Science to Governance An approach to consider, review and comment on Nico E. Willemse BCLME SAP Implementation Project

From TDA/ SAP development to SAP implementation TDA Process -Science driven to identify root causes and key threats to the ecosystem in a transboundary context -Does not include ecosystem goods and services valuation nor, -Policy analysis (for e.g. in SEA where policies, plans and programmes are analysed) SAP Development Process -Still quite science driven to identify knowledge gaps -Makes policy recommendations based on science -In many cases very fisheries heavy due to regional and national fish stocks decline and reliance on fish for food and income SAP Implementation -Many times this is rushed due to time lost with approvals, funds arriving 2-5 years later, etc. -No time to review and revise the TDA and SAP to reflect contemporary trends and changes -Learning-by-doing approach that can cost time and money or, spending money on something that is no longer relevant. -If the TDA/ SAP is revised as first action of SAP, implementation would entail; 1.Reviewing draft outputs from the TDA/ SAP process to adjust for changes in the environment; 2.Facilitate stakeholder sessions to review, comment and endorse outputs and; 3.Seek approval of proposed SAP instruments for improved governance Science to Governance

ANGOLA NAMIBIA SOUTH AFRICA Northern boundary - Cabinda Southern boundary – Port Elizabeth Science identified the distribution of commercially important transboundary stocks: 1.Cape hakes, M. capensis and M. paradoxus 2.Cape monkfish, Lophius vomerinus 3.Cape horse mackerel, Trachurus capensis The proposed governance mechanisms; 1.Developing a management plan for the Orange River Mouth (ORM) area [completed], and a Marine TFCA proposed offshore ORM by the Southern African Development Community; 2.BCC project to explore possibility of protecting the Cunene River Mouth (CRM) [dialogue]; 3.Ang and Nam to do joint management plan for H. mackerel [commencing]; 4.Nam and SA looking at whether hakes are one or separate stocks [initiated] ORM CRM

Transboundary fish stock surveys Survey results are processed and analysed to recommend Total Allowable Catch (TAC) TAC recommendation based on 95% confidence limits Recommendations go to a National Advisory Council for approval, BUT with no social and economic analyses, purely scientific Recommendation accepted as is If not, back to scientist for more analysis and “new” recommendation TACs issued to companies and ready for fishing WHY IS IT SENT BACK? PERHAPS decision makers cannot translate science into social and economic benefits – they only hear about state of the stocks EXAMPLE 1

Back to the drawing board to include social and economic considerations – WHAT TO LOOK AT? Economic benefits Tax revenues GDP contribution Export earnings Number of jobs Total income to workers Marine Resources Fund Development goals (MDGs) Monetary value of ecosystem goods and services Are we progressing toward national development targets, e.g. conservation, job creation, education, etc. EXAMPLE 1 Social benefits No of people with access to education No of people with access to health facilities No with secure incomes – food on the table, roof, clothes No of people trained or capacitated Poverty and unemployment reduction Local economic development through re- investment projects Conduct an economic and social valuation of the recommended TAC and consider what effect will this TAC have on the following… Are we progressing toward regional development targets and meeting regional obligations Are we addressing international obligations under conventions, protocols, etc.

Following the analyses, the technical team can propose more than 1 scenario for decision makers to consider – one idea to consider EXAMPLE Scenario 1 “Go Green” Scenario 1 “Go Green” Scenario 3 “Human-centered” Scenario 3 “Human-centered” Scenario 2 “Balancing Act” Scenario 2 “Balancing Act” Considers ONLY the sustainability of the resource with no increased social and economic benefits Not very popular at all Many times not regarded as pro development May – or may not – consider alternative conservation approaches but not recommend them, e.g. refugia, closed seasons, etc. Recognises the need for trade-offs and promotes a “conservation for development” approach Considers social and economic benefits beyond business as usual Balancing is tricky – needs to cater for short-term needs while ensuring long- term sustainability Recognises that populations are growing an so the demand for food “Get as much as you can and get out” approach Caused collapse of many fisheries around the world Can lead to over capitalisation of fishing sectors during boom and lot of debt during bust In absence of good income generating alternatives, NOT the way to go No conservation – the ocean will provide.

Lessons for consideration Decision makers are interested in people, their welfare and wellbeing; Demonstrate the future potential of resources as driver for poverty alleviation and employment; Decision makers rely on us to empower them – if they don’t have the information they are not empowered; To enable regional level S-to-G national policies and laws should be harmonised to address transboundary resource monitoring, assessment and use; Approaches need to be standardised to ensure consistency in data collection, cleaning, process, analysis, use and storage. Standard survey protocols and guidelines need to be in place to ensure continuity of a standardised approach regionally; The details of S-to-G approaches may be region-specific but a standard guideline for GEF IW may be worth considering to facilitate this Involve stakeholders so they can understand the challenges of making decisions about resources use. Decision makers are under pressure to deliver on social and economic goals and many people do not understand this

C’mon! Together we can do this!...has anyone seen the economist? Thank You!