FISHERIES CO-MANAGEMENT IN MOZAMBIQUE LESSONS FROM THE ARTISANAL FISHERIES & CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECT (FISHCC) 2015–2019 FISHERIES CO-MANAGEMENT IN MOZAMBIQUE LESSONS FROM THE ARTISANAL FISHERIES & CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECT (FISHCC) 2015–2019 ©2019 International Bank for Reconstruction and work do not imply any judgment on the part of Development / The World Bank The World Bank concerning the legal status of any 1818 H Street NW territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such Washington DC 20433 boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be +1 202-473-1000 considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the www.worldbank.org privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Any queries on rights This work is a product of the staff of The World and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be Bank with external contributions. The findings, addressed to: interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The Publishing and Knowledge Division, World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the The World Bank Group, governments they represent. The World Bank does 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in fax: 202-522-2625; this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, pubrights@worldbank.org and other information shown on any map in this Contents Executive Summary 8 Report Aim and Preparation 8 FishCC Project Design 8 Achievements and Challenges 10 Key Lessons  14 1. Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 18 1.1. National Context 18 1.2. Overview of Artisanal Marine Fisheries Sub-sector  19 1.3. Evolution of Fisheries Co-Management, 1995–2015 21 1.4. NGO Initiatives on Fisheries Co-Management 26 1.5. Ministry Re-Structuring Post-2015 28 1.6. Legal Framework for Designating Community Management Areas* 29 2. FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 33 2.1. FishCC Background, Objectives & Structure 33 2.2. Fish Forever Methodology & FishCC Implementation 40 3. FishCC Project Achievements and Challenges  50 3.1. Overall Project Performance  50 3.2. Component One: Improve Community Rights-Based Fishery Management 50 3.3. Component Two: Improve livelihoods 73 3.4. Component Three: Social Marketing 76 3.5. Summary of Implementation Challenges 82 4. Lessons Learned 84 4.1. Defining Management Areas, No-Take Reserves & Control Measures 84 4.2. Preparing Management Plans 97 4.3. Lessons for Fisheries Co-Management Governance 105 4.4. Facilitating Capacity and Institutional Roles 110 4.5. A Social Marketing Approach 113 4.6. Livelihood Initiatives  116 References118 Annex 1: Draft Summary Management Plan Infographic: Inhassoro 124 Acknowledgments The FishCC project was made possible by Isabel Omar, Daniel Segura (FFP); Badru financing from the Nordic Development Hagy, Anástácia Simango (IIP) Fund. Provincial & district authorities: Tomé This report was prepared by Jason Rubens, Nhamadinha Capece (DPMAIP, Nampula). World Bank Senior Fisheries Specialist. Elvira Penina Xerinda (DPMAIP, Inhambane); Beatriz Mufanequiço Jacobe Editorial comments and inputs were (Massinga District, Inhambane); Inacio provided by Simeão Lopes, Xavier Vincent, Mario, (Memba District, Nampula); João Moura Estevao Marques da Fonseca, Tome Dambuza Mbambamba (Posto Amanda Jerneck, Rare, MIMAIP and Administrativo de Machangulo); Edgar Raul Aage Jorgensen. (Massinga District, Inhambane) Thanks to Rare for tireless sharing of Communities: Members of community documentation, information, graphic fishing councils (CCPs) and other community images and photos. representatives in Memba, Fequete, Pomene, Zavora, Santa Maria and Mabulucco. The Project Implementation Unit at Fundo de Fomento Pesqueiro (FFP) Rare: Farishta Asmaty, Steve Box, Atanasio provided committed support to the report Brito, Courtney Cox, Angelica Dengo, preparation and consultation process. Zachary Hoffman, Edson Anselmo José, Alice Pires. Sincere thanks and appreciation is extended to all the following for generously sharing Other non-government: Alcidio Faria their time, experience, insights, advice and (Ophavela) support: World Bank: André Aquino, Franka Braun, FishCC Campaign Managers: Anuar Jingjie Chu, Joao Moura Estevão Marques Amade (Inhassoro), Isidro Intave da Fonseca, Katie Jacobs, Amanda Jerneck, (Mefunvo), Inés Mahumane (Machangulo), Simeão Lopes, Ivan Remane, Manuela da Honório Manjor (Pomene), Nuro Massaua Silva, Xavier Vincent (Memba), Edmundo Pinto (Zavora) Nordic Development Fund: Aage Jorgensen. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters and Fisheries (MIMAIP): Selso Cuaira, Armênio da Photos coutesy of the World Bank. Silva, Ernesto Poiosse (IDEPA); Lucinda Government of Mozambiqe, Andrea Mangue, Hadija Mussagy, Joaquim Tembe Borgarello, Anuar Amade, Edmundo (ADNAP); Belarmino Chivambo, Isabel Anibal, Isidro Intave, Honorio Manjor, Manga, Miguel Langa, Hélio Malenda, and Jason Rubens. Acronyms ADNAP Administração Nacional das Pescas / National Fisheries Administration (MIMAIP) AGC Área de Gestão Comunitária / Community management area ARR Área de Recuperação de Recursos / Fisheries no-take reserve CCP Conselho Comunitário de Pesca / Community Fishing Council DEPI Direcção de Estudos, Planificação e Infra-estruturas / Directorate of Studies, Planning and Infrastructures (MIMAIP) DNOP Direcção Nacional de Operações / National Operations Directorate (MIMAIP) EEZ Exclusive economic zone FishCC Artisanal Fisheries & Climate Change (FishCC) Project FLAGS Fisheries landscape goal-setting IDDPE Instituto de Desenvolvimento de Pesca de Pequena Escala / National Institute for the Development of Small-Scale Fisheries IDEPA Instituto de Desenvolvimento de Pesca e Aquacultura / National Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IIP Instituto Nacional de Investigação Pesqueira / National Fisheries Research Institute KAP Knowledge, attitudes and practices MIMAIP Ministério do Mar, Águas Interiores e Pescas / Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters and Fisheries MITADER Ministério da Terra, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural / Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development NDF Nordic Development Fund PDP Plano Director das Pescas / Fisheries Masterplan PESPA Plano Estratégico para o Sector da Pesca Artesanal / Artisanal Fisheries Strategic Plan REPMAR Regulamento da Pesca Marítima / Marine Fisheries Regulations SMART Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, timebound SSWIOFish1- South-West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth Project MZ TURF Territorial use rights for fishing SWIO Western Indian Ocean 8 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Executive Summary Report Aim and Preparation FishCC Project Design The aim of this report is to contribute to The Artisanal Fisheries and Climate the development of successful fisheries Change (FishCC) Project was implemented co-management in Mozambique and the in Mozambique over a 4-year period wider region, by sharing lessons learned between 01 April 2015 and 30 April from the Artisanal Fisheries and Climate 2019. The project was implemented by Change (FishCC) Project. It is hoped the the Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters and experience documented herein will be Fisheries (MIMAIP) of the Government of value to current and future fisheries of Mozambique, supported by an co-management initiatives, including international NGO, Rare, and selected government and other NGO-led projects in provincial and district authorities. The the region, as well as ongoing development project budget was EUR 4,000,000, of the national fisheries co-management provided by the Nordic Development Fund governance framework in Mozambique. (NDF), administered by the World Bank. As such, the target audience includes government policy-makers, fisheries The project development objective was managers, technicians and project officers “to improve community management at all levels of government and in non- of selected priority fisheries”. More government organizations. specifically, the aim was to catalyze a transformative approach to the The report draws on consultations management of coastal artisanal fisheries with a range of stakeholders involved in in Mozambique by adapting and piloting a implementing the FishCC project, from model of community rights-based fisheries communities to national-level government management developed by Rare in other officials, as well as interested parties in parts of the world through its Fish Forever international agencies. It also draws on program. a review of an extensive body of project documentation and related literature cited The reference to climate change in in the reference section. Section 1 of the the project title recognizes that coastal report outlines the national context; Section communities dependence on fisheries 2 describes the FishCC project origins, makes them particularly vulnerable, both structure, methodology and implementation; ecologically and socially, to climate-related and Section 3 summarizes the project’s stresses on the nearshore environment. By outcomes, achievements and challenges improving the sustainability of artisanal encountered. Section 4 then details around fisheries, the project aimed to enhance the forty lessons generated from the above resilience and adaptive capacity of coastal experience, organized into six sections. community livelihoods. Executive Summary 9 The Fish Forever approach involved local These helped to strengthen constituencies coastal fishing communities self-organizing at local level, in particular aimed at through community fishing councils accelerating the adoption of fisheries no- (CCPs), to devise and implement their own take reserves and other identified fisheries fisheries resource management regimes. management measures. The project was These were centered around creation of implemented at six pilot sites across four community fisheries management (TURF1) provinces: areas containing fisheries no-take reserves. The design of fisheries management Community District Province regimes was facilitated at each site through Mefunvo Quissanga Cabo Delgado articulation of context-specific theories of Memba Memba Nampula social change, aimed at effecting changes Fequete Inhassoro in fishing behavior to achieve sustainable Pomene Massinga Inhambane fisheries outcomes. Adoption of the resulting Zavora Inharrime fisheries management regimes was facilitated through implementation of community Machangulo Matutuíne Maputo awareness-raising and mobilization programs called pride campaigns, applying principles A fisherman prepares his catch for market in Cabo of social marketing. Delgado Province in the north of Mozambique 1  Territorial use rights for fishing 10 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Achievements and Challenges The project had three substantive and Inhassoro, there remained discrepancies components, the achievements and between communities’ and implementing challenges of each are outlined in Section 3 institutions’ understanding of the location and of the report, and summarized below. size of proposed fisheries no-take reserve areas. Notwithstanding that, fishing communities Component 1 sought to improve community at all six sites successfully identified one rights-based fisheries management at six or two priority fisheries management pilot sites, in particular by establishing measures aimed at improving sustainable community fisheries management areas fisheries production (see Figure 1 below). containing fisheries no-take reserves. This began with successful revitalization and Management measures at each site training of community fisheries councils were developed in a notably poor data (CCPs) at each target site. Thereafter, at environment, partly due to the low quality all six sites, management area boundaries of fisheries analytics undertaken during were defined and mapped, fisheries no- the project. Nonetheless, the management take reserves were agreed in principle by measures summarized in Figure 1 should communities, and locations proposed. provide a basis for ongoing management However, by end-of project, none of the no- planning and future implementation. take reserves had been formally designated Moreover, notable progress in implementing or demarcated, and implementation had the above measures was achieved at Fequete, only been partially initiated at one site, where beach-seine fishers observed a new 60- Machangulo. At two other sites, Mefunvo day closure period during Feb-March 2019. M funvo M mb F qu t Pom n Z vor M ch n ulo Priorit All beach- Implement Beachseine Eliminate Reduce or Implement M n m nt seine fishers fisheries fishers to spear-fishing eliminate fisheries M sur s to switch to no-take observe two and imple- spear-fishing no-take gillnets or reserve & closed ment and imple- reserve in handlines reduce use seasons fisheries ment 3 Bembi of mosquito totaling 5 no-take no-take estuary nets months reserve reserves Liv lihood Fisheries Fisheries 4 motorized Fisheries 12 motorized Ice machine Proj ct value chain value chain boats to value chain boats to and store, (m t ri ls equipment equipment facilitate equipment facilitate generator, provid d) including including line-fishing incl. chest line-fishing water tower chest freezers chest freezers offshore, plus freezers & offshore, plus to supply ice & cold boxes & cold boxes fishing ra s cold boxes fishing ra s machine Fig. 1: Priority Management measures and livelihood project for each of the six communities. Executive Summary 11 Perhaps the most significant outcome by the National Fisheries Administration from Component 1 of the project was that (ADNAP) going into 2020. experience from FishCC sites helped to catalyze consideration and decision-making Component 2 of the project supported within MIMAIP as to the appropriate legal complementary livelihood initiatives in framework for designation of community the same six target communities. This fisheries management areas. During 2019, recognized that transitioning from open- this oscillated between introduction of new access fisheries to a management regime provisions in revised Fisheries Regulations that imposes controls on fishing, through a (REPMAR), or application of existing no-take reserve and potentially other gear provisions in the Conservation Law of 2017 measures, has livelihoods implications, (see section 1.6 below). At the time of this at least in the shorter term. Guided by report preparation, the matter was still a participatory analysis of livelihood under final consideration. By end-of-project, opportunities, the project supported the management plans for 5 FishCC sites initiatives outlines in Figure 1 above. were still at an early stage of drafting, with Machangulo at a more advanced stage, but Component 3 of the project supported all will need significant revision once final capacity-building and community decisions have been made on the legislation. engagement needed to develop and Finalizing and approving legal provisions for implement a social marketing approach the above designations and aligning all six to fisheries co-management. As such the draft management plans to those provisions, component was closely integrated with including Machangulo, remained an Component 1. A campaign manager was outstanding priority being actively pursued appointed for each FishCC site, recruited Fishing boats and community members on the beach in central Mozambique (Mais Peixe, 2018) 12 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique from provincial-level fisheries personnel, and will be a valuable asset for future fisheries trained over the full course of the project co-management initiatives in Mozambique. in the science of behavioral change, social At each site, campaign managers facilitated marketing approaches and their application a process with fishing communities of to fisheries co-management through the assessing the fisheries landscape, identifying Fish Forever methodology. This capacity goals and barriers to change, and developing development of fisheries sector staff is one a theory of change to achieve the goals, of the lasting outcomes of the project, and following a standard Fish Forever format. Fig. 2: Fish Forever Theory of Change. Executive Summary 13 The theories of change formed the basis Substantial follow-up work is still needed at for designing community awareness-raising all six sites. The project received a Moderately and mobilization initiatives called pride Unsatisfactory rating in the World Bank’s campaigns, aimed at catalyzing changes in Implementation Completion and Results fishing behavior (ie. the fisheries management Report2, which highlighted several systemic measures summarized under component 1 factors, including: above) to achieve improved fisheries outcomes. Pride campaigns, originally planned to last i. disruption to project co-ordination for 6 months, were launched at each site arrangements caused by reorganization of in November 2018, involving a range of the former Ministry of Fisheries shortly after festivities, sports competitions, cultural arts project effectiveness in 2015; the national events and distribution of materials such as decentralization process from 2018 which banners, t-shirts and murals, all as a vehicle affected the relationship between national for disseminating appropriate fisheries– and provincial fisheries authorities; and related messaging. The campaign launch unfamiliarity within IDPPE/MIMAIP events received enthusiastic participation in partnering with an NGO. These factors by communities and district and provincial contributed to a succession of changes to the authorities, however limited time and financial project co-ordination mechanism, and loss of resources remaining towards the end of the continuity and institutional memory, which project meant that few follow–up campaign significantly delayed progress at times3; activities were subsequently implemented. Nonetheless, there was evidence of short-term ii. in part due to the above point, sub- impact from the launch events in terms of optimal co-ordination throughout the knowledge and attitudinal change amongst project between implementing entities, community members. both government and non-government, including late active involvement in the Importantly, the theories of change developed project by ADNAP; for each site contained quantitative targets for each stage in the change process, providing iii. the lack of an existing legal framework or a basis for quantitative assessment of the precedent for designation of community impact of pride campaigns. A first round of fisheries management areas in KAP surveys were conducted early in 2018 Mozambique; to provide a baseline. Unfortunately, the repeat surveys conducted 12 months later iv. hurdles faced by Rare in having to register applied a generic survey instrument that was and establish an entirely new operational only loosely comparable with the baselines, presence in Mozambique with new nonetheless, the more robust baseline data personnel, to build internal capacity on remains of value for future assessments. Fish Forever methodologies, and adapt them to the Mozambique context; Overall progress towards achieving the central fisheries co-management outputs Fortunately, post-project, ADNAP is anticipated under FishCC, namely continuing to work actively on management plan formal establishment of six community preparation, and Rare has also carried forward management areas containing no-take its commitment to 5 of the 6 sites4 in the form zones, with completed management plans, of a follow-up project with funding from the was only partial, as outlined above. Blue Action Fund.5 2  World Bank, 2019 3  Rare, 2019h 4  At the time of report preparation, Rare had suspended follow-up in the Cabo Delgado site due to security concerns. 5  A fund supported by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the French Development Agency (AFD) 14 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Key Lessons Notwithstanding the above challenges, fisheries co-management in Mozambique. sufficient progress was made during the 40 lessons in total, of which nine are key project to generate a wealth of valuable lessons, are set out in detail in Section 4 and lessons for future similar work on developing summarized as follows. Some community fisheries management areas will 1 incorporate more than one CCP. Experience from FishCC was LESSON #1 of 40 that in 2 out of the 6 pilot sites (Machangulo and Fequete) there was justification for clustering two neighboring CCPs within a single community management area, since fishing grounds are heavily shared. This highlights the importance of conducting systematic mapping of fishing patterns and community consultations over broader areas, to help guide what should be the optimal scope and boundaries of a management area. Timely mapping, demarcation and implementation of 2 no-take reserves. Fisheries no-take reserves agreed with LESSON #5 of 40 communities at FishCC sites during 2017 were not demarcated and implemented within the subsequent 18-month project period. Where agreements are not acted on promptly, misunderstandings and confusion can arise, communities can lose confidence, funding can expire and opportunities may be lost. Prompt mapping, demarcation and implementation is important for transparency and maintaining confidence and common understanding. Need for MIMAIP to develop a policy on preferential 3 access rights for local fishers. Management planning at LESSON FishCC sites did not consider options to manage access by #11 of 40 non-local fishers, by granting preferential access rights to local fishers. In fact, fishers in at least 4 out of 6 sites favored partially restricting access by non-local fishers. Preferential access rights are an important tool in addressing open-access pressures on fisheries, not least because they encourage local stewardship. Certainly such rights raise sensitive legal and social issues. These need to be addressed by national policies, with local authority involvement, to minimize conflict and other undesired socio- economic consequences. Regulating semi-industrial vessels in community 4 conservation areas. Semi-industrial vessels are currently LESSON #12 of 40 excluded from the scope of the draft management plan for Machangulo, the most advanced of the plans. Yet semi-industrial vessels may fish up to 1nm from the shore and community no-take zones, in some cases, extend beyond 1nm. Therefore, in line with Lesson 3 above on preferential access rights, semi- industrial vessels should be part of any managed access regime in community area management plans, as appropriate. Executive Summary 15 Fish Forever approach was effective. In particular in 5 providing a platform for strong community engagement and LESSON #15 of 40 systematic problem analysis. In part, this stemmed from having a campaign manager at each site over an extended 2-year period, providing intensive facilitation to the local community. Secondly, development of systematic theory-of-change results frameworks enabled identification of clear, targeted management strategies and performance measures. Though, against that, management strategies were over-simplified in some respects. FishCC management plans are an opportunity to pilot a REPÚBLICA DE MOÇAMBIQUE 6 new fisheries co-management legal framework for fisheries RELATÒRIO DE APRENDIZADOS DA CAMPANHA, DE ORGULHO NO LESSON #19 of 40 co-management in Mozambique. If it is decided to introduce PROGRAMA DE PESCA PARA SEMPRE SITE DE MACHANGULO a new type of designation for community fisheries management «Pescadores a não pescar no estuário, de acordo com a legislação e a participarem massivamente nas reuniões do CCP» areas in revised the Fisheries Regulation (REPMAR), the management plans for FishCC sites will be an opportunity to road-test the new provision. If it is decided to apply the Conservation Law, 2017 (designating community conservation areas Coordenadora de Campanha: Inês Atanásio Mahumane and sanctuaries) it will be an interesting experiment not without challenges—see Lesson 7 below. Either way, all 6 FishCC plans will need substantial revision to align with the relevant legislative Abril de 2019 options. It is likely the experience will generate further lessons. Challenges of applying Conservation Law for designating 7 community fisheries management areas. Application of LESSON #27 of 40 Conservation Law designations means that establishment of community fisheries management areas would depend on approval by a Ministry other than MIMAIP. As this would likely entail higher transaction costs, there might be advantages to retaining control of fisheries co-management processes under a single ministry. On the positive side, the Conservation Law requires community consent for licensing Third Parties for resource extraction. Encourage broad membership of CCPs, supported by 8 fisher registration and ID cards. Very low CCP membership LESSON #30 of 40 has been a longstanding challenge to CCP effectiveness in Mozambique. CCP membership was raised above 90% at 5 of the 6 FishCC sites. This was greatly facilitated by electronic registration of fishers using a mobile phone app and provision of ID cards to registered fishers. Selecting livelihood alternatives, purchasing assets and 9 access-to-credit. Despite efforts to identify livelihood options LESSON #39 of 40 that provide alternatives to fishing, fishers often prefer to modify or add value to existing fishing activities. For individual beneficiaries, investing in savings and loans initiatives can often have a more sustainable impact than simply donating goods and assets. At the level of community benefit, direct provision of larger assets can be better justifiable. 16 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Summary of all 40 Lessons (see Ch 4 for details) 4.1. DEFINING MANAGEMENT AREAS, NO-TAKE RESERVES & FISHERIES CONTROL MEASURES Identifying the scope of fisheries management areas 1 1. Some community management areas will incorporate more than one CCP 2. Importance of fishing patterns surveys to identify fishing stakeholders 3. Value of working with clusters of neighboring CCPs, not widely scattered sites Fisheries no-take reserves 4. Community acceptance of no-take reserves 2 5. Timely mapping, demarcation and implementation of no-take reserves 6. Size of no-take reserves 7. Document rationale for no-take reserve locations in management plans 8. Trialling fisheries benefits from no-take areas Range of fisheries management measures adopted 9. Fisheries no-take reserves were prioritized over managed access under FishCC 10. Importance of scientific, rights-based facilitation in identifying management measures Controlling access of non-local fishers 3 11. Need for MIMAIP to develop a policy on preferential access rights for local fishers 4 12. Regulating semi-industrial vessels in community conservation areas 4.2. PROCESS OF PREPARING MANAGEMENT PLANS Baseline information for management planning 13. Integration of baseline studies with participatory engagement consultations 14. Importance of systematic fisheries information focused on priority commercial species Management planning: community engagement & plan preparation process 5 15. Fish Forever provides an effective framework for analysis of management priorities 16. Added value of Fish Forever methodology in management plan preparation 17. Process of drafting management plans 18. Capacity for management plan drafting at national and provincial level Management plan content 6 19. FishCC management plans to pilot new legal framework 20. Management plan format 21. Plans should consider management measures additional to no-take reserves Executive Summary 17 22. Management plans should detail enforcement protocols 23. Framework for monitoring the impact of management plan implementation 24. Value of infographic summaries of management plans 25. Validation of management plans with communities Utility of selecting FLAG fish species versus multiple priority species 26. Analysis of several priority fish species is more useful than a single FLAG species 4.3. LESSONS FOR FISHERIES CO-MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK IN MOZAMBIQUE Mainstreaming a spatial approach to nearshore fisheries co-management 7 27. Challenges of applying Conservation Law for designating community fisheries areas 28. Designating community fisheries management areas within protected areas 29. Include vision for spatial management of artisanal fisheries in PESPA II CCP structure, membership and functions 8 30. Encourage broad membership of CCPs, supported by fisher registration and ID cards 31. Encourage accountability of CCP committees to CCP general assembly members 32. Legal powers of CCP rangers and need for standard operating procedures (SOPs) 4.4. FACILITATION CAPACITY AND INSTITUTIONAL ROLES Facilitation and extension capacity 33. Capacity for co-management facilitation and opportunities for FishCC field personnel Institutional roles & governance mechanisms 34. Respective roles at national, provincial and district levels 35. Avoid establishing conflicting governance mechanisms for co-management 4.5. EFFECTIVENESS OF SOCIAL MARKETING APPROACH 36. Fish Forever theories of change were valuable but need to be robustly formulated 37. KAP surveys need to be locally tailored and repeatable 38. Social marketing is critical but won’t resolve fisheries management challenges alone 4.6. EFFECTIVENESS OF LIVELIHOOD INITIATIVES 9 39. Livelihood alternatives, purchasing assets and access-to-credit 40. Importance of fair and transparent identification of livelihood beneficiaries 18 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 1. Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Note on Terminology 1.1. National Context Globally, the term fisheries co-management Mozambique’s 2,700 km coastline is the typically refers to a partnership arrangement fourth longest in Africa8, giving rise to a primarily between government bodies and correspondingly large maritime area of local fishing communities 6, notwithstanding the around 587,000km2 including both territorial involvement of other stakeholders. As such, waters and the EEZ. Notwithstanding a the term is generally focused on arrangements nominally low contribution to GDP (below for involving communities meaningfully in 2%), the socio-economic value of the fisheries the management of artisanal fisheries. sector is highly significant, especially in more than 600 coastal communities. At national In Mozambique, the term ‘co-management’ level, fisheries provide a major source of food has historically had a broader application in and nutrition and the sector is a vital part the fisheries sector, referring more broadly of the rural job market. Table 1.1. shows to collaborative arrangements between the broad structure of annual marine fish different levels of government, as well as with landings in 2017. communities, and across fisheries sub-sectors. So, for example, involving private sector Table 1.1. Summary of total marine fisheries investors in management of semi-industrial or landings in Mozambique, 20179 industrial fisheries is also considered a form of Production % participatory co-management. Nevertheless, in (MT) this report, the term fisheries co-management Total industrial 15,100 6% is used in the more typical sense applied Prawns 5,654 globally, as described above. Indeed, along Tuna (national vessels) 1,099 such lines, draft new Fisheries Regulations in Mozambique provide for development of co- Tuna (foreign vessels) 3,478 management agreements which do in fact focus Other 4,869 on community arrangements: Semi-industrial 1,837 1% Total artisanal 224,418 93% “To ensure participatory management of fisheries, the Central Fisheries Administration Finfish (excl. tuna/sharks) 191,469 Body may enter into co-management agreements Tuna 6,299 with civil society organizations at local and Prawns 6,295 community level, with emphasis on Community Other 20,356 Fisheries Councils, for sharing responsibility for Total marine fisheries participatory management of fishery resources” 7 241,355 landings 6  See for example: http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16625/en 7  MIMAIP, in prep (version Feb 2019). Article 24. 8  After Madagascar, Somalia and South Africa 9 DEPI Chapter 1: Fisheries Co-Management 19 1.2. Overview of Artisanal Marine Fisheries Sub-sector As evident from Table 1.1, artisanal provisions is that the only space reserved fisheries constitute by far the overwhelming exclusively for small-scale artisanal fishers proportion of total marine fisheries landings, is the area from the baseline (often the at 93% of the total. The trend in artisanal shoreline) to 1nm. Semi-industrial trawlers up landings over the past decade or so has risen to 20m length, and other motorized vessels up steadily, as shown in Fig.1.1. With regard to 13m, may fish up to the 1nm line. to zonation for different kinds of fishing in Mozambique, the Fisheries Law, 2013 states: Although the above draft regulations indicate that artisanal fishing vessels up to 40hp “… the entire extent of the territorial sea up to 3 engines, or non-motorized, are restricted nautical miles from the baselines shall be reserved to within 3nm, in practice a lot of artisanal exclusively for small-scale fishing (defined by law fishing effort of that scale—in particular as artisanal plus semi-industrial), subsistence gillnetting and hand-lines—already takes fishing, recreational fishing, fisheries research and place up to, and beyond the 12nm limit of sportfishing.” 11 territorial waters (12nm). Draft new Fisheries Regulations12 contain Fig. 1.2. gives two examples of typical findings more detailed zonation rules as outlines in from a fishing mapping study undertaken in Table 1.2 (next page). A key point from these Nampula, Zambezia and Sofala from 2017-19.13 Fig. 1.1. Estimated total annual artisanal marine 10 DEPI fish landings, 2006 to 201710 11  República de Moçambique, 2013 12  MIMAIP, in prep (version Feb 2019) 13  IIP (2016), IIP (2017c) 20 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Table 1.2. Fisheries Regulations—zonation rules Provisions Article 28 Artisanal fishing by boat: from baseline to 3 nautical miles on daily fishing Classification of marine grounds, whether or not using mechanical propulsion equipment, with a main fisheries engine capacity of 40 hp or less Coastal artisanal fishing: practiced between 1 and 12 nautical miles with fishing vessels up to 13 meters in length with a maximum power of more than 40hp or 30kw and less than 140hp or 105kw Article 54 Trawl fishing under semi-industrial licensing arrangements, with the Areas for trawl fishing exception of bays, may only be exercised: a. Beyond 1 nautical mile from shore with a fishing vessel of 20m or less in length using an ice conservation method; b. Beyond 3 nautical miles from the coast, with fishing vessel longer than 20m, regardless of the method of conservation of the fish. Fig 1.2. Sample artisanal fishing ground maps, Nampula Province.14 Top: Surface gillnet fishing, Moma District. Bottom: Line fishing, Angoche District The above points are important in the fishing for part of their income, while the context of determining the potential fishery sector provided around 50% of total coverage of fisheries co-management areas, animal protein consumed nationally.15 While and which kinds of fishing are controlled men are primarily engaged with fishing at within them. Following from the above, sea, women, who make up almost half the artisanal fisheries in Mozambique are labor force, are primarily responsible for conducted across a vast area including the selling and gleaning—gathering small fish 47,000km2 of internal and territorial marine and shellfish along the shore. Representing waters out to the 12nm limit, and even an important source of cash income for beyond. Approximately one third of those many households, fisheries often supplement territorial waters are covered by the richly livelihoods and many families will turn to productive Sofala Bank, receiving substantial fishing when other forms of food production nutrient outflow from the Zambezi. and income generation fall short. In terms of socio-economic importance of Development of the fisheries sector was one artisanal fisheries, in 2014, around 20% of the of the main pillars of the Government of population of Mozambique, some 850,000 Mozambique’s Poverty Reduction Action households, were estimated to depend on Plan, 2011–2014. 