Final Technical Report

Transcription

"Strengthening Fisheries Management in
ACP Countries"
Final Technical Report
Support to the Implementation of a Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the
conservation and sustainable management of Sharks (SRPA-Sharks)
Project Ref. No:
(WA-1.3-B4)
Region
Countries of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC):
Cape Verde, The Gambia, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Guinea Bissau and
Sierra Leone
Date
5 October, 2012
th
Project Implementation by
A project financed by
the European Union
“This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of the publication is the sole responsibility of Agrer and can in no way be taken to
reflect the views of the European Union.”
“The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the view of the Governments concerned.”
Support to the implementation of a Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable management of Sharks (SRPA-Sharks)
pg. 2
This Project is financed by the European Union
A project implemented by Agrer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT .................................................................................... 7
2. ORGANISATION AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 9
3. COMMENTS ON THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................... 14
4. KEY PRINCIPLES .......................................................................................................... 17
5. SHARK FISHERY SECTOR DIAGNOSTIC .................................................................... 18
5.1.DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE SHARK FISHERY ..................................................... 19
5.2.VALUE-ADDITION IN ARTISANAL SHARK FISHERIES ......................................................... 33
5.3.THE ECONOMICS AND PROFIITABILITY OF SHARK FISHING .............................................. 37
5.4.LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... 40
6. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE CONVERSION PLAN .............................................. 57
7. INCOME-GENERATING ACTIVITIES AND SUPPORTING MEASURES ...................... 66
7.1.FISHERIES .................................................................................................................. 67
7.2. PROCESSING ............................................................................................................. 68
7.3. LOCAL COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 68
8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTAION AND MONITORING OF THE
PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 81
9. RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 82
10. COSTS ESTIMATES AND FINANCE MECHANISMS .................................................. 84
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................ 87
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 88
Annexes Page 91
Annex I: Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks
Annex II: Terms of Reference
Annex III: List of Persons Met
Annex IV: Preliminary Report
Annex V: Photographs of Main Events and Activities
Annex VI: Press Communiqué
pg. 3
List of Tables
Table 1: Details of the Shark fishery in national waters of each country and the socioeconomic and governance context. ..................................................................................... 15
Table 2: Sub-Regional Fleet targeting Elasmobranchs........................................................ 23
Table 3: Artisanal fishing vessels Cape Verde 2012 ........................................................... 24
Table 4: Fishing vessels distribution by fishing centre in Sierra Leone ............................... 26
Table 5: Production of Sharks declared by the countries of the SRFC ................................ 28
Table 6: Landings of Elasmobranchs (kg) in 2009 by Zone ................................................. 28
Table 7: Production of rays and sharks in Sierra Leone 2001-2009 (mt) ............................. 29
Table 8: Fishers and Specialist Fish Processors in the countries of the SRFC .................... 31
Table 9: Fishers and Processors/Traders in Cape Verde, 2011 .......................................... 32
Table 10: Fishers and Wholesalers/Processors specialising in rays and sharks in Guinea
(2010) ................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 11: Number of Fishers and Processors in Sierra Leone (2012) ................................. 33
Table 12: Average Costs of Production (Euro) .................................................................... 37
Table 13: Summary of the economics of the three types of vessel/gear combination that
target Elasmobranchs in Nouadhibou and BANP (euros) ................................................... 37
Table 14: Value and life-span of fishing vessels and fishing gear in the BANP, Mauritania . 38
Table 15: Revenues per Trip in Guinea (Euro) .................................................................... 39
Table 16: Dates of ratification (or accession) of Member States of the SRFC to the main
international conventions .................................................................................................... 48
Table 17: Legislation relating to the Management of Sharks in the zone of SRFC .............. 49
Table 18: Minimum meshsize authorised for artisanal fishing gears in Senegal .................. 52
Table 19: Major Shark Landing Sites in the SRFC Zone ..................................................... 81
Table 20: Price Level Index and Compensation (US=100) ................................................. 84
Table 21: Estimated Budget for the Conversion Plan (Euro) ............................................... 86
pg. 4
Executive Summary
In 1995, States represented on the Fisheries Committee of the FAO decided to create an
international working group on shark fisheries. The recommendations of the group culminated, in 1999, in the adoption of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Sharks (IPoA-Sharks). The Plan provides for an improvement of
information and analytical capacity related to the status of Elasmobranchs and to put in
place, on a case-by-case basis, measures for their conservation and management. The
Member States of the SRFC subsequently decided, in accordance with the recommendations of the IPoA-Sharks, to establish their own sub-regional plan for the conservation and
sustainable management of Sharks (SRPA-Sharks). On the basis of this sub-regional plan,
each individual country would then establish their own respective national plans of action
(NPAs).
The current work contributes to the implementation of the main strategic threads of the
SRPA-Sharks and the NPAs, as follows:
a) The conversion of actors in the Shark fishery (fishers, processors and wholesalers)
towards their participation in other components of the fisheries sector (for example, in fisheries that do not currently show signs of over-exploitation) or even outside the fisheries sector entirely.
A socio-economic conversion programme has therefore been elaborated, with a set of
core principles designed to contribute to its efficacy and relevance, namely: good governance; the recognition of a distinct shark-fishery sector; sustainability; justice; a precautionionary approach; and, the application of a sub-regional approach.
The issue that was the main driver for the development of the SRPA was the increasing
scarcity of certain species of Elasmobranchs in the waters of the member states for the
SRFC. This was, and largely remains, due to high-levels of targeted fishing effort in the
respective EEZs, a problem that first arose during the 1970s, driven by the rapid increase
in demand for shark-fin products in developing SE Asian economies. This boom in fishing
effort was unconstrained by any sort of fisheries management system in the Sub-Region.
The result of this uncontrolled effort is that the landings of the specialist shark-fishing vessels, each year themselves fewer in number, have been in a steady state of decline.
A regional approach is sensible to take into account the migrations of elements of the fishing fleet, the inherent mobility of the means of production (boats/fishers/processors etc.),
as well as the trade in Sharks and shark products between the member states of the
SRFC. But it is also important to bear in mind that the particular circumstances of each
fishery are very different in each country and, as a result, so are the specific fisheries interventions required within the Plan.
The overall success of the Plan rests largely on the introduction of a suite of measures
designed to limit access to the shark-fishery resources, because in the absence of
such measures: i) the fishers, the primary beneficiaries of the Plan, may simply modify
their fishing strategies to continue catching sharks, albeit as a nominal by-catch; and,
largely subject to market trends, ii) there will always be the possibility of new entrants to
the fishery and, for those fishers remaining outside the Plan, the opportunity exists to actually increase their fishing effort to the extent that the expected overall impact of the
measures may be significantly weakened.
If the management regulations are adopted and the effective conversion of the fishers is
achieved, all well and good. But assuring the longer-term sustainability of these immediate
achievements will demand the implementation of a programme of continuous monitoring
pg. 5
and evaluation of the shark populations, as well as of the livelihoods of the fishers now
participating in the Plan.
The general objective of the Conversion Plan is, therefore, ‘To contribute to the socioeconomic well-being of fishers who have been affected by restrictions of access to the resources, through the diversification of livelihood opportunities‘. In order to achieve this, the
Plan consists of four axes of intervention applied at three levels:
1st Level, Component 1 - Management: Adoption of measures designed to halt the targeted fishing of Sharks and the concomitant reduction in the trade in shark-fins. The
measures to reduce the fishery will be adapted to the characteristics of each country and
may include the complete banning of targeted fishing, the creation of fishing zones, or the
placing of limits on the number of sharks landed as by-catch. As for the trade in sharks,
the anticipated measures include a system of control on landings and sales, and the introduction of a punitive export tax on all shark-derived products.
2nd Level: Diversification of livelihoods, either within the fisheries sector in general (Component 2) or outside fisheries altogether (Component 3). In the first case, compensation
will be offered including the buy-back of shark-fishing gear and its replacement with fishing
gears suitable for other types of fishing that do not target sharks or take sharks as a bycatch. For fishers and processors who have decided to abandon the sector, the focus will
be on providing equipment and materials necessary for their new livelihood activity.
3rd Level: Component 4 - Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation: The institution proposed to implement the Plan is a sub-regional project, coordinated by the SRFC with decentralised management through National Conversion Committees (NCCs). The NCCs
will be coordinated by a national technical expert. The activities envisaged for the NCCs
include, inter alia, i) Sensitisation; ii) the provision of technical assistance to beneficiaries
to support the identification of new livelihood activities and the skills necessary to undertake them; iii) to put in place a system of micro-credit; and iv) to establish a programme of
scientific monitoring and evaluation of the resource itself, as well as the livelihoods of the
beneficiaries.
The budget for the Conversion Plan will depend on the number of active participants in the
Shark fishery at the time of its eventual implementation, and this in turn is likely to reflect
the general economic situation as well as the performance of other fisheries. However, the
full cost is estimated at Euro3,391,800. It is likely to enjoy the support of a number of multilateral organisations including the World Bank, the European Union, the African Development Bank, the French Agences de Cooperation au Développement, as well as environmental organisations such as the Banc Arguin International Fund.
b) Improvements in, and coherence between, national regulations governing the exploitation of sharks in the SRFC countries, to contribute to the sustainable management of Shark populations.
Following the adoption by the Member States of the SRFC of the SRPA-Sharks, considerable effort has been made to implement National Shark Plans and to ensure the conformity of national legislation with international conventions (e.g. UNCLOS, CITES, CMS, ICCAT, etc.). The banning of the practice of shark-finning is already common to the majority
of Member States. A review of the current national regulations has been undertaken to
identify specific measures taken by the States in relation to their respective NPAs as well
from the perspective of improving their wider arsenal of legal tools.
pg. 6
c) Finally, recommendations are made to assist the Member States of the SRFC to
implement their individual conversion programmes and to put in place any necessary
changes to their national regulations related to the exploitation of sharks.
The harmonisation of national regulations will be focused on: i) the banning of fishing of
certain species of Sharks, the conservation of species that are naturally in low abundance,
or are at risk of extinction ; ii) the reduction of by-catch by the consensual agreement on
permitted size at first capture, and of permitted mesh-sizes ; iii) the adaptation of fiscal
regulations and sub-regional customs levies, particularly through the development of a
standardised codification (shark meat, oil, skin, cartilage and fins (fresh/chilled/frozen and
dried), processed and unprocessed) and a tiered taxation system for the export of shark
products; and, vi) the protection of juveniles through the harmonisation of a structure of
shark-fishing licence fees and through an appropriate zoning. Furthermore, the Member
States of the SRFC will introduce into their respective legislations the means for the banning of shark-fishing in marine protected areas and to allow for the creation of spatiotemporal management zones based on information arising from their programmes of monitoring and evaluation. A protocol will be proposed to the Member State by the SRFC to
define the modalities of such harmonisation.
1. Introduction and Context
According to the FAO, less than 20% of all fish stocks for which scientific data are available
are well managed. As far as Sharks1 are concerned, it was estimated in 2008 that a full 90%
of stocks were exhausted, over-exploited or in a state of rebuilding. This parlous state has
come about largely as a result of the huge increase in fishing pressure that has taken place
since the 1950’s and continues to the present day. Between 1984 and 2004, for example,
the global landings of sharks increased from 600,000 to more than 810,000 tonnes (EU,
2009)
According to reports from the World Conservation Union (IUCN,2008), approximately 17% of
Shark species are threatened, with 13% considered under pressure, while there is ‘insufficient data’ for a further 47% of the estimated total of 360 or so species. The causes of this
problematic situation, besides the overfishing which has been mentioned previously, include
coastal development, loss of habitat and pollution.
Faced with this progressive deterioration of Shark stocks, which is both the cause and effect
of the falling incomes and worsening livelihoods of fisher communities, it is becoming evident
that an urgent reduction of fishing effort is a priority.
In 2001, and in accordance with the recommendations of the International Plan of Action for
the Conservation and management of Sharks (IPoA-Sharks), the member States of the SubRegional Fisheries Committee (SRFC) adopted a Sub-Regional Plan of Action for Shark
management (SRPA-Sharks).
A key requirement of the SRPA-Sharks is that each country should themselves develop and
provide resources for a National Plan of Action (NPA). Today, five countries (Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Mauritania and Sierra Leone) has validated their plans, while Cape
Verde has integrated similar objectives into its national fisheries management plan.
1
In this report, and if not otherwise specific, the term ‘Sharks’ is employed to refer to all cartilaginous fish (sharks,
rays, white rays and chimeras).
pg. 7
Under the framework of the SRPA-Sharks, notwithstanding the process of official adoption of
the national plans of action, a significant amount of progress has been achieved on improving the scientific and socio-economic data, including the provision of training, dissemination
of scientific outputs, and awareness-raising.
It is necessary to highlight the importance given by the SRPA-Sharks to socio-economic
issues, particularly the need for a regional approach to management that incorporates migrant fishers, the recognition the full scope of the sector that is directly supported by the
fishery itself (e.g. post-harvest activities and value-addition, marketing etc.) and the importance of the active participation of all the stakeholders/actors.
As a result of the focus on social and economic elements of the fishery, there will be a need
to provide for the affected actors. This must include implementation and support for
measures and activities that either partially or fully substitute for the new controls on the
shark-fishery. These measures and activities must represent sustainable compensation for
the negative impacts associated with the necessary reduction in Shark landings.
Besides these specific measures, it is also necessary to add other, accompanying measures
including the development of human resources through capacity-building and technical assistance. And the adequate monitoring and control of the Plan is also essential to ensure its
efficacy in providing sustainable positive outcomes.
The current Programme contributes to the implementation of the main strategies that the
leaders of the SRPA-Sharks and the NPAs consider critical to ensure the success of policies
for the sustainable management of Shark stocks: :
a) The conversion of actors in the Shark fishery (fishers, processors and wholesalers)
towards their participation in other components of the fisheries sector (for example,
in fisheries that do not currently show signs of over-exploitation) or even outside the
fisheries sector entirely. The Conversion Programme will include an estimate of the
associated costs for each country within the SRFC. The programme must, however,
specify mechanisms to ensure that beneficiaries of capacity-building do not return
to the Shark fishery.
b) Improvements in, and coherence between, national regulations governing the exploitation of sharks in the SRFC countries, to contribute to the sustainable management of Shark populations. The proposals will take into account the objectives
and recommendations of the IPoA-Sharks, ICCAT, SRPA-Sharks and the relevant
NPA-Sharks.
c) Finally, recommendations are made to assist the Member States of the SRFC to
implement their programmes for retraining and to make the necessary changes in
the national regulations governing the exploitation of sharks.
pg. 8
Box 1 : The Development Process of SRPA-Sharks and its Objectives
(Extract from : ’30 years of exploitation of Sharks in West Africa’ by Mika Diop and Justine Dossa)
Concerned over the situation regarding Sharks at the international level, the States represented on the
Fisheries Committee of the FAO decided, in 1995, to create an international working group on shark fisheries. The recommendations of the group culminated, in February 1999, in the adoption of the International
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Sharks (IPoA-Sharks). This strategic
instrument provides for, on the one hand, an improvement of statistical information and capacities to describe and analyse the status of Sharks. And on the other, to put in place, on a case-by-case basis,
measures for their conservation and management.
Aware of the risks of a rapid decline in stocks of Sharks and the consequences of such a decline on wider
biological diversity, the Member States of the SRFC decided, in accordance with the recommendations of
the IPoA-Sharks, to establish their own Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable
management of Sharks (SRPA-Sharks). In 2001, the Plan was adopted by the Conference of Ministers of
the SRFC and its implementation began in 2004 with the project SRPA-Sharks. SPRA-Sharks was supported by a number of other elements, mechanisms and programmes related to access to fishing grounds and
the management of the exploitation of marine resources by Member States. The SRPA-Sharks is included in
the strategic plan of action (2002-2010) of the SRFC.
Between 2004 and 2007, under the framework of the PRCM, utilising funds provided by the MAVA Foundation and the Ambassador of the Netherlands in Dakar, the SRPA-Sharks supported the process to initiate a
number of activities across different domains related to the conservation, monitoring and sustainable management of Shark populations. In addition to the implementation of systems to monitor Shark populations
and actions to control exploitation, several research studies were conducted on various aspects of the exploitation of Sharks in the sub-region.
(.../...) Reflecting the policies of the SRFC, the project to support the implementation of the SRPA-Sharks is
accompanied by an intervention strategy strongly anchored in a regional approach to the issue of the conservation and responsible management of Shark populations. This is augmented by technical assistance to
the Member countries for research and the implementation of appropriate solutions.
In the first phase of the project’s implementation there has been a focus on three principle objectives:
- support to the implemention of the SRPA-Sharks process and the production of tools for the management of Sharks;
- the development of a pilot programme for the conversion of actors specialising in the Sharkfisheries of the Member States of the SRFC; and,
- enhancing and consolidating the lessons learned by building-on, as well as communicating them.
Given that not all the objectives of the first phase of the project had been reached by the end of 2007, it was
deemed necessary to have a second phase (2008-2011), but taking into account the achievements discussed earlier. This second phase included the following principle actions:
- continuation of the implementation of the NPA-Sharks (production of tools for the management of
Shark populations, and harmonisation of legislation);
- creation of a West Africa Elasmobranch observatory (in conjunction with the BIOMAC network);
- Implementation of pilot actions for stakeholder transformation and for conservation; and,
- Capitalisation and enhancing the lessons learned from the first phase of the SRPA-Sharks.
2. Organisation and Methodology
pg. 9
Following the terms of reference, the activities of the technical assistance were organised in
two phases:
Phase 1:
a) Briefing with the West Africa Regional Facilitation Unit (RFU) of the ACPFish II Project
and the SRFC.
The meeting took place on the 4th July, 2012 at the offices of the SRFC, with the participation of:
- Mr Alioune Sy (RFU);
- Mr Hamady Diop and Mr Mika Diop (SRFC); and,
- Mr Javier Macías et Mr Mohamed Fall (AGRER).
b) Literature review, analysis and evaluation of the governance rules for the exploitation of
Sharks in the countries of the SRFC, taking account of the objectives and recommendations
delivered by the IPoA-Sharks, the SRPA-Sharks, and the NPAs as well as relevant
measures recommended by the regional fisheries organisations, particularly ICCAT.
Given that the relatively short time (16 days) allocated for this aspect of the ToR was insufficient, the specialist in fishing rights had to focus on an analysis of the documents available
at the level of the SRFC, those provided in-country during the brief national visits of the economics expert as well as documents available from AGRER’s own library.
c) Literaure review, analysis and presentation of a situational analysis of the shark fisherysector in each country.
The Consultant collected all the documentation produced since the initiation of the SRPASharks and verified the information through reference to secondary sources, as well as from
the findings of the visits to the Member states of the SRFC. Therefore a diagnostic analysis
was produced for each country.
d) Interviews with national stakeholders and actors in the shark-fishery sector, with the institutions mandated to manage the fishery, with marine research institutions and with other relevant institutions.
In each member state of the SRFC, except Guinea Bissau, which has been excluded from
the Programme as per the instructions of the RFU, the Consultant benefited from the support
of the national focal points (ACP Fish II and SRPA-Sharks) for the organisation of meetings.
These meetings had been scheduled into the work plan agreed at the outset of the mission
by the Consultant, the SRFC project team and the RFU in Dakar, as follows:
Guinea: 8th-10th July
The Gambia: 12th-14th July
Senegal: 16th-19th July
Cape Verde: 20th -21st July
Sierra Leone : 22nd-25th July
Mauritania : 29th-31st July.
The list of persons met is presented in Annex III.
e) Conceptualisation of a conversion programme for each member country and an evaluation of the costs associated with such a programme and formulation of recommendations to
assist each Member State of the SRFC to implement their individual programme.
pg. 10
The information gathered has allowed the identification of various approaches related to
conversion of fishers and processors, as well as the costs of these actions;
In addition, the accompanying measures necessary to implement the national conversion
programmes are presented, as well as the methods designed to discourage/disincentivise
current actors from remaining in the shark-fishery, or engaging in the processing or marketing of Shark products.
f) Suggestions for improvements in, and ensuring coherence between, national regulations
governing the exploitation of sharks, having previously defined areas suitable for harmonisation. And formulate recommendations to take to each Member State of the SRFC that will
enable them to make the required changes in national regulations governing the exploration
of Sharks. Section 5.4 presents the results of the work related to the harmonisation of national legislation.
Phase 2:
a) Preparation and organisation, in close collaboration with the SRFC and the FRU, of a
two-day sub-regional workshop for the feedback, and subsequent validation,of the work of
the Consultant:
The workshop took place at the Ocean Hotel, in Dakar, from the 19-20th September,
2012 and brought together 22 participants. The list of participants and the agenda is
presented as follows:
Participants List:
European Union
- Philipe Cacaud
- Alioune Sy
- Eric Lunel
SRFC
- Mika Diop
- Hamady Diop
Mauritania
- Lamine Camara
- Dia Abdou Daim
- Ebaye Oudl M. Mahmoud
Senegal
- Lamine Mbaye
- Mamadou Faye
Cape Verde
- Mecildes Tavares
- Victor Tavares
Guinea Conakry
- Framoudou Doumbuya
- Mamadou Kaly Bah
Sierra Leone
- Lahai Seisay
- Mohamed Kamara
The Gambia
- Nfamafa Jerro Dampha
- Anne Mbenga Cham
WARFP
- Demba Kane
Consultants / Organisation
- Javier Macías
- Mohamed Fall
- Sokhna Die Ka
pg. 11
Agenda
Wednesday 19th September
09.00
09.30
10.00
10.15
10.30
11.00
13.00
14.00
16.00
Welcome and registration of participants
Opening Ceremony (M. Cacaud / M. Hamady / M. Sy)
Presentation of the objectives of the Workshop and the Agenda (M. Diop)
Coffee Break
Summary of the activities of SRPA-Sharks on the conversion of shark fishery stakeholders and
harmonisation of regulations (M. Diop)
Presentation of Interim Report (M. Macías et M. Fall)
Lunch
National Presentation (reprepsentatives of each country)
14.00 Mauritania
14.20 Senegal
14.40 Cape Verde
15.00 The Gambia
15.20 Guinea
15.40 Sierra Leone
Close
Thursday, 22nd September
09.00
10.15
10.30
13.00
14.00
15.30
16.00
Establishment of working groups
1. Livelihood Transformation
2. Fisheries management measures and the control of trade
Coffee Break
Feedback from each working group and plenary discussion
Lunch
Reflections on the future of the SRPA-Sharks (Plenary)
Presentation of the conclusions/findings of the workshop
Close of Workshop
Because of the delay in the arrival of flights from Sierra Leone and Cape Verde, it
was necessary to modify the agenda of the first day; the afternoon session became a
plenary discussion and debate on the proposals and the preparation of the activities
to realise these proposals was held the following (Thursday) morning.
pg. 12
b) Finalisation of the national conversion programmes, suggestions for improvements in,
and of coherence between, national regulations governing the exploitation of sharks in
each country as well as recommendation to the States taking into account the comments
and recommendations developed during the restitutionworkshop itself:
This Project Final Technical Report integrates the comments and recommendations of
the restitution and validation workshop as well as the comments provided by the SRFC,
the FRU and the NPA focal points.
c) Preparation of the Final Technical Report (FTR)
The FTR will take into account all comments/feedback provided within 14-days from the
receipt of this draft report.
Work Schedule
1
July
2 3
4
5
August
6 7
8
Week
September
9 10 11 12
13
October
14 15
Phase 1
Mobilisation of Expert (Dakar)
Breifing with the West Africa Regional Faciliation Unit
(RFU) and SRFC (Dakar)
Elaboration of methodology and a work plan
Submission of the Inception Report to SRFC and RFU for
approval.
Literature review, analyses and evaluation of regulations
in the shark fisheries.
Literature review and situational analysis of the shark
fishery sector in Member States
Organisation of travel visas and preparation of the itinerary
Interviews in the countries of the SRFC
- Senegal
- Guinea
- The Gambia
- Cape Verde
. Sierra Leone
- Mauritania
Definition and editing of retraining programmes, costings
and recommendations.
Preparation of mid-term Report
Submission of Interim Report
Editing and Finalisation of Mid-term Report
●
●
Phase 2
Sub-Regional Workshop of two-days for restitution and
validation of work (Dakar)
Editing of Final Technical Report (FTR)
Submission of Final Technical Report
Submission of Final Technical Report
●
●
pg. 13
16
3. Comments on the Terms of Reference
In light of the information obtained during the Consultancy, it was noted that the feasibility of
the Conversion Plan for stakeholders in the Shark fishery in the sub-region depends on:
a) Taking into account the specific characteristics of the Shark-fishery and the processing and subsequent trade of fishery products derived from the fishery in each
country and in each locality;
b) The implementation of management measures for the fishery and the control of the
trade to discourage shark-fishing by specialist shark fishers as well as those whom,
even though not specialists themselves, nevertheless obtain a significant part of their
revenues from fishing these species;
c) The capacity of the States to ensure the implementation of management measures
and an improved control and monitoring of this activity, including the relevant administrative and legal context.
Furthermore, even if a regional approach is able to take into account the migrant fishers, the
mobility of the means of production as well the trade in shark products between the member
states of the SRFC, there is no doubt that the circumstances in each country are quite different. These differences include:
a) The importance of the targeted Shark-fishery to local communities
In Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau there are essentially no targeted shark-fisheries,
or at the most, they are extremely limited. However, in other countries such as in
some coastal areas of Senegal, the Shark-fishery makes a much more important
economic and employment contribution.
b) The Importance of Sharks as a By-Catch
In Mauritania the targeted shark-fishery only accounts for approximately 20% of the
total landings. But, even if there is no concrete data, in many fishing grounds in Senegal, The Gambia and to a lesser extent in Guinea Bissau, the by-catch of sharks in
national waters exceeds the tonnage landed by the specialist shark-fishers.
c) Countries that accept landings from neighbouring country fisheries
An important percentage of the targeted shark catch that is landed in Senegal, The
Gambia and Guinea Conakry is actually caught in the waters of other countries, particularly in Sierra Leone and to a lesser extent, in Guinea Bissau.
d) Institutional Capacity
It is important to ensure the monitoring, surveillance and control of artisanal fishing
activities and the marketing of shark products, as well as the eventual full implementation of measures adopted under the framework of the Conversion Plan. In general,
the more northerly countries (Mauritania, Senegal and Cape Verde) manifest a
greater level of technical capacity and have more options to effectively control their
fisheries and the trade of sharks and their associated products.
Given the differences identified above, and when considering the suitability of proposed actions and their potential coherence with individual national regulations, it is clear that the
conversion of actors will have to take place according to national priorities, but the various
accompanying measures should take on a sub-regional character and scope. In order to
pg. 14
achieve this, and as suggested in the ToR, it is essential to define at the outset the areas of
similarity and to identify where harmonisation can be more easily achieved.
Table 1: Details of the Shark fishery in national waters of each country and the socio-economic
and governance context.
