distribution of knowledge power among

stakeholders and strengthen upward and downward linkages from decision makersthrough fisheries officials to industry and community stakeholders. They alsofacilitate lateral communication with non-fishery stakeholders such as the public andrelated sectors such as tourism and shipping.

2Without clear prioritized plans, there is scope for a great deal of ad hoc activity on the part of fisheries

department staff. This activity may be opportunity driven by offers of travel to workshops and training.

Travel with associated per diems may increase annual salaries of fisheries officers substantially. For

example a 2 week trip to a workshop with US$100 per day surplus per diem (after hotel and food costs)

would leave participants with $US1400 in pocket. For a fisheries officers with an annual salary of

US$14,000, the trip can provide a 10% supplement to annual salary. Consequently, in the absence of

transparent planning, activities that include well-paid travel may get priority.3Without clear prioritized plans individual agendas may exert a strong influence over the department’s

priorities. For example, in a SFD a fisheries officer with strong inclinations to reef conservation may shift

the departmental focus in this direction while providing limited attention to offshore fisheries. Formal

planning can provide balance and prioritization that can help to overcome these effects.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Mahon, P. McConney / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 529–535534

3.4. Resistance to the proposed approach

Not surprisingly, there is resistance to planning as it may be perceived as a loss offreedom. In a SFD, with everyone in daily communication, planning may also beperceived as redundant. Planning may also be perceived as difficult, particularly forthose without a management background. Planning is often an uncomfortable modeof operation for persons with a science background. This problem is exacerbated bythe fact that there is very little guidance in the fisheries development literature onhow to approach the planning process for fisheries management and even less forplanning of fisheries departments.A systemic/structural impediment to planning is that post-colonial administra-

tions remain formally rigid, slow to adapt and unwieldy. Informality allows a largeamount of arbitrariness and political fluidity that circumvents formal lines. Both ofthese undermine effective planning.

4. Conclusions and future steps

The issues relating to appropriate structure and function for SFDs are complex.There are interwoven threads of top-down versus participatory management,appropriate capacity building, and public administration reform. Some of theseissues are also relevant to larger fisheries departments. Still others are broadcontextual issues affecting public sector administration in general. While this papercannot address this topic comprehensively in the space available, it raises the keyissues which can serve to stimulate discussion on the topic.A SFD cannot simply be a small version of a large one. When this is attempted,

the functions become compressed into a few individuals who cannot possibly havethe expertise required to carry them out effectively. Since fisheries in SIDS are no lesscomplex than those in larger and/or developed countries it is unreasonable to expectthat they can be managed with less expertise if the same approaches are used.The issues identified relating to small size of fisheries departments make SIDS

particularly likely to fail to achieve WSSD targets. The appropriate structure andfunction of developing country fishery departments based on levels of financialsupport that are appropriate to the value of resources to be managed is a topic thathas not been systematically addressed. Similarly, although the need for improvedplanning and review processes is frequently identified, there is little to guidemanagers in these areas. Consequently, systematic action to address these issues hasbeen minimal. Some of the issues may be active topics in the area of publicadministration. If so, these deliberations do not appear to be reaching the fisheriesmanagement community.If these issues are to be addressed, there will be the need to bring them into active

discussion and to develop programmes that focus on solving them. There is the needto conduct research on the appropriate structure and function for SFDs. There is alarge number of SFDs worldwide, many of the proposed approaches are alreadybeing implemented in some, either wholly or in part. A synthesis of what works and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Mahon, P. McConney / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 529–535 535

what does not in SFDs around the world would be a useful research starting point.Alternative structures and mechanisms to ensure stability and resilience of smalldepartments must also be explored. There is also the need to develop literature thatcan provide guidance on the planning and operation of these departments.

References

[1] Mahon R. Fisheries of small island states and their oceanographic research and information needs.

In: Maul G, editor. Small islands: marine science and sustainable development. Washington:

American Geophysical Union; 1996. p. 298–322.

[2] FAO. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome, Italy: FAO; 1995.

[3] FAO. Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures

by fishing vessels on the high seas. Rome, Italy: FAO; 1995.

[4] United Nations. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations

Convention of 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 Conference on Straddling Fish stocks

and Highly Migratory Species, Sixth session, New York, A/Conf.164/37. 1995.

[5] FAO. International plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated

fishing. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2001.

[6] Berkes F, Mahon R, McConney P, Pollnac R, Pomeroy R. Managing small-scale fisheries: alternative

directions and methods. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC; 2001 308p.

[7] Mahon R. Does fisheries science serve the needs of managers of small stocks in developing countries?

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 1997;54:2207–13.

[8] Johannes RE. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples from tropical nearshore

fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1998;13:243–5.

[9] Allison EH, McBride RJ. Educational reform for improved natural resource management: fisheries

and aquaculture in Bangladeshi universities. Society and Natural Resources 2003;16:249–64.

[10] Sydnes AK. Regional Fishery Organizations: how and why organizational diversity matters. Ocean

Development & International Law 2001;32:349–72.

[11] Sydnes AK. Regional fishery organisations in developing regions: adapting to changes in

international fisheries law. Marine Policy 2002;26:373–81.