14  IIP, 2017c 15  Ministerio das Pescas, 2014 Chapter 1: Fisheries Co-Management 21 1.3. Evolution of Fisheries Co-Management, 1995–2015 1.3.1. Genesis of fisheries co-management in Mozambique, 1995-2010 During the late 1980’s, as part of Operationalization of the PDP I Mozambique’s structural adjustment masterplan was supported by projects program with IMF and the World Bank, such the Nampula Artisanal Fisheries fisheries programs implemented over the Project (1994–99), funded by IFAD, previous two decades were evaluated, implemented through IDPPE; and the to draw lessons and propose appropriate Artisanal Fisheries Development Project future interventions. This resulted in the (2002-07), funded by a US$ 20m loan first national Fisheries Masterplan (PDP I) from the African Development Bank. The 1995-2005 which, for the first time outlined latter aimed to increase fish production a vision for the management of small-scale by supporting artisanal fishers to catch, fisheries nationally, with emphasis on the process and market fish more efficiently. involvement of fishermen in setting and This was to be done through provision of enforcing management regimes. It was in credit to boost fish production and promote the PDP I that co-management approaches fish marketing; building of community- were formally declared as part of the level fisheries infrastructure such as strategic intervention approach for fisheries landing site access roads; and strengthening sector. Alongside that, IDPPE had been institutional capacity within IDPPE, IIP established in 1990-91 specifically to support and provincial authorities.16 The project development of the small-scale fisheries sub- covered 7 coastal districts in Cabo Delgado sector, an early recognition of its importance. Province and 3 in Nampula Province. Following that, during the late 1990’s, Nonetheless, the above projects were oriented rapid assessments of small-scale fisheries towards enhancing fisheries production rather management were carried out by IDPPE than management. Moreover, at the end of in Maputo, Inhambane, Zambezia and the day, the PDP I provided for a centralized Nampula provinces. These studies, fisheries management system which, technically and financially supported by by ADNAP’s own assessment, proved IFM and ICLARM, highlighted the low inadequate to address the reality of artisanal involvement of traditional authorities and fisheries governance challenges in fishing communities in managing fisheries. They centers.17 The absence of a system by further recommended development of a which to implement fisheries management new ‘bottom-up’ intervention approach measures effectively at community level led premised on consultation and participation. to increasing use of unsustainable fishing Subsequently, IDDPE began to pilot gears such as beachseines, which itself led to community sensitization and established the increased level of conflict with fishers using first community fisheries councils (CCPs) more traditional artisanal gear. in Inhambane (Inhassoro, Vilanculo) and Nampula (Angoche, Moma). 16  ADB, 2001 17  ADNAP, 2011 22 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 1.3.2. Community Fishing Councils (CCPs) The prevailing approach to involving The template for CCP Statutes of 200619 sets community in the governance of artisanal out objectives for CCPs as follows: fisheries during the period 1995-2010 was Table 1.3. Objectives of CCPs in CCP Statutes, 2006 centered on Conselhos Comunitários de Pesca (CCPs) or community fisheries councils. Fundamental Contribute to the objective preservation of marine and However, the institutional identity, rights coastal ecosystems and roles of CCPs remained only loosely Fisheries Encourage and recommend defined. The Fisheries Regulations of 2003 management: fisheries licensing empowered: Alert Fisheries Administration authorities to changes to “The Minister of Fisheries … to authorize fisheries resources or the unrecognized associations called Community environment in their area Fisheries Councils (CCP) … (to help with) Complementing Undertake surveillance and ensuring compliance with existing management management licensing measures Collaborate in controlling measures and managing conflicts arising from marine & coastal pollution fishing activity. Participate in implementation of mechanisms to restrict fishing The application for authorization … shall contain Harmonisation Establish conflict resolution the designation of the CCP, the area of activity, the of interests: mechanisms between artisanal, forms of organization, the forms of its involvement semi-industrial and industrial in monitoring compliance, conservation and fishers, through mediation management measures for fisheries, protection of Promote adequate marking of the marine environment, participation in fisheries fishing gear surveillance and compliance with the Fisheries Act Fisheries Promote community education and applicable regulations.”18 extension and awareness on the need for protection of the marine environment However, the 2003 Regulations did not further Participate in collecting specify the functions or powers of a CCP. information on fisheries activities, in training and in recycling 18  Boletim da República, 2003. Article 19 Bringing in the day’s catch with a beachseine 19  Boletim da República, 2006. Article 8 on the beach near Farol Chapter 1: Fisheries Co-Management 23 The template for CCP Statutes of 2006 A 2011 review of fisheries governance further proposed that CCP areas of interventions in Mozambique21 noted that jurisdiction be defined as the length of although there had been extensive support beach stipulated in the registered statute, for the establishment of CCPs, many extending 3km to sea. required further support in order to fulfill their functions effectively. The institutional Notwithstanding the above, the role capacity of many CCPs remained weak, of CCPs was broadly perceived by requiring further training, and there was little government authorities as one of supporting knowledge of legislation covering small-scale district administrations in implementing fisheries and the rights surrounding them. national fisheries regulations, under the guidance and oversight of provincial and ADNAP (2011) recognised the need to shift national fisheries authorities. As such, they towards a more participatory management were primarily conceived as an extended model with fisheries management decision- arm of government in implementing making being shared between national and centralized fisheries legislation, rather local government and fishing communities. than as semi-autonomous governance entities representing community interests. The function of CCPs outlined in draft But there are also examples where revised Fisheries Regulations22 currently CCPs successfully lobbied for their under preparation is very similar to the own agenda, such as: recognition that 2006 CCP Statutes, but with the significant waters out to 1 nautical mile from the addition of participating in proposing shore be reserve exclusively for artisanal management measures [point (b) in box below]. fishers; authorization for the of 1.5” However, there is also a proposal under mesh in Angoche and Moma; and special consideration that CCPs should be registered authorization for the use of trammel net as independent non-government associations for artisanal fishing, which later came to be under relevant statutes,23 as this will give legalized.20 them a clearer legal status, including on key issues such as management of CCP finances. 20  Simeao Lopes, pers comm. 21  Evans et al., 2011 22  MIMAIP, in prep. Version of February 2019 23  Law 8/91 (Law of association rights) governs authorization of associations by Provincial authorities 24 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique ARTIGO 22 (Community Fishing Councils)22 A CCP is a community-based organization of management measures in its which contributes to the participatory geographical area of activity; management of fisheries. Its purpose c. Participate in the implementation is to ensure compliance with existing of fishing access and restriction management measures and to assist in the mechanisms, number of fishermen, management of fisheries conflicts. A CCP is gear and others; governed by its own statutes; in particular: d. Alert authorities responsible for a. Support local authorities responsible fisheries administration to changes for fisheries administration in licensing in fisheries resources or to the and surveillance of fisheries; environment in their geographic area; b. Participate in the preparation of e. Collaborate in the control and combating proposals and implementation of marine and coastal pollution. 1.3.4. Evolving policy & project approaches to fisheries co-management, 2010-19 A revised national Fisheries Masterplan The project targeted poverty alleviation (PDP II, 2010-201924) was formally launched in the context of resource conservation in December 2010. Food security is the in coastal communities in four districts first priority of the PDP II, followed by (Morrumbene, Maxixe, Inhambane City poverty reduction, with improved balance and Jangamo) of Inhambane Province. of payments as a secondary target. The PDP is driven largely by a series of sub- Key activities included capacity-building sectoral strategic plans, including a strategic of around 250 members of 22 community plan for the artisanal fisheries sector (Plano fisheries councils (CCPs) in the project Estratégico para o Sector da Pesca Artesanal, area; dissemination of legislation on right of PESPA I of 2007-11).25 Further initiatives access and exploitation of marine resources to develop fisheries co-management in by fishing communities; mediation of Mozambique were based on this strategy, conflict resolution related to marine including two significant projects, both resources; implementation of a credit implemented by IDPPE, with financial system for mariculture operators; and support from IFAD and other donors. establishment of district and provincial co- management committees.27 Community-based Coastal Resource Management & Sustainable Livelihoods PPACG was arguably the first government- Project (PPACG26), 2009-2015 implemented artisanal fisheries project in Mozambique that went beyond standard The PPACG project was implemented by capacity-building of CCPs, instead taking IDPPE with funding of around US$ 2m a more holistic approach towards the from the Japanese Social Development management and livelihood context in Fund (JSDF), a trust fund administered by which they operate. Although project the World Bank. activities were broadly implemented 24  MdP, 2010 25  MdP, 2007 26  PPACG = Projecto de Pesca Artesanal e de Co-Gestão 27  BioGlobal, 2017 Chapter 1: Fisheries Co-Management 25 successfully, the evaluation noted one artisanal fishing community organizations relevant area where there was not significant in government development processes; progress, namely the delegation to CCPs of strengthen the mapping, documenting licensing and enforcement responsibilities in and registering of resource rights; regard to artisanal fisheries. and promote sharing of experience.31 Complementing the more traditional ProPESCA project (2011-19) production and value-addition approach of the ProPESCA project, the ProDIRPA The ProPESCA28 project was implemented project rather focused on strengthening by IDPPE and aimed to improve the artisanal fishers’ resource rights. The incomes and livelihoods of households project targeted around 7,000 artisanal involved in artisanal fishing by: beneficiaries at 14 selected centers along the coasts of Sofala, Zambézia and Increasing the volume of higher value fish on Nampula provinces. ProDIRPA involved a sustainable basis, and increasing the yields significant engagement, capacity-building obtained from marketed fish.29 and facilitation of CCPs at the 14 sites. Unfortunately, the anticipated preparation The approach of the US$ 43.5m project was of community fisheries management plans to support investments to develop the sub- was not achieved, in part due to the lack of sector, including: fishing operations (boat- relevant legislation.32 building, gear demonstrations and fishing skills training); post-harvest value-capture Revised artisanal sub-sector strategy - PESPA II (training in transportation, handling, processing and marketing); marketing In 2018, MIMAIP reviewed its strategic facilities (public/private partnerships on plan for the artisanal fisheries sector ice & cold storage, construction of 11 (PESPA I, 2007-11) and IDEPA developed fish markets with fish handling facilities, a draft PESPA II (2019-25),33 though not yet improved access roads, electrification); approved at the time of preparation of this institutional and extension capacity at report. The PESPA II has the following IDPPE; and community-based financial vision statement: services for artisanal fishers. “Commercial artisanal fisheries capable of The project targeted 13,600 beneficiaries improving living conditions and income management involved directly in artisanal fishing and through improved fishing support infrastructure related activities along the whole coast of and equipment that drive the growth and massive Mozambique. development of fisheries with flexible and dynamic access to finance largest number of artisanal fishers.” ProDIRPA project (2014-18) One of the six strategic pillars outlined in The ProDIRPA Project was implemented 30 the draft PESPA II is Fisheries resources by IDPPE, with a budget of US$ 1.5m. management, one of the two objectives of It aimed to strengthen the engagement of which is: to ensure the sustainable management 28  ProPESCA = Projecto de Promoçao da Pesca Artesanal 29  IFAD, 2010 30  PRODIRPA = Projeto de Direitos aos Recursos dos Pescadores Artesanais 31  IFAD, 2013 32  IFAD, 2019 33  MIMAIP, 2018g 26 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique of fishery resources that guarantee the availability MIMAIP, in particular within IDPPE/ of resources for future generations. The PESPA IDEPA at both national and provincial level, further outlines implementation actions confronting the challenges faced by fisheries for each pillar, by province. As things stand extensionists, CCPs and fishing communities however, the PESPA II does not articulate on the ground. any explicit vision, objective or action along the lines of pursuing either a spatial-based That said, at the time the FishCC project was or community rights-based approach to conceptualized around 2014, the approach artisanal fisheries management, of the kind of establishing rights-based fisheries co- being adopted elsewhere in the SWIO region, management areas, as a central strategy including Tanzania, Kenya and Madagascar. towards achieving sustainable artisanal fisheries management, was still very much an More broadly, the past 15 years or so have emerging idea in need of demonstration and witnessed a trajectory in the design of proof-of-concept in Mozambique. government-implemented projects in the artisanal fisheries sub-sector in Mozambique, from a heavy focus on increasing fisheries 1.4. NGO Initiatives on Fisheries production and value-addition (project Co-Management such as ProPESCA), to the recognition that fisheries resource are finite and under Complementing government-driven policies pressure, therefore further recognising the and projects outlined above, NGOs have also importance of engaging communities in been active in Mozambique over the past rights-based fisheries management, and the 20+ years in supporting artisanal fisheries broader livelihood context in which those co-management, in partnership with fishing communities operate (projects such relevant national, provincial and district as PPACG and ProDIRPA). This reflects authorities. Relevant project initiatives are the experience and capacity developed within summarized in Table 1.4. A boat ferrying passengers from the local fishing community in northern Mozambique Chapter 1: Fisheries Co-Management 27 Table 1.4. NGO-led fisheries co-management initiatives in Mozambique Objectives/achievements relevant to NGO Location Period active CCP capacity-building and/or fisheries co-management area development African Parks Bazaruto 2018 - ongoing Working with 7 fishing communities within National Park Associação de Pescadores do Arquipélago de Bazaruto. There are no CCPs in the national park. Marine Megafauna Tofo, Barra, 2016 - ongoing Capacity-building of 3 CCPs. Expecting to Foundation (MMF), Rocha. develop 3 co-management areas/plans WCS Inhambane Ocean Revolution Inhambane Bay 2017 - ongoing Capacity-building of 4 CCPs in Inhambane Bay, including establishment of 9 fisheries no-take zones. Oikos Quirimbas 2014 - 2018 Strengthening 6 CCPs in Ibo District & National Park establishment of 3 locally managed area Peace Parks Ponta do Ouro 2016 - ongoing Co-supporting capacity building of 2 CCPs and Foundation Partial Marine establishment of community conservation area at Reserve Machangulo, in partnership with FishCC project. Rare (with MIMAIP 6 sites in Cabo 2015 - ongoing Establishment of 6 community management under FishCC project) Delgado, areas initiated under FishCC project – Nampula, ongoing under Blue Action Fund support Inhambane, Maputo Rare (with Sofala Province 2019 - 2021 Establish ~ 3-4 community management areas SSWIOFish project) (especially Buzi in Buzi District District) Capacity-building of ~ 24 CCPs across all Sofala Province WCS Inhambane and 2019 - ongoing Establishing 1 pilot community conservation Cabo Delgado area in northern Inhambane. Plus technical support on ecological mapping to ZSL and MMF initiatives. WWF Quirimbas 2002 – 2018 Capacity-building of 9 CCPs in QNP National Park 2019 - 2023 including management of no-take zones Similar ongoing work with 9 CCPs in QNP plus 2 CCPs in Mecúfi District WWF Primeiras 2008 - 2018 Capacity-building of 11 CCPs within PSEPA & Segundas 2018 – 2022 plus livelihood initiatives (CARE) Environment Establishment of 5 fisheries no-take zones Protection Area (sanctuaries) within PSEPA. WWF (with Nampula, 2019 - 2021 Establish 2 community management areas SSWIOFish project) Zambezia (Moma & Pebane Districts) provinces Capacity-building of ~ 48 CCPs across (esp. Moma, Nampula & Zambezia provinces Pebane districts) Zoological Society of Cabo Delgado 2014 - 2017 Capacity-building 6x CCPs in N Cabo London (ZSL) Province 2019 - 2022 Delgado from 2014-17 and 3x CCPs in with Associação (North of Metuge/Mecúfi from 2019. Expect to develop do meio ambiente Moçimboa da up to four community conservation areas, (AMA), CORDIO, Praia, Pemba mainly with the southern CCPs. UniLúrio, BioClimate, and Mecúfi) Univ Lisbon, WCS 28 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 1.5. Ministry Re-Structuring Post-2015 Mozambique’s economy has always been closely To fulfill its new mandate, MIMAIP linked to the Indian Ocean and other inland conducted an internal institutional analysis water bodies such as Lake Niassa. Having a to better consolidate the roles of each coordinated governance system that harnesses body within it. This resulted, amongst the economic potential of the country’s aquatic other decisions, in merging of the National resources is integral to Mozambique’s economic Institute for Small-scale Fisheries Development development. Post-independence, as the (IDPPE) and the National Aquaculture economy developed, some challenges arose in Institute (INAQUA) into a new entity named this context. Government structures responsible the Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture for management of the maritime and inland Development (IDEP A), in 2016. The two spheres were notably sectoral, resulting in institutions, IDPPE and INAQUA were a diversity of institutions and regulations perceived to perform many similar functions, on matters relating to their sovereignty, on fisheries and aquaculture extension and exploration, extraction and conservation, as development, within the same communities. well as related security issues. Improved co- There were also significant changes in senior ordination was needed. management positions, within MIMAIP institutions. So, following the general elections of October 2014, the new President-elect promoted an In parallel with the above re-structuring of institutional restructuring of the government MIMAIP, since 2018, the Government of which, among others, resulted in dissolution Mozambique has also embarked on a renewed of the former Ministry of Fisheries and process of decentralization, approved through creation of a new ministry with a broader amendments to the 2004 Constitution in mandate beyond fisheries affairs. The new May 2018. This entails a transfer of certain Ministry of the Sea, Inland Waters and powers rand financial resources from the Fisheries (MIMAIP) has a more holistic central government to provincial and district mandate, having integrated responsibility for: authorities. Accordingly, functions previously performed by provincial delegations of national • Exercising state authority over the sea, fisheries institutions such as IDPPE, INAQUA inland waters and fisheries. and ADNAP, have been decentralized and put under the authority of provincial governments, • Authorizing and supervising the planning, through MIMAIP provincial directorates (DP- concessions, research and other activities MAIPs). This has involved a lot of personnel that require the use of the sea, inland waters being transferred, at least in their employment and their ecosystems. arrangements, from national to provincial. • Promoting the use and exploitation of These changes, both the re-structuring of sea resources, inland waters and their MIMAIP and the decentralization of provincial ecosystems. delegations of IDEPA and ADNAP, are likely to have impacted the management of • Promoting and coordinating the prevention project initiatives, including FishCC, that and reduction of pollution of the aquatic were designed and initiated under earlier environment and the improvement of the institutional arrangements, including state of their ecosystems.34 disruptions to institutional memory and management continuity. 34  Presidential Decree 17/2015 on MIMAIP attribution and competencies Chapter 1: Fisheries Co-Management 29 1.6. Legal Framework for Designating Community Management Areas* At the outset of FishCC in 2015, there was There was only a more general provision in no clear legal instrument under fisheries the Fisheries Law of 2013, for establishment legislation, specifically for the establishment of ‘zones for conservation of fisheries of community fisheries management areas resources’, pending subsidiary regulations proposed to be developed by the project. to define the details of its application: Fisheries Law, 2013 Article 16 (Zones for conservation of fishery resources) 1. In maritime and continental waters, conservation zones for fishery resources may be declared to promote their protection and regeneration. 2. Conservation zones are classified according to specific purpose, ecosystem regeneration and the socio-economic interests of communities. 3. The Government is responsible for regulating the definition, conditions and form of declaration of resource protection zones. To address this gap, during revision of the initially drafted which would provide for Fisheries Regulations (REPMAR) during establishment of community management 2018-19, in significant part catalyzed by areas for fisheries: the FishCC project, a new provision was Draft REPMAR, 2019 Article 23 (Community Management Fishing Areas) 1. A community management area shall be a delimited area in the ​​public community domain, under the management of one or more local communities, for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources. 2. A community management area aims to achieve the following objectives: (a) ensure the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources in the ​​ area of common use of the community, including conserving natural resources, sites of historical, religious and spiritual importance and cultural use for the local community; (b) ensure the sustainable management of coastal and marine resources in order to result in local sustainable development. 3. In community management areas, only artisanal fishing, subsistence fishing and recreational and sport-fishing, scientific research fishing, experimental or demonstrative fishing and training and training may be carried out, and others as may be defined in the management plan. 4. Establishment of community management areas shall be preceded by the preparation of management plans in accordance with these Regulations. 5. In community management areas, community-based organizations are responsible for the implementation of management plans, under the supervision of local governments and local fisheries administration institutions. 6. In community management areas, fishing licensing and enforcement are the responsibility of the competent authorities of the District. 7. The Minister responsible for fisheries shall be responsible for establishing community management areas. * The extracts of legislation included in section 1.6 have been translated by the author and are not official translations 30 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique However, further consideration within Article from the proposed revised Fisheries MIMAIP, and with the Ministry for Land, Regulations (REPMAR), and instead to Environment and Rural Development make use of existing legal provisions for (MITADER) during 2019, resulted in an designating community conservation areas alternative proposal to remove the above draft under the Conservation Law, 2017: Conservation Law, 2017 Article 22 (Community Conservation Areas) 1. A community conservation area is a sustainable use conservation area in the ​​public community domain, delimited and managed by one or more local communities who have the right to use and benefit from the land (DUAT), destined for preserving fauna and flora and for the sustainable use of natural resources. 2. A community conservation area aims to achieve the following objectives: (a) protect and conserve the existing natural resources in the area of ​​ customary community, use, including the conservation of natural resources, sacred forests and other sites of historical, religious, spiritual and cultural importance to the local community; (b) guarantee the sustainable management of natural resources in a way that leads to local sustainable development; (c) ensure access to and the permanence of plants for medicinal use and of biological diversity in general. 3. Licensing for the exploitation of resources to third parties can only be done with the prior consent of the local communities, after a process of consultation, culminating in the conclusion of a partnership agreement. 4. Management of natural resources in the area of community conservation shall be carried out in accordance with the customary rules and practices of the respective local communities, without prejudice to compliance with national legislation. Conservation Law, 2017 Article 23 (Sanctuary) 1. The sanctuary is an area in the public domain of the State, or in the private domain, destined for the reproduction, shelter, feeding and research of certain species of fauna and flora. 2. The sanctuary may be demarcated within or outside an established conservation area. 3. The resources existing in the sanctuary may be exploited under a special license, under terms to be regulated, except for species that are intended to be protected, provided they are in accordance with the respective management plan and with this Law. 4. The repopulation of species in a sanctuary is subject to compliance with provisions in national legislation and in the respective management plan. Chapter 1: Fisheries Co-Management 31 Conservation Law, 2017 Article 37 (Approval, Modifications and Dissolution of Conservation Areas) 1. It is incumbent upon the Council of Ministers to approve, modify or dissolve all natural reserves, national parks, cultural and natural monuments in the public domain of the State, special reserves, environmental protection areas and official estates, regardless of their size, as well as sanctuaries, game farms and community conservation areas larger than 10,000 hectares. 2. It is incumbent on the Minister who oversees the conservation areas to approve, modify or dissolve sanctuaries, game farms and community conservation areas of between 1,000 and 10,000 hectares. 3. It is incumbent upon the provincial government to approve, modify or dissolve game farms, sanctuaries and community conservation areas up to a maximum of 1,000 hectares, as well as cultural and natural monuments in the public domain and in the private domain. 4. It is incumbent upon the municipal assembly to approve, modify or dissolve municipal, cultural and natural monuments and municipal ecological parks that are located within the limits of the municipality in question. 5. The process of creation, modification or termination of conservation areas follows the process indicated in the land law. 6. Nature reserves, national parks and special reserves will have a buffer zone, which is an integral part of the conservation area, in accordance with the ecological conditions. Three implications stand out from principle of bestowing preferential access MIMAIP’s latest proposal to make use rights on local communities. In particular, of the provision under the Conservation paragraph 3 of Article 22 states that Law, 2017 for designation of community “licensing for exploitation of resources to conservation areas, rather than developing third parties can only be done with the separate provisions in Fisheries Regulations prior consent of the local communities”. (REPMAR): However, the term ‘third party’ is not defined and there is ambiguity as to what i. MITADER approval: approval it means in a fisheries context. Originally for establishment of community crafted for a terrestrial context, ‘third conservation areas between 1,000 and party’ might have been intended to refer to 10,000 hectares in size (which includes foreign investors being licensed to extract all the six areas targeted under the terrestrial natural resources. In a fisheries FishCC project), requires approval of the context, the question arises as to whether Minister of MITADER, as per Article an industrial or semi-industrial vessel, or 37 (2), but not necessarily the Minister of indeed a non-local artisanal fisher or vessel, MIMAIP, at least according to the letter would be considered a ‘third party’. of the law. The requirement for inter- ministerial co-ordination could introduce iii. Sanctuaries: under Conservation Law, delays and inertia into the process of sanctuaries can be designated within designating community management community conservation areas, thus areas for fisheries. would be suitable for designation of fisheries no-take reserves within broader ii. Local community consent for community fisheries management or third party access: Article 22 of the conservation areas. Conservation Law of 2017, which provides for establishment of community These points are discussed further in conservation areas, arguably enshrines the Section 4 (Lessons) below. Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 33 2. FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 2.1. FishCC Background, Objectives & Structure 2.1.1. FishCC project genesis Around the same time, the design process was also getting underway to develop a Artisanal fisheries co-management and climate SSWIOFish project in Mozambique, a change vulnerability national component of a regional portfolio The FishCC project concept was developed of projects in the western Indian Ocean in the context of a newer generation of supported by World Bank IDA grants, government-led artisanal fisheries projects focused on improving the management in Mozambique, such as PPACG and effectiveness of selected priority fisheries.36 ProDIRPA (see above), focused on engaging So, a project piloting an approach to communities in fisheries management in a artisanal fisheries co-management that more meaningful manner, often against a could potentially be mainstreamed, and also background of a declining fisheries resource- inform future revisions to relevant sectoral base. Alongside that, was a further recognition policies and strategies, was seen as highly of the particular vulnerability of coastal complementary to SSWIOFish. communities in Mozambique to climate change stresses. The combined impact of During FishCC design discussions, there rising sea-surface temperature, more frequent was particular interest in identifying an and severe storm surges, ocean acidification approach that could address the challenges and increased variability in rainfall patterns, of promoting behavioral change amongst is expected to affect the status of fisheries artisanal fishers, as part of a strategy resources, fishing patterns and safety-at-sea. towards addressing unsustainable fishing This puts coastal communities at the front line practices. In that context, the Fish Forever of climate change concerns.35 approach developed by the NGO, Rare, was identified as a possible methodology, In this context, during 2013-14, the Nordic based on positive reports of its application Development Fund, together with the in Indonesia and Philippines, though it had World Bank, expressed interest in supporting not yet been trialled in Africa. Fish Forever’s a Mozambique government-led project focus on applying a spatial approach to to pilot approaches that would promote artisanal fisheries co-management, through climate change resilience amongst coastal establishment of community management communities. This could be through areas with no-take reserves, resonated with enhancing both ecological resilience (ie. similar LMMA37-type approaches being relieving unsustainable pressures on fisheries trialled elsewhere in the SWIO region, and habitats and resources) and community was seen as having interesting potential in adaptive capacity (enhancing community the Mozambique context. capacity and livelihood diversification). 35  INGC, 2009; MICOA, 2007; MICOA, 2013 36  World Bank, 2014 37  LMMA = Locally managed marine areas, a management approach developed in SE Asia and Pacific 34 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 2.1.2. Project Objective The FishCC project development objective Furthermore, the project will support (PDO) stated in the approved Project Paper the CCPs through financial planning, was to improve community management of integration of their management body into selected priority fisheries.38 provincial and district governments, and by sponsoring training on climate change, The FishCC Project Paper further social and ecological resilience. Fisheries elaborates that: in the pilot sites will improve through the development and implementation of “The proposed project seeks to improve local TURF-reserves, and these improvements governance … and catalyze a transformative will be quantitatively measured. Data will approach to coastal, artisanal fisheries in be collected by local community members Mozambique. The approach will reduce human to monitor improvement in biomass of threats to coastal ecosystems by piloting community catch and catch value plus reductions in rights-based management … fishing costs. IDPPE will oversee the collection and use of these data. To catalyze this social resilience, the project will pilot a process in which local communities self-organize Component 2: Improve livelihoods through their fisher community councils, and prepare (€525,000). This component will use and implement their own natural resource management the recommendations from site-specific regimes creating TURF and no-take zones (NTZ). socio-economic analyses to support the This will be facilitated by programs called Pride improvement of livelihood. Pilot activities Campaigns, in which Mozambican government staff will be conducted in tourist, aquaculture will be taught the principles of social marketing and and other sectors depending on the a theory of social change that will enable them to geographic locations and social status of the establish constituencies at local level, accelerating the communities. These alternative livelihoods adoption and implementation of TURF reserves. This for fishers will help transition from open- approach has fisheries, livelihoods and natural resource access management to TURF-reserve management objectives, and as the health of coastal management. ecosystems improve, this will increase ecosystem and socioeconomic resilience to climate change”.38 Component 3: Social marketing (€1,400,000). This component will help 2.1.3. Project Structure and Content increase local social marketing capacity within the Ministry of Fisheries and also the The FishCC component structure and local communities. There will be training content is summarized in the approved and capacity-development of the CCPs in World Bank Project Paper38, as follows: the six pilot sites. The international non- governmental organization RARE will Component 1: Improve community provide a social marketing training and workshop rights-based fishery management for IDPPE staff members. Selected IDPPE (€350,000). The National Institute for staff members will go on to be trained the Development of Small Scale Fisheries intensively in social marketing, the science of (IDPPE) will work with Fishing Community behavioral change and conservation so that Councils (CCPs) so that they meet on a they can plan and implement social marketing regular basis, create their management plans, campaigns at six sites. Furthermore, the delineate TURF-reserves, and organize project will organize an international event to necessary protection and monitoring. disseminate the lessons learned in this project and exchange experiences. 