Targeted
artisanal
shark-fishing
in national
waters?
Yes
(Tollo)
Targeted artisanal sharkfishing taking
place in foreign waters?
By-Catch?
Domestic
consumption
of Shark
meat?
Possibility for
effective control
of access and
landings?
Possibility
for effective
control of
cross-border
trade?
No
Yes
(courbine)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
(Casamance)
Yes
(Guinea Bissau,
Guinea & Sierra
Leone)
Yes
(demersals
in wet
season)
Not Important
(Smoked)
Partial/Limited
Partial/Limited
Cape Verde
No
No
No
Seasonal
(salted)
Yes
Yes
The Gambia
Yes
Yes
(Senegal)
No
Not Important
(smoked)
Partial
Partial/Limited
GuineaBissau
Yes
(landings of
foreign fleets)
No
No
Not Important
(Smoked)
No
No
Guinea
Yes
(landings of
domestic and
foreign fleets)
Yes (Sierra
Leone)
Yes
Yes
(smoked)
Partial/Limited
No
Sierra Leone
Yes
(landings of
domestic and
foreign fleets)
No
Yes
Yes
(smoked)
Partial/Limited
No
Mauritania
Senegal
Bearing in mind the fact that there is almost no targeted fishery for Sharks in Guinea Bissau
or in Cape Verde, it is important here to consider the relevance of a Conversion Plan in
these two countries. This question was debated during the Restitution and Validation Workshop in Dakar and all the participants were in agreement that a Conversion Plan per se was
not justified in these two particular countries. However, they also agreed that it was still necessary to put in place activities designed to promote sustainable management of Shark
stocks and to avoid the development of a new fishery targeting sharkfin.
A further important point is that although the industrial fishery is not included in the framework of the Conversion Plan, it is necessary to highlight that the industrial contribution to the
total Shark catch is important, particularly the by-catch. By way of illustration, 70% of catch
of the tuna fleet that operates in the EEZ of Cape Verde is of Elasmobranch species and this
analysis entirely excluded the Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fleet.
Another factor that must be considered is that the detailed identification of the activities within the Plan that would potentially interest the target beneficiaries, as well as the budget estimates for implementing them, is currently only a somewhat theoretical exercise because:
pg. 15
a) the socio-economic value of the fishery and associated industries (e.g. processors) has
been in decline in recent years and as a result it is quite likely that the number of individuals who would eventually interested in participating in the Conversion Plan may be significantly fewer than expected;
b) the priorities initially proposed by the Shark fishers may change right up until the moment of deciding whether to abandon Shark-fishing or post-harvest processing; and,
c) The potential livelihood alternatives that might be proposed, both within the fishing sector and external to it, are likely to vary significantly according to the local-level development opportunities. Therefore, their planning cannot be considered from a national level
alone.
To overcome these constraints, the Conversion Plan will rely on a three-pillared approach: i)
technical assistance and training, ii) micro-credit facilities, and iii) monitoring and evaluation.
pg. 16
4. Key Principles
The Conversion Plan is based on a number of key principles that should ensure its efficacy
and relevance.
a) Good Governance
The Plan encourages equal participation across all stakeholders and actors, including national scientific institutions and civil society, in the definition and implementation of a Shark
fishery policy. This approach will further support capacity-building and promote transparency.
And there is, overall, an adaptive and co-management strategy to assuring good governance, because the measures put forward will be designed to be flexible enough for subsequent adaptation to the specific needs of each fishing community, thus increasing the likelihood of uptake by the beneficiaries.
b) Concept of the ‘Sector’
The target benificiaries are as much the owners of the boats, as they are the crew and the
individuals who obtain the majority of their incomes from the processing and marketing of
sharks and their secondary products.
c) Sustainability
A conversion programme offering only a one-off payment as compensation for the partial or
total cessation of shark-fishing reduces the chances that the beneficiaries will permanently
abandon the fishery. Neither can one-off payments guarantee that the fishers would not be
able to adapt their fishing strategies to continue to catch sharks, either as a targeted fishery
or as a by-catch.
For this reason, the Plan must include interventions that will: i) focus on providing access to
viable alternative economic activities through training, technical assistance etc., and ii) effectively and proactively reduce Shark fishing-effort through a variety of measures including,
inter alia, short-term or permanent closures of fisheries, and/or trade bans, protected areas,
by-catch limits, and export taxes etc..
It is important to bear in mind that the status of the resource and the level of fishing effort, as
well as the national contexts and priorities, will evolve with time. For this reason the Plan
must include an effective system of monitoring and control that will guarantee the impact and
sustainability of positive results.
d) Justice
The direct beneficiaries of the Plan must be the individuals who actually depend on the sector, i.e. the fishers and the specialist processors.
However, each country must take responsibility for the measures that will affect fishers who
are resident within their borders, notwithstanding the actual fishing grounds that are used.
e) Note of Caution
pg. 17
The Plan should not recommend or promote, directly or indirectly, a simple displacement of
fishing-effort on to other species or on to the same species but in different countries, without
a strong scientific basis for doing so.
In addition, the measures to discourage the actors from remaining in the Shark-fisheries
must be of sufficient sophistication to avoid the situation where Shark-fishers simply superficially adapting their fishing strategies to remain within any constraints/regulations that will be
eventually established.
f) Sub-Regional Approach
Even if each country will inevitably develop their own effective Conversion Plan, the SRFC
will have the responsibility for the overall coordination and monitoring of these Plans.
5. Shark Fishery Sector Diagnostic
The main driver for the development of the Plan to shift the livelihood bases of the Sharkfishery sector actors was the growing scarcity of Elasmobranchs in the waters of the member states for the SRFC. This was, and remains, due largely to the increase in targeted fishing effort in the respective EEZs, a feature that first developed during the 1970s, driven by
the rapid increase in demand for shark-fin products in developing SE Asian economies. This
boom in fishing-effort was unconstrained by any sort of effective fisheries management system in the sub-Region.
The result of this uncontrolled effort was that the landings of the specialist shark-fishing
boats, themselves becoming fewer in number, have been in a steady state of decline in recent years, particularly during the last decade.
The response of the fishers to falling catches, and encouraged by the shark-fin wholesalers
and to a lesser extent by the opportunities for exporting salted sharkmeat, was to increase
fishing-effort. This was achieved by i) increasing the size and power of their fishing vessels,
ii) seeking out new fishing grounds, particularly towards the south of the sub-region, and this
is required, and iii) the development of seasonal migrations and longer and longer duration
fishing trips.
In order to finance the increased investments and the costs of fishing itself, more fishers
became indebted to processers and tradersers to such a degree that a large proportion of
the fishers only persist in the Shark fishery in order to pay of their debts, even when the returns were increasingly poor.
A second response by Shark-fishery actors facing a progressive decline in revenues has
been to target a more diverse range of species, to the point that species-specific processors
have become less and less typical of the sector.
Apart from the targeted Shark-fishery, the general increase in fishing effort, as much in the
artisanal as the industrial fleet, has also led to an increase in the by-catch of sharks, to the
point that the by-catch often exceeds the targeted catch.This is exemplified in the industrial
fleet licensed to fish tuna (and tuna-like species). In Cape Verde’s industrial fishery, 70% of
the catch is actually by-catch species, rising to 80% in the Courbine (Eng: Meagre; Latin:
Argyrosomus regius) net fishery operating around the Arguin Bank off Mauritania.
pg. 18
In terms of resource rent, the benefits are limited. This is for a number of reasons i) there is
no local tradition in these countries to consume sharks, ii) a sizeable proportion of the Shark
by-catch is not landed in the countries in which it is caught, iii) the export taxes are insignificant and may not even be applied in the case of informal/small-scale trade, and, iv) foreignexchange earnings are minimal give that the majority of payments in the SE Asia shark-fin
trade are made ‘in-kind’, with shark-fins going one way and consumer goods coming the
other.
Clearly, and as explained previously in the section concerning the methodology, the situation
is not at all the same in every country, and given this fact, the proposals and solutions will
also be different. Therefore, for Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau, where there is almost no
targeted fishing for Sharks, the focus will be on sensitisation and the promotion of sustainable fisheries management as a means to increase control over the foreign fleets engaged in
fishing in waters under the jurisdiction of these two countries.
A summary diagnostic of the West Africa Shark-fisheries is presented in Figure 1.
Deterioration of living
standards
Increased
capitalisation and
fisher debt
Decline in Yields
Increase in the range
of species targeted
Increasing scarcity of species of sharks and rays
in the waters of member countries of the CSRP
Increase in
targeted fishing
effort
Increase in
general fishing
effort
Industrial
Fisheries
External
Factors
Demand for Shark-fin
Figure 1: General diagnostic of the West Africa Shark-fishery
5.1. Description and History of the Shark Fishery
In the West Africa sub-region, the first evidence of a fishery targeting Sharks was from the
Arguin Bank (Mauritainia) at the start of the 20th century. The fishers originated from the Canary Islands but were seeking new grounds for Tollo (Eng: Smoothhound; L: Mustelus vulpg. 19
garis), which they salted and returned to the Canaries. In the 1940s, a fishery developed off
Senegal, for shark liver oil.
The development of a sub-regionally indigenous Shark-fishery sector, as far as the available
evidence indicates, dates from the 1960s-70s in The Gambia, when Ghanian fishers noticed
plentiful sharks at the landing sites along the beaches, which had been ‘caught as a by-catch
by the small-pelagic fishers and were processed (salted/dried) and then traded for cereals
with rural communities of the Sine Saloum region. They were only rarely caught as a targeted species (…/…)’ (M. DIOP, J. DOSSA).
In The Gambia, the demand for Shark was initially driven by Ghanian processors, who purchased this by-catch in order to meet the strong demand for salted and dried shark meat in
Ghana. This led to the growth of interest amongst the local fishers in establish a local sharkfishery. It developed first in the Sine Saloum Delta and Petite Côte, then subsequently extended into Mauritania and finally, in the 1980s/90s, it reached the southern areas of the
Sub-Region (Casamance, Guinea Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone).
However, the key factor that accelerated the expansion of a targeted fishery was without
doubt the development of a global market for shark-fin to satisfy the demand in SE Asia.
This rapid growth in demand led to an intensification of effort at the same time as fishing
techniques became less selective. Falling yields didn’t take too long to materialise, and were
particularly noticeable from around 2003, but the fishers, indebted to middle-men and processors who financed their activities, were forced to spend longer at sea and, each trip, to
travel further for their home grounds in increasingly vain attempts to meet the debt repayments.
Today, the Shark-fishery is barely profitable, to the extent that a substantial proportion of the
fishers only continue in this fishery to try to pay-off their debts.
The following section presents an analysis by country.
Mauritania
Towards the end of the 1980s, Imraguen fishers (a traditionally migrant people) began to use
fishing gears from Senegal, and by the 1990s, the demand for shark-fin (for SE Asia) and
shark meat (for Ghana and Nigeria) from West African middle-men, had led to a huge increase in fishing-effort and, at the same time, the development of a processing sub-sector
(mainly salted and smoked).
Driven by this rapid increase in pressure on the resources an agreement was reached in
2003, between the Banc d’Arguin National Park (BANP) and the locally-resident fishers, to
buy-back fishing nets and to end the targeted shark-fishery. However, as a result of the adaptation of fishing strategies to cope with these new management measures, there has been
an increase in the use of nets in the deeper-water ‘Courbine’ (Meagre) fishery. This has led
to a dramatic increase in the by-catch of rays (excl. the Guitarfish), pelagic sharks (particularly small sharks), and Hammerhead sharks.
Senegal
The artisanal shark fishery of Senegal got underway in the 1940s as a result of the interest
in extracting oil from shark livers. The fishery spread rapidly in the 1960s from the Petite
pg. 20
Côte both northward to Saint Louis and south to the Casamance. This first expansion was
driven by the export demand for salted sharkmeat and, albeit to a lesser extent, by the demand for smoked sharkmeat for domestic consumption.
Finally, from the mid-1970s, the discovery of the SE Asian market for shark-fin drove a second large expansion, which came to a dramatic halt from around 2005 as a result of the
dramatic fall in production.
Today, the main centre for landings sharks is Elinkine, favoured because of its easy access
to the fishing grounds to the south (Guinea, Guinea Bissau and Sierra Leone). The two other
sites where there are still significant targeted fisheries for Sharks are Saint Louis and Diogué. However, catches of Elasmobranchs can still be seen on almost all the beaches and
in the ports of Senegal, even if they only represent a by-catch. Among the sites that are
known for the large volume of Elasmobranch landings, Joal, Mbour and Kafountine are the
most noteworthy.
Finally, the importance of Sengalese in the Shark-fisheries of West Africa in general belies
any impression obtained from observing only Senegal’s own ports. Together with the Ghanians, the Senegalese fishers dominate the sector in all countries in the Sub-Region.
Cape Verde
The Shark fishery in Cape Verde’s EEZ has always been characterised as by-catch compared to other species/families that are caught. This is the case for both the artisanal and the
industrial DWFN longline fishery. However, the data for the industrial fishery, in which the
vessels are actually licensed to catch tunas, indicate that Sharks comprise approximately
70% of their total catch. This raises questions about what is actually the priniciple or target
species in this fishery.
The level of interest amongst the artisanal fishers for Shark is quite minimal, for the following
reasons:
i) the absence of a tradition of consuming dried or salted fish in the country, except
during the festival of Lent (cinzas);
ii) the damage that Sharks cause to fishing gears; and,
iii) the danger than Sharks pose to the fragile artisanal fishing vessels.
According to the results of research reported in ‘Trajectoria da Pescaria de Selaceos em
Cabo Verde’ (Trends in the Elasmobranch fisheries of Cape Verde) (Gominho et al., 2006),
there have been only a few trials with Shark-fishing, prompted by the relative price of sharkfin and, to a lesser extent, by consumption of Sharks in other African countries.
pg. 21
The Gambia
In The Gambia, the targeted Shark fishery began towards the end of the 1960s, with knowhow brought in by immigrants originating from Ghana who established themselves in Brufut
(an area still known today as ‘Ghana Town’). From that original area, the immigrants developed an export network for salted sharkmeat to address demand back in Ghana itself.
During the last eight years, the number of specialised fishing boats in the shark and ray fishery has considerably declined due to reduced yields. And in the former core of the activity, in
Gunjur, the fishery has entirely disappeared, while even in Brufut there remain only a dozen
or so specialised boats.
Guinea-Bissau
Traditionally, the domestic fleet of Guinea-Bissau only registered an incidental capture of
Sharks with longlines set close to beaches or river mouths. Either smoked or salted, the
Sharks were eaten locally.
In the 1970s, foreign fishers established camps in the Bijagos Islands for the sole purpose of
profiting from shark-finning, abandoning the shark carcasses on the very same beaches they
camped on.
Eventually, towards the end of the 1990s and after years of declining yields, the fisher
camps were dismantled and shark-fishing in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was banned,
which had the effect of causing the almost total disappearance of shark fishing activities in
the country.
Today, apart from as a by-catch, the artisanal Shark-fishery in the waters of Guinea Bissau
is limited to a few foreign fishing boats, mainly Senegalese. These boats operate from their
home ports (notably Elinkine, in the Casamance) and undertake fishing trips of up to 30 days
in duration.
Guinea
For 30 years, due to the decline in yields of the Elasmobranch fisheries in Senegal and in
The Gambia, Guinea became the focal point for Senegalese and Ghanian fishers. Since
2005, in response to similar declines in Guinea, fishers have continued their long-term migration south, towards Sierra Leone. Hence, between 2005 and 2010, the number of specialised shark boats in Guinea declined from 136 to just 39.
The targeted shark and ray fishery takes place in three sites: Kassa, Loos Islands (lying off
Conakry), Kamsa (approximately 300kms from Conakry) and Katchek (Tristao and Alcatraz
Islands).
Sierra Leone
The targeted Shark fishery in Sierra Leone opened up in the 1970s and was carried out
largely by fishers coming from other countries in the Sub-Region, particularly Ghana, Senegal and Guinea. However, in the 1990s increased external demand for salted sharkmeat and
particularly shark-fin led to an expansion in the fishery using non-selective, deep-set gillnets
of 200mm mesh size or more, and larger vessels of more than 15m length overall (LOA).
pg. 22
The fishers from Sierra Leone took the risk of investing in specialist vessels, even though
they had to borrow from foreign traders who, for their part, would then be assured of supplies
of sharkmeat and especially shark-fin.
The main fishing ports in the country are Goderich, Tombo, Shenge, Bonth and Konakridee.
5.1.1. Fishing-Effort
A review of the documentation available, and primary data collected during the fieldwork,
provides for an estimate of 448 vessels operational in the Shark fishery, of which 260 are
vessels based in Mauritania that are not specialised as such but which, overall, generate a
significant catch (Table 2).
Table 2: Sub-Regional Fleet targeting Elasmobranchs
Mauritainia
(Non specialised)
Senegal
The
Gamba
Guinea
Sierra
Leone
Total
Vessels
260 (1)
80 (2)
10
39 (3)
59 (4)
448
Fishers
1,300
400
110
228
480
2,518
Source: 1. ‘Analysis of the fisheries – effort and catch – within the National Park of Arguin Bank in 2010’ (Cheikh Baye OuldIsselmou, IMROP, 2011) and ‘A study of the characteristics of the Elasmobranch fishery and related sectors in Mauritania’ (DIA
Abdou Daim, 2005); 2. ‘The role of the Shark fishery in the fisheries sector and in the economy of Senegal’ (L. Mbaye, 2010);
3. ‘Research of CNSHB’ (2010);
In the following paragraphs, a brief summary of the situation in each country is presented.
Mauritania
Today, Courbine nets (with Sharks taken as a by-catch) and of Tollo nets (a targeted fishery)
are the gears primarily responsible for the shark and ray catch in the main fishing grounds,
i.e. the BANP and the grounds to the north of the Park.
On the Arguin Bank, Courbine nets were used in close to half of all fishing trips of the 114
vessels operational in 2010, and the gear was responsible for 90% of the total catch of rays
and 82% of the sharks taken in 2010 (Analysis of the fisheries – effort and catch – within the
Banc d’Arguin National Park in 2010’, Cheikh Baye OuldIsselmou, IMROP, 2011). While the
Tollo net was responsible for ~7% of the catch of rays and for ~14% of the catch of sharks.
Furthermore, 95% of the Shark catch in the Park is taken with these gears.
As far as the motorised vessels operating to the north of the BANP are concerned, the fishing effort in 2010 was estimated at 1,372 days of Courbine nets (24% of the total) and 1,083
days of Tollo net (19% of the total). Based on the report ‘A study of the characteristics of the
Elasmobranch fishery and related sectors in Mauritania’ (DIA Abdou Daim) in 2005, it is estimated that around 200 fishing boats based in Nouahibou are engaged in the shark fishery.
The average crew is 5 (4-6 in the case of sailing vessels and 5-7 for motorised vessels.).
Senegal
pg. 23
According to data in the report The role of the Shark fishery in the fisheries sector and in the
economy of Senegal’ (Mbaye, 2010) in 2008 there were 137 specialised vessels operating in
the country: 126 from Elinkine, 7 from Diogué and 4 from Saint Louis.
However, data collected in the field during this consultancy suggested that there were just 80
vessels still active in 2012. These remaining vessels are of 18-20 metres LOA, with an average crew of 8, giving a total of approximately 1,000 fishers (estimates from the field suggest
650 fishers).
Regarding fishing gears, all vessels use gillents, with the exception of 4 vessels from Saint
Louis that use longlines.
The fishing grounds extends to the south of Senegal and to Sierra Leone, with fishing trips of
between 18 days and 22 days. The catch is preserved using salt.
In the southern ports, an important number of fishers and middle-men from Ghana were observed. The latter finance a significant amount of the investments and fishing costs to guarantee access to sharkmeat and shark-fin.
Cape Verde
In Cape Verde the artisanal fishing effort for Shark is still very limited. However, the dramatic
decline in yields observed in the other countries of the Sub-Region has led to a trend for
fishers to migrate, itself facilitated by the international shark-fin traders. It is important, therefore, to remain vigilent and to take precautionary measures to prevent the uncontrolled development of a shark-fin fishery around the islands. At the same time, it is necessary to sensitise fishers and the wider population on the longer-term economic benefits arising from
conservation of the Shark resources.
According to the first results of a national frame survey undertaken in 2011 (INPD, 2012), in
the 70 ports of Cape Verde there are 1,239 fishing vessels, of which 72% are motorised
(Table 3).
Table 3: Artisanal fishing vessels Cape Verde 2012
St. Antão
St. Vicente
St. Nicolau
Sal
Boavista
Maio
Santiago
Fogo
Brava
Total
Total
PurseHandlines
Vessels
seine Nets
124
102
3
93
83
3
80
79
0
120
107
0
61
55
0
68
64
0
493
429
4
109
99
0
91
90
1
1,239
1,108
11
Gillnets
7
2
1
1
0
0
29
1
0
41
Beach
Seine
1
1
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
16
Plongée
Diving
10
4
0
12
6
4
16
9
0
61
Source: General Frame Survey of the Artisanal Fishing Fleet (INDP, 2012)
The size of the vessels varies between 3.5 and 6.5m LOA, while, those that operate out of
the Barlovente Island are typically of the larger category. The average lifespan of such vessels is around 8 years.
pg. 24
The vast majority of the catch of sharks by artisanal fishers are made by in the line fishery ;
the capture by gillnet is insiginficant with just 44kg landed by this method in 2008.
The Gambia
According to the frame survey of 2006, approximately 80 vessels focused on targeted shark
fishing in The Gambia. However, during the course of the fieldwork for this consultancy, it
was apparent that this fishery is no longer active in Gunjur, one of the two sites at which the
fishery was based. While in Brufut, the other site, there remained only around 10 vessels
compared to the 70 previously recorded there. The balance of the vessels have evidently
moved to countries, and fishing grounds, further south. The specialised vessels are around
18m LOA and use engines of 40hp.
The boats are operated by a crew of 10-12, therefore one could estimate that approximately
100-120 fishers are employed in the Shark fishery in the country.
The duration of fishing trips obviously depends on the conditions at sea, but would typically
be between 3 and 5 days in the wet season and 5 to 10 days at other times (5-7 days in
Gambian waters and 10 days when operating in the Casamance fishing grounds).
In terms of the structure of the crew and the fishing operation, each fisher typically owns one
or more pieces of gillnet (on average 50m in length) carried on-board and fish caught in a
particular net will be allocated to the owner of that net. However, a share of the catch from
each net/crew member is given to the owner of the vessel. Therefore the owner of the vessel, while paying for the costs of the fishing trip, will also receive around 50% of the catch to
sell on return to port.
The value of each piece of gear (including the nets, the floats and the netlines) is around
€900. On an individual vessel there might be 14 nets, giving a total value of fishing gear of
€13,000 per vessel. It is also worth noting that most vessels also carry other gears to capture species other than Sharks.
Guinea-Bissau
The targeted artisanal Shark-fishery of Guinea-Bissau, today almost entirely abandoned due
to low yields, is based on fixed gillnets with a length of 80-100m and meshsize of 230300mm. Four crew would operate a net, which would be set for 20-30 days. Each fisher
would generally own between 1 and 6 nets (‘A study on trends in the Ray and Shark fisheries of Guinea Bissau’ CIPA, 2006).
As far as by-catch is concerned, a range of species of rays and sharks (and particularly juveniles) are caught by the 100, or so, vessels oeprating out of the fishing centres of Cacine,
Gã Mamadú Bá, Uno, Varela, Bubaque and Cacheu. The majority of these, operating without motors, fish for small pelagic close to the coast (‘The role of Elasmobranch fisheries in
the Fisheries and Economy of Guinea Bissau’).
Finally, there is a seasonal presence of some Senegalese fishing vessels in the south of the
country, although these vessels always return to their home base (mainly Elinkine) to land
their catch.
Guinea
pg. 25
In 2010, according to the research data of the National Fisheries Science Centre at Boussor
(CNSHB), there were 39 vessels specialising in fisheries for rays and sharks, of which 23
were based in Kassa, 13 in Kamsar and 3 in Katchek. Elsewhere in the country there are
approximately 123 non-specialised vessels that take Sharks, operating from Bonfi, Boulbinet
and Koukoudé.
And according to the report prepared by Diop Mika Samba and Framoudou Doumbouya
(2006) entitled ‘Reflections on pilot activities towards the conversion of specialist Sharkfishers: the case of Guinea’, the specialists operate from two types of vessel: i) the Salam, a
motorised vessel that accounts for 60% of the fleet, with an LOA of 10-18m and an average
crew of 3; and ii) the Yoli, which is a little bigger and was imported with Senegalese migrant
fishers, with a crew of 5-12.
A third type of vessel, the Flimbotes, is also used in the artisanal fishery, especially in the
small-pelagic fishery, but this is also associated with a by-catch of rays and sharks.
The fishing gears include set-gillnets with a meshsize of 120-240mm (targeting large sharks,
Manta Rays) and smaller meshed gillnets (80-180mm) that catch other Ray species.
Kassaest is the main port for landings of Sharks in Guinea. On the Island itself, there are two
main sites, one of these is reserved for Ghanaian fishers and the other for Senegalese who
are specialised in the targeting of Guitarfish (Rhinobatidae), the Cownose Ray (Rhinoptera
bonasus) and Stingrays (Dasyatidae). The vessels are of the Yoli type powered by 40HP
engines. The Senegalese fishers are concentrated around the Loos Islands and undertake
fishing trips of around 7-days. The Ghanaian fishers travel further and their fishing trips average 3-weeks in duration. The crew size is around 5-7.
In Kamsar, the shark fishers are mainly Senegalese but there are also fishers from Sierra
Leone, The Gambia and Guinea. The vessels are the Senegalese Yoli with an average of 7
crew.
In Katchek, located about 6-hours by boat from the town of Kamsar, fishers from Mali dominate the Shark fishery, with a few fishers also venturing up from Sierra Leone. The vessels
used are the Guinean Salan, with a crew of 4 and 25-40HP engines.
According to data presented in ‘Costs of financing the conversion of Ghanaian, Senegalese
and Mali Shark fishers in Guinea’ (Framadou Doumbouya and Mamadou Fofana, 2008), one
of the effects of the fall in yields in the Shark fishery has been an dramatic increase in the average length of a fishing trip from 3 to 21 days.
Sierra Leone
According to the various studies undertaken within the framework of the SRPA-Sharks,
augmented by the fieldwork undertaken during this consultancy, it is estimated that there are
59 active fishing vessels within the targeted shark and ray fisheries in the country. Table 4
presents their distribution across the various fishing centres:
Table 4: Fishing vessels distribution by fishing centre in Sierra Leone
Fishing
Centre
Goderich
No. of
Vessels
9
pg. 26
Shenge
Konakridee
Bonthe
Tombo
Total =
9
17
17
7
59
Most of the specialised vessels exceed 9m LOA and are powered by 25-40hp engines. The
larger vessels commonly refered to as ‘Ghanaians’ may be as long as 17m.
As far as the fishing techniques are concerned, the most popular are gillnets with a meshsize greater than 200mm, a depth of 8m or more and a length exceeding 2kms. A few smaller vessels use longlines.
However, a large tonnage of sharks and rays are also caught as by-catch by other types of
fishing gears, particularly by gillnets set for demersal species and small-pelagics.
The typical duration of a fishing trip is between 7 and 14 days for the larger boats, while the
smaller motorised vessels spend a maximum of 3-days at sea. Targeted shark fishing is practically non-existent in the wet season.
A significant number of specialist shark-fishing boats operating on Sierra Leone’s fishing
grounds are in fact based in Guinea (especially Kamsar) or Senegal (Cape Skirring).
pg. 27
5.1.2. Production Production Statistics
In the seven countries of the SRFC, the annual production is estimated at 11,000mt, a similar figure to the mid-1990s but significantly less than the 25,000mt estimated for 2004 (Table
5).
Table 5: Production of Sharks declared by the countries of the SRFC
Mauritania (1)
Senegal(2)
Cape Verde(3)
The Gambia(4)
Guinea Bissau(5)
Guinea(6)
Sierra Leone(7)
Total
Reported Production
(MT)
4,633
6,000
12
120-320
100
137
108
11,110-11,310
(1) Rapport Scientifique PAN Requins. Analyse des captures et de l’effort de pêche des sélaciens
en 2009. WAGNE Oumar Hamet ; (2) Direction des Pêches Maritimes, 2008 ; (3) INDP, 2008 ;
(4) PSRA-Requins, 2011 ; (5) Enquête Cadre, 2009 ; (6) CNSHB, 2010 ; (7) “Conservation and
sustainable management of shark populations in Sierra Leone: achievements and prospects”
(Seisay, 2010).
Mauritania
In 2009, a little more than 80% of the 4,663mt of rays and sharks landed by the artisanal
fleet in Mauritania was caught in the BANP and the fishing grounds to the north of the Park.
Table 6: Landings of Elasmobranchs (kg) in 2009 by Zone
Zone
North
NPAB
Centre
Nouakchott
South Nouakchott
Rays
Sharks
Total
344,868
747,930
1,092,799
1,791,778
966,511
2,758,289
177,620
95,138
272,759
279,446
141,049
420,495
29,144
59,586
88,730
Total
2,622,857
2,010,214
4,633,071
Shark NPA Scientific Report. Analysis of catch and effort of Elasmobranch Fisheries
in 2009 (O. H. Wagne).
Senegal
According to the statistics of the Maritime Fisheries Directorate, the production of sharks and
rays in 2008 reached 6,000mt. This was a similar catch to that reported in 1996, but much
lower that the total in 2000, when 10,000mt was landed.
Of this production, approximately 1,058mt of shark valued at €311,000 and 1,533mt of rays
valued at €453,000, were landed at Elinkine.
In the case of the Shark-fishery, the difference between the actual catch and the country’s
reported landings is largely the result of the fact that much of the production is sold informalpg. 28
ly on beaches as well as in ports that are open to Senegalese fishers (including Guinea Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone).
Cape Verde
According to the data for 2008 provided by researchers of National Institute for the
Development of Fisheries (INDP), around 12mt of sharks were landed, mainly in the islands
of Sal, Santiago and Fogo.
The price of sharkmeat varies between €0.5 and €2.5/kg, while shark-fin is sold locally for
€25/kg.
The Gambia
The average production per trip is estimated between 3,000 and 8,000kg (between 50 and
150 individual sharks). It is relevant to note that the catch is of course dependent on season,
as well as other variables. The total weight of shark-fin landed ranges between 30 and 80kg
per trip.
On average, a shark weighing 60-75kg, would cost about €8 (7.5-9.5 €/kg).
Guinea-Bissau
According to the results of the 2009 frame survey, the catch of the seven vessels that use
shark-nets (mainly based in the south of the country) reached 200mt. The total production
estimate for rays and sharks is 900mt but this includes by-catch (Artisanal Fisheries Directorate).
Guinea
Data from the NPA-Sharks reports total landings in 2010 of 121mt of sharks, across the
three specialised shark-fishery landing sites. A mere 16mt is reported from other sites and
fisheries.
Sierra Leone
Data from the report ‘Conservation and sustainable management of shark populations in
Sierra Leone: achievements and prospects” (Seisay, 2010), indicates that the total landings
of rays and sharks in 2009 (including by-catch) was 108mt. This was the lowest figure since
2001 (Table 7).
Table 7: Production of rays and sharks in Sierra Leone 2001-2009 (mt)
Year
Sharks
Rays
Total
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
45
90
556
78
453
305
251
106
9
188
544
397
693
845
793
80
54
278
1,100
475
1,146
1,150
1,044
186
pg. 29
2009
25
83
108
In all cases, these figures should be considered as estimates because the widely dispersed landing sites, the sporadic nature of the fishery and the importance of Elasmobranchs in the by-catch makes effective monitoring of the fishery very challenging.
pg. 30
5.1.3. The Socio-economic Profile of Actors
It is difficult to determine, at least with any certainty, the exact number of people who are
engaged in the more or less full-time capture and/or processing of Sharks. This is not only a
result of the migrations that take place in the Sub-Region (and the generally highly mobile
fleet) and, but also because the relentless decline in yields is rapidly driving people away
from the fishery.
However, if the 1,300 Mauritanian fishers who target other species as well as Elasmobranchs are included, then the total number of fishers would be approximately 2,500. This
figure serves as a first working estimate for informing the budget of the Conversion Plan
As for the stakeholders who participate in the fishery as processors, their number is estimated to be 872. The total number of people dependent on post-harvest and subsequent marketing is likely to be 2,500 if one includes those who help-out in fish-smoking or salting facilities. However, only a small proportion of this number would rely on income solely from processing of Elasmobranchs (Table 8).
Table 8: Fishers and Specialist Fish Processors in the countries of the SRFC
Fishers
Fish Processors
Mauritania
Senegal
Gambia
Guinea
1,300
250
400
300
110
200
228
76
Sierra
Leone
480
43
Total
2,518
872
Sources : NPA-Sharks Scientific Report. The Socio-economics of the Elasmobranch Fishery (2010) Dia Abdou Daïm, Med
lemineTarbaya and El Mamy Oumar, CNSHB; Report on reconversion of shark fisherfolks to alternative forms of livelihoods
in Sierra Leone (V. Kargbo, T D.K Taylor and M. B.D. Seisay); Conservation and sustainable management of shark populations in Sierra Leone: achievements and prospects (M. B.D. Seisay).
Mauritania
The report of Dia Abdou Daim, of the BANP, indicates a total of 362 Shark-fishers across all
villages in 2004; 53% of whom were local and 47% migrants from various areas of Mauritainia. In Nouadhibou, according to the same report, ‘The Mauritanian fishers are Wolof from
Ndiago, KeurMacène, Halpular from the river valley and Moors. The Senegalese, using motorised canoes, also target sharks’.
As for the shark-processors in the BANP, who are also considered as resident, the most
recent census undertaken (in 2009) recorded 51 wholesalers, of which 12 were based in
Mamghar, 11 in Iwik, 7 in R’Gueiba, 6 in Teichet, 4 in Agadir, 3 in Tenalloul and 2 in Arkeiz.
In Nouadhibou, the majority of processors of sharks operate at Bountya.
Senegal
The impact of the Shark-fishery on employment and economic activity in Senegal has notably reduced since 2005, to the extent that it is getting harder to find fishers and processors
who deal exclusively with sharks.
Around 25% of the fishers are originally from Ghana, even if many of them have now settled
in Senegal. As for the fish processors, in the north they are predominantly Senegalese in
pg. 31
origin, while in the Casamance they are mainly from Ghanian families that have switched
from fishing to processing.
According to the report of Mbaye (referenced previously) in 2008 some 300 specialist processors were active in the country. It is likely that this number has significantly reduced and
it is more realistic to assume a figure of around 150.
Cape Verde
Census data from 2011 (INDP) recorded 3,717 artisanal fishers and 987 dealers and wholesalers (peixeras) (Table 9). The average age of each of these groups was 40 years. There
were no records on foreign fishers in the data for the country.
Table 9: Fishers and Processors/Traders in Cape Verde, 2011
S. Antão S. Vicente S. Nicolau Sal Boavista Maio Santiago Fogo Brava Total
Fishers
372
279
240
360
183
204
1,479
327 273 3,717
Peixeiras
109
92
25
42
26
31
562
67
33
987
Source: General Census of the Artisanal Fisheries Fleet, 2011 (INDP, 2012)
The Gambia
The first group of Ghanians who introduced targeted shark-fishing into the country and who
set-up a base in Brufut, were later joined by Senegalese fishers. Over the years, and as a
consequence of the reduced yields in the fishery, many of these fishers have moved to
countries to the south, particularly Guinea, Sierra Leone and do not return to The Gambia
except for a few months each year.
During the fieldwork of this consultancy and from information given by local fisheries officers,
and subsequently confirmed by local fishers, the number of specialist shark and ray fishers
ranges from 100 to 120.
As far as the processors are concerned, they are almost all women and use salting and drying techniques. However, it would not be correct to describe them as particular specialists in
processing rays or sharks, because these species contribute only a very small proportion of
the overall volume they work with. Only 43 individuals are registered in a professional association in Brufut, out of a total estimated at 200.
Guinea
In Guinea there has been a strong decline in the number of people participating in the Shark
fishery. In 2005 there were 952 fishers and 107 wholesalers/processors but in 2010 the
numbers had declined to 250 and 76 respectively (Table 10).
Table 10: Fishers and Wholesalers/Processors specialising in rays and sharks in Guinea
(2010)
Kassa
Wholesalers/
Origin Fishers
Processors
Senegal
63
Ghana
92
31
Fishers
78
-
Kamsar
Wholesalers/
Processors
12
Katcheck
Wholesalers/
Fishers
Processors
-
Total
Wholesalers/
Fishers
Processors
141
92
43
pg. 32
Guinea
15
6
Mali
Total 155
46
78
18
Source: Regular monitoring of Shark fisheries (NPA-Sharks)
17
17
6
6
12
17
250
27
6
76
The majority of the specialist fishers are either of Senegalese or Ghanian origin. A further
17, all based in Katchekt, originally come from Mali, but have now settled in Guinea
Guineans, in fact, are only active in the processing sector. But, as is the case in the south of
Senegal, there is often conflict between the processors to buy the fish as they are landed.
This is because the fishers (mainly Senegalese or Ghanian) usually work closely with their
families and compatriots. The majority of the sharkmeat that is exported from Guinea is actually done so by non-Guinean processors and dealers.
Sierra Leone
The majority of fishers originate from Sierra Leone itself, as well as from Ghana and Guinea,
even if the latter two groups are now settled in the country. In Goderich, there are 8 Guinean
vessels that operate during the wet season.
As far as the fish processing sector is concerned, the decline in yields has in fact led to the
situation where no one remains engaged in producing salted or smoked shark products.
Table 11: Number of Fishers and Processors in Sierra Leone (2012)
Goderich
Shenge
Konakridee
Bonthe
Tombo
Total
Fishers
90
30
150
150
60
480
Processors
10
5
10
10
8
43
5.2. Value-addition in Artisanal Shark Fisheries
Except in some rare cases, the consumption of sharkmeat in the countries of the SubRegion is very limited, even if in certain countries some sort of tradition has developed since
the development of the targeted shark-fisheries in the 1970s. This ‘new traditional’ consumption is mainly of smoked sharkmeat.
The majority of salted sharkmeat is exported to Ghana, while shark-fins are destined for
South-East Asia (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan etc.). In recent years, Guinea has replaced The Gambia as the sub-regional distribution centre for this market.
pg. 33
Mauritania
Sharks processed in Nouadhibou (as salted or dried sharkmeat) are mainly sent to the Canary Islands, where there exists a tradition of consuming Tollo. But these products are also
sent to other countries in Africa, particularly Ghana. The fins of rays, on the other hand,
readily find good outlets in European markets.
Shark-fins tend to be channelled through local wholesalers and sold to intermediaries in
Nouadhibou or Nouakchott. The intermediaries then supply the major distributors and exporters based in Senegal, Gambia or Guinea who send the shark-fin to the SE Asian markets.
According to the estimates presented in NPA-Sharks Scientific Report ‘The Socio-economics
of the Elasmobranch Fishery’ (Dia Abdou Daїm, Med Iemine Tarbaya and El Mamy Oumar,
2010), in the years 2006 and 2007, a little more than 1,500mt of salted, dried or otherwise
processed shark products were sold, of which 153mt was shark-fin destined for SE Asia.
Exports to Ghana are typically managed by non-residents, directly or through 3rd-party
agents.
Senegal
Consumption of sharkmeat in Senegal is very limited, with the majority of landings being
processed (salted or dried) at the landing sites by families of fishers and then exported,
mainly to Ghana. The majority of the production of smoked sharkmeat (metorah) is exported
to other countries of the Sub-Region, notably to Guinea and Bukina Faso
Shark-fins, dried on board the fishing vessels, are purchased at landing sites by those involved in its subsequent marketing, particularly by Ghanians but also by Senegalese. There
are also Senegalese buyers found at landing sites across the country who export to countries in SE Asia via Guinea or The Gambia.
Cape Verde
In Cape Verde neither the landings or the local consumption are sufficient to warrant specialised shark processors. So the traders and fishers undertake the salting/drying themselves.
As for the fishers themselves, the fish traders have no interest in processing shark because
in addition to its relative scarcity, it is also laborious and makes little profit.
The trade, in what catch there is, is typically only informal and escapes any form of control,
even when exported (which is largely for personal consumption).
The Gambia
After having removed the shark-fins, which are then dried, the shark carcasses are retained
on board without any form of preservation. Once unloaded, the sharks are given to women
to process (salted for Ghana and smoked for local markets). However, any by-catch of shark
tends to be processed (salted) on board. Once ashore, the sharkmeat is salted and fermented before being laid out in the sun to dry. Only a small proportion of production is smoked for
local markets, and is sold in strips of ~1 kg,
pg. 34
While Ghanian women are the specialists in the processing of sharks, they do process other
demersal and small-pelagic species when sharks are less abundant in the catch.
A recent development in the main site of Brufut, has been the construction of a small processing factory with improved ovens to smoke fish and so most of the traditional ovens have
now been replaced.
Specialist traders buy salted sharkmeat and shark-fins, which are sent to Ghana and SE
Asia respectively. A study on the trade in sharks (Mendy, 2006) reported mean prices of
processed shark as €26 for a 50kg sack. While for dried shark-fins, the price depends on the
size and the state of conservation and can vary from between €25- €40/kg.
Guinea-Bissau
Smoked ray and sharkmeat is sold on the local market and in neighbouring Guinea, while
salted sharkmeat is transported directly from landing sites to other countries in the SubRegion. The much more valuable shark-fins are exported to SE Asia, although usually via
Senegal.
According to data presented in ‘A study of trends in the fisheries of rays and sharks in Guinea Bissau’ (CIPA, 2006), the average price of fresh shark was €0.30-1.14 / fish, depending
on the size. The beach-price of shark-fins was between €40-45 for fresh product, and €60-75
dried.
Guinea
The wives of Ghanian fishers usually deal with the processing of sharks, including salting
and drying, using wooden racks of 5-10m in length and 1.5m wide. Other, local Guinean
processors, employ smoking and drying techniques that use rather more sophisticated kilns
in Kamsar, while in Kassa the traditional design of kiln is still employed.
Shark-fin are sold directly to traders for around €62/kg, while the carcasses are given to anyone interested in processing them for around €7 each. According to a study by Doumbouya
and Fofana (Doumbouya and Fofana, 2008), the retail price of Shark-fin can reach €220/KG,
representing a significant value-added component.
In terms of its relative importance in the international market for shark-fin, Guinea has now
surpassed the production of The Gambia and the country now exports as much as 50mt per
month. The major Guinean dealers in fact more or less finance the entire fishery across the
Sub-Region.
Salted sharkmeat is sold to Ghanian buyers at between €48 for a 70kg sack (i.e. c.70
€cents/kg) although the price can rise to €68-91 per sack. The small amount smoked is sold
locally at between €0.62/kg in Conakry and €.91/kg in the interior.
pg. 35
Sierra Leone
Sharkmeat is smoked on metal platforms made of pipes, gratings and iron plates and is
largely for the inland market, For shark to be sent to Ghana or Guinea, it immediately receives an initial salting treatment on board the fishing vessel.
According to estimates, about half of all landings are salted for export. Sharkmeat is sold at
landing sites to wholesalers who handle fish.
At the first point of sale, for example, the average price [of a shark] would be €10-30, depending on the size.
The growth of the Shark-fishery in Sierra Leone has had an impact on the buying choices
made by domestic consumers, particularly the availability of smoked sharkmeat. So there
now exists a strong demand that is rarely met by production. Smoked sharkmeat is sold by
‘slice’ of 2-3kg in weight.
As far as the monitoring of exports is concerned, which in theory should undergo a santitation control, it is severely constrained by the widely-dispersed landing sites and locations of
post-harvest processing facilities.
Shark-fin are sold dried to Ghanaian customers at a price that varies between €90-120/kg,
although lower prices are sometimes paid for a one-off by-catch for example. International
traders,, who use buyers deployed to the various beaches and landing sites, directly export
the product to SE Asia (e.g. China Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan etc.) through marketing
routes in Guinea and particularly through Ghana.
pg. 36
5.3. The Economics and Profiitability of Shark Fishing
The average cost of a single shark/ray differs according to the country in question. The price
of suitable fishing vessel also varies, between €3,000 and €6,000 (or as much as €8,300 for
a ‘lanche’ in the Arguin Bank area of Mauritania), with the engines costing between €2,000
and €3,000, depending on their horse-power.
For fishing gear, a gillnet costs between €6,000 and €8,000, and a long-line between €2,500
and €3,500.
Table 12: Average Costs of Production (Euro)
Country
Fishing Veeel
Engine
Fishing Gear
Total (euros)
8,300 (‘lanche’ BANP)
3,100 (with engine)
2,100
‘toll’ net: 1,100
6,300 - 11,500
Senegal
6,500
3,100
Gillnet: 7,000
16,600
The Gambia
3,000
2,300
14,300
Guinea
3,000
2,000
3,500 - 5,000
2,100 - 3,100
9,000
1,900
Longline: 2,000
Gillnet: 6,000 - 8,000
Longline: 3,500
Mauritania
Sierra Leone
6,900
11,600 - 16,100
Regarding the ovens used in Senegal for smoking sharkmeat, an improved version of threemetres with 2 hearths would cost a minimum of €800, with a lifespan of around 5 years (Implementation of cinderblock oven for smoking fish: conditions required for improving yields.
ITEBE, 2007).
Mauritania
In 2009, the average landing price of shark carcasses for all zones together was €0.30/kg
(Scientific Report NPA). The Report stated that ‘For the year 2009, the wooden canoe
component of the fleet, fishing with ‘Tollo’ nets in Nouadhibou produced a gross value
of 600,000 Ouguiyas (€1,665) over a period of four-months.The ‘Lanche’ fleet, fishing
with ‘Courbine’ nets and those using ‘Tollo’ fishing around the BANP realised gross
returns of 13million Ouguiyas (€36,000) and 6.5million Ouguiyas (€18,000) respectively. This figures translate into net returns of 6.5million Ouguiyas (€18,0000) and 3 million Ougiyas (€7,325). Table 13 presents a summary of the economics of vessels targeting
Elasmobranchs in the north of Mauritania.
Table 13: Summary of the economics of the three types of vessel/gear combination that target
Elasmobranchs in Nouadhibou and BANP (euros)
Turn-over
Value-Added
Wooden canoe with
Tollo in Nouadhibou
Lanche with Courbine net in BANP
Lanche with Tollo
net in BANP
8,000
4,765
36,800
36,626
18,000
17,650
Source: Scientific Report of NPA-Sharks.
According to information generated in the report ‘Economic analysis of the main fisheries in
the NPAB to evaluate the wealth and benefits generated, their distribution amongst benefipg. 37
ciaries and their approach to investments, with the objective of ensuring sustainable fisheries’ the value of investments is presented in Table 14.
Table 14: Value and life-span of fishing vessels and fishing gear in the BANP, Mauritania
Lanche
Courbine net
Tollo net
Value
(euros)
8,300
1,670
1,100
Life-span
(years)
15
5
3
Source: NPA-Sharks Scientific Report
The costs of a motorised fishing vessel in Nouadhibou is around €3,100.
In the BANP area, the distribution of gross revenues (investments minus the fishing trip
costs (fuel+oil) from a fishing trip is typically into two parts; one for the vessel and the nets,
and one for the crew. The latter is shared-out as two parts for the captain and one for each
crew member (OuldYarba, 2011).
Senegal
According to findings reported by Mbaye (2010), the average annual turn-over of a standardised shark-fishing specialist vessel was 19.2million FCF (€29,000) for 10 fishing trips per year.
From information gleaned during the field work for this consultancy, the cost of construction
of a standard vessel of 17m LOA was €6,500. The cost of a new outboard motor of 40hp, the
specification most commonly used, was €3,100. As for gillnets, the cost was estimated at
€7,000 per unit. Thus a standard fishing unit, the total cost would be approximately €17,000 to
purchase.
ITEBE (2007) reported the costs of a cinderblock smoking oven of 3 metres with two hearths
as being 450,000 to 500,000 FCFA (€685 to €760) with a lifespan of 5 years. The time required to recoup the investment would be around 18months. The efficiency of the improved
smoking-oven compared to traditional designs is highlighted by the fact that to smoke100kg of
fish would cost ~€4.6 in fuel in a traditional oven, but just €1.5 in the cinderblock version.
A small production unit for salted/dried fish would cost around 124,500 FCFA (€190), the
annual net profit would be 1,029,500 FCFA (€1,565) (‘Study on the trend of Elasmobranch
fisheries in Senegal (M. Deme, A.Mbaya and M. Barry, no date)).
Cape Verde
In Cape Verde, the value of an artisanal fishing vessel ranges from €4,000 to €7,500, with
the outboard engine costing a further €2,000 to €4,000, depending on its power (typically 15 or
25hp engines are used).
In terms of revenue distribution, in general there are two systems. The three-share system is
where, once the costs of the trip are accounted for, the revenues are divided equally between the vessels, the engine and the cew. In a 5-share system, the total revenues are divided between the vessel, the engine, the costs of the fishing trip, the owner and the crew.
pg. 38
The Gambia
If one considers the very low price of the catch, the costs of the main investments (a fishing
canoe would cost around €3,000, the engine around €2,300 and a net around €900), it is
clear why the majority of fishers have the need for financial assistance from traders and processors of shark products to be able to buy their fishing boats and gears. This situation,
however, prevents fishers from changing their type of fishing in response to fluctuatling resource abundance or market demand because, in order to clear their debts, they are obliged
to sell their catch to those same individuals who provided the initial finance.
Guinea
Despite the constantly falling revenues (falling catches exacerbated by increasing costs of
fishing), and in a similar situation to most other countries in the Sub-Region, the fishers remain obliged to continue fishing in order to pay their debts to dealers and processors.
Table 15 presents a summary of the revenues per fishing trip and by major product type for
Guinea (in euro).
Table 15: Revenues per Trip in Guinea (Euro)
2008
2009
2010
14,615
7,406
9,761
Shark Carcasses
4,385
1,822
2,100
Total Revenues
19,000
9,228
11,861
Shark-fin
Source: Monitoring of Shark Fisheries (NPA-Sharks)
It is noticeable from Table 15 that the sale of shark-fin represents about 80% of the revenues
from a fishing trip.
The average price of a fishing vessel purchased new is around €2,000 while the engine
would cost €1,800 and the fishing net €1,900.
Sierra Leone
A large proportion of the specialist vessels continue to fish for rays and sharks despite the
fall in revenues. This is due to their absolute necessity to repay the individuals who have
covered their investment and operational costs.
The cost of construction of a Ghanian-type vessel of 17m LOA is €5,000, while shorter versions cost €3,500. The costs of an engine of 40hp, the most commonly used, is €3,100.
The motorised vessels of 9-14m LOA have a value of a few thouand euro and are normally
equipped with 25hp outboard engines, costing around €2,100.
The revenues from a fishing trip, once the costs of the trip have been accounted for (fuel, oil,
food etc.) are divided into three shares: the owner, the crew and the vessel itself.
pg. 39
5.4. Legal Framework
A review of the legal framework is an important activity to:
1. evaluate the performance of regulatory measures targeted specifically to the Sharkfishery and then, where necessary, to formulate recommendations for their improvement; and,
2. identify new and relevant regulatory measures for potential adoption in each country
to limit fishing-effort and capacity to ensure sustainable shark fisheries.
It is important, at an early stage, to present the relevent legal situation by which to determine
measures to improve, and to ensure coherence between, national regulations for the conservation and sustainable management of Sharks (SRPA-Sharks).
The analysis focuses on the legal and regulatory instruments of the seven Member States of
the SRFC, particularly:
Cape Verde
-
Decree Law/Executive Order 17/87 of 18th March, 1987.
-
Decree Law 97/87 of 5th September, 1987.
-
Decree Law 65/90 of 18th August, 1990.
-
Law 60/IV/92 of 21st December, 1992.
The Gambia
-
Fisheries Act, 2007 (Act No. 20 of 2007).
-
Fisheries Regulations, 1995 (L. N. No. 18 of 1995).
Wild Animals, Birds and Fish Preservation Act. (1966).
Guinea
-
Law No. L/95/13/CTRN establishing the Maritime Fisheries Code.
-
Law No. L/96/007/AN establishing the Organisation of Inland Fisheries in the Republique of Guinea.
-
Decree D/97/227/PRG/SGG establishing the General Regulations for Implementing
the Maritime Fisheries Code in the Republic of Guinea.
-
Decree No.92-228 on the Creation, Organisation and Function of a National Centre
for Surveillance and Protection of Fisheries.
Decree D/97/017/PRG/SGG establishing fines for infringements of the Maritime
Fisheries Code.
-
Order No. 0602/95/MPA/CAB establishing Regulations for Industrial Fisheries.
Order No. 676/MPA/SGG/2006 establishing Regulations for Artisanal Fisheries in the
Republic of Guinea.
-
Order No. 0600/95/MPA/CAB on the definition of industrial fishing zones in the EEZ
of the Republic of Guinea.
-
Order No. 007/93/MARA/CAB Defining the types of tishing authorised and their
aones of activity.
Order No. 91/2122/MARA/SEP/CAB establishing procedures to measure mesh-size
in fishing nets.
-
pg. 40
Guinea-Bissau
- Decree-Law No. 6-A/2000 establishing fishing resources exploitation and fishing
rights
-
Decree No. 4/96 establishing the general principles of the exploitation policy for national fisheries resources.