38  World Bank (2015) Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 35 Component 4: Project management i) CCP with strengthened capacity, (€700,000). This last component will support including meeting regularly. the implementation and coordination of the project, at IDPPE. It will also support ii) Management plans prepared. monitoring and evaluation of the project activities and result. IDPPE will be iii) Fisheries no-take reserves delineated, supported by a technical assistance on, inter established and implemented. alia, development of terms of reference and external communication. There will iv) Data to monitor improvement in be different types of communication biomass of catch and catch value. materials including tailored awareness and education materials, website, and visual v) Pilot livelihood initiatives implemented. communication. Separate consultancies will undertake technical studies to support vi) IDDPE staff members trained in implementation. social marketing. 2.1.4. Project Deliverables vii) Social marketing campaigns implemented. Drawing on the above component descriptions in the FishCC project paper, Reflecting the above, the official FishCC key expected outputs from the project project results framework contained the included, at each project site: indicators outlined in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. FishCC Results Framework39 Original After mid-term restructuring (2017) PDO Level Results Indicators and end targets Four community management agreements in place Six Community Fishing Councils (CCPs) legalized between the administration and CCPs. and functioning. 7.5% increase in average Catch Per Unit Effort Dropped (CPUE) in targeted communities. 6,000 direct project beneficiaries of which >10% are 2,700 direct project beneficiaries of which >10% are female. female. Intermediate Result (Component One): Improve community-based fishery management 1.1. 5% increase in coral and sea grass Dropped bed coverage in Reserve. 1.2. Six local management plans developed by CCPS Six fisheries management plans developed and submitted for approval Intermediate Result (Component Two): Improve livelihoods 2.1 At least two new revenue generating At least two new revenue generating opportunities opportunities identified and piloted. identified and launched Intermediate Result (Component Three): Social Marketing 3.1. 30 government staff trained on social marketing 3.1. 24 government staff trained on social marketing 39  World Bank, 2019 36 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 2.1.5. Target Communities and Beneficiaries The FishCC project concept did not specify Nampula provinces were an estimated the geographic areas to be targeted by the 148,000 MT. Total semi-industrial marine project, neither did it specify principles or landings for the entire Mozambique coast criteria for their selection. Accordingly, a in the same year were only 1,837 MT. scoping study for FishCC site selection40 Semi-industrial landings in 2015 in Beira, was undertaken during 2016, a collaborative Quelimane and Angoche combined were effort by a team of personnel from Rare, only 1,046 MT.41 So, fisheries in the Sofala IIP, IDPPE, University of Santa Barbara Bank region are overwhelmingly artisanal and the Environmental Defense Fund. in fact, in the region of 99%. An initial long-list of 24 sites was selected based on criteria including: A further criteria-based selection process • Relationship to national MPA. So that the was applied to the 24 potential sites, Fish Forever approach could be tested in involving physical visits to all sites and a range of governance environments. interviews with CCPs and community members. Sites were scored quantitatively • High Biodiversity. against another set of criteria including: • Geographical proximity (northern sites • Suitability to function as a TURF- reachable via Pemba or Nampula Reserve based on ecology and fishing airport). patterns • Co-funding possibilities and strategic • Eco-health and recoverability placement. Including ease of bringing decision makers to a site for • Overfishing demonstration purposes. • Strategic location/ funding • Presence of a functioning CCP. opportunities • Marketing patterns Oddly, the entire Sofala Bank area was • Pride factors (social factors conducive excluded from the site selection process. to social marketing) That covers, most of Nampula and all of • Leadership Zambezia and Sofala provinces. • Management execution (social and This was on the basis that: “the habitat is infrastructure capacity for management) dominated by mangroves and the Sofala Banks, a fishery dominated by semi‐industrial trawling The above process resulted in selection of 6 in shallow waters”.40 This characterization sites for project implementation, as shown is far from accurate. In 2017, total marine in Table 2.2. and Fig.2.1. artisanal landings in Sofala, Zambezia and 40  Rare, 2016 The sun rising over the Indian 41  DEPI national fisheries statistics, 2006-2017 Ocean in central Mozambique Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 37 Table 2.2. Characteristics of sites selected for FishCC implementation No. fishers42 No. fishing Size of management Site name Province CCPs centers area (ha)43 Mefunvo Cabo Delgado Mefunvo 294 4 3,967 Memba Nampula Memba 1439 10 9,075 Inhassoro Fequete 230-250 1 1,722 Pomene Inhambane Pomene 100 1 5,330 Zavora Zavora 150+ 2 9,883 Machangulo Mabuluco, Maputo 240 7 19,858 Santa Maria Observations on site selection process 1. Overall: the approach to site selection the site referred to collectively as was thoughtful and impressively Machangulo. thorough, as evidenced and detailed in the 104-page report cited above. This in itself highlights the above- mentioned drawback of not giving more 2. Selection of Discrete CCP Areas: attention to fishing patterns in the original An implicit premise of the site selection site selection. This issue has important process, not explicitly recognized in implications for the broad approach to the accompanying report, was that identifying the scope of fisheries co- discrete sites, largely pre-defined management areas, as highlighted in by the scope of single existing CCP, Lessons 1 & 2 in Section 4 below. would automatically be appropriate for establishment of community 3. Geographic Spread of Selected Sites: management areas. Although fishing Spreading the 6 sites across 4 provinces, patterns were nominally part of the all in different districts, significantly criteria selection, the summary site increased the number of local authority descriptions in Rare (2016) do not partners that needed to be engaged, and contain any characterization of use have capacity built. Having only one of each area by outside fishers, or site under any one district authority reciprocity of fishing activities with (SDAE) or provincial directorate neighbors. Yet that is a critical factor (DPMAIP), except in Inhambane in the context of defining the scope of Province, cannot have encouraged as high co-management areas. In fact, one of a level of engagement and ownership as the selected sites, initially identified as might otherwise have been the case. Mobulucco CCP, was later expanded Additionally, the geographic spread of to accommodate another neighboring sites put a strain on Rare and IDEPA’s CCP, Santa Maria, which became limited resources, particularly staff time.44 42  Rare, 2016 43  DEPI national fisheries statistics, 2006-2017 44  Rare, 2019h 38 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 4. Selection of FishCC Sites in designation of a community fisheries Designated Protected Areas: 2 of management area within a national the 6 FishCC sites were located in park. Confusingly, Rare reported protected areas designated under the during this report preparation that Conservation Law, 2013; Mefunvo in Mefunvo’s location within a national Quirimbas National Park (QNP) and park was a reason not to identify a Machangulo in Ponta do Ouro Partial fisheries no-take zone there, despite Marine Reserve (RMPPO). As indicated no-take reserves being a central element above in the initial scoping criteria, of Fish Forever. This is surprising this was a deliberate measure to test given there already exist other no-take the appropriateness of Fish Forever reserves within QNP. Moreover, the in a range of governance contexts. Mefunvo campaign manager reported This was a laudable intention and, in that the Mefunvo community did in Machangulo at least, it paid incidental fact propose a no-take reserve on the dividends in terms of complementary east side of the island. This issue remain technical and financial resources unclear, and is not likely to be resolved provided through partnering with in the near future in view of the RMPPO and Peace Parks Foundation. ongoing security situation in northern Cabo Delgado. Preparation of a draft management plan for Machangulo during 2018-19 Points (2) and (3) together suggest that a further helped to crystallize important better approach to site selection would questions around the legal options for have been to identify 2 or 3 clusters of designation of community fisheries CCPs with contiguous areas of jurisdiction, management areas, in particular each cluster within a single district. the revised Fisheries Regulations This would likely have produced greater (REPMAR) currently under success in terms of: (i) engagement, co- preparation. At the time of report ordination and ownership by district and preparation these questions are still provincial authorities; (ii) supporting better in process of being resolved, the point examination of issues surrounding shared is highlighted further in Lesson 27 in fishing grounds and reciprocal fishing Section 4. practices between neighboring areas; and (iii) improved technical oversight of In Mefunvo, there was less evidence of campaign managers by Rare and IDEPA. a value-adding partnership with national park authorities. Less progress was The benefits of taking a cluster approach made on preparation of a management to identifying fisheries management areas, plan there, so experience from Mefunvo underpinned by a systematic assessment has not yet contributed much to the of fishing patterns, is outlined in Lessons 1 question of the legalities surrounding and 2 in Section 4 below. Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 39 Fig. 2.1. Map of six FishCC project sites µ Tanzania C. Delgado CCP: Mefunvo Zambia Niassa QUISSANGA Quirimbas National Park Malawi MEMBA CCP: Memba Nampula Tete Zambezia Primeiras & Segundas Island Manica Zimbabwe Sofala Marromeu Special Reserve el ique Chann CCP: Fequete Bazaruto National Park mb INHASSORO za São Sebastião Cape M o MASSINGA Pomene National Reserve Gaza Inhambane INHARRIME CCP: Pomene Artisanal Fisheries & Climate Maputo Change (FishCC) CCP: Mabuluco CCP: Zavora & Santa Maria Conservation Areas Maputo Special Reserve Districts South Africa Provincial Boundaries Ponta de Ouro MATUTUINE Partial Marine Reserve FishCC Sites 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 KM 40 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 2.2. Fish Forever Methodology & FishCC Implementation 2.2.1. Fish Forever Concept and Approach The Fish Forever approach is best described environment is relatively complex. Where in its own documentation published by highly species-diverse fish communities Rare, the organization responsible for are targeted with multiple gears, it developing Fish Forever since 2011-12. becomes difficult to apply traditional stock Below are some selected text and figures to management approaches that were largely illustrate key features of the approach. developed to manage single-stock fisheries in temperate regions. A note on no-take reserves and spill-over effects Fisheries no-take reserves are a cornerstone In complex, data-poor fisheries of fisheries management globally, especially environments, such as are common in in the management of artisanal near- the SWIO region, it would be practically shore fisheries in tropical and sub-tropical impossible to design or implement specific regions. Although the benefits are difficult effort-control measures for each major to evaluate empirically, there is a body of target stock, to ensure sustainability. In literature developed over 30 years indicating that context, well-located, appropriately- that fisheries closures can have a net sized fisheries no-take reserves can be a enhancement effect on fisheries in adjacent simpler, effective alternative. areas, through spillover of both larvae and juvenile fish from the closed area.45 This is at the heart of the Fish Forever approach, and other similar approaches Fisheries no-take reserves have particular applied in the Indo-Pacific. value in protecting fish spawning or nursery habitats, and also where the fisheries How Fish Forever was Born: Managed Access with Reserves meets Behavior Change46 The idea of Fish Forever was born through These realizations sparked the basis for an three major realizations: that coastal approach that could link the benefits of fisheries were largely unmanaged and in marine protection back to local communities, decline; that coastal communities were build effective governance and management facing an existential crisis impacting to deliver sustainable coastal fisheries at the foundation of their economy, food a local level, and help local to national security, culture and wellbeing; and that government prioritize coastal communities the most widely-used management tool in and their fisheries. This approach, managed coastal waters — Marine Protected Areas access with reserves meets behavior change, (MPAs) — were struggling to be effective, is community-led and multi-local, designed given a lack of community support and to addresses the needs of both people and fisher compliance, among other factors. nature, conservation and development.42 45  eg. Nickols et al., 2019; McClanahan & Kosgei, 2019; Kruek et al., 2017, Nowlis, JS & Roberts CM (1999); 46  Rare, 2018a (p10) 47  World Bank (2015) Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 41 Spatial Approach to Fisheries Co-Management: Managed Access with Reserves47 Managed access with reserves is a for fishers to become better stewards of community rights-based fisheries their resources, ensures sustainability by management approach that provides aligning social incentives for fishers with coastal communities with exclusive access conservation objectives and empowers privileges for fishing in defined areas, and small-scale fishers to effectively participate in which protected areas are established in fisheries management. Reserves remove inside or adjacent to these exclusive access fishing pressure and enable fish to grow, areas. Managed access facilitates tenure reproduce and recruit — and ultimately and access, provides a mechanism to sustain the fish population. adjust fishing pressure, creates incentives Fig. 2.2. The three fundamentals of the Fish Forever approach (Source: Rare) Rights, Rewards & Obligations: Spill-over Effect Incentivizes Stewardship47 As fish populations recover in reserves the rules and prevent illegal fishing in and spill over into nearby fishing grounds, the area. Access privileges come with fishers with access rights to the area responsibilities, and fishers thus become surrounding the reserve can directly empowered to control and steward their benefit from the spillover (in the form of fisheries through a system of rights, higher catch rates, bigger fish and lower rewards and obligations. The right to fish fishing costs). This scenario creates an becomes contingent on good stewardship. incentive for fishers to comply with 42 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Fish Forever Implementation established across the 41 sites. 63 managed A roadmap for implementation of Fish access areas were built or strengthened, Forever is shown in below. To implement encompassing nearly 600,000 hectares of Fish Forever, field teams have access coastal waters with 27,000 hectares secured to comprehensive guidelines, training in fully protected reserves, as summarized in manuals, toolkits and support materials Table 2.3 below.49 to guide the process and to implement each of the elements of the program. This Rare (2018a) summarizes achievements includes initial assessments, building and lessons from the experience of participatory management, consultation implementing Fish Forever in Brazil, processes for reserve design, establishing Indonesia and Philippines since 2013. Key data for decision making, building effective lessons outlined include:50 M&E etc. Application of these materials • Fish Forever approach works under a is backstopped by technical teams in a variety of settings. hub in the Philippines. Materials are accessible through an internal portal, • Fish Forever needs to build in greater and implementation is tracked through a flexibility and patience for empowering comprehensive program milestone system.48 communities • Community engagement is central to 2.2.2. Fish Forever Global Application change and sustainability. • Peer-to-peer networks increase demand Prior to its application in Mozambique under for the approach. FishCC project, Fish Forever, was primarily developed and applied in three countries: • Subnational (provincial) engagement Brazil, Indonesia and Philippines. During and support are essential to scale. its first three years of implementation, Fish • Reserve networks and connectivity in Forever evolved to encompass work in 41 sites network design are needed to optimize those three countries, comprising over 250 both governance and ecology. communities and 570,000 people, including • Alternative livelihoods and value nearly 35,000 fishers. By the end of 2017, 51 chain enhancements must be carefully legal and functional management bodies were planned and correctly sequenced. Table 2.3.: Summary statistics related to Fish Forever for Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines49 Brazil Indonesia Philippines Total Number of Fish Forever sites 6 15 20 41 Number of communities in site areas 64 55 457 576 Number of communities Fish Forever is engaging 11 46 210 267 Number of people in Fish Forever communities 9,800 78,799 481,545 570,144 Number of fishers in Fish Forever communities 2,148 8,085 24,601 34,834 Hectares of coastal waters in Fish Forever sites 355,400 5,554,734 804,127 6,714,261 Number of managed access areas 6 27 30 63 Hectares under managed access 355,400 81,895 151,298 588,593 Number of no-take fisheries reserves 13 27 64 104 Hectares of no-take fisheries reserves 1,383 22,974 2,669 27,026 Percentage of managed access covered by reserves 0.4% 28.1% 1.8% 4.6% Current number of management bodies 6 26 19 51 48  Steve Box, Fish Forever Vice-President, Rare (pers. comm.) 49  Rare, 2018a 50 Rare Table 2.4.: Fish Forever implementation road-map50 44 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique 2.2.3. FishCC Implementation Process This sub-section outlines FishCC project Activities were not always implemented at implementation by component and activity. exactly the same time across the 6 sites. Outputs and achievements are outlined separately in the following Section 3. However, the deviation from what is portrayed was minor. Complementary The broad timeline for implementation of activity descriptions are as follows. the FishCC project is shown in Figure 2.3. Fig. 2.3. Timeline of activity implementation under FishCC Campaign Manager-led field activities Complementary activities Q1 Campaign managers’ recruitment finalised Q2 2016 Phase 1 of campaign managers’ training in Maputo Q3 Site projects launched at district/community level Q4 Legend Campaign Manager capacity-building Community rights-based fisheries management Q1 Fisheries management planning Social marketing Q2 Livelihoods support 2017 CCP diagnostic assessment & revitalisation Q3 FLAG surveys: ID FLAG species, reserves, management FLAG workshops x2 to validate FLAG survey findings FLAG workshop outcomes shared with community Q4 1st KAP surveys to establish social marketing baseline Q1 Identification of Phase 2 of Campaign Managers’ training in Maputo livelihood projects by SOFRECO & Peace Parks Foundation Q2 Barriers removal workshops: validation of pride 2018 campaign theory of change. Campaign planning Management planning Registration of fishers field consultations by Q3 ADNAP team Implementation of Q4 livelihood projects Management plan Implementation of pride campaigns on 27/11/18 2nd KAP surveys to assess impact pride campaign drafting in Maputo by ADNAP team Q1 Phase 3 of Campaign Managers’ training in Maputo Ongoing under 2019 Q2 SWIOFish project Ongoing Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 45 Component One: Community rights- identify a proposed ‘FLAG’ fish species, based fisheries management meaning a single totemic species of high CCP diagnostic & revitalization: economic importance, that could be Campaign managers at the 6 FishCC used as a focus for considering fisheries sites facilitated a process to revitalize 7 management interventions, as well as participating CCPs (the Machangulo serving as an emblem for the CCP. site having 2 CCPs), none of which were functional at the outset of the project. Management plan preparation for each A diagnostic process was undertaken, FishCC site: Preparation of management fishers and traders were convened and all plans for each of the FishCC sites, one of encouraged to become members. Training the main expected outputs of the project, was undertaken with the CCP executive was implemented by ADNAP, being part committees, statutes were drafted, and the of its institutional mandate. A team of two process of CCP legalization was initiated in senior fisheries officers was assigned to the December 2017. Mapping of the boundaries task, with back-up support from a senior of CCP areas of jurisdiction, which in most fisheries legal officer. cases would be proposed as the boundaries of future community management areas The team applied a combination of desk- was also undertaken under this activity. review and field engagement, making use following information sources to prepare Fisher registration: After the Mid-Term management plans: Review (MTR), a new activity was added to FishCC under which Rare adapted a • Baseline reports generated during digital registration system for small-scale FishCC: in particular the CTV fishers, developed under the Fish Forever ecological study, IIP fisheries reports, program, using an application called Fast- and FLAG workshop reports from each Field Forms. This enabled data capture of site 51. personal details of fishers which was the basis for fisher registration and issuing of • Other existing background literature: ID cards. The target at MTR was to issue particularly for Machangulo which a minimum of 500 fisher ID cards in total, lies within the Ponta do Ouro Special across the six FishCC sites (approx. 25% of Reserve and has benefited from other all fishers). project resources which have generated studies52 . There was limited existing Fisheries Landscape and Goal-Setting literature for other sites, but the team (FLAG) tool: Using the Fish Forever did also draw on other general literature FLAG toolkit, campaign managers at each such as biological reference material for FishCC site interviewed a sizable sample some of the selected FLAG fish species. of community members (primarily fishers and fish traders), either individually or in • Short consultation events with target small focus groups, to gather information stakeholders: these consisted of one on artisanal fisheries at the site, including consultation meeting at each site, lasting identifying important target species, 2-3 hours, with selected community and historical trend in catches and so on. In local authority stakeholders, conducted part, the aim was to identify the ten most during the second half of 2018. important species by economic value, and 51  IIP, 2017a; IIP 2017b; CTV 2018; Rare/IDEPA, 2017(a to f) FLAG reports 52  Eg. Louro et al., 2017 46 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Preparation of draft management plans After receiving feedback that these first was undertaken by the ADNAP team in drafts required significant further work, Maputo. ADNAP was provided with a with as input from a broader team, Fish Forever management plan template ADNAP opted to prioritize improving the but found it difficult to adapt as it required plans for Machangulo and Inhassoro. A information that was not available. workshop was held in Maputo in March Accordingly, the team developed or adapted 2019 to work further on the two plans, their own format. The first draft plans were convening participants including technical produced in December 2018 53. staff from Rare and IIP and the campaign manager from Inhassoro. Component Two: Improved Livelihoods Livelihood support projects: An hired a separate consultant for a similar international consulting firm, SOFRECO, process there. The approach in both cases was contracted in 2017 to undertake a included interviews with CCPs, district participatory process, at 5 of the 6 FishCC authorities and other relevant stakeholders. sites, to identify potential livelihood project The SOFRECO final reports54 identified a that could be supported by the project. long-list of 15 revenue generating projects At Machangulo, Peace Parks Foundation for the 5 sites, three options per site. Part A women stands with her sons in a rural coastal community in northern Mozambique 53  MIMAIP, 2018 (a to f) 54  SOFRECO, 2018a; SOFRECO, 2018b; Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 47 of the basis for participatory selection of ongoing support were provided to the groups options by communities was that projects by Rare, through the campaign managers. would be delivered through matching Rare further worked with two local NGOs grants, with beneficiaries contributing 20%, to deliver financial literacy training, namely, either financially or in kind, to promote Fundo de Desenvolvimento da Mulher (FDM) community ownership. and Ophavela. Both are certified NGOs with extensive experience in microfinance, In some cases, the communities covered financial literacy and women’s empowerment. the costs through savings clubs. The long- The training provided participants with list of 15 projects was distilled down to 5 knowledge of financial management projects, one per site, by the consulting activities such as savings, record-keeping on team in collaboration with the respective income and expenses, budgeting, cash flow communities, CCPs, district and provincial management and the use of financial services. authorities, to fit the available budget of Trainings also focused on inclusion of women around US$ 100,000 per site. Although in savings clubs. each site initially identified a range of fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture and Fisheries data collection to enhance tourism related projects in the long-list of market and financial inclusion: Under 15, the final 5 project all focused either on FishCC, Rare applied a mobile phone improved fishing gears for offshore fishing, app developed under the Fish Forever or on fisheries marketing cold-chain global program, called OurFish, for digital enhancement. recording of fish catches by fish traders. The aim of the app is to assist fish traders Equally, the diagnostic reports for in recording and assessing their fish Machangulo55 identified several options for trading businesses, whilst at the same time livelihood project including fisheries value- generating indicative fisheries catch data for chain enhancement, aquaculture, eco-tourism use by fisheries managers, from community and sustainability training. It was agreed that t o national level. FishCC would support implementation of the proposed fisheries value-chain enhancement Rare identified, trained and equipped fish project, whilst other options were supported traders to collect and record information by Peace Parks Foundation and/or other (biological and financial statistics) funding sources. Details of each livelihood resulting from their day-to-day commercial project implemented are outlined in Section transactions in fish and other seafood. Rare, 3.3.1. below. in coordination with CCPs and district governments, distributed android phones to Savings & loans groups: The project selected fish traders of the CCPs. Data was supported establishment or revitalization automatically submitted to a cloud-based of community savings and loans (PCR56) data management system. groups, over a period of 12 months, following a standard village savings and loans (VSL) model that has been widely used in a rural development context in Africa over the past 20 years. Training, savings materials and 55  Lopes, 2017; PPF, 2017 56  PCR = Poupança e Credito Rotativo 48 Fisheries Co-Management in Mozambique Component Three: Social Marketing In general terms, social marketing aims Knowledge, attitude and practice to influence the behavior of individuals (KAP) surveys: The purpose of KAP and communities, to bring about greater surveys is provide a monitoring framework social good. It seeks to apply lessons from against to assess progress in bringing commercial marketing to achieve social about changes to attitudes and practices, goals. Globally, it has particularly been particularly amongst fishers. That includes applied in the context of public health measuring the effectiveness of social but also, increasingly, to environment marketing activities (pride campaigns). and natural resources management. The Under FishCC, two (KAP) surveys were concept of social marketing is fundamental undertaken at 5 of the 6 FishCC sites57; a to the Fish Forever approach and is a key baseline (1st KAP) survey was conducted area of intervention in bringing about after completion of the FLAG process, behavioral change, to achieve conservation towards the end of 2017, and a repeat (2nd outcomes. KAP) survey was conducted immediately after implementation of pride campaigns The figure below summarizes the at each site, towards the end of 2018. Data schematic theory of change adopted by collection for the 2nd KAP survey was Fish Forever. Influencing the knowledge, collected using a mobile phone app. attitudes and interpersonal communications (of fishers/fishing communities) catalyses KAP surveys at each FishCC site were a chain of results culminating in an agreed based on questionnaires developed in line conservation outcome. This framework with standard Fish Forever methodology, is applied to develop site-specific theories adapted at each site in light of the outcomes of change, tailored messaging for of the FLAG workshops, and theories of communication and awareness (pride) change subsequently developed by each campaigns and a monitoring plan to assess Campaign Manager during their second progress. The Fish Forever approach phase of training at University of Eduardo contains key steps in applying social Mondlane (see Fig 2.3.). The KAP surveys marketing (Figure 2.4.). contained questions pertinent to each step in the schematic theory of change in Fig 2.4. Fig. 2.4. Fish Forever schematic theory of change 57  KAP surveys were not undertaken at Memba owing to a change of Campaign Manager at a critical juncture. Chapter 2: FishCC Background, Approach & Methodology 49 Barriers removal workshops: messages. Messaging was further amplified Workshops were conducted at each FishCC through local media coverage58. Messaging site. Their purpose was to identify behavioral focused on the importance of marine changes that are needed to bring about environment conservation; preservation of conservation results (ie. as per theories of the target flagship species chosen by each change); and to identify the key barriers community; adoption of sustainable fishing to such behavioral change and how those behaviors and best practices, including barriers can be removed or mitigated. establishment and observance of fisheries Barrier removal and mitigation measures no-take reserves; and fisher registration13. are then incorporated into pride campaign messaging and materials, and/or livelihood It was expected that the messaging and initiatives, as appropriate. materials prepared for the campaign launch festivities that would have been Pride Campaigns: Pride campaigns are replicated through a series of subsequent the name given under the Fish Forever campaign events and activities lasting at methodology to community awareness- least six months. But in practice, relatively raising and mobilization campaign, based little subsequent campaign activity was on messaging that is specifically customized implemented. In Inhassoro, a weekly to priority fisheries management issues at a community radio show was supported given site. Accordingly, the pride campaign during Jan-Feb 2019; in Machangulo, a at each FishCC site was based on an football tournament was held during Feb- analysis undertaken by Campaign Managers May 2019; in Pomene the project supported of the results of the FLAG and barrier tree-planting, all featuring pride campaign removal workshops. From these, Campaign messaging. At all sites, campaign messaging Managers identified pride campaign on banners, posters, murals, t-shirts and objectives, messaging, and target audiences other materials would have had an ongoing that would to address a specific, realistic, impact. and measurable threat caused by overfishing and/or related undesired fishing practices. However, the majority of campaign activities planned to be implemented between Dec The pride campaigns were officially 2018 and April 2019 subsequent to campaign launched at each site on 21/11/18, which was launches, were not implemented under World Fishers Day. A variety of festivities FishCC due to a lack of available time and were implemented involving approximately project financial resources59. Some activities 350 community members at each site, though were implemented by Rare later in presided over by provincial and/or district 2019, using other resources. authorities. Messaging was delivered through official speeches by government officials; school presentations; singing by women’s cultural groups; fishers’ drama groups; and football, boat-racing and athletics activities; and other cultural events, all showcasing banners, posters, t-shirts, caps etc., with appropriate 58  Rare, 2019 59  Personal communications from six campaign managers 50 Fisheries Co-Management 3. FishCC Project Achievements and Challenges 3.1. Overall Project Performance Refer to tables 3.1. through 3.3. on the following page for the key achievements and challenges of the FishCC project. 