Mauritania
-
Order No. 2007-022 amending and supplementing Law No. 2000-025 establishing
the Fisheries Code.
-
Law No. 2000-025 establishing the Fisheries Code.
-
Decree No. 2002-073 establishing General Regulations for the Application of Law
No. 2000-025 of 24th January, 2000 establishing the Fisheries Code.Decree No.
2006-010 creating a special tax refered to as the ‘Fisheries Surveillance Tax’.
Decree No. 81-061 regulating the minimum dimensions of fishing gears and the procedures for the capture of marine fisheries resources.
Order No. 2401 of 10th November 2007 repealing and replacing Decree No. 160 of 11
May 1996 on the terms of revenue sharing from seizures and those involved in preventing violations of the Marine Fisheries Code.
Order No. R-504 establishing the organisational divisions of fisheries surveillance
and lines of command at sea.
-
-
Decree No. 93-024 regarding the marketing and export of marine resources subject
to compulsory landing.
Senegal
-
Law No. 98-32 establishing the Maritime Fisheries Code.
Decree No,98-498 creating the modes of implementation of the Maritime Fisheries
Code.
Sierra Leone
-
Fisheries Regulations (1995) and Draft Fisheries and Aquaculture Bill (2011). Fisheries (Management and Development) Decree, 1994.
pg. 41
5.4.1. Relevant International Legal (Instruments/Standards)
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Article 64 of the 1982 UNCLOS developed the regulatory basis for highly migratory species,
including sharks. According to UNCLOS, coastal States and other States whose fleets target
highly migratory species have a duty to cooperate, directly or through appropriate international organizations, to ensure the conservation of the target species and to promote the
optimum utilization of such species, both within national EEZs and on the high seas. For
regions in which there are no relevant international organisations, the coastal and other (distant-water fishing nation or DWFN) States are required to cooperate to create such an organisation and to contribute to its work.
Seventy-two species of sharks are included on the list of highly migratory species and
should be managed at an international scale.
Convention on the international Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
Entering into force in 1975, CITES was developed to ensure that the international trade in
animals and plants does not threaten the survival of their species. CITES controls are based
on export and import permits and are applied to species whose populations may be threatened by international trade. For sharks, these include the Basking Shark, the Great White
and Whale Shark. Parties to the Convention are encouraged to use, where they exist, their
own coding system for commercial fisheries products in order to be able to differentiate and
monitor imports, exports and re-exports of sharkmeat, oils, skins and cartilage and shark-fins
and the nature of the conservation of these products i.e. fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, processed and non-processed, as well as to be able to track whether the trade is of CITES or
non-CITES species.
The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to
the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks
Adopted on 4th August 1995, the Agreement strengthened the foundamental principle established in UNCLOS that States should cooperate in the conservation and optimum utilization
of fishery resources, both within and beyond areas under national jurisdictions. The Agreement establishes regional organizations and agreements as the primary form of cooperation
between coastal States and States fishing on the high seas for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species.
The Agreement, seen as an innovative approach, created a legal framework for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species that
was modern, comprehensive and detailed. Its main achievements included:
a) Establishing general principles, notably an ecosystem approach, for the conservation and management of target stocks;
b) Demanding that the Precautionary Approach be applied to the conservation and
management of stocks, and recommending that States take even more precautions
when data are uncertain, unreliable or incomplete. Under the Precautionary Approach, the lack of data cannot be used as an excuse to not apply measures to conserve and manage stocks or to defer such decisions;
pg. 42
c) Demanding that the conservation and management measures adopted for zones
under national jurisdiction and those adopted for adjacent, high-seas area are compatible and coherent;
d) Reinforcing the role of regional organisations and agreements for the management
of fisheries;
e) Emphasising the responsibilities of flag states in relation to their fleets operating on
the high seas;
f)
Ensuring that effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that compliance with, and
enforecement of, fisheries conservation and management measures at the international level;
g) Recognising the particular needs of developing countries in the context of fisheries
conservation and management;
h) Providing for procedures for peaceful settlement of disputes between Parties.
Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)
The CMS, which entered into force in 1983, is (like CITES) one of the five global conventions
on biodiversity. The CMS approaches the conservation of migratory species from the perspective of the management of species ranges. And it encourages and supports national
activities, including research, at species as well as ecosystem levels to contribute to the
overall conservation of migratory species.
The CMS is a very comprehensive convention, with operational tools that give it a regional
and global scope. When a species is listed on a CMS Appendix it triggers a number of clearly defined obligations for Parties to the Convention to meet. For example, Parties must adopt
strict protection measures for migratory species threatened with extinction, which are listed
under Appendix I. For Appendix II species, those that would benefit from international conservation cooperation, there are a number of tools including legally-binding Agreements or
less formal Memoranda of Understanding that can be employed by collaborating States.
Recommendation 8.16 of CMS, made in 2005, and known as ‘Migratory Sharks 2005’ invited
States with range waters of migratory sharks species listed under Appendix I or II to develop
wide-ranging agreement for the conservation of these species, in accordance with Articles III
and V of the Convention. The development of such an agreement should:
a) consider whether it would be useful to develop sub-regional plans and/or plans for
particular named species;
b) involve as much as possible a full range of sakeholders including governments, intergovernmental organisations, NGOs and local communities;
c) identify, where necessary, mechanisms to reduce threats, especially by-catch, entanglement of sharks in marine debris, and IUU fishing;
d) identify viable and specific alternatives to the consumption of migratory species of
sharks, while acknowledgeing the cultural and economic importance of these species
to some communities; and,
e) Define mechanisms able to improve the participation of developing countries in the
implementation of future agreements.
Recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT)
pg. 43
Created in 1966 under the auspices of Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is
responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic ocean and
adjacent seas. The Commission is charged with the study, in the zone of the Convention (for
the conservation of Atlantic Tunas), of Scombriformes (with the exception of Trichiuridae and
Gemplidae and the genus Scomber) and other species exploited in tuna fisheries within the
zone of the Convention that are not covered under the mandate of another international
fisheries organisation. This study will include research into the abundance, biometry and
ecology of these species, the oceanography of their environment and the influence of natural
and antropogenic factors on their abundance. A number of resolutions and recommendations relevent to Sharks have been delivered by ICCAT, as follows:
Resolution on Shark Fisheries (19th December, 2003) that requires States to undertaken
stock assessments of sharks, to provide ICCAT with information on their catch of Sharks and
the fishing-effort by gear-type. It also require information provision on the landings and the
trade of Shark products, and for States to put in place national plans of action for Shark
management.
Recommendations concerning the conservation of sharks captured in fisheries managed by
ICCAT (13th June, 2005; 13th June, 2006; 13th June, 2007): These recommendations included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the request that States take the necessary measures to ensure that fishers under
their jurisdiction are requested to fully-use the entirety of their catch of sharks. Full
utilisation is defined as the retention by the fishing vessel of the entire shark, with the
eception of the head, the viscera and the skin, until the first point of landing;
The States must also require of their fleet that the weight of shark-fin retained onboard does not exceed 5% of the total weight of sharks retained, again until the first
point of landing;
In the fisheries that do not target sharks, the States must encourage, where posible,
to return live sharks to the water, especially juveniles, which are accidentally captured and are not used for food and/or for subsistence. The States must, where possible, undertake research programmes in order to identify means to improve the selectivity of fishing gears;
The States must, where possible, undertake research programmes to identify Shark
nursery grounds;
ICCAT shall undertake stock assessments for Short-fin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) and
for Blue Shark (Prionace glauca) and recommend alternatives for the management of
these species, in a timely fashion, for their review by ICCAT; and,
Finally, the States should, each year, produced a report on their implementation of
thse recomendations.
Supplementary Recommendations related to Sharks (4th June, 2008 and 18th December,
2008) required:
•
States to take relevant measures to reduce the fishing mortality in target fisheries for
Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and the Short-fin Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the
North Atlantic; and,
pg. 44
•
That States should, where possible, put in place a research programme on pelagic
shark species captured within the zone of the Convention in order to identify nursery
grounds. On the basis of this research, they should consider spatio-temporal closures of the fishery as well as other measures where applicable.
Recommendation on Bigeye Thresher of the Atlantic captured in association with fisheries
managed by ICCAT (1st June, 2010) prohibits States and Fishing Entities from retaining on
board, trans-shipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass
of Bigeye Thresher (Alopias superciliosus) caught in any fishery, with the exception of the
small-scale coastal fishery of Mexico with a take of less than 110 fish.
Recommendation on Atlantic Short-fin Mako Shark captured in association with fisheries
managed by ICCAT (14th June, 2011). Noting that the stock of Atlantic Shortfin Mako in the
North Atlantic has been reduced to approximately 50% of the biomass estimated to be present in the 1950s, ICCAT prohibits those States who did not report data for this species from
retaining this species in the catch.
Recommendation on Oceanic Whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) captured in association
with fisheries managed by ICCAT (14th June, 2011). The Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities should prohibit the retention on
board, trans-shipping, landing, storing, selling or offering for sale any part or whole carcass
of Oceanic Whitetip sharks across all the fisheries. ICCAT recommends adopting a minimum
size of 200cm (TL) in order to protect juveniles.
Recommendation on Hammerhead Sharks (Family: Sphyrnidae) captured in association with
fisheries managed by ICCAT (14th June, 2011) prohibits the Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, storing, selling or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of Hammerhead Sharks (Family: Sphyrnidae), with the exception of Sphyrna tiburo, captured in the
zone of the Convention in associated with ICCAT fisheries. The States should insist that
their flag vessels immediately return unharmed sharks to the wáter.
Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
Adopted on November 22nd, 2009, the objective of this Agreement is ‘to prevent, deter and
eliminate IUU fishing through the implementation of effective port State measures, and
thereby to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources and marine ecosystems’ (FAO, 2009).
With the exception of Sierra Leone, there are no signatories to this Agreement amongst
the Member States of the SRFC.
FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks
(IPoA-Sharks)
Objectives: The IPoA-Sharks was developed in 1999 and comprised 31 paragraphs and 2
annexes that were adopted by members of the Committee on Fisheries of the FAO (COFI).
The objective of IPOA-Sharks is the conservation and management of Sharks and the longterm sustainable utilisation of the stocks. The IPOA-Sharks includes the requirement to:
pg. 45
Ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable;
Assess the threats to shark populations, identify and protect critical habitats and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability
and rationale long-term economic use;
Identify and provide special attention, in particular to vulnerable or threatened shark
stocks;
Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives
within and between States;
Minimize unutilized incidental catches of sharks;
Contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function;
Minimize waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with article 7.2.2.(g)
of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (for example, requiring the retention of sharks from which fins are removed);
Encourage full use of dead sharks;
Facilitate improved species-specific catch and landings data and monitoring of shark
catches; and,
Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data.
Contents: Regulations focus on catch or fishing effort, particularly:
-
Prohibiting vessels from capturing sharks or taking them accidentally in conditions
that violate international law on the high seas, or national laws in the waters under
the jurisdiction of the relevant country;
-
The adoption of mechanisms to bring fishing activity down to levels compatible with
the sustainable use of shark fishery resources in situations where there is current capacity to capture sharks beyond sustainable limits; and,
-
The protection of critical habitats and the restoration of those which have been damaged by fishing and other human activities; the adoption of appropriate measures for
the protection of newly-hatched/born, juvenile and adult Sharks during periods of reproduction, particularly for species that have well-defined nursery and/or breeding
grounds.
There are also regulations that apply to fishing gears in order to lead to the progressive elimination of fishing techniques that are not compatible with responsible shark fisheries. And
ultimately, to the replacement of these techniques with something more sustainable.
The regulations also seek to achieve a reduction in by-catch through adjustments to meshsizes, to the possible breaking strains of net filaments, by prohibiting the use of wire traces
to attach fishing hooks to longline snoods and also to reduce the breaking straining of these
snoods.
Other key aspects of the international regulations include:
-
Promoting the full use of shark catch: e.g. technical provisions on the size of sharks
to be caught, the amount of fishing gear to be used, the meshsize of shark-nets,
shark discards and spatial and temporal fishing closures;
-
Conservation of species naturally in low abundance and species in danger of extinction: measures may include the prohibition of capture or injury to these species and
creation of refugia where fishing is banned; and,
pg. 46
-
The sustaining of the diversity and availability of shark resources in sufficient quantity
for present and future generations, in the context of food security, the fight against
poverty and of sustainable development.
Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable management of
shark populations (SRPA-Sharks)
In order to harmonise the Shark-fishery legislation across the countries of the SRFC, the
SRPA-Sharks seeks to support the adoption of common fiscal and technical measures in all
seven member countries. As such, a tax on the export of Shark products might be considered. Such a tax can affect the entire Shark-fishery despite its many component elements
(fishers, traders, processors, exporters etc.). SRFC will support an evaluation on how this
tax should be formulated and structured, based on the market value of products (e.g. sharkfins) and the vulnerability of the resource.
One proposal of the SRPA-Sharks is to introduce a shark fishing licence that is significantly
more expensive that other fisheries licences; this will increase the capture of resource rent
as well as discourage entry into the fishery. A landing tax is an obvious complementary action to a fishery-specific licence, reducing the risk that Shark fishers will conceal their activities while fishing under another (cheaper) licence.
In terms of technical measures, the following introductions are anticipated: i) prohibition of
finning (removing the fins and returning the carcasses to the sea); ii) prohibition from exploiting shark resources in MPAs, in order that the MPA network in West Africa will be able to
contribute to building resiiance within the stocks; iii) the creation of spatio-temporal management zones informed by outputs from monitoring and research programmes; iv) SubRegional harmonisation of the minimum allowable size at first capture, even if the specifics
of the measure will have to be adapted within each country; v) taking into account the status
of measures to protect endangered species of sharks, and vi) improving the selectivity of
fishing gears (using catch-separation devices and exclusion panels and grids to reduce the
capture of large marine species in trawl nets, for example).
pg. 47
5.4.2. The Extent of Conformity between National Regulations.
Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to
a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act (http://treaties.un.org).
All the Member States of the SRFC have signed, acceded to or ratified the principal international conventions on sharks. This fact results in the primacy of these conventions over domestic law. This primacy derives from the obligation of pacta sunt servanda (lit. agreements
must be kept), which was written into the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the Law of Treaties,
Articles 26 and 27. But it is also true that not all provisions of international law lead to the
direct establishment of rights and duties. It is necessary in such situation to develop and
define them on a case-by-case basis. International law that is not directly applicable or has
no ‘self-executing’ character is usually programmatic in nature and is left to the relevant legislators to implement (http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/intla/cintla/natint.html).
Table 16 presents a summary of ratification amongst Member States of the SRFC.
Table 16: Dates of ratification (or accession) of Member States of the SRFC to the main international conventions
United Nations
Convention on
the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS)
Convention on
the international
Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES)
The
Gambia
Sierra Leone
Cape
Verde
Senegal
Guinea
GuineaBissau
Mauritania
22/5/84
12/12/94
10/8/87
25/10/84
6/9/85
25/8/86
17/7/96
26/8/77
28/10/94
10/8/05
5/8/77
21/9/81
16/5/90
13/3/98
1/6/88
1/8/93
1/8/01
MoU concerning
Conservation
Measures for
Marine Turtles
of the Atlantic
Coast of Africa
Signatory of the
MoU on the
conservation of
migrations
sharks
(1/3/2010)
Signatory of the
MoU on the
conservation of
migrations
sharks
(1/3/2010)
1/9/95
1/7/98
Convention on
Migratory Species (CMS)
1/5/06
In 2009, the SRPA-Sharks was included as a Shark protection measure in the legislation of
the Member States of the SRFC.
pg. 48
Table 17: Legislation relating to the Management of Sharks in the zone of SRFC
Country
Mauritania
Cape Verde
Guinea
The Gambia
GuineaBissau
Sierra Leone
Senegal
Measures
Minimum size at first capture of 60 cms for Houndsharks Tollos (Mustelus mustelus and Leptocharias smithi);
Banning of Shark fishing in 2003 (except for Houndsharks: M. mustelus and L. smithi) in the Banc
d’Arguin National Park;
Within the framework of the IRM-EU fisheries partnership agreement, tuna purse-seiners and
longliners are prohibited from taking the following species: Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus),
Great White shark (Carcharodon carcharias), Sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) and Tope
shark (Galeorhinus galeus);
Formal adoption of a NPA-Sharks on Novermber 30th, 2007.
Prohibition of finning (defined as taking of fins and discarding the carcass in the sea) in all the territorial waters of Cape Verde since 2005;
Communication of management measures in official bulletins;
Integration of the objectives of the NPA-Sharks in fisheries management plans since 2006;
Adoption of Shark management plans under a series of resolutions (Resolution 11/2007 for 20072008 and Resolution 10/2009 for 2009-2010).
Introduction of a Shark fishing licence (costing 5million NFG (~€1,000) in 2005, rising to
USD7,500 in 2009);
Prohibition of finning in all the territorial waters of Guinea since 2009;
Prohibition of fishing for seven species of ray and shark in critical danger of extinction;
Formal adoption of a NPA-Sharks in 2006..
Prohibition of finning in all the territorial waters of The Gambia since 2004;
Implementation of measure obliging the landing in The Gambia of all Sharks caught in Gambian
waters;
Development of management measures in the Act that regulates fisheries in 2008 and its implementing decree;
The formal adoption of a NPA-Sharks is not yet completed.
Prohibition of Shark-fishing in MPAs;
General Fisheries Act protecting Sharks;
Formal adoption of a NPA-Sharks in 2008.
Introduction of licences specific to Shark-fisheries;
Introduction of a Shark fishing licence;
Probihition of finning;
Prohibition of the landing of juvenile sharks;
Implmentation of a tax on the export of Shark-derived products;
Increase in the mesh-size of Shark fishing nets (300mm stretched mesh);
Formal adoption of a NPA-Sharks on March 31st, 2008.
Inclusion on the list of protected species of three species of Sawfish;.
Proposal on defining a minimum size at first capture of certains species (Scalloped Hammerhead
Shark (Sphyrna lewini): male 140 cms, female 165 cms; Blackchin guitarfish (Rhinobatos cemiculus): male 106 cms, female 100 cms);.
Formal adoption of a NPA-Sharks in 2006.
Source: Mika Diop and Justine Dossa, Thirty years of exploitation of sharks in West Africa.
The measures presented in Table 17 need to be updated to reflect the legislative and regulatory changes adopted by various countries since 2009. The following section presents a description of the measures taken by country:
pg. 49
The Gambia
Part IV, Articles 14 and 15 of the Fisheries Regulations of 1995 describes the conservation
measures that impose restrictions on the fishing grounds and the type of fishing gears that
are able to be used by fishing vessels from the industrial fleet. However, access to marine
resources in The Gambia is open-access for artisanal fishers and so, because Shark-fishing
is mainly an activity of the artisanal fleet, the Shark-fishery is by definition also open-access.
There are, therefore, no specific regulations designed for the Shark-fishery in the 2007 Fisheries Act (Act No. 20 of 2007).
Guinea
The National Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable management of Rays and
Sharks was formally adopted by the Order No. 5316 of October 26th, 2006. Guinea has also
adopted a ‘Management Plan for Fisheries 2012’. In this latter plan, no specific measures
have been taken for the conservation and sustainable management of Sharks. In a series of
workshops held in 2006 however, some consideration was given to piloting the conversion of
Shark specialists. The main recommendations that arose from the 2006 consultations included:
-
Introduction of an annual closure of three-months, from May to July;
-
Increase in the mesh-size of fishing nets to allow the escapement of juveniles;
-
Implementation of a charter of commitments by stakeholders (Government of Guinea
and the fisher community);
-
Prohibiting the fishing and retaining on board of certain protected species: Sawback
angelshark, Occelated angelshark, Common angelshark, Guitarfish, Great Hammerhead shark, Sawfish and the Tiger shark;
-
Prohibition of finning.
Further consultations led to the 2010 Shark management plan; this envisaged the following
concrete measures:
-
Licences for the Shark fishery (a 12-month licence costs 4,000,000 GNF (~€450) for
domestic fishers and USD1,500 (~€1,172) for foreign fishers);
-
Special management measures for all Elasmobranch fisheries;
-
Prohibition of fishing and conservation measures for the following species:
1. Angel sharks (Squatina acuiléata, Squatina oculata, Squatina squation);
o Guitarfish (Rhynchobatus luebberti);
o Great Hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokaran);
2. Common Sawfish (Pristis pristis);
3. Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier).
-
Prohibition of finning.
Guinea-Bissau
The key measures adopted in 2008 under the NPA-Sharks were:
-
Proposal for a five-month closure of the shark-fishery each year;
-
Introduction of a licence for the shark-fishery, by way of deterring participation in the
fishery;
pg. 50
-
Protection of threatened species, including: Pristis microdon, Pristis pectinata, Rhynchobatus luebberti, Sphyrna mokarran, Squatina aculeata, Squatina oculata,
Squatina squatina, Rhinobatos cemiculus, Rhinobatos rhinobatos, Gymnura altavela,
Leptocharias smithii, Rhinobatos irvinei, Sphyrna lewini and, Sphyrna zygaena.
Cape Verde
-
Development of management interventions in order to pre-empt over-exploitation:
The Resolution 3/2005 prohibits fishing specifically for the off-take of shark-fins within
Cape Verde’s EEZ;
-
Prohibition from retaining onboard a weight of shark-fin that exceeds 5% of the total
weight of sharks retained;
-
Limits on the number of fishing licences issued each year;
-
Implementation of a programme of MCS in the shark fisheries.
Sierra Leone
The Fisheries Management and Development Act of 1994 is the legal instrument that defines the parameters of the management and development of fisheries in Sierra Leone. Other instruments, including the Fisheries Regulations (1995) and the Fisheries Policy (2003)
complete the fisheries legal framework. These various instruments are sufficiently encompassing for the sustainable development of fisheries in general, but do not specifically address shark fisheries; they are but broadbrush controls for all Sierra Leone’s of fisheries
stocks.
Since 2011, Sierra Leone has been in the process of updating its fisheries laws in line with
its international commitments. The new Fisheries and Aquaculture Bill contains specific provisions for sharks, ray and marine turtles, including:
-
Prohibition of targeted fisheries on juvenile sharks. It is possible to obtain a waiver
from the Director of Fisheries in order to address research needs, but only with the
advice and recommendation of a recognised scientific institution or from a scientific
committee;
-
All juvenile sharks, whether captured intentionally or not, must be released immediately and returned to the water with as little injury as possible;
-
Finning is strictly prohibited. Sharks may be processed at sea (e.g. removal of the
head and viscera), but no person may remove the fins;
-
No person may buy, sell or otherwise fraudulently deal in the fins of sharks. The sale
or trade of shark-fins must be conducted according to the directives of the Director of
Fisheries, with approval from the Minister;
-
The Director of Fisheries may require the use of selective fishing-gear as a condition
for the issuance of a licence;
-
Any offence is punishable by a fine and/or a prison term not exceeding three-years
and the confiscation of any fish found onboard the offending vessel; and,
-
Introduction of a specific licence for Shark-fishing.
Senegal
At present, shark-fisheries are not subject to any specific management and access to resources and by-catch is not regulated. Rays and sharks are not subject to any conditions of
capture, landing or sale. One important reason for this is that shark catches are very limited
pg. 51
compared to the industrial fisheries and are therefore not the subject of any specific attention
by the Ministry. The concept of closed areas under the Fisheries Code has not yet been applied to sharks and rays
For artisanal fisheries mainly targeting sharks, or taking them as a by-catch, the regulations
set a minimum mesh size. This meshsize is determined as the size of the opening of a
stretched mesh.
Table 18: Minimum meshsize authorised for artisanal fishing gears in Senegal
Fishing-Gear
Deep-set gillnet
Surface-set gillnet
Beach seine
Encircling gillnet
Purse seine
Minimum authorised
meshsize
100 mm
50 mm
50 mm
60 mm
28m
The only attempts to protect sharks are contained within the NPA-Sharks of 2006, but this is
a document that remains very general with few details or practicability. The NPA-Sharks
seeks to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use by strengthening existing measures and calling for the development of new
measures (to protect species, measures concerning fishing-gear and fishing grounds, the
minimum sizes and weights of sharks, fishing practices, quotas on fishing effort, catch quotas, rights of access to fishing areas, etc.)..
The National Plan of Action-Sharks, known as ‘NPA-Sharks’ was approved by Decree No.
6477 of the Minister, dated 25th September, 2006. It was developed, and approved, by all
stakeholders in the fisheries, in accordance with the Maritime Fisheries Code (Article 10 of
Law No. 98-32 of 14th April, 1998).
The NPA-Sharks is a management tool that seeks to help the sustainable managementand
conservation of shark and ray populations in the waters under the jurisdiction of Senegal.
In the context of a wider revision of the Maritime Fisheries Code, a number of measures for
the management of Sharks have been proposed, including:
-
the inclusion of three species of Sawfish on the list of protected species, following the
lead of CITES; and,
-
to declare a minimum size at first capture for two species: Blackchin guitarfish (Rhinobatos cemiculus) and Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini).
However, the draft decree only addresses fishing-gears and minimum meshsize for catching
sharks, with latter set at 280mm. The draft has not yet been adopted by the Government of
Senegal.
Mauritania
The legal and institutional frameworks for the development and management of fisheries
resources provide for management plans that are flexible and able to be revised on the basis
of new data (e.g. biological, scientific, technical, sociological or economic). These data are,
however, very scarce for Sharks, which is why the laws in Mauritania relevant to Shark management do not reflect the urgency of the current situation. The paucity of available data
pg. 52
results in only very occasional reviews of management meansures, an example being the
introduction of a minimum size at first capture for the Common smooth-hound (M. mustelus
or Tollo) 60 cm.
Within the framework of the IRM-EU fisheries partnership agreement, tuna purse-seiners
and surface longliners are prohibited from taking the following species:
Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus);
Great White shark (Carcharodon carcharias);
Sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus); and,
Tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus).
The Banc d’Arguin National Park (BANP) is the main MPA where proactive management
actions are in place to protect sharks. These are presented as follows:
The total annual by-catch of Elasmobranchs (rays and sharks) for NPAB must not
exceeed 74mt;
No targeting of Sharks in the Park since 2003;
The number of sail-powered vessels permitted to fish in the BANP is limited to 114;
Adoption of technical management measures such as a temporal schedule of fishing
for each authorised fishing gear ;
-
Identifying closure periods or Itanes;
Prohibition throughout the BANP of the use of, or possession on-board a fishing boat,
of the following fishing gears:
- all types of trawl;
- all types of drag-fishing gear;
- purse seines;
- driftnets; and,
- mono-filament fishing nets.
Regulation of the number of processing facilities for rays and sharks, which are generally taken as by-catch by Imraguen fishers in BANP;
Prohibition of fishing on Lemon shark, Sawfish and certain Guitarfish species;
Fishing for Guitarfish authorised from February 1st to April 15th, with a maximum of
600m of ray-net per vessel;
Fishing for small sharks authorised from February 1st to April 15th, with a maximum of
400m of Houndshark (Tollo) net per vessel;
Prohibition to target small sharks with any fishing gears outside the authorised fishing
period;
Requirement to release, if still alive in the net, individuals of all other species, including Guitarfish, rays, Nurse sharks and Hammerhead sharks;
Prohibition to fish for large sharks and absolute prohibition on the use of shark nets;
Cessation of all targeted fishing towards Elasmobranchs (rays, Guitarfish and
sharks), agreed during the 16th consultation workshop on artisanal fisheries in the
NPAB, held on the 19th/20th December, 2003 in TenAlloul.
pg. 53
5.4.3. The Minimum Set of Harmonised Regulations
As the previous chapter has shown, despite the many efforts observed in the Member States
of the SRFC, the national regulations remain rather unsuited to provide a minimum of protection to Elasmobranchs.
But the harmonisation of national regulations should deliver the minimum necessary protection. The following measures are deemed the most crucial:
The Prohibition of Fishing: In order to conform with international regulations, the Member
States of the SRFC must prohibit at all times, and in all fishing-grounds, the capture and
retention of species of Sharks that are naturally low in abundance and species that are
threatened with extinction (as well as the capture/retention of marine mammals, marine turtles and seabirds). The only exception to this prohibition would be in situations where special
authorisation has been granted by the fisheries authorities and only with the aim of scientific
research or research into fishing gears.This will require modest changes to the texts of the
following legal instruments:
Mauritania
Article 32 Ordinance No. 2007-022 amending and supplementing
certain provisions of Act No. 2000-025 concerning the Fisheries Code
Senegal
Article 35 Law nº 98-32 concerning the Maritime Fisheries Code
The Gambia
Article 106 of The Fisheries Act, 2007
Guinea
Article 34 Law nº L/95/13/CTRN concerning the Maritime Fisheries
Code
Guinea-Bissau
Article 27 Decree-law n°6-A/2000
Sierra Leone
Changes taken into account by Article 33 of the new Fisheries Code
Cape Verde
Article 41 of Decree-law n° 53/2005
• Reduction in By-Catch
By-catch will be reduced by: implementing a minimum size at first capture, modifying
mesh-sizes and the breaking strain of nets, banning the use of wire traces to attach
hooks to longline snoods, and by regulating the breaking strain of the snoods,
By-catch limits (as a percentage) could also be defined for specific types of fishing and
could take the form of operating conditions for particular licences. Detailed studies
have already been undertaken by SRPA-Sharks and recommendations for harmonised
sizes at first capture and mesh-size of shark and ray gillnets (in the range 200mm to
280mm, as per the new fisheries code in Senegal) will be proposed to the Member
States of the SRFC.
• Conservation of species naturally in low abundance and species in danger of extinction
Including the Porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus), Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus),
Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus), Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus
longimanus) and the Hammerhead shark (Family: Sphyrnidae).
These species, as a result of their vulnerability, are subject to the following international
regulations:
pg. 54
-
ICCAT Recommendation (June 4th, 2008 and December 18th, 2008) : Porbeagle
shark (Lamna nasus), Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus);
ICCAT Recommendation of June 1st, 2010 for Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias
superciliosus);
ICCAT Recommendation (June 14th, 2011) for the Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) and the Hammerhead shark (Family: Sphyrnidae).
The scope of the content of these ICCAT regulation (p.45ff) are: the prohibition of retaining on board, trans-shipping, landing, storing, selling, sale or offering for sale part or
whole carcasses of these species in any fishery. And Member States of the SRFC are
bound by these measures.
• Adaptation of Tax and Customs Regulations
CITES encourages Parties to the Convention to use, where they exist, their own coding
system for commercial fisheries products in order to be able to differentiate and monitor
imports, exports and re-exports of sharkmeat, oils, skins and cartilage and shark-fins
and the nature of the conservation of these products i.e. fresh, chilled, frozen, dried,
processed and non-processed, as well as to be able to track whether the trade is of
CITES or non-CITES species.
An export tax for Shark products could also be evisaged, adapted for each country. The
tax would be weighted according to the commercial value of the products (e.g. sharkfin) and the vulnerability of the resource.
● Protection of Juveniles
Three ICCAT recommendations are relevant for the Member States of the SRFC; those
of June 13th, 2005, June 13th, 2006 and June 13th, 2007. It is also specifically stated that
‘In the fisheries that do not target sharks, the States must encourage, where posible, to
return live sharks to the water, especially juveniles, which are accidentally captured and
are not used for food and/or subsistence’
● Prohibition of Finning (defined as the removal of fins and the discarding of carcasses at sea)
The weight of shark-fin that vessels have retained on-board must not exceed 5% of the
total weight of sharks retained, until the first point of landing. This measure is already
inserted in the fisheries codes of Sierra Leone and Cape Verde. Furthermore, the fishing fleet has no right to retain on-board, trans-ship or off-load illegally-caught shark-fins.
● Establising a Shark-fishery Licence
A Shark-fishery licence should be issued for fishing vessels specifically engaged in
Shark fishing, indicating the type of fishing-gear, for a specific fishing ground and for a
maximum duration of one year.
The licence fees should be harmonized across the member countries of the SRFC. The
licence for Sharks should also be more expensive than other licences in order to capture a share of the resource rent and to discourage entry into the fishery of new players.
A landing tax is an obvious complementary action to a fishery-specific licence, reducing
pg. 55
the risk that Shark fishers will conceal their activities while fishing under another
(cheaper) licence.
● Zoning of MPAs
Member States of the SRFC should introduce into their respective legislations the
means for the banning of shark-fishing in MPAs. And, as one of their management
tools. create spatio-temporal management zones based on information arising from
their programmes of monitoring and evaluation.
pg. 56
6. Logical Framework of the Conversion Plan
The overall success of the Conversion Plan rests largely on the introduction of a suite of
regulations designed to limit access to the shark fishery resources, because in the absence
of such measures i) the fishers, the primary beneficiaries of the Plan, may simply modify
their fishing strategies to continue catching sharks, albeit as a nominal by-catch; and, albeit
subject to market trends, ii) there will always be the possibility of new entrants to the fishery,
or for those fishers who have refused to participate in the Conversion Plan to actually increase their fishing effort to the extent that the expected overall impact of the measures may
be significantly dissipated.
Even if the necessary management measures are adopted and the effective conversion of
fishers is then achieved, assuring the longer-term sustainability of these immediate
achievements will demand the implementation of a programme of continuous monitoring and
evaluation of the shark populations, as well as of the livelihoods of the participating fishers.
Therefore, the general objective of the Socio-economic Conversion Plan can be stated as
follows:
To contribute to the socio-economic well-being of actors in the shark-fishery sec“ tor who have been affected by restrictions of access to the resource, through the
diversification of livelihood opportunities
”
In order to reach this objective, an innovative approach is envisaged that identifies three
levels of intervention:
1. Management
The first strategic axis of intervention is the adoption of measures designed to stop the targeted fishing of Sharks and the reduction of the trade in shark-fins.
As explained in previous paragraphs, socio-economic interventions alone will not be sufficient to achieve a sustainable reduction in fishing effort. It is also necessary to introduce
measures that can directly affect fishing-effort itself, as well as the trade component. The
efficacy of such measures will be strongly dependent on the relative institutional capacities
for MCS.
The proposed measures to reduce fishing will be tailored to each country’s situation and
context but could include the prohibition of targeted Shark-fishing, the delimitation of fishing
zones or limits on the level of by-catch.
As far as trade is concerned, the measures are expected to improve the system of monitoring landings and trade of Sharks and the introduction of a punitive export tax on Shark products.
Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde are countries in which there is no domestic targeted Sharkfishery. It is proposed, therefore, that a suite of measures, primarily the identification, establishment and monitoring of special protection zones, would be designed to improve the sustainability of the full range of fishery resources.
2. Livelihood Diversification
pg. 57
Livelihood diversification (the second axis) will be addressed in two ways: diversification
within the fishery sector or diversification outside it. For the former, compensation for fishers
who surrender fishing-gears that target sharks would come in the form of replacement gear
for other types of fishery. It is the responsibility of each country’s fishery reseach centres to
identify which fisheries should be futher expanded as replacement, while always bearing in
mind the issue of sustainability.
For those who have decided to abandon fishing altogether (the third axis), compensation
would be in the form of the provision of equipment and materials necessary to start a new
economic activity.
3. Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
The fourth strategic axis is termed ‘Implementation of the Conversion Plan and scientific
monitoring to evaluate its success’ and is justified by the necessity of introducing the following accompanying measures:
a) Sensitisation and outreach in the areas targeted by the conversion programme;
b) The provision of technical assisstance to the beneificaries to support the identificaton of potential alternative economic opportunities as well as to support the development of knowledge and skills required to participate in the new economy;
c) Development of a micro-credit scheme;
d) Professional support to local associations and collaborative activities;
e) monitoring and scientific assessment in relation to both the resource and the socio-economic conditions of the beneficiaries. This measure will be coordinated by
the national centres for research.
In the following sections, the expected results of each of these strategic axes, as well as the
measures envisaged to achieve them, are described.
Strategic Axis 1
Adoption of measures designed to halt the targeted fishing of Sharks and the reduction in the trade in shark-fins
R1.1. Elimination of the targeted Shark-fishery and reduced by-catch.
1.1.1. Prohibition of targeted Shark-fishing
In the countries where there exists a significant targeted fishery (in all the countries except
for Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau), this must be prohibited either temporarily or for the
long-term. A Decree of this kind is an approach that requires less in terms of insitutional
capacity for MCS within the country.
In Mauritania, taking into account the low importance of the catch landed with Tollo
(Houndsharks) nets, which ccount for less that 20%, as well as the possibility of controlling
landings and trade, a total ban, for the moment, is not considered as a priority measure
even though the idea needs to be discussed at the national level;
1.1.2. Defining fisheries zones and fishing reserves
pg. 58
In Cape Verde it is proposed that special protection zones are designed, established and
monitored. In Guinea-Bissau, such zones already exist, but it is necessary to support their
monitoring.
In Mauritania, it is proposed to limit to the use of Courbine nets in areas with a higher
abundance of Sharks.
1.1.3. Application of fishing quotas
For the moment, considering the difficulties of its practical application, such a measure is
not proposed other than for the BANP (Mauritania). The level of total catch that will be authorised will have to be established based on available scientific data and must take into
account the strategies and needs of fishers.
In the waters of other country, the targeted Shark-fishery is of little importance or it is
prosecuted by vessels coming from other countries.
1.1.4. Limits on By-catch
This measure is very important for reducing the threat to Shark populations given that in
many fishing-grounds, the by-catch exceeds the catch landed by specialist vessels.
This importance of considering by-catch as a major issue is a result of the increase in
general fishing-effort across all the fishing-grounds of West Africa, using fishing-gearswith
little selectivity. The hope is that, after the withdrawl of specialised fishing gears, at least
some fishers will adapt their fishing techniques to new gears in such a way that they will
be able to continue fishing, albeit not for Sharks.
R1.2. Reduction in the trade of Shark-fins
1.2.1. Put in place a punitive export tax
It seems that this measure, at least in theory, has the best cost/benefit return given that all
shark-fin and the majority of the salted sharkmeat is exported.
However, the likely impact of this tax is likely to be somewhat less in practice due to informal trade outside of the tax system and (in the future) by increased trans-shipments at
sea. The dynamic nature of the trade iin Shark products is well exemplified by the observation that in recent years Guinea has superceded The Gambia as the node for export of
shark products to SE Asia.
It will also be necessary for shark-fins to be identified by a specific customs code, whereas
they are currently exported as ‘dried fish’ or ‘miscellaneous fish’.
1.2.2. Implementation of a system of control for landings and trade
The effective monitoring of all landings will be difficult due to lack of technical and human
capacity, particularly when the landings are made in areas outside the sphere of any current fisheries control or even in adjacent countries. In this way, the extension of management measures to the countries outside of the SRFC zone is highly recommended to improve the impact of these particular management initiatives. In any case, the ability to
pg. 59
control and monitor domestic movements of shark products differs between countries but
is generally weaker in countries to the south.
The prohibition of trade in shark-fins is even more difficult to apply because of the scale of
the by-catch. And again, respect for this prohibition can not be guaranteed given the limited national systems for control (MCS). While the possibility of control at the product’s
origin is even less evident due to the limited institutional capacity, but nevertheless, this
approach should still be considered.
In principle, the situation in Mauritania and Senegal is more conducive because of the issuance of clearances (or ‘passavant’) that are essential for individuals trading in shark and
shark products. This particular documentation will help in monitoring the effectiveness of
the proposed increase in export tax in these two countries.
Management measures for control of by-catch and the international trade of shark-fins must
be applied across all the countries of the Sub-Region and the countries must commit to use
all means by which to ensure compliance with these measures. Obviously this is an ideal
situation and there remains the risk that responsibilities will be disregarded given that (particularly) the countries further south have very limited resources for monitoring and control.
Strategic Axis 2
Diversification of economic activities within the Fisheries Sector
R2.1. Conversion of specialist fishers
2.1.1. Replacement of fishing gears that target Sharks
The participation of fishers in the Conversion Plan requires them to provide an explicit
committment to abandon targeted Shark-fishing. Those fishers who decide nevertheless
to continue working in the sector will have to use fishing gears and techniques that do not
yield any sort of significant Shark by-catch.
However, compensation in cash is not recommended. Rather, compensation should be in
the form of fishing equipment and material allowing them to operate in another fishery.
.
R2.2. Diversification of processing techniques and marketable species
2.2.1. Improved processing sites
In the vast majority of sites, the sharkmeat that is processed represents only a small proportion of the available raw material. In recent years therefore, the professional processors have found it necessary to adopt their strategy by including additional species and
new processing techniques,
In many cases, the hygiene and sanitary conditions have worsened and this limits the options to increase the value-added because the quality is not of a sufficiently high standard.
Furthermore, the working conditions for processors are usually very difficult.
Strategic Axis 3
pg. 60
Diversification of socio-economic opportunities outside the fisheries sector
R3.1. Scrapping the specialised shark vessels
3.1.1. Compensation for fishers choosing redundancy (investment support)
Information obtained from reports prepared under the auspices of SRPA-Sharks, and from
fieldwork during this mission, suggests that very few fishers anticipate abandoning fishing
altogether, However, and notwithstanding this observation, compensation for them must
be factored into the Plan.
R3.2. Closing down the specialist processors
3.2.1. Compensation for processors choosing redundancy (investment support)
The vast majority of specialist processors of sharks are already used to scarcity of raw
materials, so it is hoped that the closure of the targeted shark and ray fisheries will only
have a limited impact on them as a group overall.
On the other hand, at many of the processing sites, the professionals hope that the conversion of fishers away from fishing for sharks will results in an increase in the availability
of small-pelagics.
Strategic Axis 4
Implementation of the Conversion Plan and scientific monitoring
to evaluate its success
R4.1. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation
4.1.1. Regional coordination by SRFC and recruitment of national coordinators.
For the execution of the conversion plans it is envisaged that National Conversion Committees (NCC) will be established and be coordinated by a officer of the SRFC programme. The
NCC will be composed of representatives of :
- National and local fisheries administrations;
- Professional associations; and,
- SRFC.
Each National Committee will be coordination by a national officer recruited by the Project
who should have professional experience in the artisanal fisheries sector, especially in
aspects linked to fisheries extension and outreach. Amongst the duties allocated to the officer, the following are particularly important:
- Census of vessels, processors and traders participating in the National Conversion
Programme (NCP);
- Organisation of information campaigns and sensitisation of stakeholders;
- Technical support to the beneficiaries for the analysis and exploration of different
possibilities for conversion (changing fishery, start-ups outside the fisheries sector
etc.);
pg. 61
- Preparation of a list of proposed conversion activities;
- Monitoring of training and obtaining the commitment, where relevant, of a microfinance institution;
- Payment of invoices for equipment and materials; and,
- Monitoring of beneficiaries of the NCP, especially focusing on the honouring of any
committments to abandon shark-fishing.
4.1.2. Information Campaign and Sensitisation of Stakeholders
Once the stakeholders in the NCP have been identified, a campaign of sensitisation and
information dissemination will be designed and implemented communicating the implications of their participation.
4.1.3. Technical assistance, training and participant support
The coordinator will provide technical assistance to the participants to identify alternative activities. He/she will also be responsible for organising training activities linked to the new activities and, eventually, to monitor the activities of micro-credit institutions.
4.1.4. Scientific Monitoring
The SRFC will develop, in agreement with each national scientific insitution, a countryspecific scientific monitoring plan.
4.1.5. Socio-economic monitoring
A similar procedure to the scientific monitoring will also be completed for socio-economic
monitoring.
4.1.6. Evaluation Workshop
During this workshop each country will describe its own results and experience, in order
that lessons learned can be disseminated.
pg. 62
Logical Framework for the Fisher Conversion Plan
Overall Objective: ’To contribute to socio-economic well-being of actors in the shark-fishery sector
who have been affected by restrictions of access to the resources, through the diversification of livelihood opportunities’
Strategic Axes and Results
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Means of Verification
A1. Adoption of measures designed to halt the targeted fishing of Sharks and the reduction in the trade in shark-fins
1.1.1. Prohibition of targeted shark fishing;
- % specialist shark-fishers still opera1.1.2. Defining fisheries zones and fishing reserves;
R1.1. Elimination of the targeted Shark fishery and retional;
;;1.1.3. Application of fishing quotas;
duced by-catch
- Total catch of Sharks;
- % by-catch.
1.1.4. Limits on By-catch;
1.2.1. Put in place a punitive export tax;
- % reduction in export trade;
R1.2. Reduction in the trade of Shark-fins
1.2.2. Implementation of a system of control for landings and marketing
- % domestic trade controlled.
A2. Diversification of socio-economic opportunities within the Fisheries Sector
R2.1. Conversion of specialist fishers
- % fishers converted;
R2.2. Diversification of processing techniques and mar- Number of beneficary processors.
ketable species
A3. Diversification of socio-economic opportunities outside the fisheries sector
R3.1. Scrapping of specialised shark vessels
- No. of fishers removed from fishery
R3.2. Closing down the specialist processors
- Number of beneficary processors;
A4. Implementation of the Conversion Plan and scientific monitoring to evaluate its success
2.1.1. Replacement of fishing gears that target Sharks;
2.2.1. Improved processing sites.
3.1.1. Compensation for fishers choosing redundancy (investment support)
3.2.1. Compensation for processors choosing redundancy ( “ )
4.1.1. Regional coordination by SRFC / recruitment of national coordinators;
4.1.2. Information Campaign and Sensitisation of Stakeholders;
4.1.3. Technical assistance, training and participant support;
R4.1. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation
4.1.4. Scientific monitoring;
4.1.5. Socio-economic monitoring;
4.1.6. Evaluation Workshop.
Compensation, Income-Generating Activities, Supporting Measures and Methods to Discourage Re-entry to the Fishery
- Recruitment of national coordinators;
- Signature of Protocols;
- Number of sensitisation activities;
- Validation Workshop;
- Scientific monitoring reports;
- Socio-economic monitoring reports.
pg. 63
Country
Mauritania
Senegal
Cape Verde
Country
Compensation to
Specialist Stakeholders
Income-Generating Activities
Fishery
Non-Fishery
Supporting Measures
Methods to Discourage Re-entry to the
Fishery
a) Replacement of Tollo gillnets with fishing gears designed for other species, and in
particular, the use of line
fishing-gear;
b) Investments in processoing
areas to improve sanitary and
working conditions.
a) Shrimp, cuttlefish, catfish and tilapia;
b) Support to the use of line fishinggears;
c) Support to processors to improve
access to other species and to add
value to their products;
d) Support to fishers to engage in
responsible fishing throughout the year.
a) Eco-tourism in the
BANP (e.g. trips in fishing
vessels, eco-tours etc.).
a) Technical assistance and training;
b) Support to professional associations and associated initiatives;
c) Access to Microcredit;
d) Sensitisation;
e) Monitoring and Evaluation.
a) Prohibition of Shark fishing;
b) Limitations on fishing zones for Croaker and
Sharks;
c) Shark catch quota for the BANP;
d) Support is conditional on verifiable exit from the
Shark-fishery;
e) Application of a punitive export tax on Shark
products;
f) Improvements to the system of control on landings
and the trade in Sharks. Obligatory clearance certificates for marketing of Sharks.
a) Replacement of shark
gillnets with purse-seine nets;
b) Compensation for exit from
the targeted Shark-fishery
(support to investments).
a) Fisheries and processing of coastal
small-pelagics (Sardinella, Jack mackerel, other mackerels etc.);
b) Improvements to the processing
conditions and quality of products
(facilities).
a) Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs);
b) Marine mechanics;
c) Tourism;
d) Other services.
d) Sensitisation;
a) Prohibition of Shark-fishing;
b) Maximum percentage of by-catch;
c) Application of a punitive export tax on Shark
products;
d) Support is conditional on verifiable exit from the
Shark-fishery;
e) Improvements to the system of control on landings and the trade in Sharks. Obligatory clearance
certificates for marketing of Sharks.
b) Support to initiatives revolving
around the addition of value to the
resource (fisheries/tourism, SCUBA
diving, boutique products of highvalue such as traditional art etc.) and
to the benefit of the local populations;
c) Sensitisation;
d) Monitoring and Evaluation.
a) Identification, creation and monitoring of special
protection zones;
b) Ban of trade in Shark-fins;
c) Limits on by-catch;
d) Prohibition on targeted Shark-fishing.
-
-
Compensation to Specialist Stakeholders
-
Income-Generating Activities
Fishery
Non-Fishery
Methods to Discourage Re-entry to the
Fishery
Supporting Measures
pg. 64
Gambia
GuineaBissau
Guinea
(support to investments).
-
(support to investments)..
(facilities).
a) Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs);
c) Tourism;
d) Other services.
-
-
(facilities).
a) Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs);
c) Other services;
Sierra
Leone
d) Sensitisation;
a) Prohibition of Shark fishing;
products;
d) Support is conditional on verifiable exit from
the Shark-fishery;
e) Improvements to the system of control on
landings and the trade in Sharks. Obligatory
clearance certificates for marketing of Sharks.
b) Support to initiatives revolving
around the addition of value to the
resource (fisheries/tourism, SCUBA
diving, boutique products of highvalue such as traditional art etc.) and
to the benefit of the local populations;
c) Sensitisation;
d) Monitoring and Evaluation.
a) Identification, creation and monitoring of
special protection zones;
b) Prohibition of Shark-fishing;
products;
d) Improvements to the system of control on
clearance certificates for marketing of Sharks..
d) Sensitisation;
a) Prohibition of Shark-fishing;
products;
d) Support is conditional on verifiable exit from
the Shark-fishery;
e) Improvements to the system of control on
clearance certificates for marketing of Sharks.
pg. 65
7. Income-Generating Activities and Supporting Measures
The analysis of documents prepared under the framework of the SRPA-Sharks, and the relatively brief visits to the countries of the SRFC during this Consultancy, did not allow for the
development of a detailed list of alternative activities for the target communities. This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that the fisheries, and the communities that depend on
them, are changing so fast.
For example, and as noted in the diagnostic section of this document, data obtained from the
various reports (some dating back just three-years), indicated a previously much higher level
of Shark-fishing activity that was estimated by the Consultant during the more recent field
visits. The situation of a collapsing yield-base is a major influence on the economic and livelihood strategies of fisheries stakeholders.
But overall, there are a number of issues that can usefully be considered whilst developing
a list of potential alternatives for Shark fishers, as follows:
a) The proposals for alternatives expressed by the beneficaries are, most probably,
quite different from the final choices at the specific moment when effort controls
begin to affect people.
b) Many of final interventions are likely to have a significant environmental (e.g. deplacement of effort towards to other species) and/or socio-economic impact (potential
competition with other persons/enterprises who will not have received any support),
therefore, a very detailed economic diagnosis and detailed inventory of resources will
be necessary.
c) Similarly, the identification of options for conversion will require a specific capacity
analysis for each fishing community, since the endogenous capacities for development are not necessarily uniform across communities.
d) Finally, it is necessary to be wary of the effect of previous studies on the future strategies of fishers and processors. This is because, based on their own situational assessments, local participants in these studies could decide to invest further in the
sector or, alternatively, delay their exit from the sector in the hope of gaining economic compensation.
For all these reasons, it is inevitably more realistic to propose therefore a general framework
capable of being adapted to particular circumstances and sites. Such a framework should
also include mechanisms to implement the Conversion Plan, which in any event, should
open with the application of measures to restrict access to the Shark-fishery and to restrict
trade and commerce at its products.
These implementation mechanisms are described in Chapter 8 - Recommendations for the
Implementation of the Conversion Plan and are linked to technical assistance, to extension
services in the fishery, and the implementation of a flexible system for financing activities
and their subsequent monitoring.
pg. 66
7.1. Fisheries
- Promotion of other types of fishing
For the fishers specialising in fishing for Sharks who wish to continue in the profession
this will be their sole option. Some of the alternative species and fishing techniques
mentioned by stakeholders and experts consulted are the Catfish, Tilapia, shrimp and
Cuttlefish (Mauritania). While the use of purse-seine to target small-pelagics such as
Sardinella, Mackerel and Jack Mackerel are options for Senegal, The Gambia, Guinea
and Sierra Leone.
Other possibilities that, at least in principle, cannot be recommended at this stage, include fishing in the waters of neighbouring countries, due to possible conflicts with local
fishers. While the use of gears such as nets for baracuda and deep-set gillnets bring an
increased risk of by-catch of Sharks
- Aquaculture
The culture of fish, crustaceans or shellfish directly in the marine environment does not
appear to be a realistic alternative for fishers, at least in the short-term. This is for the
following reasons:
a) The technology and associated investments necessary for marine aquaculture are
typically beyond the reach of fishers, except in the case of partnership between
groups or enterprises that are able to bring in the capital and technology required.
Even if the finance for investments in the facilities is available, the costs of running
such a business (feeds, fry etc.) are too high.
b) The majority of aquaculture products face the prospect of limited markets, this detracts from their suitability for the Conversion Plan. Furthermore, aquaculture
products usually face strict sanitary requirements that require expenditures that
are not always then compensated for in the pricing or by improved market access.
As for land-based small-scale aquaculture, there is a problem with access to land and
the usual difficulties of fishers to organise activities that require medium-term financial
planning.
- Fitting-out tourist canoes, sports fishing.
Some fishing vessels could be converted for use in tourism activities or for marine
transport, although it is important to recognise that this activity would not be able to absorb more than a very small proportion of the people affected by the wider conversion
programme.
pg. 67
7.2. Processing
- Improvement of Processing Sites
Adjacent to the Shark landing-sites, the specialist processors are slowly adapting to
the increasing scarcity of the the resources to the extent that, for the majority, Elasmobranchs now only represent a small component the raw materials they process.