3.2. Component One: Improve Community Rights-Based Fishery Management 3.2.1. Strengthening Community Fisheries Councils (CCPs) CCP revitalization, functionality and legalization As a consequence of CCP revitalization efforts by the campaign managers and district fisheries extensionists at each FishCC site, 7 CCPs were successfully re-established and legalized, executive committees (Comité de Direcção) were elected and trained, and CCP statues prepared. During the latter stages of the project, CCP committees were reportedly meeting once or twice per month, with general assembly meetings being held 1-2 times per year. Selected feedback from campaign managers, gathered during consultations for this report, included: 60  World Bank, 2015 61  World Bank, 2019 62  Personal communications from six campaign managers Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 51 Table 3.1. Achievements against expected deliverables in FishCC project paper60 Expected deliverable Achieved Achievement Community Fishing Councils (CCPs) with Yes 7 CCPs with capacity strengthened but only 2 strengthened capacity meeting regularly having evidence of regular meetings Management plans prepared Partial 6 management plans drafted but none finalized Fisheries no-take reserves delineated, Partial No-take reserves delineated at 4 sites but none established and implemented formally established or demarcated. Data to monitor improvement in biomass of No No baseline collected. Some data collected in catch and catch value final year of project using OurFish app. Pilot livelihood initiatives implemented Partial 6 livelihood projects initiated, only 2 completed IDDPE staff members trained in social Yes 6 campaign managers trained, 5 receiving marketing Masters degrees Social marketing campaigns implemented Partial 6 campaigns launched but none fully implemented for planned 6-month duration Table 3.2. Achievements against the formal FishCC Results Framework Revised indicators and targets Actual achievements61 PDO Level Results Six CCPs legalized and functioning. Achieved. 7 CCPs revitalized and legalized, but only 2 showed evidence of functioning through records of meeting minutes with list of attendees. Explained due to the low level of literacy among the CCPs. 2,700 direct project beneficiaries of which >10% are Achieved: The Project benefited an estimated 2,713 female. people, of which 52% are women Intermediate Result (Component One): Improve community-based fishery management Six fisheries management plans developed and Not achieved. 6 management plans were at draft submitted for approval stage but with significant further work needed. Intermediate Result (Component Two): Improve livelihoods At least two new revenue generating opportunities Achieved. Two livelihood projects launched and 4 identified and launched others in process Intermediate Result (Component Three): Social Marketing 24 government staff trained on social marketing Achieved. Training provided to 6 campaign managers was extended to 24 extension officers. Table 3.3. Final ratings in World Bank Implementation Completion Report62 Performance factor Rating Achievement of project objective Modest Development outcome (efficiency) Moderately Unsatisfactory Implementation performance Moderately Unsatisfactory 52 Fisheries Co-Management Pomene: CCP committee meets monthly All 7 CCPs were legally registered through with good participation of all 12 members submission of formal authorization requests signed by MIMAIP between October 2017 Zavora: CCP committee meets diligently and July 2018. on 8th of every month with all 12 committee members attending regularly. General Registration of fishers and definition assembly met 3-4 times in two years, when it of CCP member does meets it has full attendance of almost all 121 fishers in Zavora 1197 fishers and 18 fish traders were registered across the 6 FishCC sites, as Machangulo: Santa Maria CCP: 13 shown in Table 3.4. Over 1000 of the members of committee meet every month registered fishers were issued with ID and prepare minutes. General assembly cards. Around 48% of all fishers were meets the following day, every month, registered, with most of the deficit at attracting approx. 40 participants if low Memba.64 tide, or up to 70 if not low tide. Mabuluko CCP: re-established mid-2018. Committee Community consultations undertaken meets less consistently; around twice July during preparation of this report indicated and December 2018 and twice between that fishers attached significant value to January and July 2019. having ID cards. However, it is noted that the ID card does not explicitly indicate During end-of-project monitoring and that the fisher is a CCP member. This evaluation, only 2 of the 7 CCPs were able seems to be a missed opportunity to use to provide means of verification of their the ID cards as means of affirming and functional performance, as per the project incentivizing CCP membership. This results framework, namely written minutes raises the important question as to who, of CCP committee meetings, with a list within the community, is perceived to be a of attendees. This was explained in Rare’s CCP ‘member’ and thus whether ordinary reporting as being due to the low level of fishers feel represented by the CCP. literacy among the CCP leaders. In practice, it is surprising this important point was not Historically in Mozambique, although better addressed during selection of CCP the CCP Statues of 2006 clearly indicate committee members. Literacy should be a that CCPs are expected to have a broad basic requirement for selection of candidates membership through a general assembly, as CCP Secretary, it seems unlikely there average membership along the whole would be no literate candidate within an coast is only around 17 members per CCP. entire fishing community. That is because CCP ‘membership’ has frequently been taken, both by fisheries Topics of discussion by CCP committees officers and community members, to reportedly included licensing rates, refer only to members of the executive community-based surveillance, issues committee, and there is no active general related to access to gear and other fishing assembly. This significantly weakens the tools, and discussion on priority issues extent to which fishers identify with the to take to the district and provincial CCP and perceived it to represent them.65 institutions for resolution. 63  MIMAIP, 2019h 64  There is a discrepancy in no. of fishers in Memba between MIMAIP, 2019h (200) and Rare, 2016 (1050) 65  MIMAIP, 2019h Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 53 Table 3.4. Fishers registered at each FishCC site65 Total Fishers registered Traders registered Total % of Site fishers H M Total H M Total registered total Mefunvo 294 166 128 294 5 5 299 100 Memba 1439 175 17 192 5 5 197 13 Pomene 120 113 2 115 2 2 4 119 96 Inhassoro 205 181 181 4 4 185 88 Zavora 121 118 118 0 118 98 Machangulo 300 297 297 0 297 99 Total 2479 1050 147 1197 7 11 18 1215 48 Selected feedback on this issue, gathered discussion everyone agreed all 120 fishers during consultations for this report, included: are CCP members. Indicated there is still a degree of uncertainty and confusion. Mefunvo: CCP executive committee has 32 members of including 13 women. In Zavora: 100 fishers have registered and principle, all fishers are CCP members but received ID cards, out of 121 fishers total. in practice most would probably say the Remaining fishers all wish to register when ‘members’ are the 32 committee members. cards are available. Memba: Around 200 fishers registered and The experience of registering fishers 145 received ID cards—registered fishers came under FishCC highlights the potential from all 10 fishing centers in Memba CCP. value of ID cards as an instrument for Although the average fisher is likely to say he reinforcing a sense of membership of CCPs, is a CCP member, there remains a degree of if membership status were shown on the confusion and committee members haven’t yet ID card. It could also help to engender a adjusted their thinking and language in terms better common understanding that fishers of recognizing the broader membership. and traders in the general assembly are every bit as much members of the CCP as Pomene: 115 fishers were registered with are members of the executive committee. ID cards, remaining fishers all want them. There could also be value in issuing special During discussion with a large group of ID cards to executive committee members, fishers, the CCP President referred to confirming their role on the committee. ‘membership’ of CCP as meaning only This point is highlighted in Lesson 27 in the 12 committee members. After further Section 4 below. ID cards used by fishermen in the monitored areas. Consultations found that significant value is attached to the cards 54 Fisheries Co-Management 3.2.2. Identification of No-Take Reserves and Management Measures at Each Site The project made significant progress communities, their two areas of jurisdiction towards the above objective, facilitating were combined to form a single TURF community consensus on no-take reserve(s) management area. and other fisheries management measures at each site, and packaging these into draft Within each of the above management management plans. However, finalization areas, CCP committees and fisher of management plans was still in process at communities participated in the Fish the end of the project, with significant work Forever fisheries landscape and goal-setting still needed: proposed management areas (FLAG) process, resulting in, amongst were not yet formally established; no-take other things, identification of: reserve boundaries were not yet mapped or demarcated; and, with few exceptions, • a target FLAG fish species management measures were not yet being (Table 3.5. below67); implemented, as originally anticipated at project inception66. This reflects a variety of • challenges facing fisheries and fisheries challenges related to project implementation, ecosystems locally; institutional roles and the broader national fisheries governance framework, all captured • possible strategies and measures to in the lessons outlined in Section 4 below. mitigate those challenges. In 5 of the 6 FishCC pilot sites, the project The above-mentioned consultations at worked with a single CCP, and existing CCP each FishCC resulted in broad acceptance areas of jurisdiction (see section 1.2.2. above) of the concept of establishing one or were taken as de facto TURF management more fisheries no-take reserves within the areas, though boundary mapping was not CCP area of jurisdiction, and provisional systematic undertaken and/or documented. identification of actual proposed locations. These are illustrated in Figs 3.1a and 3.1b In the case of Machangulo, fishers of two below, with some additional commentary neighboring CCPs, Mabuluku and Santa summarized from consultations with Maria, substantially share each other’s CCP members undertaken during the fishing grounds so, by agreement of the two preparation of this report. Table 3.5. Priority FLAG fish species selected by communities at each FishCC site67 FLAG species FishCC site Portuguese Scientific name English name Mefunvo Peixe ladrao Lethrinus harak Blackspot emperor Memba Peixe coelho Siganus sutor Spinefoot rabbitfish Inhassoro/ Fequete Peixe coelho Siganus sutor Spinefoot rabbitfish Pomene Garoupa Epinephelus tauvina Grouper (Arabian) Závora Garoupa Epinephelus malabaricus Grouper (Malabar) Machangulo Peixe pedra Pomadasys kaakan Javelin grunt 66  World Bank, 2015 67  Rare, 2017 (a to f) Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 55 Table 3.6. summarizes the areas of the (iv) For Inhassoro, the reserve area shown respective management areas (AGCs) and is that of the proposed ARR reported by not-take reserves (ARRs) at each of the 6 Rare. But as outlined in Fig. 3.1a above, there FishCC sites, with complementary notes as was a substantial discrepancy between that follows. and what was described by the Fequete CCP/ community during consultations for this Notes and observations on Table 3.6. report. (i) The data for habitat areas in columns 3 & 5 in Table 3.6. are based on GIS analysis (v) For Zavora, data from Rare in column undertaken by Rare using available datasets 5 indicate that the 3 proposed no-take reserves for global distribution of coral reef, seasgrass do not contain any habitat (coral reefs, and mangrove. seagrass and mangrove). This is disputable. The 3 reserve areas are rocky fossilized (ii) The size of the no-take reserve sandstone substrates supporting hard and at Memba is very small in relation to the soft coral communities and associated relatively large size of the management area biodiversity.69 Rare decided not to classify which covers 10 fishing centers. these as coral reef habitats since they are not true limestone reefs, but they are certainly (iii) In Mefunvo, the proposed no- coral habitats. take reserve was not mapped, nor its area calculated, owing to a discrepancy (vi) For Machangulo, the size of the between the Mefunvo campaign manager reserve area shown, and its proportion of (who reported community agreement on a the total management area, is misleading proposed no-take reserve on the eastern reef ) in fisheries terms. As shown in Fig. 3.1b and Rare (who reported that a no-take reserve above, the Machangulo no-take reserve is a was not established in Mefunvo because it mangrove habitat, the majority of which is is located within Quirimbas National Park). not open water fishing grounds as such. The The latter point is not consistent with the fact proportion of fishing grounds contained in there are several other no-take reserves within the reserve is probably closer to 5 or 7%. For QNP. The deteriorating security situation in fisheries management purposes, it would Cabo Delgado during 2019 made it impossible be worth calculating the area of water at to verify the situation on the ground during high-tide, contained in the reserve area, as an consultations for this report. additional metric. Table 3.6. Estimated area of no-take reserves proposed by communities68 FishCC site Total Area of Reserve Reserve Reserve as % of management habitat70 total area habitat area % of total habitat in area (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) area reserve Memba 9,075 2,728 19 16.5 0.2% 0.6% Mefunvo 3,967 1,959 - - Inhassoro 1,722 736 76 16 4.4% 2.2% Pomene 5,330 1,092 109 24 2.0% 2.2% Závora 9,883 255 338 0 3.4% 0% Machangulo 4,872 1,672 1,640 754 33.7% 45.1% 68 Rare 69  CTV, 2018 70  Area of habitat refers to area of coral reefs + seagrass + mangroves 55 Table 3.7. Management measuresi proposed at each FishCC site and proposed location of no-take reserves at FishCC pilot sites FishCC Site Proposed Management Measuresi Proposed Location of No-Take Reserves Map of Proposed Reserves* Mefunvo • One no-take reserve partially agreed. Size not • Mefunvo campaign manager reported a proposed yet surveyed. reserve area was identified by Mefunvo community during Jun-Dec 2017, as shown above (ARR). • Beachseines not to be used during spring tide period (already being observed since CCP • Confusingly, Rare reported that no reserve area registration in July 2018).iii was identified as Mefunvo lies within Quirimbas National Park, so ARR not mapped (see Table 3.3). • No beachseine use at all on coral reef areas (partially observed as of July 2019) • Reserve not yet being observed by local fishers, awaiting demarcation and management plan • Migrant fishers must pay 300 MT per person for 3 months to fish within AGC. Migrant • Initially, in 2016, Mefunvo fishing community was fishers mostly using beachseines (up to 3-4 at hostile to idea of a no-take reserve, having witnessed any one time) & spearguns. bad examples elsewhere within Quirimbas National Park involving corruption, with rangers allegedly taking money to allow fishers to fish. Campaign Manager reported that minds were changed as a result of sensitization under FishCC. Memba • One no-take reserve. Size & percentage of • The map above shows 4 options proposed as total size AGC not yet surveyed. locations for no-take reserves (ARR). The one finally selected by the community is Mucombo ARR, to the north of the management area, at mouth of Mucombo River. • Memba CCP reported that trial closures were conducted at 3 of the 4 reserve options, for a period of 3 months or so, but only Mucombo showed positive results. • Otherwise, the selected no-take reserve was not yet under implementation at 07/19, awaiting demarcation. (cont. on next pg) i Specific measures that are additional to national regulations, governing the type, amount or timing of fishing effort. ii Noting that Article 52 of the new proposed Fisheries Regulations (REPMAR) prohibits beachseines entirely. * Note: AGC = Área de Gestão Comunitária (TURF); ARR = Área de Recuperação de Recursos = (no-take reserve) 56 Table 3.7. Management measuresi proposed at each FishCC site and proposed location of no-take reserves at FishCC pilot sites FishCC Site Proposed Management Measuresi Proposed Location of No-Take Reserves Map of Proposed Reserves* Memba cont. • The size of the proposed no-take reserve at Mucombo, is very small in relation to the overall size of the Memba management area, which is large for a single CCP. • Boundaries of the proposed no-take reserve, and of the outer extent of the AGC, are not yet mapped. Inhassoro • Two no-take reserves, one historic, one • The left-hand panel above is extracted from (Fequete) new. Sizes & percentage of total area not yet the draft summary management plan of May surveyed. 2019 but only reflects options earlier proposed by researchers. • 90 day closure for all beachseining from June to August (pre-existing) • The right-hand panel reflects the actual situation described by Fequete CCP in July • 60 day closure for all beachseining from Feb 2019. to March (new) • Unusually, Fequete CCP has a longstanding fisheries no-take area (blue-striped) pre-dating independence, established in relation to a tourism project. • Fequete fishing community seemingly perceives benefit from the existing no- take area, sufficient to want to establish another. The reserve prevents beach-seining, encouraging fishers to line-fish further offshore. (cont. on following pg.) • The proposed new reserve area (red-striped) was not yet under implementation at 07/19, awaiting demarcation. * Note: AGC = Área de Gestão Comunitária (TURF); ARR = Área de Recuperação de Recursos = (no-take reserve) 57 Table 3.7. Management measuresi proposed at each FishCC site and proposed location of no-take reserves at FishCC pilot sites FishCC Site Proposed Management Measuresi Proposed Location of No-Take Reserves Map of Proposed Reserves* Inhassoro • An important factor allowing Fequete CCP (Fequete) to consider adding a second no-take reserve cont. is that Fequete fishers share fishing grounds with the neighboring CCP to the north. In future, there could be a case to discuss integrating the two CCPs under a single management area and plan. Pomene • Two small no-take reserves. Sizes & • The map above reflects 3 options for no-take percentage of total area not yet surveyed. reserve locations proposed by Centro Terra Viva (CVT), an NGO contracted under FIshCC to • Fishing with longlines no permitted. undertake ecological surveys of marine habitats, to • Outside fishers (eg. from Vilankulo & support management planning. Morrunguloiii) cannot fish in the AGC. • The community rejected the main area, Option 3, • Fishing with any kind of beachseine or as it would be difficult for the CCP to enforce, as dragged net is not permitted. it is a little far offshore ( to 1.5km) and they lack a • Fishing with gillnets with mesh size below 2” motorized boat. They instead proposed a smaller or above 5” not permitted. area located between Option 3 and the shore, not shown in the map. • Fishing with spearguns not permitted. • Reserve area(s) not yet being observed by local fishers, awaiting demarcation and management plan Zavora • Three no-take reserves. Sizes & percentage of • The 3 proposed options for no-take reserve total area not yet surveyed. locations shown in the above map were all accepted by the Zavora fishing community. • Total number of fishers to be maintained at 2017 level, no further increase. • The 3 reserve areas are not yet under implementation by local fishers, awaiting • Fishing with any kind of beachseine or demarcation and an approved management plan. dragged net is not permitted. iii Fishers from Vilankulo & Morrungulo fishing with longlines in Pomene AGC were asked to stop in 2018 with backing from Massinga District administration. * Note: AGC = Área de Gestão Comunitária (TURF); ARR = Área de Recuperação de Recursos = (no-take reserve) 58 Table 3.7. Management measuresi proposed at each FishCC site and proposed location of no-take reserves at FishCC pilot sites FishCC Site Proposed Management Measuresi Proposed Location of No-Take Reserves Map of Proposed Reserves* Zavora • Fishing with mosquito nets is not permitted. • Number of fishing units using gillnets will be limited to 14. • Fishing with spearguns is not permitted. • Mussel harvesting is not permitted without authorization from CCP. • Night fishing is not permitted. • Fishing for juveniles is not permitted. Machangulo • One no-take reserve. Size & percentage of • The map, extracted from the draft Machangulo total area not yet surveyed. management plan of Sept 2019, shows the proposed no-take reserve (ARR) (marked as ‘Sanctuario’) in the Bembi estuary. • The boundary of the AGC has provisionally been drawn adjacent to the existing Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, thereby excluding the 1nm strip adjacent to the shore. That strip is mostly intertidal flats with limited fishing activities, as shown. • The fisheries no-take reserve area is already being observed informally by most or all local fishers, but not yet by non-local artisanal fishers from Catembe or Maputo. • Full implementation of the reserve is awaiting boundary demarcation and an approved management plan. * Note: AGC = Área de Gestão Comunitária (TURF); ARR = Área de Recuperação de Recursos = (no-take reserve) 60 Fisheries Co-Management Table 3.7. above summarizes the fisheries outside fishers from neighboring urban management measures proposed by centers (Machangulo being close to communities at each FishCC site, based on Catembe/Maputo). It might be more consultations with CCPs and fishers. As challenging for such communities to shown in Table 3.8, there is a noticeable agree on gear restrictions. difference across the sites as to the type and range of measures proposed, ranging from • Differences in facilitation and community multiple effort restrictions at Zavora, to understanding regarding community none at Machangulo or Memba, other than rights: During consultations in 2017, a single no-take reserve. the fishing community at Machangulo (Mabuluco/Santa Maria CCPs) Reasons as to why FishCC sites were highlighted concern with the numbers more, or less, inclined to propose a range of of fishers from Catembe and Maputo management measures might include: fishing in their area72, in particular the use of longlines73 in the Mabuluco CCP • Actual differences in gear use and fishing management. However, for reasons pressure that are not clear, this did not translate into a proposal, for example, to prohibit • Undue focus on one flagship species (see longlines, during the brief, formal section 4.2.3 below) community consultation conducted by ADNAP in 2018 as part of the • Social homogeneity/heterogeneity of the management plan preparation process. community: Some sites proposing relatively more management measures, Mefunvo This might reflect the brevity of and Pomene in particular, are isolated ADNAP’s formal consultations and/or island communities, arguably (reportedly only 2-3 hours per site), having a higher level of social cohesion. It or concern about creating conflict might be easier for such communities to with outside fishers, or community agree on gear restrictions. representatives not realizing that prohibiting longlines was an option, or Memba and Machangulo on the other indeed something else. There is at least hand are either more heterogeneous a question as to whether the principle of (Memba having 10 fishing centers and community rights-based management over 1000 fishers) and/or have a lot of was effectively applied in this instance. Table 3.8. Type of fisheries management measure proposed by communities at FishCC site71 Temporal Spatial Restriction on Restriction No-take Other gear Site restriction on restriction on no. of fishers/ on external reserve prohibition beachseines beachseines gears fishers Mefunvo x x x x Memba x Inhassoro x x Pomene x Total beachseine prohibition x x Zavora x Total beachseine prohibition x x Machangulo x 71  Rare, 2019 (a to f) 72  Machangulo FLAGS workshop report, October 2017 73  Machangulo Campaign Manager pers. comm. Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 61 Successful promotion of seasonal closure of beachseines at Inhassoro/Fequete The key fisheries management measure (not all are from Fequete CCP) were proposed at Fequete (Inhassoro) was encouraged to stop beachseining and to fish observance of a new 45-day temporary with handlines offshore, instead. In practice, closure for beachseines during Feb- the campaign was extended to the whole March. This was additional to an existing of Inhassoro District, except for Bazaruto. 90-day closure during June-August. The More than 67 beachseines were successfully closures are designed to protect rabbitfish de-activated for a 45-day period, across a 100 during two spawning periods. To this end, km of coast, of which only 3.5 km is the area fishermen from 15 beachseine teams that of the Fequete CCP.74 made use of the Fequete fishing grounds Community members with a beachseine in Fequete 62 Fisheries Co-Management 3.2.3. Preparation of management plans for community management areas (AGCs) Six draft artisanal fisheries management some 2.5 years into a 4-year project. plans75 were produced by ADNAP in This was in spite of there being an December 2018, following the process MoU between IDEPA (which hosted outlined in Section 2.2.3 (iv) above, and the project implementation unit during shared with partners for comment. In the first 18 months or so) and ADNAP April 2019, with support from Rare, a set at project inception. The reasons for of six draft, summary management plan this late involvement include: infographics76 were produced (see sample in Annex 1). In response to feedback that - Disruption caused by reorganization the first draft management plans needed of the former Ministry of Fisheries, significant improvement, those for Inhassoro which was reformulated as the and Machangulo were further refined. Ministry for the Sea, Internal The most advanced plan at the time of Waters and Fisheries (MIMAIP) preparation of this report was a version of the in 2015. Changes in structures and Machangulo plan dated September 2019 77. responsibilities created challenges amongst the Ministry’s constituent At the time of preparation of this report, institutions (IDEPA, IIP, ADNAP, none of the six management plans, including DPMAIPs) around the same time that for Machangulo, was yet finalized. FishCC was getting under way78; - There was a prevailing Process followed understanding during project design Challenges in the process of preparing that responsibility for community management plans under FishCC included: fisheries management planning would be at sub-national level • Late agreement on structure and content (ie. involving DPMAIP, SDAE, of plans: agreement on the format, CCPs), with capacity support from structure and content of the FishCC Rare and the national level. Only management plans was not addressed later was it explicitly determined at the outset of the project. Discussions that the mandate for all fisheries on that were only initiated in 2018 at the management planning, both national time plan preparation was getting under and local, should actually lie at way. Had that been done at the start, the national level with ADNAP, the community engagement work done something that was only formally by the campaign managers at each site confirmed during mid-term review could have been better directed towards (MTR) in 2017. It is worth bearing populating the final management plans. in mind that there was no precedent for developing community-level • Late involvement of ADNAP: The fisheries management plans under institution responsible for fisheries the auspices of MIMAIP, prior to management planning, ADNAP, did not FishCC. get involved in the project until 2018, 74  Rare, 2019c 75  MIMAIP, 2018 (a to f) 76  MIMAIP, 2019 (a to f) 77  MIMAIP, 2019g 78  World Bank (in prep.) Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 63 There is no doubt that ADNAP’s In Pomene, the ADNAP team late involvement in the project had reportedly only met with one significant adverse consequences individual, the CCP President, due to for management planning at the six lack of advance notice. FishCC sites. In particular: • Narrow participation in drafting plans: - earlier involvement would have individuals familiar with fisheries facilitated timely identification of management issues at the respective information gaps, in time to be sites, including FishCC campaign filled. By 2018, the information- managers, CCP leaders and provincial gathering (FLAG) phase of the Fish and district fisheries staff, were not Forever process was completed; significantly involved in management plan drafting. This seems surprising - it prevented timely intervention given that the ADNAP team had in confirming key elements of limited opportunities to become familiar community consultations. For with site-specific issues themselves. example, at one site where grouper was selected as a FLAG species, Possibly financial constraints were part ADNAP had doubts about its of the reason for this, but it is particularly appropriateness. But again, the surprising that FishCC Campaign relevant consultation phases had Managers felt marginalized from the already been done. process of preparing management plans, given how central they had been to the • Involvement in consultations: the very process of engaging fishing communities brief community consultations the at each site. ADNAP team were able to conduction during the latter half of 2018 (just 2-3 hours at each site) were inadequate. Community Fishing Council meeting in Pomene 64 Fisheries Co-Management Management plan format and content (section 2: legal framework) references As mentioned above, the management the Fisheries Regulations (REPMAR) plans for the 6 FishCC sites are still of 2003 82. Whilst recognizing those are under preparation. The observations the regulations currently in force, they below are based on the draft Machangulo do not contain provisions for designating management plan of September 201979, community fisheries management areas. which was the most advanced version The same section does also make reference available: to community fisheries management areas, referring to that as an approach under the • Many key elements are included: the Fisheries Law regulations. This hedging existing draft plan does contain many of the issue of formal designation, pending of the standard elements expected a final decision on the legal framework in a plan of this kind including: to be used for designation (as per Section a description of ecosystems and 1.6) , is confusing. It would seem fishing activities (though there is a preferable quickly to finalize that decision lack of historic fisheries catch data); within MIMAIP, and then to align statements of objectives; description the management plans fully to relevant of the process for developing the plan; provision in the Conservation Law of 2017, a boundary map; scope of the plan; if that will be the preferred option. proposed management measures; a logical framework; an implementation • Definition of community management area (institutional) framework including boundaries: Supporting the point above, roles and responsibilities of principal and despite the title of the document, the actors/entities. draft Machangulo plan (section 6) does in fact define the boundaries of a community • Title of the plan: the draft plan is titled: management area and contains a map of the ‘Artisanal fisheries management plan same. However, the inner boundary of the for Machangulo, 2019-24’80. Given area is drawn some 2km parallel with the the entire focus of the FishCC project shore, so as not to overlap with the existing was to establish formally recognised boundary of the Ponta do Ouro Partial community management areas (AGC), Marine Reserve. This would appear to it was expected that this plan would need reviewing as it would be very unusual explicitly be a management plan for to have a community management area a formally designated area, not just that does not cover 2nm of near-shore artisanal fishing activities in general. fishing grounds where a significant proportion of artisanal fishing activity is • Legal provisions for community management practiced. area designation: Related to the point above, it is recognized that the preferred legal • Exclusion of semi-industrial vessels: framework for designating a community The scope of the draft Machangulo fisheries management area is still under management plan (Section 7) explicitly consideration within MIMAIP 81, in part excludes semi-industrial fishing vessels. catalyzed by the FishCC project itself. In This is difficult to comprehend. In this regard, the draft Machangulo plan principle, all legitimate users of a 79  MIMAIP, 2019g 80  Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Machangulo (2019-2024) 81  MIMAIP (in prep). At the time of preparation of this report, MIMAIP was considering whether to include in the revised REPMAR a new designation (Aréa de gestão comunitária) or to make use of an existing designation under the Conservation Law, 2017 (Aréa de conservação comunitária). 82  Decreto n.º 43/2003, de 10 de Dezembro (REPMAR) Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 65 fisheries co-management area should be • Enforcement responsibilities: The involved in management consultations implementation framework (section for the area, and equally, should 10) does not adequately describe how potentially be subject to management the CCP (which has a key surveillance measures. At Machangulo, the proposed role) will collaborate with relevant fisheries no-take zone extends beyond authorities in dealing with instances 1nm from the shore so, in practice, of non-compliance with fisheries semi-industrial vessels are automatically management measures contained in the included in the scope of the plan, plan. This is a major challenge often contradicting what is stated in section 7. cited by CCPs but is not addressed. This is an important point of principle for community fisheries management • Disconnect with Fish Forever process areas in Mozambique. undertaken by Campaign Managers: it is not immediately clear that the systematic • Threat/risk analysis: The plan does not process undertaken by Campaign contain an analysis of fisheries-related Managers, undertaking FLAG problems, threats or risks. Although assessments (including identification the logical framework in Section 8 is of fisheries challenges and strategies based on a set of problem statements, to address them) ; developing theories there is no prior systematic analysis to of (behavior) change; and applying an indicate how they were derived. This is assessment framework to measure that a significant omission. change (KAP surveys) has been carried into the management plans. Eulalia Fernando Baptista sells fish at the Fequete market and is a member of the local CCC 66 Fisheries Co-Management This, no doubt, reflects the point The points above highlight a critical highlighted above that Campaign issue. The existing draft FishCC Managers were not directly involved in management plans are not yet explicitly management plan preparation. plans for (TURF/AGC) management areas containing no-take reserve areas, as • Impact monitoring: Section 8 contains an envisaged in the FishCC project design. Implementation Plan with monitoring That, in fact, was the primary purpose of indicators and targets against which the FishCC project, namely to pioneer a to measure progress. However, none spatial approach to artisanal fisheries co- of the indicators/targets capture any management in Mozambique. Instead, the biological (fisheries) or ecological existing draft plans are, more loosely, plans (habitats) impact parameters. Since for artisanal fisheries activities in specified Section 3 highlights a focal ‘flag’ species communities. and Section 5 (objectives) emphasizes a focus on preserving sensitive ecosystems One reason provided by Government and fisheries resources, it would be staff, which may be questioned, is that, important to formulate corresponding up to now, there is not yet an agreed biological and ecological indicators and legal instrument for designation of targets by which to measure impact in community fisheries management areas in regard to those key stated objectives. Mozambique. Hopefully, that point will be settled quickly with recent indications from MIMAIP of its preference for applying relevant designations under the Conservation Law of 2017. Summary of achievements and challenges in establishing TURFs and reserves • Fisheries no-take reserves were • None of the no-take reserves at identified and agreed by communities FishCC site has been formalized, at all 6 FishCC sites, with some none are demarcated, and there exist informal implementation initiated at discrepancies between communities one site (Machangulo); and implementing institutions over the location of proposed reserve areas at • FishCC project experience has two sites (Inhassoro and Mefunvo). catalyzed consideration and decision- making in regard to the preferred • Management plans have not been legal framework for designation of finalized for any of the FishCC sites, community management areas for moreover draft plans are not currently fisheries, which will be a significant formulated so as to capitalize on the legacy. anticipated new legislative provision referred to above, which would be a missed opportunity. Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 67 3.2.4. Improving data collection and management for decision-making This section summarizes achievements and with ongoing participatory engagement challenges of data and information-generating of fishing communities by campaign initiatives conducted under FishCC project. managers. For example, selection of sub-locations for detailed coral reef and i. Ecological surveys. An NGO mangrove sampling wasn’t not based on service provider, Centro Terra Viva, any scoping of spatial fishing patterns, or undertook surveys in 5 out of FishCC sites the ecology of target/FLAG fish species, (not in Inhassoro) during 2017. Primary which could have been done in alliance data was collected at each of the 5 sites, with the campaign managers. This limited focused on the distribution and status of the utility and relevance of the ecological one selected ecosystem type, as per below. survey results to the primary objective of fisheries management planning. Site Selected ecosystem type Mefunvo Coral reefs ii. Artisanal fisheries information. Memba Mangroves The national fisheries research institute, Pomene Mangroves Instituto de Investigação Pesqueira (IIP) Zavora Coral reefs documented available data contained in its Machangulo Mangroves PescArt 3.5 database, relevant to the six FishCC sites, for the period 2004-201684. CTV delivered a final report dated February This generated limited summary data on: 201883. The surveys look to have been competently undertaken and contain useful • total annual catch per district per year; data but there are also some notable gaps: • identification of 10 most-caught species • Inhassoro was not included in the CTV and their proportion in total catches, at study. Ecosystems surveys there were district level. instead expected to be covered by a separate IIP study (IIP, 2017b). In practice however Even this limited data was only available for the IIP study did not undertake any surveys two of the six FishCC sites (Memba and at Inhassoro, the relevant section of the Inhassoro) and the resolution of the data IIP report is confined to a single page, reported is district-level, not fishing center, and reproducing a seagrass distribution map therefore of very limited value for site-level extracted from existing literature; fisheries management planning. • Four of the five sites (Mefunvo, Memba, Complementing the above desk-based Pomene, Machangulo) contain both coral analysis, IIP conducted a field study85 aimed reefs and mangroves habitats, but only at generating baseline fisheries production one habitat type was studied; information for Mefunvo, Závora and Pomene, on the basis that those three sites were not • At Mefunvo and Zavora, overall coral reef covered by IIP’s national artisanal fisheries habitat extent was not mapped, habitat sampling system (SNAPA). Primary data was condition was sampled at only 4 selected collected over a one-month period. Artisanal sub-locations at each site; fisheries landings were sampled to identify catch composition, catch weights by gear, and • Ecological studies were not well integrated some fishing effort parameters. 83  CTV, 2018 84  IIP, 2017a 85  IIP, 2017b 68 Fisheries Co-Management A complementary study of artisanal iii. Fisheries Landscape Assessment fisheries in Machangulo86 was undertaken and Goal-setting (FLAG) tool. As outlined independently by Peace Parks Foundation in section 2.2.3. above, application of the and partners. Although not funded under Fish Forever FLAGS tool at each site during the FishCC project, the study helped 2017, in particular the 1st FLAG workshops, inform management planning at that site. generated important, largely qualitative, information on the status of artisanal fisheries The above studies undertaken by IIP (2017a and related marine habitats, including target and 2017b) generated very preliminary data fish species; and on economic, biological and on fisheries catch composition at 3 of the 6 social objectives relating to establishment sites, but otherwise had major gaps: of management areas and fisheries no-take reserves. This was achieved through an • No useful data at all was generated appropriately participatory process and for 3 sites (Memba, Inhassoro and the information generated was, and will Machangulo); the limited data for be, critical to the preparation of fisheries Memba and Inhassoro extracted from management plans for each sites. That said, the IIP database is only district-level the broader FLAG process was not as well resolution; documented as it could have been. Prior to the 1st FLAG workshops, Campaign • Data generated for the other 3 sites Managers conducted extensive interviews (Mefunvo, Pomene and Zavora) on with individual fishers and focus groups, catch species composition and total however that valuable information is not catch/catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) by available in report form. Likewise, the gear was based on only one month of data, proceedings of the 2nd FLAG workshops. which is inadequate and very unlikely to be representative of annual patterns; iv. Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) surveys. A round of baseline (1st) KAP • Data on fishing effort for the same 3 surveys were undertaken at 5 FishCC sites in sites only covers number of vessels, 2017. No survey was undertaken at Memba but not number of fishers and gears, due to a change in the Campaign Manager at even though such information is mostly a critical time. The 1st KAP surveys generated readily available from CCPs; a framework, summarized in Table 3.8., containing selected indicators with baseline • There is no information at all, and target values, against which to monitor quantitative nor qualitative, on stock and assess progress in terms of fishers’ status or catch trends for important attitudes and practices. In particular, this commercial species, such as those was designed to assess the impact of social identified at Mefunvo, Pomene and marketing/pride campaigns. Appropriately, Zavora (November only); the selected indicator questions focus on implementation of fisheries no-take reserves • Implementation of fisheries studies and related fishing gear control measures. (by IIP) was not well integrated with ongoing participatory engagement Repeat (2nd) KAP surveys were undertaken of fishing communities by campaign at the same 5 sites soon after launch of managers, rather it was done the pride campaigns in November 2018, independently, in parallel. but using a different questionnaire from the baselines. A comparison of results is summarized in Table 3.8.87 86 Louro et al., 2017 87 1st KAP consolidated report, 2-page informal report provided by Rare Mozambique Country Office Table 3.8. Summary of selected results from baseline (1st) KAP surveys at 5 FishCC sites87 70 Fisheries Co-Management Theory of change SMART objectives for each FishCC site Notwithstanding the summary in Table generally if he’s “aware of problems related 3.8. above, detailed results from the 1st to fishing with restricted gears?”. Likewise, KAP survey at each FishCC site were there’s a difference asking a fisher if he not comprehensively documented. Only specifically discusses the issue of beach- selected results are reported in the Pride seining with his fellow fishers, and asking Campaign Reports88, moreover there is him if he “encourages other fishers to comply no disaggregation of results in terms of with fishing regulations”. And again, type of fisher, gender, age etc. This might between asking a fisher if he’s specifically be problematic in future terms of fully willing to give up using a beach-seines, and analyzing the implications of attitude asking him the more general question: “Are patterns; ensuring that future repeat you willing to change your fishing behavior”. surveys are comparable to baselines, especially if done by other 3rd party These flaws in the 2nd KAP survey are researchers; and of transparency and summarized in reporting for Inhassoro89: sharing of full results with stakeholders. • the questionnaire form was prepared As mentioned above, questionnaire used in the US without involvement of for the repeat 2nd KAP survey was different Campaign Managers; from those used for the baselines. The 1st KAP questionnaires were developed • there was no field testing to assess independently at each FishCC site by the coherence and relevance of the campaign managers and were tailored to questionnaire, and no opportunity to each community. In 2019, a standardized modify or improve it. Fish Forever global household survey instrument was applied, instead of • the language used to formulate repeating the unique site-level surveys. questions was unclear and focused more Table 3.5. attempts to match the 2017 on family income issues rather than baseline KAP survey questions to the fisheries management issues addressed generic questions asked in 2019, to assess in the 1st KAP. changes over time at each FishCC site. In some cases, the generic questions do As such, the 2nd KAP survey, the form did broadly match onto the tailored baseline not accommodate any questions that could questions and there is evidence of positive serve as the basis for a comparative analysis change. with the 1st KAP results at Inhassoro, so the final assessment (of the Pride However, with most questions, it is evident Campaign) was based only on evidence of that global standardization has resulted in the facts on the ground.36 a critical loss of site-level detail, rendering the whole survey much less useful for In summary, whatever advantages were local management purposes and progress perceived at global level, standardizing the tracking. For example, if beach-seining is KAP questionnaire across all Fish Forever the key issue at a given site, there is a big projects does not seem to have served the difference between asking a fisher if he’s needs of promoting fisheries co-management specifically aware of the negative impact of at site level under FishCC in Mozambique. beach-seining, and asking him more 88  Rare, 2019 (a to f) 89  Rare, 2019c Table 3.9. Summary of pre- and post-campaign responses to questions related to fisher knowledge Questions from 1st (baseline) KAP surveys Generic questions from 2nd KAP Pre- Post- Community tailored to each site (pre-campaign) surveys (post-campaign) Campaign Campaign Knowledge Do you think that fishing with beachseine on coral reefs is harmful? Mefunvo 73% 100% Are you aware of the problems related to fishing with Are you aware of any problems related to the fishing with harpoon restricted gear? Zavora 29% 97% on coral reef? Please identify all the harmful fishing activities? 31% Do you know the type of fishing gears or fishing activities What is the activity that contributes negatively to the management Machangulo 96% that are permitted in fisheries management areas? 86% of resources?* Proportion of answers different from “I don’t know” Behavior Adoption Have you talk to others about fishing in the estuary? 67% Machangulo 98% Do you think sharing ideas with other members of the community is 68% good? Did you speak to anyone in last few months about fishing Do you encourage others (both inside and outside their Mefunvo 49% 96% regulations? local community) to comply with fishing regulations? Have you talked to other fishermen about fishing with harpoon? Zavora 48% 100% How many times have you spoken with other fishermen in the last 6 months about the threats of disrespect for the spawning period? Fequete 90% 91% Proportion of respondents that answered “1 to 10 times” How would you feel if you were invited to share ideas in meetings on 44% fisheries resource management due to fishing in the estuary? Machangulo 90% Would you attend discussions to eliminate harmful fishing gear? Do you believe that local participation in management 48% Do you think it is important to attend meetings? will help to maintain or improve fish catch? 46% Do you think it is important to participate in managed access Mefunvo 44% 93% meetings to share ideas on fisheries management? Did you participate in one or more community meetings? 38% Have you or anyone in the household attended a fisheries Machangulo 90% management body meeting in the last month? Did you participate in one or more CCP meetings? 51% 72 Fisheries Co-Management Fisheries catch and marketing data collection through mobile app: OurFish Rare reported that in the few months of • identifying species that are captured operationalizing the OurFish app towards more frequently and monitor how the end of the project, 45 fish buyers across catches change over time; the six sites recorded approx. 22,000 kg of catch at the first point of trade. • characterizing economic and social This generated information on catch status of different fishers/fishing gears; composition and sale prices, by gear type. Unfortunately no analysis of the collected • monitoring impact of management data had been undertaken at the time of programs/projects; preparation of this report. • generate data to support decision- Nonetheless, community members making, improve management perceived that the system can help with: effectiveness and provide new capabilities for fishermen, traders and • characterizing fishing activity; other actors in the fishing value chain. A solitary fishing boat on the beach at low tide Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 73 3.3. Component Two: Improve livelihoods 3.3.1 Alternative livelihood projects At none of the six sites was the Two types of livelihood project were process of beneficiary selection clearly implemented at the 6 FishCC sites: documented; i. provision of fisheries cold-chain Memba: the beneficiaries of fisheries equipment (Mefunvo, Memba, Pomene, cold-chain equipment were members of Machangulo) an association established specifically for the purpose. The association intended ii. provision of fishing gears to promote to operate a fish-trading business and offshore line-fishing (Fequete, Zavora) was in process of operationalizing itself in July 2019. However, virtually all the Table 3.10. shows details on the assets 15 or so members of the association were provided at each site. The rationale behind members of the CCP committee, which provision of fishing gears to promote had been responsible for beneficiary offshore line-fishing was to reduce use of identification. This appeared to be an unsustainable fishing practices in nearshore example of elite-capture. areas, in particular beachseines (Inhassoro) and spear-guns (Zavora). Construction of Fequete: four offshore fishing boats boats in Inhassoro and Zavora was carried were under construction, the selected out by communities themselves, with beneficiaries were 4 out of the 5 owners help of certified boat builders, in part as a of beachseine nets at Fequete. The capacity-building exercise to strengthen intention was to provide those owners sustainability. However, at neither site was with an alternative fishing gear (offshore the activity finalized by end-of-project. The handlining) so that the beachseine reasons included delays in payments from would no longer be used. However, the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) to there was no plan for any written provincial authorities, procurement delays agreement to that effect, and therefore in the district government, and challenges no guarantee that the net owners would transporting materials to the sites. By project not simply continue to operate their closure livelihood assets were disbursed or beachseine gears alongside the new in place to the communities in 2 out of the 6 vessels. Additionally, the fifth net owner project sites, namely: Memba and Mefunvo. seemingly missed out on the opportunity However, operationalization of the use of allegedly because he was unavailable to equipment in Mefunvo had not yet been attend a village meeting, which could confirmed. As a result of the delays, financing have been solved if that was the case. and oversight of livelihood project at the other four sites, that were still in process, was Mefunvo: 25 chest freezers were transferred to the SWIOFish-MZ project at provided to community beneficiaries FishCC project closure, and were expected to but no information was available, from be completed by December 2019. the campaign manager or the Project Implementation Unit in Maputo, as to During consultations for preparation of who the beneficiaries were or how they this report, some flaws were observed in were selected. the processes by which project beneficiaries were identified. For example: 74 Fisheries Co-Management Table 3.10. Summary of livelihood projects under FishCC Livelihood Project Selected Status as of July 2019 Mefunvo Equipment disbursed to beneficiaries in June 2019 Fisheries value chain equipment: • 25x chest freezers • 40x Isothermal coolboxes Memba Equipment already disbursed to Fisheries value chain equipment: beneficiaries • 2x chest freezers • 10x Isothermal coolboxes • 20x fish processing kits Inhassoro Boat construction under way but still at • Construction of 4 motorized boats to relatively early stage, and being carried facilitate line-fishing offshore forward under the SWIOFish project. • 4x outboard motors for above boats The project implementation unit • 20 improved rafts anticipates completion by February 2020 though that yet might be optimistic. Pomene Equipment in-situ in Pomene, but not Fisheries value chain equipment: yet disbursed to beneficiaries due to: • 4x chest freezers (i) need for clarification on the • Solar power system for above value of the matching funds payable by • 4x 1000-liter water tanks beneficiaries; • 40x Isothermal Boxes (ii) delay in contracting a service • 40x fish processing kits provider to operationalize solar power system. Training guides for eco-tourism The project opened dialogue with nearby lodges but, due to implementation delays, training was not undertaken during FishCC. It is expected still to happen during 2019 under SWIOFish project. Zavora 9 boats near to completion • Construction of 12 boats to facilitate 3 boats in early stages of construction line-fishing offshore • 12x outboard motors for above boats Machangulo By July 2019 the ice plant remained 2 • Ice machine & ice store weeks or so from being launched. • Generator for ice machine • Water tower to supply water to ice Aquaculture initiative was funded machine through another project, not FishCC, but is complementary Aquaculture project: • 6 floating tanks for tilapia cultivation Technical training for self-employment: • carpentry • cooling and electricity systems • tailoring • English teaching Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 75 3.3.2. Savings & Credit Groups It is interesting that some savings and loans 17 savings and loans (PCR ) groups 90 group members were able to purchase were either created or re-vitalized, with outright the same type of fisheries cold- each group consisting of between 10 to chain materials that were provided 38 members, and a total of 382 direct through the FishCC livelihood projects at beneficiaries, as shown in Table 3.11. below. some sites. These impressive outcomes, 60% of members were women. from a relatively short intervention on savings and credit, raise the question An estimated US$ 160,000 was saved as to whether it would have generated collectively by the 17 groups, and over US$ greater and more sustainable long-term 120,000 has been made available through benefit to have invested FishCC project loans to members. No baseline or impact resources in more widespread savings and studies were done by which to assess the loans establishment, rather than directly impact on household economics, but there is purchasing materials under the livelihood physical and testimonial evidence of benefits component. Similar experience elsewhere to members, in the form of investments such in the WIO region has indicated the same. as purchase of household goods and freezers This point is highlighted in the lessons for fish marketing, and childcare financing. section (4.5) below. Table 3.11. Summary of savings & credit groups under FishCC91 Site Group name Men Women Total CCP Members Machangulo Tuanano 16 0 16 51 (98%) Lhunvuku 2 8 10 Matihalisse 7 8 15 Tutukane 3 26 29 Závora Veremos 4 14 18 34 (49%) Boa Sorte 3 13 16 Melhor 12 9 21 Pescadores de 15 0 15 Závora Mefunvo Atchananão 17 12 29 33 (62%) Mwanzanovi 6 18 24 Inhassoro Kuzuanana 1 15 21 36 75 (69%) Kuzuanana 2 13 25 38 Kuzuanana 3 17 18 35 Memba Watana Familia 3 19 22 0 Omaliha 3 12 15 Osiquine Pomene Xitique de 15 9 24 0 Lurdes Mutola Xitique de 17 2 19 Matenda Total 17 groups 168 214 (60%) 382 193 (51%) (40%) 90  PCR = Poupança e Credito Rotativo 91  MIMAIP, 2019h 76 Fisheries Co-Management 3.4. Component Three: Social Marketing 3.4.1. Rationale for design of social • Quantitative tracking of impact using marketing pride campaigns data from KAP surveys. As outlined in Section 2.2.3 (iii), ‘pride It is worth acknowledging the pride campaign campaign’ is the name given to community reports represent considerable efforts on the awareness-raising and mobilization campaigns part of Campaign Managers, and are the under the Fish Forever methodology. main integrated record of progress at each site. A critical element of each report (except The campaigns perform a key function in Memba), is a theory of change following the catalyzing behavioral change and delivering standard 7-stage Fish Forever format, with on fisheries management objectives. As SMART objectives that are customized to such, the analysis and logic behind the addressing 1 or 2 specific priority fisheries design of pride campaigns is fundamental management issues at each site. The SMART to the Fish Forever process and, under objectives for each site (summarized in FishCC, was documented in pride campaign Table 3.7. below) are a key output of the reports for each site92, which contain: Fish Forever process since they provide the skeleton logic behind social marketing • An analysis of fisheries landscapes and interventions, and guide how the impact of management challenges (FLAGS tool); those interventions is measured. • Identified behavioral change/ theories of 3.4.2. Assessment of SMART objectives change needed to address challenges; developed for FishCC sites • SMART objectives for each step in the Table 3.12. represents an admirable effort by theory of change; campaign managers to identify the skeleton logic for social marketing interventions at each • Proposed materials and messaging that FishCC site. Nonetheless, some weaknesses will influence behavioral change; are evident in the details in Table 3.13. Table 3.12. Weaknesses in SMART objectives for FishCC sites Conservation For all sites, timeframe is too short to achieve change (ie. in stocks or CPUE). results All sites are missing baseline and targets. Threat reduction Mefunvo and Pomene do not describe threat reductions. Inhassoro, Zavora, Machangulo are missing reduction target and baseline. Behavior change Mefunvo and Machangulo do not describe actual behavior change, only intent. Signs of repetition with threat reductions above. Barrier removal Inhassoro lacks quantitative metrics, reduction targets and baseline. Pomene, Zavora, Machangulo do not describe barriers (Machangulo repeats its threat reduction). Mefunvo is ambiguously worded though along the right lines. Interpersonal Not clear how interpersonal communications can be monitored in practice. communication Inhassoro baseline is already at 99.3% so no scope for improvement Attitudes Inhassoro baseline is already at 99.3% so no scope for improvement Machangulo does not describe an attitude change Knowledge Inhassoro baseline is already at 99.3% so no scope for improvement 92  Rare, 2019 (a to f) Table 3.13. Theory of change SMART objectives for each FishCC site92 Mefunvo Memba Inhassoro Pomene Zavora Machangulo Conservation By 2019, population By 2019, CPUE for Increase in abundance or By end 2018, stocks of By end 2018, stocks result of Lethrinus harak rabbitfish increased from CPUE of grouper grouper increase from of Pomadasys kaakan None developed maintained at level X kg/hr in 2018 to Y kg/hr (Epinephelus malabaricus) X% in April 2018 to Y% (javeline grunt) increase recommended by experts from X% in Apr’18 to Y% Threat By 2019, number Use of mechanical No. of fishers agreeing to Increased spearfishing Decrease in number of reduction of Lethrinus harak trawling and manual creation of AGC and able effort negatively fishers fishing in estuary increase through None developed beach-seining to define ARR, increases impacting grouper stocks CCP involvement in from 34% in 2018. enforcement Behavior By 2019, the number By 2019, no. of fishers By 2019, no. of fishers By 2019, no. of fishers By end 2018, percentage change of beachseine fishers that don’t fish during using spears/harpoons abandoning spearfishing of fishers agreeing not to wishing to stop fishing on None developed rabbitfish spawning decreases from 58% in increased from 24% in fish in estuary increases coral reefs rises to 40%, season increased from Apr’17 to zero 2018 to 48% from 23% in Apr’18 to from 21% in 2017 10.4% in 2018 to 38% 42% Barrier By end 2019, number of • Cultural practices By 2019, no. of fishers Training of CCP in Decrease in number of removal beachseine fishers that • Lack of capital discussing importance of fisheries management fishers fishing in estuary stop fishing on coral AGC increased from X % Construction of 12 None developed reefs (having gillnet or in 2018 to Y % in 2019. sustainable fishing units handline alternative) up from 21.4% to 60% Interpersonal By end 2018, no. of By 2019, no. of fishers By 2019, proportion By 2019, no. of fishers By end 2018, number communication fishers discussing use of discussing dangers of of fishers discussing reporting on dangers of of fishers reporting beachseines on coral reefs not implementing closed conservation campaign spearfishing increases from disadvantages of estuary None developed increases from 54% (2017) period for rabbitfish importance increases 48.2% in 2018 to 69.5% fishing increases from to 75% breeding, up from 99.3% from 81% to 96.3% 40.5% in Apr’18 to 62% in 2018 to 100% Attitude By 2019, no. of By 2019, number of By 2019, proportion of By 2019, no. of fishers By end 2018, no. of beachseiners who’d like fishers believing it’s fishers believing AGC / believing that prohibiting fishers participating in to stop fishing on coral important not to fish ARR will aid grouper spearfishing will recover meetings on estuarine None developed reefs, with creation of during rabbitfish recovery increases from grouper stocks, increases fisheries increases from AGC + ARR, increases spawning period up from 80.6% to 88% from 27.6% in 2017 to 38.1% in Apr’18 to 64% from 75% in 2017 to 82% 99.3% in 2018 to 100% 63% Knowledge By 2019, percentage of By 2019, number By 2019, proportion of By 2019, percentage By 2019, no. of fishers beachseine fishers who of fishers aware of fishers knowing value of of fishers aware of the aware fishing in estuary know fishing on coral importance of rabbitfish AGC /ARR for protection negative impact of is harmful increases from None developed reefs is harmful rises from closed period for of grouper increases from spearfishing increases 81% in April 2018 to 91.4% 73.2% in 2017 to 84%. reproduction up from 85% to 95% from 29% in 2018 to 48% 99.3% in 2018 to 100% 78 Fisheries Co-Management Summary observations on theories of change and SMART objectives for FishCC sites Timeframe: The scope of the theories of Pomene and Machangulo the focus is on change captured in Table 3.13. is apparently implementation of a no-take reserve. This the 4-year period of the FishCC project, focus and simplicity is no doubt a virtue in only. In retrospect, that was not realistic many respects. Nonetheless, there is a sense or appropriate. In practice, interventions that for some sites a dual approach focused by the project probably only catalyzed on both one gear-issue and a no-take zone measurable change in the bottom three (which really is fundamental to all sites) levels of the theories of change, by the might be optimal, and would still not overly end-date of the project. Behavior change complicate the framework. and threat reduction is a medium-term process, and ecosystem change (at the Weak capture of barrier removal: The conservation result level) will only follow stage that appears to have been least well after that. Recognizing that, it would have captured was barrier removal. Only the been better to frame the theories of change Inhassoro SMART objectives correctly over a more realistic 5 to 10-year timeframe, identify barriers, and even there no which could then have served to inform measurable metrics are articulated. This preparation of 5-year management plans possibly exposes a potential weakness for each site, covering interventions and of the social marketing approach, in monitoring beyond the FishCC project that it encourages a focus on knowledge period. and awareness-raising in bringing about behavioral change. In reality, Repetition and number of stages: fisher behavior is also strongly driven Significant repetition is evident between by economic considerations. These particular levels of the theory of change in should be reflected in barrier removal, ie. Table 3.11. For example, between behavior removal of economic barriers to behavior change and threat reduction, and between change. Notwithstanding the livelihoods interpersonal communications, attitudes and component of FishCC, there is a sense that knowledge. It is understandable why this the Fish Forever approach, at least in the would be the case, given the continuity way it was applied under FishCC, under- between the levels. It is also noted that emphasizes the economic issues underlying interpersonal communication is inherently fishing behavior. difficult to measure, or monitor, robustly. These points might support an argument Technical oversight and quality control: that the Fish Forever theory of change given the centrality of the theories of template could potentially be simplified, change and SMART objectives to the by reducing number of steps from 7 to 5. Fish Forever approach, in particular in If behavior change and threat reduction were terms of framing the content of pride merged and interpersonal communications campaigns and management plans, and of removed, it is not clear that anything measuring the impact of interventions, it is substantive would be lost. surprising there are so many weaknesses in the framing and wording of the SMART Single issue focus: It is noticeable that objectives, as summarized in Table 3.10. for each FishCC site, the theories of above. This suggests there was scope for change generally focus on a single issue. In better technical oversight and quality Mefunvo, Inhassoro and Zavora it is a gear- control on this critically important aspect of control issue (beachseines or spearguns); for the process. 93  Extracted from Rare, 2019 (a to f) Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 79 Painted mural in the village of Pomene, created as part of the Pride Campaign 3.4.3. Outcomes of Pride Campaigns Implementation of Pride Campaigns at • active and positive participation by each FishCC site is summarized in section local government officials raised their 2.2.3 (iii) above. Rare’s consolidated awareness of the FishCC project and its reporting of the Pride Campaign launches94 objectives, and of substantive fisheries at the six FishCC sites attributed the issues at respective sites. following general outcomes to the campaign: Behavior and practice • more proactive district support on Knowledge and attitudes fisheries governance and enforcement; • raised community awareness and sense of ownership of the proposed fisheries • improved fisher participation in management areas, including no-take surveillance, enforcement and reserves, and their potential benefits; compliance of/with fisheries management measures; 94  Rare, 2019g 80 Fisheries Co-Management • improved participation in CCP Outcome of Pride Campaign at Inhassoro meetings and other collective activities. At Inhassoro, the Pride Campaign had a specific objective in terms of changing Consultations with Campaign Managers fishing attitudes and behavior, which was to and CCP members during preparation promote acceptance and implementation of an of this report confirmed, anecdotally, additional 45-day beachseine closure during the that participation in the pride campaign February-March rabbitfish spawning period launches was enthusiastic, both on the part (Table 3.5. above). To this end, it was necessary of community members and government to persuade fishermen from 15 beachseine officials. At the same time, as outlined in units to switch to handlines for that period. section 2.2.3 (iii) above, it’s appropriate to The Inhassoro Campaign Manager reported highlight again that, although pride campaigns that not only was the closure observed by all were originally planned to be a series of the 15 units during Feb-March 2019, they activities over a 6-month period, in practice even lobbied to extend the closure by an they were largely confined to the launch events additional 15 days, and cited this as a major in Nov 2019 and the distribution of messaging success for the Inhassoro Pride Campaign95. materials during those events. Subsequent activities were mostly not implemented, at least not under FishCC. 3.4.4. Challenges in assessing impact of So, it is reasonable to suppose that the Pride Campaigns impact of the campaigns was shorter-term than it would have been had the campaigns Two factors make it difficult to say been fully implemented. anything more concrete or definitive in terms of the impact of the pride campaigns 95  Rare, 2019c Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 81 under FishCC: outcomes attributed above in terms of improved knowledge and attitudes in i. 2nd KAP survey did not repeat the the immediate aftermath of campaign questions of the 1st KAP survey. Instead, launch festivities, there is no way of it applied globally-generic questions knowing how enduring those outcomes not tailored to each site (see section are over a longer period, especially in 3.2.3 (iv) above). This meant that light of the truncated nature of the although the 1st KAP surveys and campaigns themselves. If time had campaign preparations established allowed, it would have been more clear indicators, baselines and targets informative if the 2nd KAP survey had (summarized in Table. 