The ‘Evaluation report of the socio-economic impact of drying-ovens provided by the
project SRPA-Sharks for the conversion of women Shark processors in Senegal’ (A.
Sall and A. Mbodj, 2010) relates the positive experiences of an SRPA-Sharks project in
improving yields from fish-smokers. It seems likely that similar improvements to smoking facilities for small-pelagic species (i.e. the construction of improved ovens), if included under the proposed Conversion Plan, will lead to an important increase in the volume of processed yields and this can facilitate the transition of those individuals who
currently still earn the majority of their income from the processing of sharks and rays.
In any case, the improvements in smoking techniques will have to take into account environmental impacts of the activity and will also rely on the active participation of the professional association and cooperatives who will be responsible for the maintenance and
management of the ovens.
- Processing of other species
It is hoped that those engaged in general fish-processing will enjoy a greater supply of
raw material as a result of the conversion of Shark fishers. In Mauritania this is already
the case for catfish (salted or smoked) or mullets processed into ‘tchichar’ (dried) for a
number of processors support by the ‘Fondation internationale du Banc d’Arguin’ (FIBA).
In general, the facilities designed for salting and smoking of Sharks are currently used
for the treatment of other species. This implies that both technically and in terms of the
cost, the conversion of women processors will not require a significant effort, apart from
the general improvement in the processing sites highlighted in the previous section.
- Promotion of sub-regional trade
There is an un-satiated demand for fish in the land-locked countries of the Sub-Region
(Mali and Burkina Faso) and in the Gulf of Guinea (particularly in Cameroon). Increasing
the trade in fish to these markets may be considered as a medium-term option, but first
certain obstacles need to be overcome related to product quality and the organisation of
actors in the supply chain.
7.3. Local communities
For the stakeholders who will have chosen to completely abandon the fisheries sector, a
number of possibilities are open to them. For example, in micro-business products of a variety of forms or in the sale of fishing equipment, outboard mechanics, construction, or to invest
in tourism (sports-fishing; trips out to sea).
pg. 68
The final choice will depend on the capacity of the individual, on the social and economic
dynamism of their particular community and, obviously, in the technical and financial support
that they can benefit from.
It is important, however, not to lose sight of the fact that most people in the fisheries sector
have not received any form of training (and many of them are actually illiterate). They will
therefore lack the skills and necessary experience to manage their own business. For this
reason, it will perhaps be more effective to concentrate the Plan’s efforts on those individuals
who already display a certain capacity for initiative or have at least some degree of relevant
experience. These individuals may eventually become be able to employ those with less
developed capacity.
Given this situation, a system of support and technical assistance will be absolutely necessary. One that is adapted to local needs and structured around the human resources put in
place for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Conversion Plan.
The following section describes the proposed support system for each individual country.
pg. 69
Mauritania
Activities
The buy-back of specialist fishing-gears (Tollo nets) is not recommended bearing in mind the
negative experience of the NPAB in 2003, and the fact that less thatn 20% of the Shark
catch in the country derives from fishing with this particular gear. In addition, this type of net
is used in other types of fishery.
In principle, the Conversion Plan should concentrate on:
a) Measures to redirect fishing effort away from Sharks and Croakers (Courbine) and on
to other species, notably Catfish and Tilapia. According to the reports that have been
analysed for this work, these species are relatively abundant and would be able to support an increase in fishing effort directed towards them (‘The evolution of fishing strategies in the NPAB. Project RARE (Regulating of access to natural resources and surveillance in the NPAB.)’ (C.A. Ould Inejih, 2008);
b) Investing in processing facilities to improve product quality and enable the processing
of other species;
c) Conversion of actors towards others activites, putting the emphasis on youth;
d) Technical assistance, support to professional associations and a system of microcredit; and,
e) Improve the system for monitoring of landings and the trade in Sharks.
In order to implement the Plan, it is proposed to create a tripartite Conversion Committee,
which will be made-up of representatives of the National administration, the SRFC and from
professional associations.
It is also necessary to make arrangements for the recruitment of an independent technical
advisor for the duration of the Plan’s implementation.
Other measures
In the absence of more detailed analysis and potential environmental and socio-economic
impacts, the following measures are possible:
a) Limits on the fishing grounds in which fishers are able to use Tollo nets;
b) Establishment of a quota on the catch of Sharks;
c) Require, as a condition of all financial support, a commitment to abandon or reduce in a sustainable and verifiable way, the fishing effort on Sharks;
d) Impose a punitive tax on the export of Sharks and their products, with a specific
code for shark-fins to distinguish this particular product from others;
e) Improve the system of control of landings and trade in Sharks by requiring that all
shipments by road are accompanied by a Certificate of Origin issued by a recognised professional association.
pg. 70
Institutions Involved
- Ministry of Fisheres and Maritime Economics;
- NPAB;
- Mauritanian Institute for Oceanographic Research and Fisheries (IMROP);
- National School of Maritime and Fisheries Education;
- Independent Port of Nouadhibou;
- Professional associations; and,
- SRFC/SRPA-Sharks.
Target Beneficiaries
Almost all fishers and processors involved in the Shark sector actually obtain a good proportion of their income from other resources. Taking this into account, the beneficiaries of socioeconomic actions should be those who do rely on Sharks for the majority of their income.
pg. 71
Senegal
Activities
a) Redeployment of fishing-effort to other marine resources:
The experience of Senegalese fishers can help their conversion to other types of fisheries,
even if in certain cases the contractual debts they have with traders of Shark products could
compromise this change. However, it is likely that an eventual prohibition of all Shark-fishing
would leave the creditors with no option but to accept the new conditions.
In principle, and in the absence of more detailed studies, fishing for coastal small-pelagics
(sardinella, Jack mackerel, mackerel etc.) with purse-seines offers the best opportunities for
fishers, as well as processors. There is a strong national and regional demand for these
species and the change in target fishery does not require substantial modifications to their
respective modus operandi. Any changes will consist simply of improving the provision of
smoking ovens.
Other fishing techniques using nets targeting demersal species cannot be recommended
due to the likely impact that they could have on younger cohorts of sharks and rays.
The estimated average price of a purse-seine net suitable for these small-pelagics is
€10,500 (2012 prices).
Another possibility raised during the preliminary studies is the lobster fishery in waters of
other countries of the Sub-Region. However, this options presents a number of disadvantages: i) the distance from port to fishing grounds cannot be too large, and in any event it
would be necessary to carry ice or brine tanks, because lobster is sold in a market that is
very demanding in terms of quality, ii) the potential for conflicts with local fishers is likely, and
iii) in principle, the possibilities for intensive exploitation of this resource does not appear
very promising. However, any decision would belong to each individual country.
b) Other activities outside the fisheries sector:
Other sectors, particulary those linked to services, offer employment opportunities but to
take full advantage of these will require technical and financial support from the Plan.
In the case of the owners of fishing vessels, the options are better and eventually, could favour the recruitment of crew unable to work on other vessels.
The activities to which the conversion of fishers may be possible, include the trade in equipment and materials for fishing, engine mechanics and sales of parts, transport etc.,
Finally, activities linked to ecotourism offer some opportunities even if this sector cannot absorb a significant proportion of those affected by the Conversion. It also demands a significant level of capacity-building. Specific activities could include the adaptation of vessels to
carry tourists for sports-fishing or the creation of community-based camping sites and restaurants.
In any case, a detailed assessment of the potential of these activities cannot yet be made
without an thorough prior study.
pg. 72
Other Measures
To implement the Conversion Plan, the following support measures must also be in place:
a) Measures related to by-catch: a maximum percentage of by-catch must be established;
b) Formal prohibition of trade in shark-fins;
c) Other supporting measures:
During the implementation of the Conversion Plan, support to beneficiaries’ economic
activities as well as to their capacity-building is anticipated;
In addition, priority will be given to joint-initiatives, involving several individuals or
businesses, in order that more substantial investment funds can be mobilised.
Finally, it is very important to put in place a comprehensive campaign of sensitisation; to
reach not just the professionals in the fisheries sector but also to reach the general public.
Institutions to be Involved
- Maritime Fisheries Directorate (DPM);
- The Centre for Oceanographic Research of Dakar-Thiaroye (CRODT);
- Economic Interest Groups (GIEs) and Professional Associations; and,
- SRFC/SRPA-Sharks.
The priority beneficiaries of the Conversion Plan should be Senegalese fishers as well as
those who originate elsewhere but who are now resident in Senegal. Otherwise, there is a
significant risk that the latter will seek to resume their fishing in neighbouring countries.
As for those who are engaged in the processing of Sharks, they have gradually adapted to
the increasing scarcity of their raw materials to the extent that, in practice, the majority of
their daily activities are already taken up with the processing of small-pelagics and demersal
species.
Cape Verde
Activities
The direct impact of a possible prohibition of shark-fishing on the socio-economic conditions
of actors in the artisanal fishery is practically zero. Nevertheless, one could take the view
that the Conversion Plan will have a precautionary aspect by placing emphasis on the following activities:
a) Sensitisation on the necessity of conserving resources as a potential future source
of revenue for society as a whole (fishery sector, tourism sector etc.). And sensitisation on the necessity to preserve biodiversity, particularly in an ecosystem characterpg. 73
ised by a large diversity of species but with individual populations of rather low densities;
b) Creation of special protection zones for Sharks; and,
c) Support to initiatives directed towards adding-value to marine resources (e.g. fishing/tourism, SCUBA diving, products with high value-addition such as artisanal/traditional art) and to the direct benefit of local populations.
Other Measures
Although the Conversion Plan does not include the artisanal fisheries of Cape Verde, it is
important to draw attention to the impact of the industrial fishery. This fishery is prosecuted
by European and Japanese longliners and Sharks constitute a major part of the overall
catch, despite the fact that it is considered as a by-catch.
Since 2005, legislation has prohibited shark-finning. In addition, the weight of shark-fin cannot exceed 5% of the total Shark catch-weight retained on-board.
Other precautionary measures to discourage a possible artisanal fishery targeting Sharks
should include a prohibition on trade in Sharks and a limit placed on by-catch.
- National Institute for the Development of Fisheries (INDP)
- Directorate General of Fisheries (DGP)
- Associations of fishers, fish-traders and vessel-owners; and,
- SRFC/SRPA-Requins
Taking into account the fact there is no actual targeted Shark fishery, the beneficiaries of
actions in Cape Verde will therefore include all the actors in the artisanal fishery as well as,
albeit indirectly, other local economic actors.
The Gambia
Activities
According to the report of M. Asberr Natoumbi Mendy ‘Evaluation study of [the] financial cost
for reconversion of actors specialised in [the] Shark fishery in The Gambia’
a) The majority (60-75%) of fishers questioned expressed the need to continue fishing, but to target other species. And although the type of nets they would have to use
for other species would be different, the fishing techniques are broadly the same.
b) The majority of the women processors also stated their wish to continue in their
current activity, but to expand the number of species that they process to include, for
example, small-pelagics, catfish etc.
The conclusions of the Asberr Natoumbi Mendy report have been validated during this field
work.
pg. 74
As far as the fishers who may be interested in an activity apart from fishing itself, there are a
number of possibilities: trade in fishing materials, outboard engine mechanics, selling foodstuffs etc. Other possiblities to investigate in more depth are activities related to tourism
(fishing trips or pleasure cruises), even if the strong seasonality of tourism would probably
limit the interest of fishers. However, the transport of passengers, according to a number of
interlocutors, offers very little given the limited demand, a demand that is already largely
satisfied.
Other Measures
With the exception of the prohibition of finning and discarding of carcasses at sea, which
only affects the industrial fishery, there are no governance measures in place seeking to
achieve a reduction in fishing for sharks and rays. For example, The Gambia has not as yet
developed an NPA-Sharks
And although there is an existing export tax, it is not sufficient to reduce the trade in Sharks,
and in any case is overseen by the customs department, with no fisheries department advice.
The Conversion Plan will require the creation of a mechanism for monitoring and control in
The Gambia, that can deliver sanctions against those fishers that do not honour any agreement to cease shark-fishing.
Compared with other species groups, elasmobranchs are a relatively important component
of the overall by-catch. It is logical, therefore, to establish a limit on the proportion of Sharks
in the by-catch, and this limit should be applied in both the net and the longline fisheries that
target other demersal (e.g. catfish) and pelagic species.
Finally, it is very important to put in place a comprehensive campaign of sensitisation, to
reach not just actors in the fisheries sector but also to reach the general public.
- Fisheries Department of The Gambia;
- SRFC/SRPA/Sharks; and,
- Local microcredit institutions.
Even though the majority of fishers that specialise in fishing for sharks or rays are originally
from Ghana, one can consider them as resident in The Gambia. These individuals therefore
constitute the target beneficiaries for the Conversion Plan.
The ‘business strategy’ of Shark fishers in the Gambia is to basically operate as a fishing
collective, using what are actually individually-owned nets and deploying them from a fishing
vessel that is usually itself the property of the captain. The beneficiaries of the Plan will
therefore be as much the owner/skipper of the vessel as they will be the crew, who are the
owners of the nets.
pg. 75
For those engaged in processing, the profits from the sale of fins from sharks and rays are
quite small, and the capital invested (in simple drying racks made from branches) is small
and in any case the racks are used for other species as well.
pg. 76
Guinea-Bissau
Activities
The direct impact of a possible prohibition of shark-fishing on the socio-economic conditions
of actors in the artisanal fishery is practically zero. Nevertheless, one could take the view
that the Conversion Plan will have a precautionary aspect by placing emphasis on the following activities (axes of intervention):
a) Sensitisation on the necessity of preserving resources as a potential future source
of revenue for society as a whole (fishery sector, tourism sector etc.). And sensitisation on the necessity to preserve biodiversity, particularly in an ecosystem characterised by a large diversity of species but with individual populations of rather low densities;
b) Creation of special protection zones for Sharks;
c) Support to initiatives directed towards adding-value to marine resources (e.g. fishing/tourism, SCUBA diving, products with high value-addition such as artisanal/traditional art) and to the direct benefit of local populations.
Other Measures
Other precautionary measures to discourage a possible artisanal fishery targeting Sharks
should include a prohibition on trade in Sharks and a limit placed on by-catch.
- Centre for Applied Fisheries Research (CIPA);
- Artisanal Fisheries Directorate; and,
- SRFC/SRPA-Sharks.
Taking into account the fact there is no actual targeted Shark fishery, the beneficiaries of
actions in Guinea-Bisau will therefore include all the actors in the artisanal fishery as well as,
albeit indirectly, other local economic actors.
pg. 77
Support to the implementation of a Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable
management of Sharks (SRPA-Sharks)
Guinea
Activities
According to the results of studies completed under the framework of the SRPA-Sharks, the potential alternative targets for fishers would include pelagic species (e.g. Bonga shad, barracuda etc.)
that are caputured with purse-seine nets. In addition, demersal species (e.g. Sea Bream, catfish
etc.), which are fished with driftnets, longlines and handlines, have some potential. Local fishers,
as well as foreigners living in Guinea, have significant experience of fishing for these species,
which also have a strong local market
For wholesalers and processors, the main obstacle to them ceasing the processing of Sharks is
linked to the problems of supply of other, replacement species. However, it is hoped that the conversion of Shark fishers can will lead to a subsequent increase in local supply of small-pelagic and
demersal species.
Finally, some fishers and processors have shown a degree of interest in activities that have nothing to do with their current activity, such as small-scale trade, transport etc.
Other Measures
There are a number of measures that may discourage actors engaged in processing and marketing of Sharks products. Firstly, as soon as the prohibition on fishing these species is in place, it will
be necessary to place limits on the by-catch by nets and longlines that target catfish and other demersal, as well as pelagic, species. Secondly, and concurrently, a punitive tax on the export of
shark products (e.g. Shark-fins and carcasses) must be introduced. Under the current system, the
export of shark products incurs a 2% tax, levied by Customs, but this is not thought to have any
effect on restricting the trade.
- National Maritime Fisheries Directorate (DNPM);
- National Fisheries Science Centre at Boussor (CNSHB);
- National Centre for the Surveillance and Protection of Fisheries (CNSP);
- National Confederation of the Fishers of Guinea (CONAPEG);
- Maritime Navigation Agency (ANAM); and,
- CSRP/PSRA-Requins.SRFC/SRPA-Sharks.
The beneficiaries of the Conversion Plan should be, as a priority, those fishers that are resident to
avoid the risk that they continue their Shark-fishing activities in neighbouring countries.
As for those who are engaged in the processing of Sharks, they have gradually adapted to the reduced availability of their raw materials to the extent that, in practice, the majority of their daily activities are already taken-up with the processing of small-pelagics and demersal species.
pg. 78
Sierra Leone
Activities
According to the ‘Report on reconversion of shark fisher folk to alternative forms of livelihood in
Sierra Leone (V. Kargbo, T.D.K. Taylor and M.B.D. Seisay), more than 60% of the fishers and processors specialising in Sharks would opt to fish (or process) other species if Shark-fishing were
prohibited.
Amongst the species considered the more interesting for the fishers are barracuda, demersal species and small-pelagic species. The processors are also interested in these species because there
would be no need for new investment to cover adaptations to their equipment.
However, in the gillnet fishery (as much for the driftnets as for the fixed, bottom-set nets), it is important to note the important component of rays and sharks in the catch. It is therefore more advisable, from the perspective of the conservation of Elasmobranchs, to promote fisheries for smallpelagics using ring-nets.
Other actors in the fisheries sector who wished to change their activity proposed small-buisness
development in the service sector (e.g. commerce, transport etc.). However, the specific activities
cannot be identified until the time when the suspension of the Elasmobranch fishery is actually a
reality. Until then, the beneficiaries can only suggest ideas that are only very general.
Other Measures
During the implementation of the Conversion Plan, support to beneficiaries’ economic activities as
well as to their capacity-building is anticipated. Moreover, priority should be given to joint-initiatives,
involving several individuals or businesses, such that more substantial investment funds can be
mobilised.
Measures relating to by-catch and to the international trade in shark-fins must be implemented
jointly by all countries in the Sub-Region. The countries are also expected to guarantee the means
to ensure compliance with these measures. It is clear that this expectation is not without risk of
disappointment, because it is a fact that the countries to the south of the Sub-Region have less
capacity to implement effective monitoring and control.
Finally, it is very important to put in place a comprehensive campaign of sensitisation at the local
level; to reach not just the professionals in the fisheries sector but also the general public.
In terms of means by which to discourage participating fishers from subsequently landing excessive quantities of Shark as an ‘accidental’ by-catch, the Fisheries and Aquaculture Bill is useful. It
includes a number of detailed measures that make the on-board handling of by-catch of rays and
sharks difficult, if not entirely counter-productive. These measures prohibit:
a) Catching juveniles;
b) The total removal of fins onboard the fishing vessel (they must remain at least partially
attached to the carcass);
c) Dismembering of the animal, except for evisceration and the removal of the head; and,
d) The trade in shark-fins without a corresponding certificate.
As an additional measure, assuming that the targeted fishing of Sharks will be prohibited, limits
must be set on the weight of by-catch as a proportion of the total catch.
pg. 79
- Minsistry of Fisheries and Maritime Resources;
- Local authorities;
- Institute of Marine Biology and Oceanography, University of Sierra Leone;
- Maritime Administration of Sierra Leone;
- Sierra Leone Marine;
- Association of Artisanal Fishers of Sierra Leone (SLAFU);
- Sierra Leone Amalgamated Artisanal Fisheries Association (SLAFA);
- Master-Fishermen; and,
- SRFC/SRPA-Sharks.
The beneficiaries of the Conversion Plan should be, as a priority, those fishers that are resident.
This will avoid the risk that they continue their Shark-fishing activities in neighbouring countries.
As for those who are engaged in the processing of Sharks, they have gradually adapted to the reduced availability of their raw materials to the extent that, in practice, the majority of their daily activities are already taken up with the processing of small-pelagics and demersal species.
pg. 80
8. Recommendations for the Implementation and Monitoring of the Plan
The SRFC-Shark is the organisation that is proposed to deliver the Conversion Plan across
the region, in partnership with decentralised National Conversion Committe (NCCs) each in
turn coordinated by an independent technical advisor.
The NCCs will include representation of: i) national administration responsible for artisanal
fisheries; 2) the best-represented professional associations at specialist Shark landing sites
(Table 19) and iii) the SRFC-Requins.
Table 19: Major Shark Landing Sites in the SRFC Zone
Country
Landing Site
Mauritania
Nouadhibou (Boutuya) et le PNBA;
Senegal
Cape Verde
Guinea-Bissau
Elinkine, Diogué et Saint-Louis;
Régions de Sao Vicente et de Santa Lucia;
L’archipel des Bijagos, l’île de Melo et Cacine;.
The Gambia
Brufut;
Guinea
Kassa, Kamsar et Katcheck;
Sierra Leone
Konakridee, Bonthe, Goderich, Shenge et Tombo.
Following their recruitment the first activity of the technical advisors will consist of the design
of a detailed census of fishers and processors in each of these sties.
This will be followed by a programme of information dissemination and then a detailed study
of the propositions from participants in the Plan (number of fishers who wish to change fishing activity or to abandon the sector; alternative activities proposed etc.) will be undertaken
for each site. With the information developed from this study, a detailed budget will be developed as well as specific programme of technical support and professional training.
The second phase will involve the buy-back and subsequent destruction of shark fishinggear. For owners of vessels and/or shark fishing-gear, two options can be envisaged: i) for
those who choose to completely leave the fishery the buy-back of complete fishing-units (i.e.
the vessel, engine and fishing-gear), and ii) for those who choose to change the type of fishery they target, but to remain in the sector, only the.buy-back of shark-nets
Following these initial interventions it will be necessry to proceed with the provision of new
equipment and materials:
a) Professionals who decide to stay in fisheries but to target other species will be required surrrender their Shark fishing-gears and sign a committment to refrain from
targeting Sharks. They will then be provided with replacement fishing gears, and
where necessary, additional equipment and materials for the new type of fishing (e.g.
cool boxes or even refitting of their vessel);
b) Professionals who opt for a total abandonment of the fishing sector, with a requirement that this be for a minimum of 10-years, will be offered management skills
training as well as support to acquire equipment and other things necessary for the
new activity. They will also be required to develop a business plan and will receive
support for its development.
pg. 81
The major proportion of the compensation available will be paid as an ‘in-kind’ contribution.
This will be the case for those who abandon Shark-fishing, for those who chose a new type
of fishing in its place and for those who chose to start-up an entirely new activity in a completely different sector.
To improve the chances of a successful programme of conversions from Shark-fishing, it is
of course important to make available access to micro-finance. But at the same time, particularly for those individuals looking to start-up entirely new ventures, it is also important to sustain the technical assistance inputs, such that they can receive education and training during
the important formative early months.
Finally, support to cooperatives, or to economic interest groups, will be very important in the
context of the organisation of the activities of the Conversion Plan.
Once the beneficaries are settled in their new activities, it will be necessary to initiate a permanent monitoring programme to ensure that Shark-fishing has been effectively abandoned.
This monitoring will be overseen by the national authority responsible for artisanal fisheries,
in partnership with national research centres and professional associations. The scientific
monitoring (socio-economic and environmental impacts), on the other hand, will be supervised by the national research centres.
A project evaluation workshop will be organised to collate the lessons learned and identify
any need to reorientate the programme. This will be led by the project SRPA-Sharks but will
benefit from the support of all the other partners.
9. Risks and Assumptions
There are a number of risk and assumptions within this proposal and some are critical to the
potential success of the programme.
1. Institutional support at the national and Regional level
If the measures taken to prohibit the targeted fishing of Sharks are not applied jointly
across all the countries, it is likely that the withdrawl of only some fishers will lead to an increase in the fishing-effort of those remaining in the fishery. This is as likely within an individual nation’s fishing-grounds as it is between fishing-grounds of other countries [crossborder].
In the same way, the unequal application of export taxes will result in its reduced impact.
This could happen if some countries do not include the measure in their legislation, or the
tax is not applied rigourously.
2. Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)
Implementing a ban on Shark-fishing and controlling by-catch will require a significant
MCS intervention. However, it is unlikely that the required level of MCS can be delivered
by the southern countries of the Sub-Region.
In principle, the control of landings and marketing is more possible that the control of fishing activities at sea.
3. Institutional support at the local level
pg. 82
In some of the countries of the Sub-Region the delivery of an effective MCS of artisanal
fisheries through the local fisheries offices is likely to be constrained by the lack of sufficient understanding by these officers of the advantages linked to a closure of the Sharkfishery. To avoid this risk, it is imperative that a sensitisation programme is provided for
the local authorities, including the fisheries departments.
4. Activities of the Industrial Fishing Fleet
The industrial fishing fleet present in the EEZs of the participating countries is likely to
continue to catch Sharks, either as a targeted fishery or just a by-catch. Such a situation
could lead to a feeling of injustice within the artisanal fisher community, this in turn could
threaten their commitment to their engagements made vis-à-vis the Conversion Plan.
5. Insufficient funds to complete the full progamme
It is essential to ensure the availability of sufficient funds to ensure complicance with obligations made by the participants in the Plan (see Section 10).
6. Legal Framework
The risk of some countries of the SRFC (e.g. Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau)
failing to ensure harmonisation of their national legislation is a very real possibility, due to
the burden of the legislative process. It is crucial therefore for the SRFC to submit, at the
earliest opportunity, a protocol to facilitate this.
pg. 83
10. Costs estimates and Finance Mechanisms
The following table presents the background data on which the final budget estimate for the
Plan is based. This is inevitably only an approximation of what will be required at the time
implementation, because the situation on the ground can change very rapidly.
In addition, the final decisions of the participants on the nature of their involvement in the Plan
will depend on a number of factors including the wider economic situation and the performance of other types of fishery (amongst others).
Results and Measures
Mauritania
Senegal
Cape
Verde
The
Gambia
Guinea
Bissau
Guinea
Sierra
Leone
1. Compensation for Extant Investments
1.1. Specialist Shark-fishing Gears
1.2. Vessels and Engines
100%
(N = 80)
10%
(8)
100%
(10)
20%
(2)
100%
(39)
10%
(4)
100%
(59)
20%
(12)
30%
(240)
30%
(93)
30%
(86)
30%
(157)
3
1
3
2
2. Support for start-up of Alternative
Activities
2.1. Fishers and Processors
2.2. Improvement of Processing Sites
3
In order to account for previous depreciation in the value of equipment currently owned by
the various actors, and this will apply to fishing-gears and fishing vessels, the exchangevalue at the time of conversion will be set at 75% of the initial purchase cost.
The national coordinators will be responsible for the management of the investment compensation scheme.
To secure the financial support necessary to cover alternative economic activities the participation of micro-finance institutions is anticipated and each beneficiary will be donated a
fixed amount allowing them to leverage further credit. The amount of compensation will vary
across the Sub-Region according to the price level indices developed by the World Bank
(Table 20).
Table 20: Price Level Index and Compensation (US=100)
Price Level
Compensation
Index (2005)
(Euros)
Mauritania
37
Senegal
48
800
Cape Verde
78
The Gambia
26
430
Guinea Bissau
41
Guinea
33
550
Sierra Leone
37
617
Source: Parities and Real Expenditures. International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2008)
Finally, the donors and financing mechanisms that are relevant include:
pg. 84
- World Bank;
- European Union;
- African Development Bank (ADB);
- Banc d’Arguin International Fund (FIBA);
- USAid; and,
- Cooperation and development agencies.
At this point in time, the estimated budget for the Conversion Plan is €3,391,800 (see Table
21).
pg. 85
Table 21: Estimated Budget for the Conversion Plan (Euro)
Budget Line
Mauritania
Senegal
Cape
Verde
The
Gambia
GuineaBissau
Guinea
Sierra
Leone
Total
1. Compensation for Extant Investments
480,000
109,500
179,000
274,000
1,042,500
1.1. Specialised shark-fishing gears
420,000
94,500
161,000
243,000
918,500
60,000
15,000
18,000
31,000
124,000
297,000
75,000
152,500
166,500
796,000
192,000
40,000
47,500
96,500
376,000
105,000
105,000
35,000
105,000
70,000
420,000
3. Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
99,500
96,200
72,000
61,500
61,500
66,800
70,800
528,300
3.1. Regional Coordination by SRFC & recruitment of national coordinators (two-years).
40,000
40,000
40,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
260,000
3,800
3,500
-
2,500
8,000
3,800
3,800
25,400
3.3. Technical assistance / Training / Support to Actors.
15,000
22,000
10,000
14,000
71,000
3.4. Scientific Monitoring (two-years).
30,000
20,000
30,000
8,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
124,000
3.5. Socio-economic Monitoring (two-years).
8,000
8,000
-
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
32,000
3.6. Evaluation Workshop.
2,700
2,700
2,000
2,000
2,500
2,000
2,000
15,900
4. Other Activities
150,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
250,000
100,000
125,000
1,025,000
4.1. Conceptualisation, feasibility plan and implementation of a system to control trade.
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
125,000
725,000
150,000
100,000
150,000
222,000
346,000
311,500
1.2. Vessels and Engines
2. Support to start-up alternative economic activites
105,000
2.1. Fishers and Processors.
2.2. Improvements to processing sites.
3.2. Information Provision and Sensitisation of actors.
4.2. Support for initiatives for the conservation of and adding-value to the resource.
TOTAL (euro)
354,500
1,023,200
10,000
pg. 86
300,000
498,300
636,300
3,391,800
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CIPA
Centro de Investigaçao Pesqueira Aplicada / Centre for Applied Fisheries Research
CITES
Convention on the international Trade in Endangered Species
CNSHB
Centre national des sciences halieutiques de Boussoura (Guinée) / National Fisheries
Science Centre at Boussor (Guinea)
CRODT
Centre de recherches océanographiques de Dakar-Thiaroye / The Centre for Oceanographic Research of Dakar-Thiaroye
SRFC
Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission
DOPM
Direction de l’océanographie et des pêches maritimes / Oceanographic and Maritime Fisheries Directorate
DPM
Direction des pêches maritimes / Maritime Fisheries Directorate
FIBA
Banc d’Arguin International Fund
EIG
Economic Interest Group
ICCAT
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
ISRA
Institut sénégalais de recherche agricole / Senegal Institute of Agricultural Research
IMROP
Institut mauritanien de recherches océanographiques et des pêches / Mauritanian Institute
for Oceanographic Research and Fisheries
INDP
Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento das Pescas (Cap-Vert) / National Institute for the
Development of Fisheries (Cape Verde)
MPA
Marine Protected Area
NPA-Sharks
National Plan of Action for the conservation and management of Sharks
IPOA-Sharks
International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of Sharks
BANP
Banc d’Arguin National Park
PRCM
West Africa Marine and Coastal Conservation Programme / Programme régional de conservation de la zone côtière et marine en Afrique de l’Ouest
SRPA-Sharks
Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the conservation and management of Sharks
IUCN
World Conservation Union
RFU
Regional Facilitation Unit
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
pg. 87
Bibliography
Anon. (2005). « Etudes de la trajectoire des pêcheries de sélaciens dans les pays de la CSRP», atelier régional
de démarrage des études, rapport final, Dakar, octobre 2005.
Anon. (2006). Rapport de l’Atelier régional de concertation sur les actions de reconversion des acteurs spécialisés dans la filière Requins dans l’espace CSRP. Mai 2009
Anon. (2009). Rapport de l’Atelier sous-régional de restitution des résultats études - pays de la trajectoire des
pêcheries d’élasmobranches (sélaciens) dans l’espace CSRP, Conakry, Guinée, 14-15 août 2006.
Anon. (2006b). « Estudo de tragetoria da pescaria de raias e tubarao em Guiné-Bissau », julho 2006.
Anon. (2006). « La trajectoire de la pêcherie de sélaciens en Mauritanie », mai 2006.
Anon. (2008). « Harmonisation des législations des pêches en matière d’exploitation desRequins dans l’espace
de la CSRP », rapport de synthèse de travaux, Dakar, 14-16 octobre 2008.
C. B. OULD ISSELMOU (2011) « Analyse de l’activité des pêches (efforts et captures) au niveau du Parc National du Banc d’Arguin en 2010 » IMROP
CIPA (2006) Estudo de tragetoria da pescaria de raias e tubarão Guiné-Bissau
CSRP (2001). Plan sous-régional d’action pour la conservation des raies et requins, septembre 2001.
DEME M. (2002). « Aspects socio-économiques des pêcheries de raies et de requins : état des lieux au Sénégal
», rapport de consultation de la CSRP, août 2000.
DEME M., MBAYE A. et BARRY M. D. (2005). « Etude de la trajectoire des pêcheries de sélaciens au Sénégal»,
rapport final, Centre de recherches océanographiques de Dakar-Thiaroye, CRODT/ISRA, août 2006.
DEME M. et NIAMADIO I. (2000). Rapport de synthèse sur l’exploitation des requins et des raies au Sénégal,
CSRP, octobre 2000
DIA Abdou Daïm (2005) Etude sur la caractérisation des Pêcheries de Sélaciens et Filières correspondantes en
Mauritanie
DIOP M., DEME M., SALL A., DUCROCQ M. et NIAMADIO I. (2007). « Trajectoires des pêcheries de Requins
(raies et requins) dans l’espace CSRP », rapport de synthèse des études de cas, FIBA/PRCM/CSRP
DOUMBOUYA F., CAMARA M. C. et SOLIE K. (2006). « Le cas de la Guinée », rapport d’étude sur la trajectoire
des pêcheries de sélaciens dans les pays de la Commission sous-régionale des pêches (CSRP), mai 2006.
DOUMBUYA, F., DIOP MIKA, S. (2006) “Réflexions sur les actions pilotes de reconversion des acteurs spécialisés dans la filière pêche aux Requins : Cas de la Guinée”
DOUMBUYA, F., FOFANA, M. (2008) « Coût financier de la reconversion des Pêcheurs Ghanéens, Sénégalais
et Maliens spécialisés à la pèche aux requins en Guinée »
DOUMBUYA, F. (2008) « Evaluation du niveau de rendement socio-économique de la pêche aux requins en
Guinée » Centre National des Sciences Halieutiques de Boussoura.
GOMINHO, V., MARTINS, P., CORREIA, S,, CARVALHO, H. (2006) Trajectoria das Pescarias de Selaceos em
Cabo Verde
IMROP (2006) « La trajectoire de la pêcherie de sélaciens en Mauritanie »
IMROP/CSRP Rapport Scientifique Plan d’Actions National pour la conservation et la gestion des populations de
requins en Mauritanie.
INDP Plano Nacional de Acção para a conservação e gestão de tubarões de Cabo Verde
INDP (2008) “BOLETIM ESTATÍSTICO Nº 17 Dados sobre pesca artesanal, pesca industrial conservas e
exportações”
KARGBO, V., TAYLOR, D.K., SEISAY, L.D. Report on reconversion of shark fisherfolk to alternative forms of
livelihoods in Sierra Leone
MACIAS, J. (2010) “ll Enquête sur les aspects socio-économiques de la Pêche Artisanale en Guinée Bissau »
CIPA
MBAYE, L. (2010) « La place de la pêcherie de Requins dans le secteur de la pêche et dans l'économie sénégalaise »
MBAYE, L., BA, A.(2009) Etude des paramètres essentiels des principales espèces de Requins pêchées en
Casamance (Sénégal) PRCM/FIBA/CSRP
pg. 88
MBAYE, L. (2008) Identification des mesures fiscales pour la régulation de la pêche aux Requins dans l’espace
de la Commission Sous-Régionale des Pêches (CSRP)
MBAYE, L., DEME, M. (2007) Étude d’evaluation du cout financier de la reconversion des pecheurs sénégalais
spécialisés a la pêche aux requins et installes au Sénégal
M. LEMINE OULD TARBIYA, E. OULD SIDINA, M. SALECK OULD HAIDALLA, L. OULD YARBA, M. MAHMOUD OULD YEHDIH (2012) « Analyse économique des principales filières de pêche au PNBA pour évaluer les
richesses et retombées tirées, leur répartition entre les bénéficiaires et leur mode d’investissement, dans un
objectif d’assurer une pêche durable ». Rapport Final de l’atelier 2002. PNBA/IUCN/CSRP/IMROP
M. O. TALEB OULD SIDI (2007) Synthèse préliminaire des travaux scientifiques menés par l’IMROP : période
1997-2006. Projet Régulation de l’Accès aux Ressources naturelles et surveillance dans le PNBA (RARES)
IMROP
MINISTÉRIO DO AMBIENTE, AGRICULTURA E PESCAS CABO VERDE (2003) Plano de Gestão dos
Recursos da Pesca
NJAI A. E. (2005). « Trajectory of the Shark Fishery in the Gambia », December 2005.
NOSOLINY VIEIRE, H., INCOM, I. BUCAL, D. (2006) Estudo sobre a caracterização da pescaria das raias e
tubarões na Guiné-Bissau. PRCM/FIBA/CSRP
PNBA (2007) Appui au processus de gestion participative au Parc National de Banc d’Arguin
SEISAY, L.D. , ELLIOT J. et TAYLOR T.D.K. (2006). « Trajectoire des pêcheries de sélaciens (raies et requins)
en Sierra Leone », juin 2006.
SEISAY, L.D. Conservation and sustainable management of shark populations in Sierra Leone: achievements
and prospects
SEISAY, L.D. (2010) “Conservation and sustainable management of shark populations in Sierra Leone:
achievements and prospects”
pg. 89
Annexes
pg. 90
Annex I: Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of
Sharks (SRPA-Sharks)
1.
Introduction
1.1. Reminder of Key Issues:
•
Exploitation of sharks continues, with an increase in the number of fishers, particularly
of foreign fishers from within the sub-region;
•
International markets offer attractive prices, although fishers have little opportunity to
influence these prices;
•
Rapid decline in yields, disappearance of some species and threats to others;
•
Reduction in biological diversity and abundance of super-predators, impoverished and
fragile components of marine ecosystems;
•
Fishing-grounds are increasingly distant with concomitant increases in the duration of
fishing-trips;
•
Inequitable terms of production and economic dependence of fishers on exporters of
shark-fins;
•
Non-profitable fisheries (poor catches) are sustained by international shark-fin traders,
fishers unable to meet the costs of conversion to other fisheries/activities;
•
Consensus on the non-sustainability of the fishery;
•
Recommendations have been formulated to improve conservation and the sustainable
management of Sharks;
•
Implementation of a Sub-Regional Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Rays and Sharks (SRPA-Sharks), coordinated by the SRFC.
1.2.
Context and Rationale:
Historically, the artisanal fisheries in the countries of the Sub-Region did not target Elasmobranchs. Incidental catches of rays and sharks2 were however utilized and in some cases,
such as in the Bijagos Archipelago, small catches were taken for cultural reasons. However,
these small catches had no significant effects on Shark populations.
In the last 30-years, a number of migrant fisher communities, especially those from Ghana,
have established themselves in The Gambia. This feature, combined with access to new
regional markets (for example, in salted or dried sharkmeat for Ghana) and to global markets
(for shark-fin and guitarfish in SE Asia) has caused a rapid increase in fishing-effort. Meanwhile, improved artisanal fishing techniques has led to an increased catch of sharks.
Today, there are specialised artisanal shark and ray fisheries in all the countries of the
Sub-Region, with the exception of Cape Verde. In Guinea, a small industrial fisheries targeting sharks has also developed.
Over the years, records show that there have been a number of attempts to develop a
managed shark-fishery in the Sub-Region, but they have all failed. Senegal is a good ex-
2
The terms ‘rays and sharks’ encompasses the full spectrum of species of the Class Chondrichtyes and include sharks, rays, angel sharks, saw-fish and chimeras.
pg. 91
ample, where despite management efforts, there was a rapid and systematic failure of the
fishery as yields plummeted.
In fact, the fishers themselves can describe the characteristic trends of such fisheries; with a
marked reduction in yields, a progressive increase in the distance to fishing-grounds and the
increasing scarcity, or even the disappearance, of particular species (e.g. sawfish, guitarfish,
tiger sharks, lemon shark, hammerhead sharks, angel sharks and manta rays). The average
size of fish caught decreases as does the abundance of larger, more fecund, individuals in
the catches.
In April, 2003, the SRFC brought together industry professionals, scientists and experts in
fisheries management for a sub-regional workshop on shark management. The objective
was to establish a consensus on the existing situation and to make recommendations to the
SRFC, and to the Member States, to improve the management of shark fisheries.The findings of this workshop indicated that in the West Africa sub-region there were only two examples of specific monitoring programmes for shark-fishing and the processing of sharks.
These were in Mauritania (from 1998 to 2001) and in The Gambia (in 2000). And there was
only a single example of actual shark-fisheries management in place, in the Banc d'Arguin
National Park, Mauritania, which also includes support for the retraining of shark-fishers.
Access to these vulnerable fishery-resources is essentially open-access everywhere else in
the sub-region (except where area closures are in place).
In fact, the problem of shark-fisheries management was far from being limited to the subregion; the demand for shark-fins has had a significant global impact. And the rapid decline of populations of sharks is characteristic of marine ecosystems around the world.
At the same time, it was recognized that scientific knowledge was limited, particularly on
biological cycles and critical habitats (breeding and nursery areas). Therefore the research
output was not able to provide detailed management tools for these fisheries .
However, there do exist measures that can be applied in the short-term to avoid an ecological catastrophe and further economic hardship for fishers. These are based on the Precautionary Principle as defined in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
In order to better understand the risks and challenges to Shark fisheries, in 1999 the FAO
had launched an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of
Sharks (IPoA-Sharks).
Aware and concerned with the situation, the Conference of Fisheries Ministers gave the
SRFC the responsibility to develop, under the auspices of the FAO’s IPoA-Sharks, a SubRegional Plan of Action of the Conservation and Management of Rays and Sharks (SRPASharks).
2. Sub-Regional Plan of Action of the Conservation and Management of Rays and Sharks
The objective of the SRPA-Shark is the conservation and management of sharks, and their
sustainable utilisation, by assisting Member States to develop, implement and coordinate
National Plans of Action (NPA-Sharks). The Sub-Regional Fisheries Committee (SRFC)
also plays a role in coordination, providing technical expertise to Member States, supporting research by partners and in assisting in the financing of the implementation of NPAs.
The following items comprise the SRPA-Sharks. Section 3 proposes a timetable for implementation of these items.
A. Accession by Member States of the SRFC to the IPoA-Sharks of FAO:
pg. 92
•
The governments of the Member States to indicate their willingness to agree to the
IPoA/Sharks through a letter addressed to the resident representative of FAO in
their respective countries;
•
The SRFC to inform the FAO, by letter, and accompanied by a letter from the Fisheries Minister from each Member State, recognising this intention to implement the
SRPA-Sharks;
•
The Member States designate a representative to be responsible for monitoring the
progress of the IPoA-Sharks and the SRPA-Sharks.
B. Support from the SRFC to the Member States for the formulation and implementation
of National Plans of Action for Sharks:
•
The SRFC will be able to offer support to the States that communicate a need for
scientific and technical expertise;
•
The SRFC will seek technical and financial support from the FAO to implement the
SRPA-Sharks and to support the NPA-Sharks of the Member States;
•
Exchanges of skills and experience between Member States will be promoted and
increased;
•
The SRFC will support Member State to secure finance to implement National
Plans of Action;
•
Recommendations are made in Annex 2 for the content of NPAs.
C. Coordination by the SRFC of progress in research and monitoring
•
During its annual meetings, the SRFC will encourage national representatives of
the NPAs, as well as other individuals, to present an review of shark resources and
fishery status at national and sub-regional scales;
•
Biological data and information on the status of shark stocks, catches and on the
socio-economics of the fisheries, that is available at the national level, will be collated and made available as a sub-regional database;
•
The needs for technical and financial support will be defined during the annual
meetings. This will allow countries that are less advanced in the execution of the
NPA to benefit from the support necessary to allow them to complete their NPA
workplans at the same speed as their neighbours;
•
The outputs of these annual meetings will be the formulation of recommendations for
management of shark fisheries and the implementation of species conservation
measures. These recommendations will be addressed to the Department of Fisheries
of the Member States
D. The creation of a regional database on catch by species group, and by fishery, to permit the monitoring of the evolution of the exploitation of sharks and rays across the
sub-region.
•
The data and results from the monitoring and research conducted by the States under their NPA-Sharks, and made available at the SRFC annual coordination meetings, will be collated into a sub-regional database,
pg. 93
E. Each country will organise bi-annual workshops for stakeholder consultations. Participants should include industry professionals, fisheries managers, representatives of the
NPAs and additional experts able to interpret scientific data generated through national
monitoring programmes.
•
The dissemination of the results and conclusions from the NPA-Sharks and SRPASharks to professionals and fisheries managers will take place during consultation
workshops. This information will then inform recommendations to States for the development of shark-fisheries, as well as for research into alternatives for those who
wish to convert to other production systems.
3. Proposed timetable for the implementation of SRPA-Sharks to 2005
2001:
•
Accession of Member States to IPoA-Sharks;
•
Announcement by the SRFC of the implementation of the SRPA-Sharks;
•
Adoption by the SRPA-Sharks by the Conference of Ministers of the SRFC;
•
Application for technical and financial support from the FAO and donors;
•
Identification of a national representative for the NPA-Sharks;
•
Meeting of NPA-Sharks representatives at the SRFC and definition of proposed contents for NPAs and the requirements for their implementation.
2002:
1st Semester:
•
Drafting of national framework documents, with a planning schedule,
for the implementation of the NPA-Sharks; 2nd Semester;
•
Meeting of NPA representatives; initial review, and preparation of a
sub-regional database to collate and manage information created
under the NPA-Sharks.
2004:
1st Semester:
• Review meeting for representatives of the NPA-Sharks;
• Preparation for the 2004 Sub-Regional Consultation Workshop on
the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Sharks.
2nd Semester:
• Sub-Regional Consultation Workshop on the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Sharks;
• Analysis by Member States of the recommendations resulting from
the Consultation Workshop.
2005:
1st Semester:
•
Review meeting for representatives of the NPA-Sharks;
•
Analysis of the measures adopted by the Member States for the
conservation and sustainable management of Sharks;
•
Evaluation and definition of necessary actions for the NPA-Sharks
and the SRPA-Sharks.
pg. 94
Annex II: Terms of Reference
Appui à la mise en œuvre du Plan Sous Régional d’Action pour la conservation et la gestion
durable des Populations de Requins (PSRA-Requins): reconversion des acteurs de la filière
requins et amélioration et mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales régissant
l’exploitation des requins.
(WA-1.3-B4)
1. ...................................................................................................................... INFORMATIONS GENERALES 2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
PAYS BÉNÉFICIAIRES 2
POUVOIR ADJUDICATEUR
2
ÉLÉMENTS D'INFORMATION UTILES CONCERNANT LES BÉNÉFICIAIRES
SITUATION ACTUELLE DANS LE SECTEUR CONCERNÉ
3
PROGRAMMES LIÉS ET AUTRES ACTIVITÉS DES BAILLEURS DE FONDS
2
5
2. ................................................................................................. OBJECTIFS ET RÉSULTATS ESCOMPTES 6
2.1
2.2
2.3
OBJECTIF GÉNÉRAL 6
OBJECTIFS PARTICULIERS
6
RÉSULTATS À ATTEINDRE PAR LE PRESTATAIRE 6
3. ..............................................................................................................................HYPOTHÈSES & RISQUES 6
3.1
3.2
HYPOTHÈSES QUI SOUS-TENDENT LE PROJET
RISQUES
7
6
4. ............................................................................................................................ CHAMP D’INTERVENTION 7
4.1
4.2
4.3
GÉNÉRALITÉS
7
ACTIVITÉS SPÉCIFIQUES
GESTION DU PROJET 11
9
5. .................................................................................................................... LOGISTIQUE ET CALENDRIER 12
5.1
5.2
LIEU DU PROJET
12
DATE DE DÉBUT ET PÉRIODE MISE EN ŒUVRE
12
6. .............................................................................................................................................................. BESOINS 12
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
12
RESSOURCES HUMAINES
BUREAUX 14
INSTALLATIONS ET ÉQUIPEMENT MIS À DISPOSITION PAR LE PRESTATAIRE
MATÉRIEL 15
DÉPENSES ACCESSOIRES
15
VÉRIFICATION DES DÉPENSES 16
15
7. .......................................................................................................................................................... RAPPORTS 16
7.1
7.2
RAPPORTS OBLIGATOIRES
16
PRÉSENTATION ET APPROBATION DES RAPPORTS 18
8. .................................................................................................................................. SUIVI ET ÉVALUATION 18
8.1
8.2
DÉFINITION D'INDICATEURS
EXIGENCES PARTICULIÈRES
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
18
18
Page 1 sur 134
INFORMATIONS GENERALES
Pays bénéficiaires
Les bénéficiaires directs de ce projet sont les pays de la Commission Sous Régionale des Pêches
(CSRP) : le Cap Vert, la Gambie, la Mauritanie, le Sénégal, la Guinée, la Guinée Bissau et la
Sierra Leone.
Pouvoir adjudicateur
ACP FISH II Coordination Unit (CU)
36/21 Avenue Tervuren
5ème étage
1040 Bruxelles
Tél: +32(02)7390060
Fax: +32(02)7390068
Éléments d'information utiles concernant les bénéficiaires
Le projet concerne les Etats membres de la Commission Sous Régionale des Pêches (CSRP). La
CSRP est un organisme intergouvernemental créé le 29 Mars 1985 par voie de convention. Elle
regroupe sept états membres: le Cap Vert, la Gambie, la Guinée, la Guinée Bissau, la Mauritanie, le Sénégal et la Sierra Leone. La République du Sénégal abrite le siège de la CSRP.
L’objectif de la CSRP est de renforcer la coopération et la coordination des politiques des États
membres notamment à travers les domaines suivants:
•
•
•
•
Harmonisation des politiques en matière de préservation, de conservation et d'exploitation des ressources halieutiques de la sous-région ;
Adoption de stratégies communes dans les instances internationales ;
Développement de la coopération sous-régionale en matière de suivi, contrôle et
surveillance ;
Développement de la capacité des pays à entreprendre des recherches dans le secteur de la pêche au niveau sous-régional.
La CSRP tire ses ressources des contributions des Etats membres et des subventions accordées
par des partenaires techniques et financiers dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de projets.
Peuplée de plus de 30 millions d’habitants, la zone de la CSRP s’étend sur une superficie de
1,6 millions km2 et possède une façade maritime longue d’environ 3 500 km sur laquelle se
concentre l’essentiel de sa population. L’ensemble des zones économiques exclusives des pays
concernés couvre 1,55 millions km2.
A l’exception du Cap-Vert, les pays de la CSRP figurent tous dans le rapport annuel 2010 du
PNUD, dans la catégorie des pays à développement humain faible. Dans le classement de
l’indice de développement humain, sur un total de 169 pays, certains pays de la CSRP émargent
au plus bas de ce classement. C’est notamment le cas de la Guinée Bissau qui occupe la 164 ème
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 2 sur 134
place. Le Cap-Vert, situé à la 118ème place, figure dans la catégorie des pays à développement
humain moyen.
Les performances économiques des pays membres de la CSRP sont encore faibles car les taux
de croissance notés ces dernières années sont en dessous du taux minimum de 7% requis pour la
réalisation des Objectifs du Millénaire pour le Développement (OMD). Tous les pays concernés
sont engagés dans des stratégies de croissance et de réduction de la pauvreté qui devraient leur
permettre d’atteindre les OMD.
Le secteur primaire joue un rôle prépondérant dans l’économie des pays de la sous région.
L’agriculture au sens large (agriculture, élevage, pêche, foresterie) contribue au moins pour 35%
à la formation du produit régional brut sous régional et plus de 15% aux recettes d’exportation.
Elle assure aussi des revenus à plus de 60% des actifs et couvrent plus de 80% des besoins alimentaires.
La sous région a connu ces 20 dernières années des guerres civiles et des conflits sociopolitiques
récurrents qui ont contribué à ralentir son essor économique (conflits de la Sierra Leone, de la
Guinée Bissau, rébellion en Casamance, crise politique en Guinée Conakry, coups d’Etats en
Mauritanie). Ces crises sont en voie d’être résolues dans certains pays avec l’ouverture de processus démocratiques marquées par des élections présidentielles ouvertes et jugées transparentes
(Mauritanie, Guinée Bissau, Guinée Conakry).
Situation actuelle dans le secteur concerné
a) Situation générale du secteur de la pêche dans l’espace CSRP
La pêche joue un rôle primordial dans les Etats Membres de la Commission sous-régionale des
pêches. Elle contribue, à des degrés divers, à la sécurité alimentaire (30% des protéines animales
en moyenne), à la création d’emplois (1 million d’emplois directs et induits au total), à
l’équilibre de la balance commerciale (jusqu’à 40% des exportations en valeur du Sénégal) et au
budget national (jusqu’à 25% en Mauritanie).
Au niveau sous régional, on constate globalement une exploitation excessive des ressources halieutiques qui a eu
comme conséquence, une baisse de la productivité des principaux stocks d’intérêt économique. Ce phénomène
s’explique par plusieurs facteurs, notamment :
Des pressions de pêche élevées en termes d’effort et de capacité de pêche ;
la faiblesse voire l’inexistence dans certains cas de mesures de régulation de l’accès aux pêcheries ;
l’existence de contraintes sociopolitiques et économiques qui empêchent souvent
l’application de mesures de gestion durable des ressources halieutiques ainsi qu’un suivi
et contrôle efficaces des différents segments de la filière halieutique (pêche industrielle,
pêche artisanale, commercialisation, industries de transformation) ;
La signature d’accords de pêche avec des pays étrangers et des sociétés privées sur des
stocks qui sont déjà surexploités ;
Une demande élevée en poissons et autres produits halieutiques sur le plan national et régional.