3.8. above) been undertaken, say, six months after for anticipated outcomes of the Pride the campaign launches. Campaigns, specifically tailored to the priority fisheries management issues at 3.4.5. Cost effectiveness of Pride each site, the repeat (2nd) KAP survey Campaigns results did not deliver comparable data against which to measure changes at The total cost of implementing the Pride each site in a robust way (as seen in Campaign launch events at 6 sites was Table 3.9.). $72,000. With an estimated target audience participation of 2100 community members ii. Impact of the campaigns was measured and government officials, the cost per person very shortly after campaign launches. The reached was US$ 34. It is unclear whether 2nd KAP surveys were implemented this is cost-efficient given the difficulty to within a month or so of the campaign evaluate its impact as explained above. launches in Nov 2018. Thus, whilst there is no reason to doubt the Looking east towards the sunrise over the Indian Ocean off the Mozambican coastline 82 Fisheries Co-Management 3.5. Summary of Implementation Challenges Below is a summary of factors that affected This caused significant delays in the overall progress of project implementation project due to reforms within MIMAIP at system level: which affected continuity and decision- making. Additionally, the newly • Lack of existing legal framework established IDEPA struggled to manage and institutional experience on ACG the changes in light of the initial project designation. The project design setup. anticipated that ADNAP would enter into community management • Selection of project sites. The six agreements with qualifying CCPs selected project sites were dispersed to enact co-management of TURF- across four provincial governments, six reserves, and that after one year, district authorities, and two sites were TURF-reserves would be established distant from Maputo. The logistical and management plans implemented. challenges inherent in this impacted In practice, a lack of existing the speed and depth with which strong legal framework to support such local partnerships could be developed; arrangements, together with ADNAP’s provision of technical supervision to late active involvement in the project, campaign managers; and transaction rendered this unfeasible. costs. Selection of discrete sites, rather than clusters, also had implications as • Rare new to Mozambique. Rare to how well issues surrounding fishing was selected to provide technical patterns and reciprocal use of fishing assistance to the project on the grounds were examined. strength of its experience developing Fish Forever in Brazil, Indonesia and • Institutional coordination. The Philippines. However, Rare was new project lacked sufficiently effective to Mozambique. Obtaining official coordination to ensure clarity of registration, establishing an office, respective roles of central government, recruiting and building capacity of provincial government and NGOs staff and developing relations with and co-ordination mechanisms MIMAIP and provincial partners all between them. To address this, a took significant time, understandably. Steering Committee was formed in The high turnover of Rare’s in-country February 2017 comprising IDEPA, leadership during the first 2-3 years did ADNAP, IIP, DPMAIPs, CMs as not improve efficiencies. well as representatives from other artisanal fisheries projects from • Institutional re-structuring. FishCC MIMAIP (PROPESCA, ProDirpa was approved in 2015, shortly and SWIOFish1-MZ). This resulted after general elections which led in: (i) clarified roles and responsibilities to institutional restructuring of of each of the relevant MIMAIP MdP/ MIMAIP. This was further institutions in project implementation, compounded by decentralization of taking into account new MIMAIP fisheries sector personnel from 2018. statutes; (ii) an agreement on the formalization of campaign Chapter 3: Project Achievements & Challenges 83 managers’ engagement with project to have a significant impact on progress implementation; (iii) an agreement at Memba, as is evident in the pride on the challenges being faced by the campaign report for that site. project, their causes and potential solutions; and (iv) clarified roles and • Procurement delays affected the launch duties for campaign managers. of generating income activities in the respective sites. The delays were • Change in Memba campaign manager. largely due to the decision to advance At Memba the campaign manager with decentralized procurement, to was replaced at a critical juncture, increase local ownership. By the end of early in 2018, due to poor performance 2018, only 11% of the acquisitions were by the incumbent. Notwithstanding disbursed. Capacity of procurement the commendable efforts of the technicians at the provincial level successor, having missed out on a was limited, to effectively manage crucial induction and training process timely procurement of materials to the during 2016-17, this was always going livelihood opportunities. Four of the six campaign managers meeting to discuss the process; managers were present in all six FishCC sites. 84 Fisheries Co-Management 4. Lessons Learned Lessons from the FishCC project relevant to the ongoing development of fisheries co- management in Mozambique are organized in this section under the following headings: 4.1. Defining management areas, no-take reserves & control measures 4.2. Preparing fisheries co-management plans 4.3. The fisheries co-management governance framework in Mozambique 4.4. Facilitation capacity and institutional roles 4.5. Effectiveness of social marketing approaches 4.6. Role of livelihood initiatives in fisheries co-management 4.1. Defining Management Areas, No-Take Reserves & Control Measures This section summarizes lessons arising from the fisheries management measures proposed at the six FishCC pilot sites, including no- take reserves, as summarized in Table 3.1. and Figures 3.1a. and 3.1b. above. 4.1.1. Identifying the scope of fisheries co- management areas The geographic scope of a community fisheries management area is necessarily a balance between fisheries resource-use Community members patterns on the one hand, and social ties attend a local meeting in and administrative efficiencies on the other. Maputo Province Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 85 If fishers from several neighboring fishing to formulate a joint management area. The communities, all share the same fishing Inhassoro campaign manager agreed that, grounds, it might be logical to include on reflection, there was good justification all those communities within a single, for considering this. It is interesting to note coherent fisheries management regime that the Fequete management area is the or area, since all are fishing a common smallest of the 6 FishCC sites (see Table resource. On the other hand, management 2.1) and the Fequete CCP comprises only of a community fisheries area is also a one fishing center. social and administrative endeavor. So, if there are social or logistical reasons why In Mozambique, unlike in neighboring it might not be optimal or efficient to Tanzania or Kenya, most CCPs are already combine neighboring communities into a affiliations of more than one neighboring common management entity, that would fishing center, generally because they also be an important consideration. Some are fishing a common resource. So, to communities, for example, might not have some extent, the clustering of fishing good relationships with their neighbors, centers into groupings of common fishing or it might be logistically difficult to travel interests has already been done at the from one to the other for meetings. CCP level. However, it should not be assumed that therefore, in every case, every CCP should automatically have its own discrete community management area. LESSON 1: Some community There are likely to be other examples of #1 KEY fisheries management areas neighboring CCPs sharing common fishing grounds, where it makes sense to establish LESSON will incorporate more than a combine fisheries management area, as one CCP at Machangulo. The key to determining this point is to undertake systematic, consultative fishing patterns surveys, as The experience from FishCC was that outlined in Lesson 2 below. in 2 out of the 6 pilot sites, there was justification for clustering two neighboring CCPs within a single community management area. This was done, in practice, in Machangulo where it was recognised early on that fishers from Mabulucco and Santa Maria CCPs shared common fishing grounds. At Inhassoro, the project worked only with Fequete CCP. However, CCP members reported they closely share fishing grounds with a neighboring CCP to the north and that, in the future, it might will make better sense 86 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 2:Fishing pattern surveys LESSON 3: Working with clusters to identify all fishing stakeholders of neighboring CCPs rather than are important widely scattered sites is beneficial Lesson 1 above highlights the importance The two lessons above highlight the value of of understanding fishing patterns between working with clusters of neighboring CCPs, neighboring fishing communities, as within a larger administrative or ecological one of the key inputs to determining the unit, rather than selecting sites scattered scope of a fisheries management area. across several provinces and districts, as was This was a flaw in the approach adopted the case under FishCC project. The added under FishCC. The site selection study advantage of working with neighboring undertaken in 2016 did not consider the clusters of CCPs would have been that it existence of reciprocal fishing patterns leads to much stronger engagement, co- with neighbors, rather it focused on single ordination and ownership on the part of CCPs as if they were discrete units. A district and provincial authorities. more advisable approach would have been to select larger areas following either 4.1.2. Fisheries No-Take Reserves administrative (eg. a district), geographic or ecological boundaries (eg. a large bay), and As outlined in section 2.2. above, fisheries then to undertake detailed fishing patterns no-take reserves are a cornerstone of surveys to understand the spatial and fisheries management globally and lie at the temporal patterns of fishing effort by fishing heart of the Fish Forever approach. centers and CCPs with the broader area. Such surveys should be disaggregated by Community Acceptance and Compliance community, fishing gear and seasons. A common challenge to establishing no-take The studies undertaken in the Sofala Bank reserves is community acceptance, especially provinces by IIP 96 are an example of this where livelihoods depend significantly on type of study, but with a higher level of fishing, and where there is already high resolution needed in terms of linking fishing fishing pressure. It is therefore encouraging grounds to particular fishing centers. An that community acceptance was secured important additional reason for conducting in all six FishCC sites for the concept of this kind of fishing pattern survey is that establishing new no-take zones, including at it enables identification of all non-local Inhassoro where there has existed a historic fishers that are making use of a proposed no-take reserve since before independence. management area, including those who are Beyond that, general locations were identified not close neighbors, whether artisanal or for no-take reserves at all 6 sites, with semi-industrial. This kind of information two communities, Zavora and Pomene, was also an omission in the background provisionally agreeing to implement more analyses undertaken for the FishCC sites than one new no-take area. This success and links to lessons 11 and 12 below. should not be taken for granted. 96 IIP, 2017c Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 87 In at least two FishCC sites there was not. But even there, non-local fishers are reportedly significant initial hostility towards still fishing in the no-take reserve, pending the idea of establishing no-take reserves. In demarcation and formal approval and Mefunvo, fishers had witnessed negative designation. practices in no-take areas within Quirimbas National Park, with corrupt rangers allegedly Reserve Size taking money to turn a blind eye to illegal fishing. In Pomene, initial attitudes towards The 2003 World Parks Congress a no-take reserve were very skeptical amongst recommended that marine reserve a portion of fishers and initial meetings were networks should include strictly protected very challenging97. areas that amount to at least 20-30% of each habitat. The United Nations Millennium That communities came around to accepting Project advocates for 10% of all oceans to the idea is a credit to the intensive and be covered by no-take marine reserves in skilled engagement of community members the short to medium term, with a long- by Campaign Managers between June- term aspiration of 30%. The aim of these December 2017; the targeted and detailed prescriptions is to optimize sustainable nature of Fish Forever’s Fisheries Landscape fishing yields, especially where there are and Goal-Setting (FLAGS) tool which few other controls on fishing effort. evidently provided a valuable framework for that engagement; and latterly, of the utility However, in the context of developing of the background ecological assessments fisheries co-management in poorer, fishing- undertaken98. dependent communities, such targets are, at best, a longer-term end-goal. Social goals, Against that, whilst community acceptance such as sharing a minimum level of benefit to has been secured in principle, it has not yet a maximum number of fishers might be more been tested in practice. Fishers at Mefunvo, important than optimizing total production. Memba, Inhassoro, Pomene and Zavora Thus, in initial stages, gaining consensus for are all waiting for reserve area boundaries no-take reserves with lesser overall coverage to be mapped, demarcated and formalized, is fine, and remains valuable. Positive before implementing. Some CCP members experience will often encourage fishers to expressed frustration at the lack of progress expand coverage in future, as at Inhassoro in on that over the past 18 months, since reserve the FishCC context. More important than locations were agreed during the latter half overall coverage, is that no-take reserves be of 2017. Only in Machangulo have local appropriately sized and located in terms of fishers reportedly started to observe the no- local fisheries ecology. For that reason, it is take reserve in practice, whilst waiting for still important to know the exact extent of demarcation. This might partly reflect the proposed reserves, for example in relation fact the no-take reserve, at Bembi estuary, to the extent of fish spawning or nursery is more naturally demarcated than at other habitats, and of fishing gear use. FishCC sites, though its outer boundary is 97 Pomene Campaign Manager, pers. comm. 98 Centro Terra Viva, 2018 and Peace Parks Foundation, 2018. 88 Fisheries Co-Management The fisheries no-take reserves proposed at 4 Documenting Rationale for No- of the 6 FishCC sites cover less than 5% of the Take Reserve Location and Impact total management area, or of critical habitats, Monitoring and less than 1% in two cases. At Mefunvo, the proposed reserve was not mapped. The Although preparation of management plans exception is Machangulo which has higher for the FishCC sites was still in process coverage, though the figure in Table 3.4 is at end-of-project, the latest version of the misleadingly high. In the longer term, it will most advanced plan, for Machangulo100, probably be desirable to increase the coverage does not clearly articulate the rationale of no-take areas at the other 5 sites. That for the location of the proposed no-take said, the identified reserves areas should still reserve at that site, at Bembi estuary. The certainly serve to pilot the concept of no-take plan also does not contain a monitoring reserves with communities, allowing them to framework capturing indicators and targets assess its utility, and potentially to add further against which one might assess any fisheries areas in future. impact of implementing the proposed no- take reserve. Yet the Bembi estuary no- The exception might be Memba. Memba take reserve is central to the approach to CCP’s management area is considerably fisheries management in the Machangulo larger than other FishCC sites. It covers 10 plan, in particular management of stocks fishing centers and over 1,000 fishers, some of the selected flagship species, Pomadasys 3-4 times larger than the next largest sites at kaakan (peixe pedra/javelin grunter). One Inhassoro and Machangulo, and 8-10 times would therefore expect some justification in larger than Pomene and Zavora. Against that, terms of fisheries ecology. the proposed no-take reserve area at Mucombo estuary is relatively very small and, more importantly, based on the size of the bay, is unlikely to be fished by fishers from most LESSON 4: Community acceptance of the 10 fishing centers within Memba of no-take reserves is crucial CCP. That means most Memba CCP fishers will effectively not be participating Experience from the FishCC sites showed directly in complying with a no-take reserve, that an intensive and structured process nor be party to any perceived benefits. of engagement and consultation, backed Interestingly, Memba CCP reportedly by appropriate ecological and fisheries conducted trial closures at 3 sites during technical analysis, as contained in the 2017, and selected only Mucombo as they Fish Forever approach, can be effective in did not see benefit (presumably increase in persuading communities at least to trial the fish abundance) at the other two sites. But, concept of fisheries no-take zones. Other this was done informally by the CCP and NGO initiatives in Mozambique, outlined most fishers from the 10 fishing centers in Section 1.4. above have demonstrated the were not involved99. Although the initiative same. Experience in the wider WIO region in trialling 3 closures is to be applauded, it is that most coastal fishing communities are seems not to have been done systematically; initially skeptical towards the concept of the period of closure seems to have been too fisheries no-take reserves, since they reduce short; and fisheries impacts were not robustly the area of fishing grounds available to measured or documented. fishers, so this acceptance is significant. 99 Memba Campaign Manager pers comm. 100 ADNAP, 2019 Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 89 LESSON 5: There is a need Participatory mapping, demarcation and implementation within a few weeks or #2 KEY for timely no-take reserve months of securing community consensus is LESSON mapping, demarcation and important: (i) it provides transparency, and implementation avoids later misunderstandings as to what was agreed; and (ii) it informs an understanding of the size of proposed no-take area relative to the total management area. At the same, it seems likely that more could have been done during 2018 to encourage fishers to start observing proposed no-take areas informally, even before they were formally demarcated or approved. Credit should go to Mabuluco and Santa Maria fishers at Machangulo, for setting a good example in this regard. The reasons as to why this occurred at Machangulo and not at other sites such as Zavora, Pomene and Memba are not clear and would be worth exploring further. Waiting for logistical and bureaucratic milestones and approvals can also be used by some as an excuse to delay implementation. There is often nothing It is unfortunate that no-take reserves agreed to prevent fishers from initially observing with communities at FishCC sites during a no-take reserve informally, based on 2017 were not demarcated and implemented consensus and local knowledge of natural within the subsequent 18-month project boundaries. This is something that district/ period. In two sites (Fequete and Mefunvo) provincial fisheries officers can encourage. there was still confusion at the end of the project as to what had been earlier agreed. Community acceptance and common understanding of no-take fishing reserves LESSON 6: It is important to cannot be taken for granted. Where consider the size of no-take agreements are not acted on promptly, reserves misunderstandings and confusion can arise as to what has been agreed, communities can The size and habitat coverage of fisheries lose confidence, project-based funding can no-take reserves proposed at FishCC expire and opportunities can be lost. It is sites is relatively small, less than 5% at all notable that in 2 of the 6 FishCC sites sites with exception of Machangulo. The (Mefunvo and Inhassoro), despite 18 to 24 no-take reserve proposed in Memba (at months of community engagement, there Mucomba estuary) is particularly small and are still contradictory accounts as to what needs to be complemented with 2-3 other has been agreed regarding the location of reserves of similar size. no-take reserves. 90 Fisheries Co-Management The aim should be to ensure that fishers For the benefit of shared understanding, it from most or all of the 10 fishing centers are is important to document in management engaged in piloting a fisheries no-take zone plans the ecological and socio-economic within their local fishing grounds. justification for the location and extent of no-take reserves. This should make If a fisheries no-take reserve is too small, or reference to the habitat ecology of the no- poorly located, it will not generate fisheries take reserve and its relevance to fisheries benefits. In turn, if a reserve does not production, in particular with reference generate benefits, it is unlikely the fishing to priority commercial species in the area. community in question will maintain This will help to inform the framing of compliance or be willing the expand its relevant monitoring indicators and targets size. Therefore it is important to develop in the same management plan. It will also clear, robust ecological justifications for the assist future evaluation of the effectiveness location and size of fisheries no-take reserves or otherwise of the no-take reserve, as a and to communicate, discuss and agree such fisheries management measure. justifications with communities. At the same time, it will often not be realistic to set high initial targets for LESSON 8: Trialling fisheries coverage of fisheries no-take reserves, as benefits from no-take areas is advocated globally (eg. 20% - 35%). Closures beneficial can have negative short-term economic consequences for fishers. As long as reserves Reportedly, the CCP at Memba conducted are well located ecologically, the level of trial fisheries closures at 3-4 different coverage proposed for Zavora, Pomene and locations before proposing a no-take reserve Machangulo should at least be sufficient at Mucomba estuary. However, it is not clear to demonstrate fisheries benefits in the how systematically that was done, neither short to medium-term. This will hopefully was the process documented. The approach incentivize communities to consider closing of trialling several different no-take areas to additional areas in future, as appropriate. test which has greater fisheries benefits has merit in principle. However, it is important that: (i) any area is closed for a sufficient period, 24 months is probably a reasonable LESSON 7: The rationale for minimum period, perhaps 12 months in fisheries no-take reserves should some cases; and (ii) that any impact in be documented in management terms of changes in fish size and abundance within the area are robustly measured and plans documented. If these points are not observed, The most advanced of the FishCC as in Memba, the results can be counter- management plans, for Machangulo, does productive. Without adequate technical not contain a justification for the size and guidance, communities might have unrealistic location of the no-take reserve, in terms of its short-term expectations. If these are not met, anticipated benefit to fisheries. This is not to there is a danger of fishers losing confidence suggest the reserve is not well-justified, but in the ability of no-take reserves to replenish the justification is not documented. fish stocks. Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 91 Aerial photograph of a river emptying into the ocean among coastal forest in Mozambique 4.1.3. Range of fisheries management at either site, emphasis was instead given measures adopted to regulating fishing gears (beachseines). However, the crucial issue of regulating Tables 3.2 and 3.4. in Section 3 above access by non-local fishers was not summarize the range of fisheries addressed. In Zavora and Pomene, there was management measures proposed by a balance between establishing fisheries no- communities at each FishCC site, based take reserves and applying gear restrictions, on consultations with CCPs and fishers. but again the issue of controlling access by Lessons related to that are: outsiders was not addressed. The reason for the lack of attention to managed access at the FishCC sites seems LESSON 9: Fisheries no-take to be that the issue of allowing local reserves and managed access fishers to have preferential access rights should be considered in tandem to local fishing resources is still a matter under consideration within MIMAIP. The Fish Forever approach is founded on There is currently no clear policy on it, the dual concept of ‘managed access with moreover there are concerns that controlling reserves’ 101. That means, on the one hand traditional open-access through formal regulating access to a management area by management plans may cause conflict. This non-local fishers, and regulating fishing important issue is addressed separately in effort within it (managed access) and, on the lessons 11 and 12 below. other hand, establishing a fisheries no-take reserve within the management area. In Nonetheless, the separate lesson here is the general, under FishCC, the fisheries no-take importance of giving consideration to the reserve element of the Fish Forever approach full range of management measures during was given greater emphasis than managed the process of community consultations, access. In Machangulo and Memba, fisheries including managing access by outside no-take reserves were the only significant fishers, managing fishing effort by local fisheries management measure identified. fishers through gear restrictions or seasonal In Fequete and Mefunvo, there was closures, and introduction of a permanent uncertainty at end-of-project as to whether no-take reserve. no-take reserves had actually been agreed 101 Rare, 2018a 92 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 10: Scientific, rights- based facilitation can inform 4.1.4. Controlling access of non-local fishers management measures FishCC project document, 2015: Related to Lesson 9 above, a crucial factor in “The proposed project seeks to improve local the ability of fishing communities to identify governance … and catalyze a transformative robust fisheries management measures is approach to coastal, artisanal fisheries in the availability of competent facilitation that Mozambique. The approach will reduce is both science-based and rights-based. The human threats to coastal ecosystems by piloting importance of having adequate analysis of community rights-based management …”. 102 fish catches (not the case under FishCC) in defining appropriate management measures, Fish Forever Global Program Results is covered in more detail in points 13 and 14 2012–2017103: below. But equally important is having skilled facilitation so that scientific information can “Managed access is a community rights-based be effectively communicated, in a way that is fisheries management approach that provides accessible to all community members, as well coastal communities with exclusive access as to local authorities. For this reason, it is privileges for fishing in defined areas. Managed often important to involve a fisheries researcher access facilitates tenure and access, provides a with communication skills in community mechanism to adjust fishing pressure, creates facilitation teams. incentives for fishers to become better stewards of their resources, ensures sustainability by Similarly, fishing communities need aligning social incentives for fishers with competent and well-informed facilitation conservation objectives and empowers small- as to their rights, for example in regard to scale fishers to effectively participate in fisheries proposing appropriate restrictions on outside management” fishing effort. Of the six FishCC sites, only Pomene actively proposed such restrictions. Negotiating, and formally recognizing, Zavora and Machangulo CCPs reported preferential access rights to local fisheries concerns over non-local fishing effort but resources for local communities is a had not proposed any related measures. It is cornerstone of fisheries co-management possible they would have done so with better globally. It is the antidote to open-access facilitation. Notwithstanding, the national fisheries regimes which have been responsible legal context in Mozambique, managing access for long-term decline in nearshore artisanal is a cornerstone of the Fish Forever approach. fisheries worldwide. 102 World Bank, 2015 View towards mangrove 103 Rare, 2018a forests along the coastline Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 93 Under the Fish Forever approach, The Fisheries Law, 2013 states: promoting such preferential, or even exclusive, access for local fishers is referred Article 10, Para 1: “Fisheries resources in the to as ‘managed access’. jurisdictional waters of Mozambique shall be the property of the State, which shall determine the Whether or not preferential access rights for conditions for their use and exploitation.” local fishers is a policy that will be promoted in nearshore fisheries co-management Draft revised Fisheries Regulations in Mozambique remains uncertain. (REPMAR) state (in reference to fisheries Consideration of the issue has been management plans): catalyzed as a result of the FishCC project but ADNAP and MIMAIP have not yet Article 13: “The Minister who oversees formulated a clear policy. fisheries may adopt plans for the management of fisheries in operation, regeneration or under Concerns have been expressed that the development.” Mozambican constitution and/or the Fisheries Law, 2013 do not permit formal Taken together, the above provisions appear recognition of preferential access rights for to empower the Minister, on behalf of local fishing communities However such the State, to determine the conditions for concerns do not seem to be well-founded. access to fisheries resources as the Minister sees fit, and to include such conditions in The Constitution of Mozambique states: approved management plans. This would seem to provide a legal basis for formally Article 98: “Natural resources in the soil and recognizing preferential access rights for the subsoil, in inland waters, in the territorial local fishing communities. sea, on the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic zone shall be the property of the State” The principle of giving preferential access rights to local communities is already Article 102: “The State shall promote established with other terrestrial natural knowledge, survey and valorization of natural resources, pursuant to the Land Law, 1997. resources, and shall determine the conditions Therein, the State allocates a legal right to under which they may be used and developed land users for land used for subsistence and subject to national interests.” household economy purposes. 94 Fisheries Co-Management Third parties, such as companies seeking of managing respective interests and land for agribusiness and other development avoiding conflict should not be a reason can obtain licensed access, only subject to for dismissing the concept of preferential community consultation, approved development access rights for local fishing communities. plans and environmental licensing104. The Indeed, addressing historic open access is same principle is enshrined in Article 22 of the key to ensuring sustainable fisheries- the Conservation Law, 2017 in regard to third based livelihoods in future and is the basis party rights of access in community conservation of a rights-based approach to fisheries areas, as outlined in Section 1.6 above. In management, increasingly applied globally. addition, there are already examples along the Mozambique coast, including at one of As outlined in Lessons 1 and 2 above, the the FishCC sites (Pomene), where district approach to site selection under FishCC, authorities have informally agreed with CCPs and subsequent situation analysis at each to restrict the number of migrant fishers site, did not involve systematic analysis and/or fishing gears at particular locations, of fishing activity by non-local fishers. especially beachseine gears. This is already a This omission meant that consultations form of restricting open access, and granting on fisheries management were focused on preferential access rights to local fishers. the local community and did not generally involve neighbors, or migrant fishers from There are valid concerns that bestowing further afield. The Machangulo area, preferential access rights to local communities for example, is used by artisanal fishers for fisheries resources will have economic from Catembe and Maputo, as well as implications for non-local users, and might semi-industrial fishers, but they were provoke conflict if not managed carefully. not formally involved in consultations. This is particularly given the traditional Likewise, there is significant reciprocal context and expectation of open access. fishing activity between Fequete CCP and However, such issues should be addressed its neighboring CCP to the north, but that through adequate consultation, mitigation CCP was not involved in consultations. where appropriate and government oversight. Campaign managers reported that Ultimately, final decisions over access will Inhassoro and Mefunvo CCPs were not still be made by government authorities to inclined to limit access of non-local fishers, ensure they are fair, and that unnecessary since they traditionally rely on reciprocal conflict is avoided. Indeed, a good approach sharing of fishing grounds with neighboring to managing access by non-local fishers would fishing communities, in different seasons. be to co-ordinate analysis and management Memba, Pomene, Zavora and Machangulo, of migrant fishing behavior at district or on the other hand did informally favor even provincial level, rather than leaving imposing fishing restrictions on non-local it to consultations at each community or fishers, though only Pomene has done so in CCP. Nonetheless, the potential complexity practice. 104 Lei de Terras, Lei nº 19/97 de 1 de Outubro Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 95 Community members, dignitaries and media at the boat ceremony in the village of Zavora LESSON 11: MIMAIP needs to rights to local fishers in Mozambique. #3 KEY On the contrary, the Constitution develop a policy on preferential LESSON of the Republic of Mozambique and access rights for local fishers the Fisheries Law, 2013 empower the Minister responsible to make decisions Management planning at FishCC sites on that, as appropriate (see text above). did not undertake analysis of fishing Moreover, there are precedents for activities by non-local fishers. It also did formally granting preferential access rights not consider options to manage access by to local communities in the context of non-local fishers, by granting preferential land and terrestrial natural resources in access rights to local fishers in FishCC Mozambique. There are also examples management plans. This is in spite of where district authorities have granted the fact that fishers in at least 4 out of 6 preferential access on an informal basis, in sites favored partially restricting access by the fisheries sector. non-local fishers. Yet preferential access rights are an important tool in addressing MIMAIP has valid reasons to be cautious open-access pressures on fisheries, not least in its approach to granting preferential because they encourage local stewardship. access rights to local fishers. There is a history of relatively open access in the A primary reason such management fisheries sector and it is important to options were not considered under avoid conflicts and to balance respective FishCC appears to be the absence of a livelihood interests. However, these are clear policy on preferential access rights not reasons to dismiss preferential access at national level. Preferential access rights rights. Co-ordination of preferential access refers to formal recognizing that local rules at district level, or even provincial fishers may have more rights to access level, would help to ensure a balanced fisheries resources than non-local fishers, approach that avoids conflict. Such rules where appropriate and justified. ‘Non- should nonetheless potentially allow for local fishers’ here include both artisanal access by non-local fishers to be restricted and semi-industrial fishing. It does not at community/CCP level, where justified necessarily imply exclusive access. How and appropriate. preferential access rights are interpreted in any given location would be a matter It is advised that MIMAIP develops a policy for consultation between local authorities on the issue of preferential access rights and fishing communities, and will depend for local fishing communities in the near on balancing the state of fish stocks with future, as part of the process of developing an livelihood and economic considerations. effective fisheries co-management governance framework. Such policy should then be There do not seem to be fundamental legal incorporated into relevant Regulations, CCP reasons for not granting preferential access Statues and the Co-management Manual. 96 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 12: It is important As such, both need to be included in #4 KEY to regulate semi-industrial co-management consultations, risk LESSON vessels in community assessments and management plans. conservation areas Experience from FishCC sites additionally demonstrates that, in some areas, communities will propose fisheries no-take The draft management plan prepared reserves that extend beyond 1nm from the for the community management area shore (eg. Zavora, Machangulo, Pomene). at Machangulo is focused on artisanal Semi-industrial vessels are therefore fisheries. The scope of the plan (section 4) automatically implicated in the scope of explicitly excludes semi-industrial vessels management measures, since it is not from the plan. This might need to be intended that semi-industrial vessels should reconsidered. not observe these fisheries no-take zones. Draft revised Fisheries Regulations Including semi-industrial vessels in the (REPMAR)105 permit semi-industrial scope of community fisheries management trawling by vessels up to 20m in length, plans does not imply that local communities to fish up to 1nm from the shore. Recent have unilateral rights to impose restrictions research by IIP/IDEPA106 demonstrates on semi-industrial vessels. Rather it would that artisanal fishing activities in the Sofala be a matter for consultation and consensus Bank extend well beyond 1nm, and even between all stakeholders, including artisanal well beyond 3nm. So, there is no avoiding fishers, semi-industrial fishers, with the fact that areas likely to be designated oversight of district, provincial and national as community fisheries management areas fisheries authorities. But excluding semi- in Mozambique are already heavily shared industrial vessels from the outset is not between artisanal and semi-industrial fishers. logical, if the aim is to optimize equitable and sustainable fisheries production. Semi-industrial fishing boats in Maputo Port 105 MIMAIP, in prep (version of February 2019) 106 IIP, 2017c Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 97 4.2. Preparing Management Plans of, and terms of reference provided for, This section summarizes lessons regarding the respective studies, as much as in the the process for developing fisheries implementation of the studies themselves. management plan at the six FishCC pilot sites, and covers four issues: i. baseline information for management LESSON 13: Integration planning of baseline studies with ii. stakeholder engagement processes participatory engagement processes. iii. utility of selecting a single flagship fish species versus multiple priority species Ecological and fisheries baseline studies are an essential component of fisheries iv. format and content of management plan co-management planning, but they need to documents be more than just academic, background technical studies. They should directly 4.2.1. Baseline information for inform the process of identifying fisheries management planning no-take reserves and complementary fisheries management measures, and Crafting effective and appropriate fisheries they need to be planned, sequenced and management measures, for inclusion integrated accordingly. They should not in fisheries management plans such as be treated as a separate scientific endeavor. those prepared for the six FishCC sites, Ecological and fisheries researchers should depends on adequate biological, ecological, work closely with fisheries extensionists socio-economic and attitudinal baseline (such as the campaign managers under information being available. FishCC) so that technical, scientific data collection is tailored to the local situation, As outlined in Section 3.2.3 above, and is guided by, and integrated with, ecosystem and fisheries studies undertaken qualitative scoping information of the kind by CTV and IIP during 2017-18 sites collected during the FLAG interviews and generated some useful data, but there 1st FLAG workshop under FishCC. were also significant gaps. The fisheries information in particular was very So, for example, ecological and fisheries thin, moreover neither study was well studies might have benefited greatly integrated with the qualitative scoping had they been preceded by preliminary work undertaken at each site by campaign participatory mapping of: (i) marine managers. For those reasons, the studies habitats, (ii) fishing patterns, including appear to have been of limited use in spatial distribution of grounds by gear informing management planning, in and season, and (iii) target fish species by particular identification of fisheries no- gear, undertaken by fishing communities, take reserves and complementary fisheries facilitated jointly by extensionists management measures at each FishCC (campaign managers), and ecological and site, which was (or should have been) the fisheries researchers, using standard PRA primary rationale in conducting the studies. methodologies. This would, for example, It is acknowledged that the root cause of have guided site selection for subsequent these weaknesses often lies in the planning ecological sampling, so that ecological results 98 Fisheries Co-Management would inform and validate preliminary LESSON 14: Systematic fisheries selection of reserve sites, and generate information focused on priority baseline monitoring data for the same. commercial species is important It might also inform the methodological approach for ecological studies. Sometimes, lower resolution, habitat mapping and The fisheries information collated for rapid assessment of status is more useful FishCC sites was very incomplete. A in informing management decisions (ie. systematic approach to gathering baseline locating no-take zones), than detailed fisheries information for fisheries co- sampling at random locations. Similarly, management planning is needed. Preferably subsequent fisheries data collection could it should include identifying: aim to validate the particular priority/FLAG species identified by communities, and focus i. priority commercial species; on generating the information needed for management of those particular stocks (ie. ii. spatial range (fishing grounds) and catch, effort and stock assessment data). habitats important to the life-cycle of those species; Without this kind of integration and common purpose, there is a risk of iii. catch and effort data for those species; funds, time and effort being expended on professionally-conducted studies that iv. stock assessment and/or longitudinal ultimately don’t contribute very directly to trends (quantitative or qualitative). the central fisheries management objectives at each site. Such integration can only Some understanding of stock status of be achieved if there is effective, close co- priority, target fish species is essential ordination between relevant institutions and to informing co-management planning. associated service providers, which was a Where it is not realistic to undertake broader challenge under FishCC. quantitative stock assessment, there are qualitative methods that can at least provide some insights. For stocks that commercially important over larger scales, there is a parallel need for national fisheries authorities to conduct stock assessment and prepare management plans whose management measures can then be downscaled or adapted at the level of community management areas. 4.2.2. Management planning: community engagement & plan preparation process Challenges encountered in relation to preparation of management plans are summarized in section 3.4.2 (ii) above. The corresponding lessons learned are summarized as follows. Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 99 LESSON 15: Fish Forever provided a framework against which to #5 KEY provides an effective measure future progress (though see also LESSON framework for management lesson 32 in Section 4.5. below). priority analysis These two aspects of the approach, in particular, helped secure community consensus on identifying fisheries no-take Application of the Fish Forever approach reserves and complementary, appropriate under FishCC, in the context of developing fisheries management measures. effective fisheries co-management, proved highly relevant in certain key respects. In particular, it provided a platform for engaging LESSON 16: Added value of communities constructively and building trust. Fish Forever methodology in This is a tribute to the strategy of having a management plan preparation campaign manager at each site over an extended 2-year period, providing dedicated, intensive Although not currently included in draft facilitation to the local community. This management plans for FishCC sites, the enabled each manager to become very familiar theories of change and related SMART with local fisheries environment, and to gain the objectives (Table 3.14) developed for each trust of fishers and community members. FishCC site, could usefully inform logframes or results frameworks in the management Additionally, the Fish Forever approach was plans. As such they would support effective in supporting systematic analysis of identification of management interventions, fisheries challenges and identifying strategies and quantitative targets for measuring progress to address them, at each site. Valuable tools and impact. This highlights the important of included development of theories of change having continuity and/or close collaboration with SMART objectives, indicators and between personnel undertaking community targets. These helped to identify which engagement and those drafting management changes in fishing behavior would be likely plans, which did not happen under FishCC. to achieve desired fisheries outcomes, and Left: Two of the six campaign managers stand with the Fish Forever banner at a Santa Maria CCP meeting Opposite Page: Men in a small fishing boat paddle close to shore to catch fish to sell at market and for local consumption 100 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 17: Include communities INIP, DEPI, DNOP, ADNAP, IDEPA, on the management plan drafting IIP and DPMAIPs, as appropriate. Team members would need hands-on training in In future, the process of developing community management area planning; the pilot community fisheries management plans initiatives to be undertaken under the SWIOFish should be much more closely integrated project might provide an opportunity for that. with the process of engagement with fishing communities, their analysis of fisheries 4.2.3. Management plan content challenges and consultations on management measures to mitigate them. This will help Challenges encountered in relation to to ensure that the content of management preparation of management plans are plans well reflects the participatory process summarized in section 3.4.2 (iii) above. at the site in question, and does not become The corresponding lessons learned are primarily a desk-driven process in Maputo summarized below: or elsewhere. In particular: • The format, structure and content of LESSON 19: FishCC fisheries management plan end-products management plans should be known and agreed at the #6 KEY are an opportunity to start of the engagement process, so that LESSON pilot a new fisheries information-gathering and consultation co-management legal processes can be tailored to that end; framework • Personnel responsible for drafting management plans should participate in Pioneering a spatial management approach key stakeholder consultation events and, to artisanal fisheries management was the conversely, personnel responsible for original vision and aspiration of the FishCC facilitating community engagement should project, and the reason for applying the be involved in management plan drafting. Fish Forever approach. The draft management plans for FishCC sites prepared during 2019 are not yet formulated LESSON 18: Capacity for as management plans for designated spatial management plan drafting at management areas formally designated under national and provincial level particular legislation (whether Fisheries Regulations or Conservation Law). There is If the longer-term vision is to develop still an opportunity to do that. community management areas for artisanal fisheries along much of the coast of Whatever the outcome of the deliberations Mozambique, it will not be realistic if the within MIMAIP, whether to apply the drafting of management plans is confined to Conservation Law of 2017 or new provisions in a small team of just 2-3 officers at ADNAP. revised Fisheries Regulations as the preferred instrument for designation for community If this is not to become a bottle-neck that fisheries management areas, the FishCC limits progress, ADNAP will need to build management plans provide an opportunity to a wider team capable of supporting such test out application of the selected option, and planning, potentially involving officers from for their content to be accordingly aligned. Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 101 It is noted that other NGO initiatives iii. Description of fishing activities including in Mozambique are currently piloting quantitative profile of fishing effort, application of the Conservation Law. In case both artisanal and semi-industrial the will be the preferred option for FishCC sites, it is understood that fisheries no-take iv. Description of fisheries resource including reserves within community conservation quantitative summary of CPUE by gear areas could be designated as sanctuaries and catch composition; under Article 23 of the same Conservation Law. The exception will be Mefunvo as it is RELATORIO DE APRENDIZADOS DA CAMPANHA v. Risk assessment: systematic analysis of within Quirimbas PROGRAMA National Park. DE PESCA PARA SEMPRE threats and risks to fisheries resources MOCAMBIQUE and livelihoods, including underlying drivers or barriers to addressing them Campanha de Orgulho Respeito pelo período de desova do peixe Coelho Sapateiro – vi. Statements of objectives of the Siganus Sutor (M’babe) management plan vii. Description of the process for developing the plan viii. Scope of the plan: including description and maps of physical boundaries, and beneficiary communities ix. Theory of change, or logical framework, integrating the above management objectives and risk assessment, identifying proposed strategies to mitigate each threat or risk, with Coordenador: Anuar Amade Anuar Inhassoro, Inhambane, Moçambique Abril de 2019 SMART objectives and quantitative indicators to measure status and progress on each LESSON 20: It is important x. Description of management measures needed to develop a standardized, to implement strategies identified above, comprehensive management plan including maps of any zoning (including format no-take reserves), and other restrictions on fishing gears or fishing effort It is recommended that management plans for community fisheries management areas xi. Monitoring plan: how quantitative at least contain the following elements: indicators in logical framework will be measured i. Ecological description of the management area xii. Description of governance and institutional arrangements, including roles and ii. Socio-economic description of the responsibilities of principal actors/ management area, including livelihoods entities profile 102 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 21: Plans should consider LESSON 22: Management plans management measures additional should detail enforcement to no-take reserves protocols In at least two of the draft FishCC site The legally-defined role of CCP rangers management plans, including that for in the context of enforcing fisheries Machangulo, establishment of a fisheries management measures is essentially a no-take reserve is the only substantive surveillance, monitoring and reporting fisheries management measure included function. There are limitations as to the that is additional to existing national extent to which CCP rangers can undertake fisheries regulations. proactive enforcement action in the event of confronting an instance of non- In principle, a fisheries no-take zone can compliance. Whilst they can communicate be designated as a sanctuary, without rules to anyone not complying with them, necessarily being encompassed within interventions such as actively prevention, a community conservation area. If a confiscation of gears or arrest of wrong- fisheries no-take reserve is really the only doers are the function of other local substantive fisheries management measure authorities, including the police. However, (ie. a measure that regulates fishing effort) in practice CCPs often report a history needed in a given area, so be it. of problems in securing such support from local authorities. In some cases, this Designation as a community conservation might be because responsible authorities area still has value as a catalyst for themselves are not familiar with the context preparation of a management plan, of fisheries non-compliance, or their identification of management indicators institutional role. and targets and so on. Nonetheless it might be a missed opportunity, if indeed declining Clearly documenting relevant roles and fish stocks imply the need for additional operational procedures in management restrictions on fishing effort. The particular plans will help towards resolving such type of management option that was not problems. Management plans can provide well explored at FishCC sites was managing context-specific protocols for collaboration access by non-local fishers. between CCPs and local/provincial authorities, depending on type of non- Therefore, as a matter of process, compliance encountered, including by non- facilitation and technical teams responsible local and/or non-artisanal fishers. for consultations with communities and preparation of management plans should always be encouraged to ask the question (of themselves and other stakeholders) as to whether adequate, meaningful fisheries management measures have been identified and included in the plan, such that they are likely to result in enhancement of fish stocks and an increase in total fish catch or production. Rod and line fisher on the beach in Pomene Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 103 LESSON 23: Frameworks are LESSON 25: Management important for monitoring plans should be validated with management plan impact communities It is important that community fisheries Especially where the agency or management plans contain a monitoring responsibility for drafting management framework against which to measure plans is centralized at a national institution progress. In addition to indicators/targets such as ADNAP, it is important that that measure progress in implementing the key elements of draft plans be shared strategies and actions, focused on short to back with fishing communities for medium-term outputs, it is also important validation. This will help to ensure that to include indicators/targets that measure any modifications to management measures longer-term impact. Such indicators resulting from earlier consultations, made would likely include simple ecological as a result of input from government (eg. condition of mangrove, coral reef or technical officers, are still acceptable to seagrass habitats), biological (biometrics of communities. Such validation needs to be target fish or conservation species), fisheries done in a timely way such that revisions (catch-per-unit-effort or total catch) and/ can still be made, and it is not just a or social (fishers’ knowledge, attitudes & rubber-stamping exercise. The summary practices) parameters. Data generated by infographic versions of management ecological, fisheries and KAP baseline plans will be a valuable instrument in the studies (points 10-12 above) would serve to validation process. guide baseline and target values. 4.2.4. Utility of selecting FLAG fish species versus multiple priority species LESSON 24: Value of infographic As outlined in sections 2.2.3 and 3.2.2., and summaries of management plans Table 3.1, a key element of the Fish Forever methodology was identification by fishing The draft infographic versions of the six FishCC communities at each FishCC site of a single management plans (see example in Annex ‘FLAG’ fish species of high economic 1) provide a very helpful, visually-accessible importance to artisanal fisheries. The summary of the more detailed management intention was for that species to serve as a plan documents. It would be advisable for this focus for analysis of fisheries management to become a standard output in the fisheries co- needs, including guiding the location of a management system in Mozambique, alongside fisheries no-take reserve. the longer-form plans. In particular, the infographic summaries are likely to be of value Secondarily, the FLAG species served as instruments for communicating key elements as a totem or emblem for that fishing of management plans with communities and community, which was capitalized on other stakeholders who might not otherwise during social marketing activities, being have the time or capacity to read more detailed featured on communications materials documentation. The summary infographic such as banners, t-shirts etc. Conclusions version will also come into their own where from this experience under FishCC is there is a need to translate management plans summarized below. to local languages other than Portuguese, for consultation and validation. 104 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 26: Analysis of several The wider lists commonly included a priority fish species is more useful mix of finfish and invertebrates (octopus, than a single FLAG species prawns, crabs, sea cucumber) and in most cases could probably be clustered into a Campaign Managers found the approach slightly smaller number that would still be useful. It simplified fisheries management representative of the range of ecological and discussions and provided an emblem fishing gear profiles. Taking that broader that communities could readily identify list as the basis for fisheries management with, which CCP members embraced planning discussion would better engage with enthusiasm during pride campaigns. the full range of fishing gear users, and Communities reportedly did not have any generate more comprehensive management difficulty agreeing which should be the measures. Conversely, it seems likely that FLAG species. focusing exclusively on one FLAG species runs a risk of overlooking important Against that, it is not clear the approach is fisheries management issues. Interestingly, optimal in terms of identifying appropriate Rare has arrived at a similar conclusion as and effective fisheries management measures. part of its own revision of the Fish Forever Inevitably, the degree to which a single methodology globally.110 species is sufficiently representative of multi- species stock status and management needs At the same time, selecting a priority at a given site will vary considerably. In data FLAG species did seem to serve a useful gathered at two FishCC sites in November function at FishCC sites in the context of 2017 107, the FLAG species constituted 48.5% developing materials for awareness-raising of total catch in Mefunvo, but only 3.4% in initiatives during the pride campaigns. But Zavora. At Machangulo, the entire family that function should be separated from (Haemulidae) of the selected FLAG species management planning. (Peixe pedra) constituted less than 10% of total catch across all gears108, and was only So, it is recommended that for future the 4th most prevalent family by weight of fisheries co-management planning catch. processes in Mozambique, a group of 5-10 priority species be identified as the basis for It is also not clear that management identifying management measures, rather discussions at each site were really guided in than a single FLAG species. practice by consideration of only the FLAG species. For example, in Machangulo, in justification of the selection of Bembi estuary as a fisheries no-take reserve, the FLAG report109 states: “the estuary is recognized as an area that all species reproduce”. In practice, during FLAG workshops, communities identified the 10 most important commercial species, from which they selected the FLAG species. 107 IIP, 2017b 108 Louro et al. 2017 109 Rare/IDEPA, 2017f 110 Steve Fox, pers comm. July 2019 A man in a dug out canoe fishes near the magrove forest Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 105 4.3. Lessons for Fisheries Co-Management Governance This section summarizes lessons from the Conservation Law, 2017, especially Article FishCC project relevant to the national 22 on designation of community conservation governance framework for fisheries co- areas. Under the latter scenario, the 4 management in Mozambique. FishCC sites lying outside of designated protected areas (Memba, Fequete, Pomene 4.3.1. Mainstreaming a spatial approach to & Zavora) would be designated as community nearshore fisheries co-management conservation areas. Article 22 of the Conservation Law, 2017 appears to have been drafted primarily with terrestrial application in mind. On paper, LESSON 27: the provisions appear potentially applicable Challenges of applying to a marine fisheries co-management #7 KEY Conservation Law for context, nonetheless there are two issues LESSON designating community highlighted below that bear on the final fisheries areas decision as to which is the preferred legislative option: The FishCC project aspired to help pioneer 1. Approval by Minister, MITADER a spatial approach to artisanal fisheries but not MIMAIP management in Mozambique, in light of Article 37 (2) of the Conservation Law, positive experience elsewhere in the region 2017 states that approval for establishment and globally. Such spatial approach refers of community conservation areas between both to establishing formal management 1,000 and 10,000 hectares (which areas within which fishing communities can includes all 6 FishCC sites), requires practice managed access, by agreement with approval of the Minister of MITADER. relevant authorities, and also to establishing This means designation of community fisheries no-take zones within those fisheries management areas is not under management areas as a primary measure to the authority of the Minister responsible secure fish stocks against over-fishing. for the sector, which is unusual. Legally, designation does not even require the Prior to 2015, there were no provisions MIMAIP Minister’s input or approval. in the fisheries legal framework in This raises three concerns: Mozambique by which to formalize the designation of community fisheries i. whether the approval process within management areas. As outlined in Section MITADER, and coordination between 1.6 above, during revision of the Fisheries the two ministries, will unduly delay Regulations (REPMAR) in 2018-19, designation processes. MIMAIP considered inclusion of a new provision for designation of community ii. whether the Conservation Law should be management areas. However, at the time amended to require that, where conservation of preparation of this report, it was still designations are applied to marine fisheries under consideration whether to retain environments, the input and approval of that provision in REPMAR, or instead to the MIMAIP Minister is required. make use of existing provisions under the 106 Fisheries Co-Management iii. whether there is adequate specialist The requirement for consent of local expertise within MITADER communities in licensing third parties to facilitate decision–making on could be taken as a formal recognition of designations in a marine environment or preferential access rights. However, that fisheries context. depends on the definition of ‘third parties’ in a fisheries context. Migrant artisanal fishers Taken together, the above three concerns require a license to fish in a district different point to the advantages of retaining control from their home district. Does Article 22(3) of fisheries co-management processes under mean that such license would not cover a single responsible fisheries ministry. fishing in a community conservation area unless explicit consent is given by the communities 2. Requirement for community consent in question. The same question would apply for licensing of Third Parties to licensing of semi-industrial vessels. Such Article 22 (3) of the Conservation Law, 2017 questions require further consideration and states that “licensing for exploitation of resources clarification by MITADER and MIMAIP. to third parties can only be done with the prior On the positive side, Article 22(3) could consent of the local communities”. The term provide the legal basis that MIMAIP has ‘third party’ is not further defined. This been looking for to justify and support paragraph bears directly on the issue raised recognition of preferential access rights in Lesson 11 above on granting of preferential for local fishing communities within a access rights to local fishing communities. community conservation area. Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 107 LESSON 28: It is important to LESSON 29: Include a vision consider designating community for the spatial management of fisheries management areas artisanal fisheries in PESPA II within protected areas Two of the six FishCC sites were As outlined in Section 1.3.3. above, the deliberately selected within areas existing draft Strategic Plan for the Artisanal designated as protected areas under the Fisheries Sub-Sector (2019-25) [PESPA II] Conservation Law; Mefunvo in Quirimbas does not currently contain any vision or National Park, and Machangulo within objective statement relating to adoption Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve. The of a spatial approach to artisanal fisheries reason this was to explore the viability management. Experience from the FishCC of establishing community fisheries project supports adoption of such a vision management areas within protected areas. at national level. As such, PESPA II could articulate a vision whereby all nearshore One advantage of MIMAIP’s recent artisanal fishing areas will be encompassed decision to designate community fisheries within community conservation areas as the areas as community conservation areas default governance arrangement, except using the same Conservation Law, is where an area is specifically designated that designations within protected areas otherwise, as another category of protected will at least be under the same approval area, or for industrial development such as framework. That said, it is not clear in a port or for mineral extraction. the wording of the Conservation Law whether a community conservation area can Similar visions for widespread adoption of be designated inside an existing protected community fisheries management areas area such as an national park, a marine as the default option for artisanal fisheries reserve or an environmental protection area, management is being formalized in fisheries or otherwise incorporated into its zoning governance frameworks in both Tanzania plan. This question might need further and Kenya. clarification by MITADER. Left: women (with baby) walk home along the beach in central Mozambique Right: a newly hatched sea turtle makes its way towards the ocean 108 Fisheries Co-Management 4.3.2. CCP structure and membership LESSON 30: Encourage registration of fishers using a mobile broad membership of phone app (see section 3.1.1 above) and #8 KEY provision of durable plastic ID cards to CCPs, supported by LESSON registered fishers. The process would have fisher registration and been enhanced still further if the ID cards ID cards explicitly stated that the holder is a CCP member. Modified cards could also be provided to post-holders on CCP executive committees. ID cards help to reinforce a sense of group identity. Electronic registration has additional benefits in the context of maintaining district and national level databases of fishers for licensing. FishCC Campaign Managers testified that gaining broad membership of CCPs was integral to their work in engaging fishing Very low CCP membership, leading to a communities and gaining consensus on key the perception of CCPs as a small interest- points such as identification of fisheries no- group within the community rather than a take zones. Encouraging wide membership of democratic entity representing all fishers, CCP assemblies should be adopted nationally has been a longstanding challenge to and mainstreamed through CCP Statues, CCP effectiveness. In 2017, CCPs across the Co-management Manual and all relevant Nampula, Zambezia and Sofala provinces capacity-building efforts with CCPs. averaged only 17 members each (ADNAP). To some extent, this low figure stems from a confusion between the roles of CCP LESSON 31: Encourage committees and CCP assemblies (Lesson 31). accountability of CCP At the start of the FishCC project, CCPs committees to CCP general at all 6 sites were non-functional with very assembly members low membership. The project invested resources in successfully revitalizing It was noticeable during community the CCPs. FishCC campaign managers consultations for this report that reference promoted the idea that all community to “the CCP” was invariably understood to members involved in fishing-related mean only the CCP executive committee activities should be members of the CCPs (comité de dirreção), which commonly (if they want to be). By end-of-project, includes 10-15 members, not the wider CCP CCP membership at the 6 sites was above general assembly. Even after expanding CCP 90% at 5 of the 6 sites. The exception was general assembly membership, the latter are Memba which has a much higher number not yet widely perceived as ‘CCP members’. of fishers. This perception substantially undermines the idea of a CCP as a representative body, A valuable innovation piloted under the operating on behalf of all fishers, and FishCC project, which encouraged high accountable to the general assembly of levels of CCP membership, was electronic fishers through 3-yearly elections. Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 109 Campaign Managers agreed it was still a LESSON 32: Assess the legal work in progress to get the broader body of powers of CCP rangers and the fishers to identify themselves actively as part standard operating procedures of the CCP. Under Fisheries Regulations, CCP committees have a key role supporting During consultations for this report, CCPs at local fisheries management. It is therefore some FishCC sites reported frustration with critical that there is a common understanding repeatedly reported illegal fishing activities that CCP committees act on behalf of, and (usually by non-local fishers) to district are accountable to, a wider membership. administrations (SDAE) and/or marine police, Awareness-raising and regular general but with no follow-up action. Alongside that, assembly meetings help to achieve this. several CCP leaders expressed the need for a patrol boat to enable them to undertake their It is highly recommended that this point be own surveillance. This raises the need for clear well captured in CCP Statues and the Co- standard operating procedures (SOPs) for CCP Management Manual under preparation by officers in conducting surveillance and fulfilling ADNAP and IDEPA, and well communicated duties outlined in national fisheries regulations. to provincial and district fisheries officers. In particular, clarification is needed as to the Activating CCPs to engage in the precise role of CCP rangers. Is it strictly one implementation of community fisheries of surveillance and reporting of instances of management plans containing measures non-compliance with fisheries regulations, that control fishing effort (including no-take or are there circumstances in which a ranger reserves), inevitably raises challenges as to can acquire the authority to take intervention the authority and legal powers that CCP actions, for example confiscating illegal fishing rangers have to undertake such duties. gear. In principle, national fisheries regulations could empower district administrations (SDAE) Provisions in the draft revised REPMAR111 to authorize individual CCP rangers with outline the role of CCPs as including: enforcement power, acting on behalf of the district authority. However, a well-defined  Support local authorities responsible legal procedure would be needed, which for fisheries administration in should be conditional on the CCP ranger licensing and inspecting fisheries; receiving specified training. If, on the other  Participate in the preparation hand, enforcement intervention can only be of proposals and implementation undertaken by district, provincial or national of management measures in its authorities, the question arises as to whether geographical area of activity; that is practical in remoter coastal areas. If  Participate in the implementation of CCP rangers report non-compliance but fishing access and restriction mechanisms, it does not elicit any response from local number of fishermen, gear and others; authorities, their motivation to continue reporting infringements will soon diminish. From the above, the question arises as to how far CCP rangers are expected to go in These challenges require clarification in performing such duties, and where is the relevant fisheries governance instruments, line between CCP rangers’ duties and those of including national fisheries regulations; CCP enforcement authorities such as police, marine Statues; CCP standard operating procedures; police and officers of the National Operations the Co-management Manual; and should also Directorate (DNOP) of MIMAIP. be referenced in management plans. 111 MIMAIP, in prep. (draft of February 2019) 110 Fisheries Co-Management 4.4. Facilitating Capacity and Institutional Roles 4.4.1. Facilitation and Extension Capacity FishCC campaign managers, estimated that a capable district extension officer, with The FishCC project, following the Fish appropriate training and experience, would Forever approach, involved relatively be able to conduct the type of process intensive facilitation at each site by a followed under FishCC with 2-3 CCPs in Campaign Manager over a 24-30 month parallel, over approximately a 2-year period. period, involving (see Fig. 2.1 above): District extension officers engaged in such work would however require technical • 6 months full-time field engagement to support and supervision. FishCC campaign sensitize and engage community members, managers reported that in fact they would understand the local context, reactivate have benefited from more regular technical CCPs and undertake the FLAG process; support from Rare/IDEPA Programme Implementation Managers during field • 1-2 months full-time desk work to prepare work. In rolling out this kind of work in a FLAG report, theory of change and future, technical capacity for supervision pride campaign strategy for each site; and oversight at provincial (DPMAIP) level will also be needed. This will require at • 6 months further field engagement to least 1-2 fisheries officers in each DPMAIP undertake a barriers removal workshop, office with significant experience in Fish prepare and implement a (one-day) pride Forever type methodologies and familiarity campaign, facilitate fisher registration, with the fisheries co-management follow-up on livelihoods project and so on. governance framework in Mozambique. This would provide an anchor-point for This raises the question as to whether, collaboration and additional capacity- and how, such an intensive level of building partnerships with NGOs. extension effort could be mainstreamed into provincial and district authority operations, The six FishCC campaign managers are or in future similar projects, in a way that is now an important asset in this regard, given sustainable, affordable and practical. the experience they have acquired through involvement in FishCC. Five of them are now also MSc graduates as a result. All expressed a willingness to continue to LESSON 33: Build capacity for apply the expertise they have gained in co-management facilitation and fisheries co-management, potentially in a opportunities for FishCC field more supervisory role, so they can pass on their learning to other extension officers. personnel In their current posts, they cover five of Intensive community engagement by FishCC the coastal provinces (Nampula, Zambezia, campaign managers was critical to progress Sofala, Inhambane and Maputo). It would made under FishCC, in particular in building be advisable for national and provincial trust, motivation and awareness amongst CCP authorities to take active steps to secure committee members. Attempting to replicate their involvement in relevant ongoing the process, without investing in such intensive project, so that the opportunity to take facilitation, would likely result in failure. There advantage of their experience is not lost. are past examples of that in the WIO region. Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 111 4.4.2. Institutional Roles and Governance LESSON 34: Clearly designate Mechanisms respective roles at national, Some officials and officers involved in FishCC provincial and district levels project implementation at provincial level112 Respective roles in rolling out a spatial felt that FishCC project implementation was approach to fisheries co-management not sufficiently devolved from national level, in Mozambique is in process of being and that DPMAIP offices should have been defined in several instruments as part of empowered to take more of a leading role in the emerging fisheries co-management overseeing implementation at each site. governance framework, in particular Co- management Agreements113 to be signed FishCC sought to trial a spatial approach between provincial and district authorities to fisheries co-management new to and CCPs, and a Co-management Manual114 Mozambique, in part to assess its under preparation by ADNAP and appropriateness. So, it was appropriate that IDEPA. Nonetheless, below are some central government institutions (especially complementary suggestions from the IDEPA, ADNAP) played a leading role in experience of FishCC project. implementing the project. Nonetheless, the observation raises an important question Adequate disbursement of funding to as to what should be the respective roles of DPMAIPs and SDAEs will be essential to national, provincial and district authorities in enable them to fulfill the above functions. rolling out this kind of approach to fisheries co-management in future. Overall development and co-ordination of fisheries National Fisheries Co- co-management governance framework, including management Working methodological approaches, policy, legislation and Group, ADNAP, subsidiary instruments IDEPA Delivering training and capacity-building on the ADNAP, IDEPA National Level above, in particular to DPMAIPs and SDAEs, Overall responsibility for preparation and quality control of management plans for community ADNAP management areas Baseline research to support management planning IIP, IDEPA, DEPI Co-ordination and technical support in rolling out fisheries co-management within the province DPMAIP (dedicated fisheries co- Provincial Level Training & capacity-building of extensionists, CCPs management officers) Support ADNAP in preparation of management plans for community management areas Engagement of fishing communities and facilitation of participatory co-management SDAE (fisheries District Level planning extensionists) Training & capacity-building of CCPs 112 Director of Fisheries, Inhambane Province and all Campaign Managers. 113 ADNAP. Acordos Local de Co-gestão dos Recursos Pesquieros, draft template of May 2019 114 ADNAP. Manual de Co-gestao. draft version of May 2019. 112 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 35: Avoid establishing Although working groups were established conflicting governance at each site, they were not very functional mechanisms for co-management and Campaign Managers viewed them as conceptually flawed. In particular: • The governance structure depicted above seems to undermine the role of CCPs as mandated in REPMAR. Monitoring and evaluation and surveillance, in particular, are CCP functions; • It is not clear that the cost of regularly convening a group of this kind is In line with the Fish Forever methodology, sustainable in the longer term, noting the FishCC project sought to establish it contains both district and provincial working groups (Grupo de Trabalho das representatives; AGC e ARR) at each FishCC site, which would have a permanent role in overseeing • There already exist fisheries co- implementation of the management plan management committees at district for that community management areas, as level,116 which already do not meet per the figure below.115 regularly due to scarce funding; The working groups at each site were Co-management, by definition, requires a composed of 6 members: participatory governance structure. On the other hand, a widely-learned lesson from 1. Tourism technician from district natural resources co-management around authority (Chair) the world is, where possible, to make use of existing statutory bodies, rather than 2. District official responsible for creating new ones, if the time and costs environment entailed in keeping them active are not sustainable. 3. An influential fisher Community fisheries management areas 4. Community member involved in fishing are a new type of entity in Mozambique business and an appropriate governance structure is needed. It might prove more efficient 5. IIP officer from provincial level. and sustainable however to re-activate the existing district fisheries co-management 6. A DPMAIPG fisheries officer with committees, and have them provide expertise in co-management oversight through all CCP leaders attending regular 3 or 6-monthly meetings. 115 MIMAIP, 2019 (a to f) 116 There are district and provincial forums - Comites de Co-gestão das Pescas (CCG) - under the national-level Commissão da Administração Pesqueira (CAP) Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 113 4.5. A Social Marketing Approach LESSON 36: Fish Forever theories ii. Number of ToC stages: Whilst the of change were valuable but need Fish Forever theory of change (ToC) to be robustly formulated template contains seven stages, in many cases that can probably be simplified to The systematic approach under Fish Forever five, subject to consideration of the specific to defining theories of change and SMART circumstances at each site. Behavior objectives (see Table 3.14 above), as a basis change and threat reduction can be merged for identifying desired behavioral change and interpersonal communications removed. by fishers to achieve defined fisheries management outcomes, has real value. It iii. Integrated focus on gear-control and provided a clear skeleton of logic justifying no-take zones. Whereas theories of campaign messaging (social marketing) on change for each FishCC site generally specific issues and identifies the anticipated focused on a single issue (either a gear- behavioral change needed to achieve control issue or a no-take reserve), in fisheries management objectives. SMART many cases it will probably be advisable to targets additionally provide a framework consider incorporating both a gear-control for measuring the impact of interventions, issue and a no-take reserve. This should and progress towards achieving objectives, be possible without overly complicating which provide the basis for management plan the framework but, again, will depend on results frameworks (Lesson 16). As such, circumstances at any given site. the Fish Forever theories of change approach that could usefully be applied more widely in iv. Economic barrier removal: theories the context of developing community-level of change must adequately recognize fisheries co-management in Mozambique. economic barriers to fishing behavioral change, and avoid assuming that That said, the theories of change and knowledge and awareness-raising SMART objectives for the FishCC sites alone can necessarily bring about (see Table 3.14) could have been a lot more change. Economic barriers were not robustly formulated. Lessons for improved well articulated in theories of change formulation include (see additional detail in for FishCC sites. By the same token, section 3.4.2): complementary livelihood initiatives should, as far as possible, specifically i. Timeframe: To ensure they are realistic, address the same economic barriers, and the scope of the theories of change and not be developed as a separate, parallel SMART objectives should cover a 5 initiative to 10-year timeframe, thereby serving to inform preparation of 5 to 10-year v. Technical oversight and quality management plans for a given site. control is critically important to ensure SMART objectives can still incorporate that theory of change steps and SMART shorter-term targets for particular objectives are robustly formulated and project interventions, but should not be worded. In particular bearing in mind confined to project timeframes where the that the SMART objectives will provide timeframe is too short to achieve change. a basis for designing and measuring the impact of management interventions. 114 Fisheries Co-Management LESSON 37: KAP surveys need to be locally tailored and replicable As outlined in section 3.2.3 [iv] above, the • Are locally-tailored. Questionnaires decision to apply a globally-standardized might follow a standard structure, but questionnaire for the 2nd KAP survey the wording of questions should be made it difficult to track changes in specific to fisheries management issues knowledge, attitudes and practices, in a identified at each site; robust meaningful way. The decision to apply a generic questionnaire is especially • Accurately repeat existing baseline surprising in view of the level of effort questionnaires, unless there are strong invested in developing detailed theories reasons for making modifications; of change for each site, with SMART objectives, addressing site-specific • Are concise, so that respondents don’t fisheries management issues, all of which get tired or impatient; was reflected in the baseline (1st KAP) questionnaires. Applying generic, globally- • Allow for quantitative analysis and standardized questions resulted in a critical change detection. So, avoiding open- loss of data resolution which made the ended questions and too many yes/ whole exercise of tracking knowledge, no questions. For example, instead of attitudes and practices much less useful to asking “do you discuss beach-seining with the goal of advancing sustainable fisheries fellow fishers”, instead ask “how often do co-management at each FishCC site. you discuss …” with a choice of 3 to 5 options (eg. not at all; 1-2 per month; It is advisable that future KAP surveys, every week; almost daily); whether at the six FishCC sites or elsewhere in Mozambique, should apply • Allow for disaggregation of results survey instruments that: by key respondent variables, such as gender, age, occupation, gear-type etc. Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 115 LESSON 38: Social marketing is critical but won’t resolve fisheries management issues alone Time and financial constraints towards The latter point recognizes that changing the end of the FishCC project mean that fishing behavior is only partly driven the pride campaigns were largely confined by changes in knowledge and attitudes. to 1-day launch events, distribution of There are usually also economic constraints related messaging materials and some to behavioral change that are at least as limited follow-up activities. The timing and (or more) challenging to address. A fisher poor formulation of the 2nd KAP survey using unsustainable practices might be (Section 3.3.4) meant that quantitative persuaded by social marketing to change testing of the impact of the campaigns was his behavior. But social marketing short-term and not robust. At the same will not enable that fisher to purchase time, some Campaign Managers reported sustainable fishing gears or to diversify notable outcomes, such as beachseine into another kind of livelihood. Under the fishers at Inhassoro agreeing to implement Fish Forever methodology, such economic a second seasonal closure during Feb- constraints are intended to be identified March 2019. at the barrier removal stage. Hence the inclusion of a livelihood component in It is reasonable to assume there were the FishCC project. However, as Table some significant campaign outcomes, in 3.14 demonstrates, only 2 of the 6 FishCC spite of the abbreviated implementation. sites actually identified livelihood-related Nonetheless, assessing the effectiveness indicators at the barrier removal stage and of this kind of social marketing approach only one site identified quantitative targets. in a fisheries co-management context in More than anything else, this re-emphasizes Mozambique requires longer-term testing, Lesson 36 above. in particular to examine two related questions: The broader lesson here is that, as much as social marketing and awareness campaigns i. whether short-term changes in attitudes are an integral component of changing or behavior observed at some FishCC fishing behavior, it would be misleading sites can be sustained over time; to over-emphasize the power of social marketing to bring about lasting change. ii. what complementary interventions Social marketing needs to be matched with are needed to sustain attitudinal or meaningful change, or opportunity, in the behavioral change, recognizing that economic environment, which leads to the fishing behavior is fundamentally driven final section below on livelihood initiatives. by economic imperatives. A long stretch of beach rimmed by sand dunes, typical of Mozambique’s coastline 116 Fisheries Co-Management 4.6. Livelihood Initiatives Livelihood projects under FishCC were delayed and their implementation was carried forward to the SWIOFish project. As such it’s not possible to draw conclusions as to their effectiveness, for example in contributing to fisheries management objectives. Nonetheless, there are some relevant lessons on the selection and planning of such projects. A savings box for the PCR (savings and loans group) in Pomene #9 KEY LESSON 39: Selecting livelihood alternatives, LESSON purchasing assets and access-to-credit Alternative livelihoods: In the FishCC Fishers are often understandably risk-averse, project design, it was envisaged that so it is more appealing to a to modify or add livelihood interventions would provide value to a livelihood practice that is already alternatives to capture fisheries, for known (ie. fishing), rather than embark on example in “tourism, aquaculture and something new that requires new skills and other sectors”117. These would help fishers knowledge, and which ultimately might not to transition from open-access to managed prove viable. access. The term ‘alternative’ implies that livelihood interventions would enable some Access to credit: In this context, fishers to take up livelihood activities that savings and loans initiatives are often a don’t involve catching fish. powerful alternative to direct purchasing of livelihood assets. Under FishCC, savings In practice however, whilst both fishing group interventions were only introduced and non-fishing livelihood opportunities in the final year of the project, so there was were identified by communities during the limited time to assess their full potential. project selection process, in practice only Nonetheless, it is very interesting to note projects on capture fisheries were prioritized that some community members, through and implemented. 4 FishCC sites participation in savings and loans groups prioritized fish cold-chain projects and 2 (PCRs), were able to purchase the exact sites prioritized provision of boats to enable same type of small cold chain equipment them to fish further offshore. Therefore, (eg. cool boxes) as was provided to other none of the interventions were in fact community members through the separate ‘alternative’ livelihoods. This outcome is livelihood projects. But the difference is, in keeping with experience from similar PCR group members have a sustainable programs in the WIO region. Whilst there mechanism in place that will continue to are opportunities for tourism, aquaculture generate benefit in the form of loan access, etc. at some coastal locations, it is more the which means their enterprises are more exception than the rule. likely to be sustainable. 117 World Bank, 2015 Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 117 Those simply provided with equipment It is important that beneficiary selection will not have the same support mechanism is fair and transparent, to avoid so-called to help finance their activity. ‘elite-capture’ of opportunities. This can happen when selection procedures Lesson: at the level of individual are mediated through an entity such as beneficiaries, investing in savings and a CCP committee, without adequate loans initiatives can often have a more accountability or oversight. sustainable impact than simply donating goods and assets. This lesson has been The situation can be complicated by learned repeatedly in rural development the fact that it might seem desirable to programs across Africa and elsewhere. On incentivize CCP committee members, the other hand, there are limitations to the since their work is often otherwise scale of financing that can be generated by voluntary. Therefore, if livelihood benefits savings and loans. So, for example, it would accrue to them, that might be seen to have been challenging to have financed strengthen CCP management. But this is the purchase of an ice machine, generator misguided. As highlighted under Lesson and water tower (as at Machangulo) 39 above, livelihood opportunities under through savings and loans. Thus, where FishCC were intended to mitigate the there is community-level beneficiary, direct impact of fisheries management measures provision of assets can be more justifiable, affecting all fishers. Therefore, diverting notwithstanding the challenges of benefits only to CCP committee members managing those assets sustainably. or their friends is counter-productive, and likely to undermine broader fisheries objectives. Preferential treatment (unfairness) of beneficiaries, or indeed LESSON 40: Importance of fair perception of preferential treatment (lack of and transparent identification of transparency) can result in alienating other livelihood beneficiaries fishers and, conversely, make them less likely to adopt a positive attitude towards At some FishCC sites there were failures management measures. of fairness and transparency in the processes for identifying beneficiaries of livelihood Therefore, it is important to ensure that interventions, as outlined in Section 3.3 livelihood beneficiaries are selected using above. These included: fair and transparent processes, overseen by a neutral party such as a service provider, i. failure to document beneficiary NGO or government official. Selection selection processes, or have them processes should be agreed openly at witnessed by an independent authority; community assemblies, and their outcome documented in writing and witnessed by ii. beneficiaries being primarily CCP community leaders and independent parties. committee members (Memba); iii. failure to develop binding written agreements, even where provision of alternative fishing gears was intended to replace unsustainable beachseine nets (Fequete) 118 Fisheries Co-Management References ADB (2001) Appraisal report for Artisanal Fisheries Development Project, Republic of Mozambique. African Development Bank 68pp ADB (2012) Completion report for Artisanal Fisheries Development Project, Republic of Mozambique. African Development Bank 35pp ADNAP (2011) A Gestão Participava das Pescarias. Technical paper. Ministry of Fisheries, Mozambique. 30pp Benkenstien (2013) Small-Scale Fisheries in a Modernising Economy: Opportunities and Challenges in Mozambique. Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme: Research Report 13. South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), Johannesburg. 55pp BioGlobal (2017) Avaliaçao final do impacto do projecto de pesca artesenal e de co-gestao (PPACG). Report to Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Pesca e Aquacultura (IDEPA), Maputo. 80pp Boletim da República (2006) Estatuto-Tipo do Conselho Communitário de Pesca (CCP) III Série Número 27. 5 de Julho de 2006. Governo de Moçambique. Boletim da República (2003) Regulamento Geral da Pesca Marítima. I Série Número 50. 10 de Dezembro de 2003. Governo de Moçambique. CTV (2018) Levantamento ecológico de base sobre recifes de coral e florestas de mangal dentro ou proximo de cinco áreas de pesca de gestão communitária. Technical report by Centro Terra Viva submitted to IDEPA, Maputo. 129pp Evans L., Cherrett N., Pemsl D. (2011) Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 92, Issue 8. IFAD (2017) Artisanal Fisheries Promotion Project/ Projecto de Promoção da Pesca Artesenal (ProPESCA): Supervision report, May 2017. 94pp IFAD (2013) Large grant design document: Strengthening Artisanal Fishers’ Resource Rights Project (Projeto de Direitos aos Recursos dos Pescadores Artesanais ProDIRPA). 29pp References 119 IFAD (2010) Project design document: Artisanal Fisheries Promotion Project/ Projecto de Promoção da Pesca Artesenal (ProPESCA), Vol 1 main report. 94pp IFAD/IDEPA (2019) Project completion report: Strengthening Artisanal Fishers’ Resource Rights Project (Projeto de Direitos aos Recursos dos Pescadores Artesanais ProDIRPA). 67pp IIP (2017a) Levantamento de dados sobre a produção pesqueira artesanal, espécies e ecossistemas na área do PPAMC/Fish/CC, no período 2004 -2016. Technical report for FishCC project. Maputo. 31pp IIP (2017b) Relatório sobre o levantamento de base sobre produção pesqueira artesanal e espécies em Mefunvo, Závora e Pomene em Novembro de 2017. Technical report for FishCC project. Maputo. 22pp IIP (2017c) Mapeamento das Áreas de Pesca Artesanal dos Distritos de Angoche, Moma e Larde (Nampula). Maputo. 72pp IIP (2016) Mapeamento das Áreas de Pesca da Província da Zambézia, distritos de Inhassunge, Quelimane, Namacurra, Mocubela, Maganja e Pebane. Maputo. 124pp INGC (2009) Study on the Impact of Climate Change on Disaster Risk in Mozambique: Main Report. National Institute for Disaster Management, Mozambique. 338pp Krueck NC, Ahmadia GN, Green A, Jones GP, Possingham, HP, Riginos C, Treml EA & Mumby PJ (2017) Incorporating larval dispersal into MPA design for both conservation and fisheries. Ecological Applications 27 (3) 925-941. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1495 Lopes S (2017) Diagnóstico Participativo Sócio-Económico à Comunidades do Posto Administrativo de Machangulo. Technical report to Peace Parks Foundation, 69pp Lopes S & Gervasio, H. (2003) Co-management of Artisanal Fisheries in Mozambique: A Case Study of Kwirikwidge Fishing Center. Angoche District, Nampula Province: ICLARM, Manila, Philippines. Louro CMM, Litulo C, Fernandes RS, Pereira TIFC & Pereira MAM (2017) Fisheries in the western shores of the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, southern Mozambique: towards a holistic approach to management. Final Technical Report submitted to 120 Fisheries Co-Management Fondation Ensemble and Peace Parks Foundation. Centro Terra Viva, Maputo. 118 pp. McClanahan TR & Kosgei JK (2019) Outcomes of gear and closure subsidies in artisanal coral reef fisheries. Conservation Science and Practice. DOI: 10.1111/csp2.114 MdP (2014) Process Framework for South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth in Mozambique (SWIOFish Mozambique). Ministry of Fisheries, Mozambique. 145pp MdP (2010) Plano Director das Pescas 2010-19. Ministry of Fisheries, Mozambique. 56pp MdP (2007) Plano Estratégico do Subsector da Pesca Artesanal (PESPA), 2007-2011. Ministry of Fisheries, Mozambique. MdP (1996) Plano Director das Pescas, 1995-2005. Ministry of Fisheries, Mozambique MICOA (2013) Estratégia Nacional de Mudanças Climáticas. Ministry for the Co- ordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA), Maputo. 77pp MICOA (2007) National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) on climate change. Ministry for the Co-ordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA), Maputo. 68pp MIMAIP (in prep) Regulamento da Pesca Marítima (REPMAR). version of February 2019. Ministry of Sea, Interior Waters and Fisheries (MIMAIP), Maputo. 76pp MIMAIP (2019a) Management plan for artisanal fisheries, Mefunvo. Summary infographic draft of April 2019. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 2pp. MIMAIP (2019b) Management plan for artisanal fisheries, Memba. Summary infographic draft of April 2019. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 3pp. MIMAIP (2019c) Management plan for artisanal fisheries, Inhassoro. Summary infographic draft of April 2019. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 3pp. MIMAIP (2019d) Management plan for artisanal fisheries, Pomene. Summary infographic draft of April 2019. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 3pp. MIMAIP (2019e) Management plan for artisanal fisheries, Zavora. Summary infographic draft of April 2019. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 2pp. MIMAIP (2019f) Management plan for artisanal fisheries, Machangulo. Summary infographic draft April 2019. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 3pp. MIMAIP (2019g) Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Machangulo, 2019-24 (draft References 121 September 2019). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 42pp MIMAIP (2019h) Relatório Anual Período: Janeiro – Dezembro 2018: Projecto de Pesca Artesenal de Adaptaçao às Mudanças Climáticas (PPAMC/FISHCC). Projecto Nr. P149992. Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries (MIMAIP). 23pp MIMAIP (2018a) Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Inhassoro, 2019-24 (draft December 2018). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 44pp MIMAIP (2018b) Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Machangulo, 2018-22 (draft November 2018). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 44pp MIMAIP (2018c) Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Mefunvo, 2019-24 (draft December 2018). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 46pp MIMAIP (2018d) Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Memba, 2019-24 (draft December 2018). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 33pp MIMAIP (2018e) Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Pomene, 2019-24 (draft December 2018). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 50pp MIMAIP (2018f) Plano de gestão das Pescarias Artesanais de Závora, 2018-22 (draft November, 2018). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 46pp MIMAIP (2018g) Plano Estrategico do Sub-sector da Pesca Artesanal, 2019 – 2025 (PESPA II). Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters & Fisheries, Mozambique. 164pp Nickols, KJ, White JW, Malone D, Carr MH, Starr RM, Baskett ML & Botsford, LW (2019) Setting ecological expectations for adaptive management of marine protected areas. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/13652664.13463 Nowlis, JS & Roberts CM (1999) Fisheries benefits and optimal design of marine reserves. Fishery Bulletin, 97, 604–616. PPF (2017) Projectos Comunitários de Geração de Rendimentos e Conservação dos Recursos Naturais Costeiros e Marinhos no Posto Administrativo De Machangulo. Peace Park Foundation, 61pp Rare (2019a) Relatorio de Aprendizados da Campanha de Orgulho do site de Mefunvo. Technical report under Fish Forever Programme, Rare Mozamabique Country Office and University of Eduardo Mondlane. 108pp. Rare (2019b) Relatorio de Aprendizados da Campanha: Transformando a Campanha Num Orgulho da Comunidade de Memba. Technical report under Fish Forever Programme, Rare Mozamabique Country Office and University of Eduardo Mondlane. 12pp. Rare (2019c) Relatorio de Aprendizados da Campanha de Orgulho: Site de Inhassoro. 122 Fisheries Co-Management Technical report under Fish Forever Programme, Rare Mozamabique Country Office and University of Eduardo Mondlane. 89pp. Rare (2019d) Relatorio de Aprendizados da Campanha de Orgulho: Site de Pomene. Technical report under Fish Forever Programme, Rare Mozamabique Country Office and University of Eduardo Mondlane. 73pp. Rare (2019e) Relatorio de Aprendizados da Campanha de Orgulho: Site de Zavora. Technical report under Fish Forever Programme, Rare Mozamabique Country Office and University of Eduardo Mondlane. 75pp. Rare (2019f) Relatorio de Aprendizados da Campanha de Orgulho, Site de Machangulo. Technical report under Fish Forever Programme, Rare Mozamabique Country Office and University of Eduardo Mondlane. 101pp. Rare (2019g) FishCC Pride Campaigns: consolidated report. Internal project report. Rare Mozambique Country Office, Maputo. 11pp Rare (2019h) Summary report on key achievements & lessons learned: Artisanal Fisheries & Climate Change Project (FishCC). Internal report by Rare, Maputo. 13pp Rare (2018a) Stemming the Tide of Coastal Overfishing: Fish Forever Program Results 2012–2017. Full Report, July 2018. Rare Global HQ, Virginia US. 64pp Rare (2018b) Estratégia de marketing Social Para a melhoria da condição de vida das comunidades de pescadores em Mefunvo, Memba, Inhassoro, Pomene, Zavora e Machangulo. Report submitted to FishCC Project Implementation Unit (PIU), MIMAIP, Maputo. 24pp Rare (2016) Site Evaluation for Fish Forever Mozambique Program. Technical report by Rare, Environmental Defense Fund and the University of California Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group. 104pp Rare/IDEPA (2017a) A avaliação da situação das pescarias, condições ecológicas dos habitats e estabelecimento de metas: site de Mefunvo (FLAGS workshop report). (FLAGS workshop report). 10pp Rare/IDEPA (2017b) A avaliação da situação das pescarias, condições ecológicas dos habitats e estabelecimento de metas: site de Memba (FLAGS workshop report). (FLAGS workshop report). 22pp Rare/IDEPA (2017c) Relatório sobre mapeamento das pescarias e definição de metas: site de Inhassoro (FLAGS workshop report). Technical report. 26pp Rare/IDEPA (2017d) Relatório sobre mapeamento das pescarias e definição de metas: site de Pomene (FLAGS workshop report). Technical report. 25pp References 123 Rare/IDEPA (2017e) Relatório sobre mapeamento das pescarias e definição de metas: site de Zavora (FLAGS workshop report). Technical report. 18pp Rare/IDEPA (2017f) A avaliação da situação das pescarias, condições ecológicas dos habitats e estabelecimento de metas: site de Machangulo (FLAGS workshop report). (FLAGS workshop report). 22pp República de Moçambique (2013) Lei das Pescas n.º 22/2013. Government of Mozambique. SOFRECO (2018a) Estudo de identificação e preparação de alternativas de subsistência - Projectos Comunitários - no âmbito do FishCC: Manual de implementação de projectos comuntários. Technical report submitted to FishCC Project Implementation Unit, MIMAIP. 27pp. SOFRECO (2018b) Estudo de identificação e preparação de alternativas de subsistência - Projectos Comunitários - no âmbito do FishCC: Anexos. Technical report submitted to FishCC Project Implementation Unit, MIMAIP. 246pp. UNCTAD (2017) Fisheries exports and the economic development of least developed countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, The Comoros, Mozambique, Myanmar and Uganda. United Nations, New York & Geneva. 64pp. World Bank (2019) Implementation Completion and Results Report: Artisanal Fisheries and Climate Change Project, Mozambique. Environment & Natural Resources Global Practice, Africa Region, World Bank. New York. 50pp World Bank (2015) Project paper for Artisanal Fisheries and Change Project. World Bank, Washington DC. 27pp World Bank (2014) Project Appraisal Document (PAD) for the First South-west Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth Project (SWIOFish) [P132123]: Union of Comoros, Republic of Mozambique, United Republic of Tanzania. World Bank Environment, NRM, WRM and DRM Sustainable Development Department Africa Region. 106pp 124 Fisheries Co-Management: Annex Annex 1: Sample of Draft Summary Management Plan Infographic: Inhassoro Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 125 126 Fisheries Co-Management Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 127 128 Fisheries Co-Management Chatper 4: Lessons Learned 129 130 Fisheries Co-Management