Afin de relever les défis auxquels la pêche est confrontée dans la sous région, la CSRP s’est dotée d’un Plan stratégique (2011-2015) qui a défini un certain nombre d’objectifs stratégiques. Il
s’agit notamment de :
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 3 sur 134
•
Renforcer les mécanismes d'harmonisation des politiques et des législations des
pêches
•
Appuyer les acteurs dans la gestion durable des ressources halieutiques
•
Mettre en place un système de capitalisation des connaissances sur le secteur de la
pêche dans la sous région
b) Situation de la filière requins
Comme la plupart des stocks démersaux côtiers, les stocks de requins ont été l’objet d’une exploitation intensive et excessive ces dernières années. L’émergence et le développement d’une
filière d’exploitation des Requins dans l’espace de la CSRP se sont opérés avec le concours de
facteurs multiples qui ont engendré des changements significatifs dans l’organisation et la gestion des pêcheries de requins. La valeur commerciale intéressante dont bénéficie l’aileron sur le
marché asiatique et européen d’une part, et celle acquise progressivement par certains produits
dérivés (chair salée séchée/fumée) sur le marché sous-régional d’autre part, ont été à la base
d’une ruée excessive vers les requins.
Cette dynamique d’exploitation quasiment incontrôlée a fini par installer la filière dans une situation d’épuisement progressif des stocks jusqu’à des niveaux alarmants, exposant nombre
d’espèces à de sérieuses menaces d’extinction le long des côtes ouest africaines.
En effet, il a été noté une dégradation du statut pour l’ensemble des espèces et des risques clairs
pour les espèces de grandes tailles. Diverses raisons sont évoquées pour expliquer la rapide dégradation de l’état des stocks des requins:
•
plusieurs espèces de requins et raies vivent à proximité des côtes et sont donc directement concernées par les activités de pêches côtières ;
• dans un contexte global d'épuisement des stocks commerciaux, les requins constituent
une ressource en chair de plus en plus consommée dans de nombreux pays ;
• les requins des grands fonds sont les premières captures accessoires de la pêche en eaux
profondes qui s'est développée depuis une quinzaine d'années ;
• les populations de requins sont généralement fragiles car leur cycle de vie est caractérisé
par une faible fécondité, des juvéniles de grande taille, une croissance lente et une maturité tardive. Ils ont donc une faible aptitude à restaurer rapidement leur population en
cas de surpêche.
Préoccupés par cette situation, les Etats membres de la CSRP qui ont adhéré au Plan d’Actions
International sur la conservation des Requins (PAI) initié par la FAO, ont mis en place un Plan
Sous Régional d’Action pour la conservation et la gestion durable des Populations de Requins
(PSRA- Requins) en 2001. Ce plan permet de développer une stratégie de conservation et de
gestion durable des Requins dans la sous région. Il s’appuie notamment sur l’élaboration et la
mise en œuvre de plans d’actions nationaux requins (PAN) bénéficiant de l’appui de la Fondation internationale du Banc d’Arguin (FIBA) et de la CSRP.
La concertation entre les acteurs des PAN lors de groupes de travail organisés en 2008 et 2009, a
fait ressortir que la mise en place de mesures de conservation devra passer par une stratégie à
deux axes :
- La reconversion des acteurs de base de la filière requins (pêcheurs, transformateurs, mareyeurs) dans d’autres activités du secteur pêche (dans des pêcheries d’espèces ne présentant pas de signes de surexploitation) ou hors pêche ;
- L’amélioration et la mise en cohérence des réglementations de pêche aux requins dans
l’espace CSRP pour contribuer à une gestion durable des populations de requins.
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 4 sur 134
Le projet contribue à la mise en œuvre de ces orientations stratégiques que les initiateurs du
PSRA-Requins et des PAN considèrent décisives pour assurer le succès de toute politique de
gestion durable des stocks de requins.
Programmes liés et autres activités des bailleurs de fonds
Le projet renforcera et complétera les différentes interventions de la CSRP relatives à
l’exploitation rationnelle des requins. Il est en lien avec certains programmes et activités des
bailleurs de fonds développés notamment à l’échelle sous régionale. Parmi eux, on peut citer :
-
Le Plan d’action sous régional pour la conservation et la gestion durable des populations
de Requins (Phase II). Ce plan vise à mettre en place des politiques de gestion et des
plans d’aménagement à l’échelle sous régionale. Il concerne tous les Etats membres de la
CSRP (Sénégal, Mauritanie, Sierra Leone, Gambie, Guinée, Guinée Bissau, Cap vert). Il
a bénéficié de l’appui technique et financier de la FIBA pour sa mise en œuvre. La coopération hollandaise participe indirectement au financement du PSRA-Requins. Son appui financier transite par le Programme régional de Conservation de la zone Côtière et
Marine en Afrique de l’Ouest (PRCM) qui finance la deuxième phase du PSRA-Requins.
-
Le projet CCLME (Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem), financé par le Fonds pour
l’Environnement Mondial (FEM) qui a démarré ses activités en 2010. En effet, le projet
CCLME s’intéresse à la gestion des écosystèmes marins au sein desquels les requins
jouent un rôle majeur de régulateur.
-
Le projet « Appui au développement d’initiative de cogestion et à l’intégration des Aires
Marines Protégées dans l’aménagement des pêches en Afrique de l’Ouest » de
l’AFD/CSRP, qui finance la mise en place des dispositifs de concentration de poissons
au Cap Vert avec une mise en œuvre en collaboration avec l’Institut National de Développement de la Pêche (INDP), l’utilisation des aires marines protégées comme outils de
gestion avec des composantes recherches mise en œuvre par le Centro Investigação
Pesqueira Aplicada (CIPA-Guinée Bissau), le Centre de Recherches Océanographiques
de Dakar Thiaroye (CRODT), l’Institut Mauritanien de Recherches Océanographiques et
des Pêches (IMROP) l’IMROP, le Centre National des Sciences Halieutiques de Boussourra (CNSHB-Guinée) et l’Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRDFrance); Il convient de noter à cet égard que les pays de la CSRP parties prenantes du
Plan d’action sous régional pour la conservation et la gestion durable des populations de
Requins se sont déclarés unanimement en faveur de l’interdiction de l’exploitation des
requins dans les aires marines protégées, afin que le réseau des AMP en Afrique de
l’Ouest apporte une contribution pour renforcer la résilience des stocks.
-
La Banque Mondiale, qui a démarré un projet régional intitulé « programme régional des
pêches en Afrique de l’Ouest-PRAO » depuis 2010. Le PRAO a une durée de 5 ans et est
financé à hauteur de 15 000 000 dollars. Ce projet couvre l’ensemble des Etats membres
de la CSRP plus le Ghana et le Liberia. Dans sa composante « bonne gouvernance », il
prévoit de financer la reconversion des acteurs dans le cadre de l’ajustement des capacités de pêche de certaines pêcheries, notamment les pêcheries démersales côtières dont
font partie les pêcheries de requins.
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 5 sur 134
OBJECTIFS ET RÉSULTATS ESCOMPTES
Objectif général
L’objectif global du programme ACP Fish II, dont ce projet fait partie, est de contribuer à la
gestion durable et équitable des pêcheries devant conduire à la réduction de la pauvreté et à
l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays ACP.
Objectifs particuliers
L’objectif particulier du présent contrat est d’appuyer la mise en œuvre du Plan d’action sous
régional pour la conservation et la gestion durable des populations de Requins conduit par la
CSRP.
Résultats à atteindre par le prestataire
Les résultats à atteindre par le prestataire sont les suivants :
i)
un programme de reconversion des acteurs de la filière requins
vers d’autres activités génératrices de revenus incluant une estimation des coûts de la reconversion est élaboré pour chaque
pays concerné;
ii)
des propositions d’amélioration et de mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins dans
les pays de la CSRP sont élaborées et tiennent compte des objectifs et recommandations émis par le PAI-requins, l’ICCAT (Commission Internationale pour la Conservation des Thonidés de
l’Atlantique), le PSRA-requins, les PAN requins. Les réglementations nationales devront aussi tenir compte des recommandations
de l’ICCAT pour la conservation des requins pélagiques.
iii)
des recommandations sont formulées pour aider les Etats de la
CSRP à mettre en œuvre leurs programmes de reconversion et à
opérer les changements requis dans réglementations nationales
régissant l’exploitation des requins.
HYPOTHÈSES & RISQUES
Hypothèses qui sous-tendent le projet
La mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales en matière d’exploitation des requins dans
l’espace de la CSRP ainsi que la reconversion des acteurs spécialisés dans la filière Requins ont
été considérés comme étant des besoins prioritaires lors des ateliers techniques ayant regroupé
les acteurs de la filière requins de la sous région notamment :
-
l’atelier sur l’harmonisation des législations des pèches en matière d’exploitation des requins dans l’espace de la commission sous régionale des pèches, tenu en 2008 à Dakar ;
l’atelier sur la reconversion des acteurs spécialisés dans la filière Requins tenu en 2009 à
Dakar.
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 6 sur 134
Cela a conduit aussi la CSRP à soumettre un projet d’appui à la mise en œuvre du Plan Sous
Régional d’Action pour la conservation et la gestion durable des Populations de Requins
(PSRA-Requins) pour avancer sur les chantiers de la reconversion et de la réglementation. Cette
demande, formulée lors de l’atelier sous régional d’évaluation des besoins de la région Afrique
de l’ouest tenu en octobre 2009 à Dakar au Sénégal, a été confirmée à la réunion des points focaux représentant les administrations des pays bénéficiaires et les Organisations régionales de
pêche qui s’est tenu en mars 2011 à Dakar. Par conséquent, l’on s’attend à ce que la CSRP
prenne toutes les mesures nécessaires pour faciliter la réalisation des différentes activités du projet.
Risques
Les risques qui pourraient compromettre ce projet sont minimes dans la mesure où la CSRP met
en œuvre le projet « PSRA-Requins » et a dans ce cadre démontré son intérêt pour le succès de
cette initiative en place depuis près de 8 ans.
CHAMP D’INTERVENTION
Généralités
Présentation du projet
Le projet vise à appuyer la mise en œuvre du Plan d’action sous régional pour la conservation et
la gestion durable des populations de Requins conduit par la CSRP. L’appui d’ACP FISH II est
envisagé sous la forme d’une assistance technique (AT) à court terme et de facilitations pour la
tenue d’un atelier régional de restitution et de validation des travaux d’expertise réalisés.
L’assistance technique sera composée d’experts internationaux, notamment un économiste, spécialiste en évaluation de projets, chef d’équipe, et un spécialiste en droit des pêches.
Les interventions de l’assistance technique se dérouleront en deux phases :
Phase 1
La première phase consiste d’une part à définir un programme de reconversion des acteurs de la
filière requins dans les différents pays, d’autre part à apporter un appui juridique pour
l’amélioration et la mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales en vue de la conservation
et de la gestion durable des Populations de Requins (PSRA-Requins). Les travaux réalisés au
cours de cette phase déboucheront aussi sur des recommandations spécifiques du consultant en
direction des Etats pour garantir la bonne conduite des programmes de reconversion ainsi que
l’amendement des réglementations nationales.
Pour ce faire, le consultant procédera à une revue documentaire et à des visites de terrain. La
revue documentaire consistera notamment à prendre connaissance :
-
-
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
des instruments nationaux et internationaux qui visent à assurer la conservation et la
gestion durable des populations de requins : Plan d’action international pour la
conservation et la gestion des populations de requins (PAI-Requins), Plan sous régional d’action pour la conservation et la gestion durable des populations de requins
(PSRA- Requins) et Plans d’action nationaux requins (PAN), recommandations de
l’ICCAT sur la conservation des requins pélagiques ;
des textes réglementaires régissant l’activité de pêche dans les pays de la CSRP afin
de faire ressortir l’existence ou non de mesures spécifiques de réglementation de la
pêche aux requins dans chaque réglementation nationale ;
des travaux réalisés sous l’égide de la CSRP visant à améliorer la réglementation de
la pêche aux requins pour assurer la durabilité des stocks ;
Page 7 sur 134
-
des études socioéconomiques réalisées dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des Plans
d’action nationaux requins, ayant permis d’avoir une meilleure connaissance de la
filière requins, des acteurs qui le caractérisent, de son organisation et de son fonctionnent.
La revue documentaire et les informations recueillies lors des visites de terrain devront permettre au consultant : i) d’évaluer le degré d’application des mesures réglementaires axées spécifiquement sur la pêche aux requins quand elles existent, puis de formuler des recommandations pour leur mise en œuvre effective le cas échéant; ii) d’identifier les mesures réglementaires
nouvelles et pertinentes à faire adopter dans chaque pays pour limiter l’effort et la capacité de
pêche, en vue d’assurer la durabilité des pêcheries de requins. Dans ce cadre, le consultant devra évaluer l’état de mise en œuvre des recommandations de l’ICCAT relatives à la conservation
des requins pélagiques dans les réglementations nationales. Il proposera ensuite une application
harmonisée de cette réglementation à l’échelle sous régionale. Des propositions quant à la nature
des nouvelles mesures réglementaires à prendre seront également faites par le consultant.
Les visites à effectuer dans les 7 pays de la CSRP permettront au consultant de rencontrer les
acteurs de la filière requins, les autorités sectorielles, les points focaux nationaux des PAN, les
institutions de recherche halieutique. En relation avec ces acteurs, il déterminera les conditions
de faisabilité d’un programme de reconversion des acteurs de la filière requins et identifiera notamment dans chaque pays :
- les activités génératrices de revenus (AGR) dans lesquelles les acteurs pourront valablement se reconvertir ;
- les mesures d’accompagnement nécessaires à la mise en œuvre des programmes nationaux de reconversion, notamment la formation aux nouveaux métiers qui seront
embrassés, les avantages fiscaux ou autres à accorder pour la mise en œuvre des projets de reconversion.
Le consultant évaluera les coûts de reconversion des différents acteurs impliqués dans la filière
requins (pêcheurs, transformateurs, mareyeurs). Ce travail consistera à estimer pour chaque type
d’acteur, les coûts liés à l’abandon de l’activité (estimation du remboursement de
l’investissement existant) et au démarrage d’une activité alternative dans la pêche ou hors de la
pêche. L’évaluation se fera d’abord par pays (mission sous régionale) puis sera synthétisée pour
l’ensemble de l’espace CSRP. Des recommandations portant sur le suivi de l’effectivité de la
reconversion au travers d’enquêtes sur l’ensemble de la chaine de la filière (débarquements,
commercialisation) seront faites par le consultant.
Phase 2
La deuxième phase consistera à présenter lors d’un atelier sous régional de restitution et de validation, les résultats des travaux du consultant notamment : i) les programmes nationaux de reconversion élaborés ; ii) la revue et l’analyse du cadre réglementaire régissant l’exploitation des
requins à l’échelle sous régionale ; et iii) les propositions d’amélioration et de mise en cohérence
des réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins à l’échelle sous régionale.
La CSRP apportera au consultant tout l’appui nécessaire pour la réalisation de la mission, en
particulier son introduction auprès des points focaux des plans d’actions nationaux requins. Ces
derniers seront chargés de faciliter le recueil des données et les entretiens avec les acteurs nationaux de la filière requins, les institutions chargées de gérer la pêche, les institutions de recherche
halieutique ou toute autre institution concernée par la problématique de la reconversion et de la
réglementation de la pêche aux requins. La CSRP mettra aussi à la disposition du consultant
toute la documentation existante sur la mise en œuvre du Plan Sous Régional d’Action pour la
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 8 sur 134
conservation et la gestion durable des Populations de Requins (PSRA- Requins) et des Plans
d’action nationaux requins (PAN).
La validation des principaux produits de la mission (rapport préliminaire, rapport intermédiaire,
projet de rapport technique final et rapport technique final) sera faite par l’Unité de Gestion du
Programme (CU/UFR) en liaison avec la CSRP et les points focaux des plans d’action nationaux
requins.
Zone géographique à couvrir
Le projet concerne tous les pays de la CSRP, notamment le Cap Vert, la Gambie, la Guinée, la
Guinée Bissau, la Mauritanie, le Sénégal et la Sierra Leone.
Groupes cibles
Les groupes cibles du projet sont les autorités chargées des pêches des Etats bénéficiaires, les
centres de recherche, les acteurs spécialisés dans la pêche aux Requins et la CSRP.
Activités spécifiques
4.2.1 Activités spécifiques
Le Consultant effectuera les tâches suivantes réparties en 2 phases:
Phase 1 :
(a) Briefing avec l’Unité de Facilitation Régionale de l’Afrique de l’ouest basée à Dakar et
la CSRP ;
(b) Revue documentaire, analyse et évaluation de la réglementation régissant l’exploitation
des requins dans les pays de la CSRP tenant compte des objectifs et recommandations
émis par le PAI, le PSRA, les PAN et également des mesures pertinentes recommandées
par les organisations régionales des pêches, l’ICCAT notamment;
(c) Revue documentaire, analyse et présentation de la situation de la filière requins dans
chaque pays ;
(d) Entretien avec les acteurs nationaux de la filière requins, les institutions chargées de gérer la pêche, les institutions de recherche halieutique et les autres institutions concernées
lors de la visite des 7 pays de la CSRP ;
(e) Définition d’un programme de reconversion dans chaque pays et évaluation des coûts
liés à ce programme ; formulation de recommandations pour aider chaque Etat membre
de la CSRP à mettre en œuvre son programme de reconversion ;
(f) Elaboration des propositions d’amélioration et de mise en cohérence des réglementations
nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins en ayant défini au préalable les domaines
susceptibles de faire l’objet d’une harmonisation; formulation de recommandations pour
amener chaque Etat de la CSRP à opérer les changements requis dans la réglementation
nationale régissant l’exploitation des requins.
Phase 2 :
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 9 sur 134
(g) Préparer et organiser, en étroite collaboration avec la CSRP et l’Unité de Facilitation Régionale, un atelier sous régional de 2 (deux) jours pour la restitution et la validation des
travaux du consultant. L’atelier se tiendra à Dakar au Sénégal et regroupera un nombre
indicatif de 20 participants (2 participants par pays de la CSRP+6 locaux)
(h) Finaliser les programmes nationaux de reconversion, les propositions d’amélioration et
de mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins
dans chaque pays ainsi que les recommandations à faire aux Etats en prenant en compte
les commentaires et recommandations formulés lors de l’atelier national de restitution et
de validation.
(i) Préparation du Rapport Technique Finale (RTF)
Le consultant sera chargé de l’organisation et de la logistique de l’atelier, étant entendu aussi
qu’il lui sera possible de sous-traiter cette organisation et logistique.
4.2.2 Communication et visibilité du projet
a) Les projets dans le cadre du Programme ACP FISH II doivent prendre en compte les
lignes directrices et les exigences de l’UE en matière de communication et visibilité disponibles
sur
le
site
Internet
du
Programme
http://acpfish2eu.org/index.php?page=templates&hl=fr. Ces modèles pour les différents outils de
communication sont disponibles sur le site du Programme ACP Fish II.
b) Compte tenu de l’importance de l’atelier régional de restitution et de validation en
termes de diffusion des résultats des activités du Projet et du Programme ACP FISH II,
les activités suivantes sont requises :
1) Le Consultant fournira sous forme de communiqué de presse (« note informative ») toutes informations nécessaires concernant les objectifs et résultats du projet, les activités à réaliser, les axes principaux et les objectifs stratégiques proposés et le rôle futur des bénéficiaires.
2) Les Administrations ou les Organismes Régionaux chargés des Pêches recevront
la note informative au plus tard 3 jours avant la tenue de l’atelier par
l’intermédiaire des services de communication/presse ou des officiers de leurs
gouvernements afin de mobiliser les media locaux et assurer la couverture globale de l’événement. Le support financier pour la couverture médiatique est inclus dans les « Dépenses accessoires ». Toute la documentation relative aux dépenses liées à la couverture médiatique est requise pour la vérification des coûts
encourus.
4.2.3 Rapports techniques
Le Consultant doit soumettre les rapports techniques suivants en français et en anglais:
(a) Un Rapport Préliminaire (RP) au plus tard 10 jours après l’arrivée du premier consultant dans son poste d’affectation pour la première fois. Ce rapport présentera la méthodologie et le plan de travail prévus pour élaborer les programmes de reconversion
des acteurs de la filières requins, améliorer et mettre en cohérence les réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins. Le rapport, d’une dizaine de
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 10 sur 134
pages maximum, sera soumis à la CSRP à UC et à l’ UFR) pour validation. Les
commentaires, s’il y a lieu, seront formulés dans un délai de 5 jours à compter de la
date de réception dudit rapport;
(b) Un Rapport Intermédiaire (RI) au plus tard 14 jours après la fin de la première phase
de la mission. Ce rapport présentera les programmes nationaux de reconversion des
acteurs de la filière requins vers d’autres activités génératrices de revenus incluant :
i) une estimation des coûts de la reconversion ; ii) une évaluation des réglementations nationales relatives à la gestion des stocks de requins ; iii) les propositions
d’amélioration et de mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales régissant
l’exploitation des requins dans les pays de la CSRP, au regard des objectifs et recommandations émis par le PAI, le PSRA et les PAN; iv) les recommandations pour
aider les Etats de la CSRP à mettre en œuvre leurs programmes de reconversion et à
opérer les changements requis dans les réglementations nationales régissant
l’exploitation des requins. Ce rapport sera soumis à la CSRP, à l’UFR et à l’UC, aux
ponts focaux des PAN pour commentaires. Ces derniers, s’il y a lieu, seront formulés
dans un délai maximum de 10 jours à compter de la date de réception dudit rapport.
(c) Un Projet de Rapport Technique Final (PRTF) prenant en compte les commentaires
et recommandations de l’atelier national de restitution et de validation 14 jours après
le départ des experts du pays. Il devra comprendre les versions révisées des documents constitutifs du rapport intermédiaire, notamment, les programmes nationaux de
reconversion, l’évaluation des réglementations nationales relatives à la gestion des
stocks de requins, les propositions d’amélioration et de mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales. Ce rapport sera transmis à la CSRP, aux points focaux nationaux des PAN, à l’UFR et à l’UC qui disposeront d’un délai de 14 jours à compter de
la date de réception dudit rapport pour effectuer leurs commentaires. A défaut de
commentaires durant ce délai de 14 jours, le Projet de Rapport Technique Final sera
considéré comme approuvé et réputé être le Rapport Technique Final.
(d) Un Rapport Technique Final (RTF) prenant en compte les commentaires qui seront
émis dans le délai de 14 jours visé au point (c). Le Consultant disposera de 10 jours
pour soumettre ce RTF.
Les modèles des rapports techniques sont disponibles sur le site Internet du Programme ACP
FISH II http://acpfish2-eu.org/index.php?page=templates&hl=fr. Tous les rapports techniques
doivent respecter les modèles fournis.
Gestion du projet
4.3.1 Organe chargé de la gestion du projet
L’Unité de Coordination (UC) du programme ACP FISH II, représentant le Secrétariat ACP,
est responsable de la gestion de la mise en œuvre de ce projet.
4.3.2 Structure de gestion
Le programme ACP FISH II est exécuté à travers l’Unité de Coordination (UC) à Bruxelles et
six Unités de Facilitation Régionales (UFR) basées dans les pays ACP. L’UFR de Dakar couvrant l’ensemble des pays ACP de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, soutiendra la mise en œuvre et le suivi
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 11 sur 134
de l’exécution du projet lié à ces termes de référence. Pour ce contrat, le Coordinateur du programme ACP FISH II agira en qualité de chef de projet.
Toute communication contractuelle, y compris les requêtes de modification des termes de référence ou du contrat durant sa période d’exécution, doit être adressée par écrit à l’UC avec copie
à l’UFR. L’accord du bénéficiaire est nécessaire pour les changements ci-mentionnés.
4.3.3 Moyens à mettre à disposition par le pouvoir adjudicateur et/ou d'autres intervenants
Non applicable.
LOGISTIQUE ET CALENDRIER
Lieu du projet
Les activités du projet se dérouleront dans les pays de la sous région. L’autorité hôte est l’UFR
de Dakar au Sénégal. Les visites de terrain se dérouleront en fonction du programme de travail
présenté par le Consultant.
Date de début et période mise en œuvre
La date prévue pour le début du projet est fixée au 23 avril 2012 pour une durée de 5 mois à
compter de la date de signature du contrat. Se reporter aux articles 4 et 5 des conditions particulières pour la date de début réelle et la période de mise en œuvre.
BESOINS
Ressources humaines
Experts principaux.
Tous les experts appelés à exercer une fonction importante dans l'exécution du contrat sont désignés par le terme "experts principaux". Ils doivent avoir le profil suivant:
Expert principal 1: Chef d’équipe – Economiste
Qualifications et compétences
• Diplôme universitaire de niveau supérieur en économie, gestion, ou toute autre spécialisation pertinente;
• Bonne maîtrise, parlée et écrite, de l’anglais et du français;
Expérience professionnelle générale
• Au moins 10 ans d’expérience internationale dans le secteur des pêches;
• Capacité avérée de gestion de projet, de communication et de rédaction de rapports.
Expérience professionnelle spécifique
• Expérience dans la formulation et l’évaluation des projets de reconversion (minimum 2
missions)
• Expérience dans la sous région est un avantage;
• Bonne connaissance des pêcheries de l’Afrique de l’ouest est un avantage ;
• Expérience en tant que consultant de l’UE ou d’autres agences internationales de développement similaires (minimum de 3 missions est requis).
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 12 sur 134
Un nombre indicatif de 6 missions en dehors de son lieu normal d’affectation (Dakar - Sénégal)
et nécessitant des nuitées est prévu pour cet expert.
Des visites de terrain en dehors de son lieu normal d’affection (Dakar - Sénégal) sont également
prévu pour cet expert.
Expert principal 2 : Spécialiste en droit des pêches
Qualifications et compétences
•
•
Diplôme universitaire de niveau supérieur en droit (droit maritime, droit international de
la mer, droit des ressources naturelles ou toute autre spécialisation pertinente);
Bonne maîtrise du français et de l’anglais à l’écrit et à l’oral;
Expérience professionnelle générale
•
•
Au moins 10 ans d’expérience internationale dans le domaine des pêches;
Capacité avérée de communication et de rédaction de rapports.
Expérience professionnelle spécifique
•
•
•
Expérience en matière de rédaction et d’analyse de textes législatifs et réglementaires sur
la pêche (un minimum de 3 missions est requis);
Expérience dans la sous-région est un avantage;
Expérience en tant que consultant de l’UE ou d’autres agences internationales de développement similaires (minimum de 3 missions est requis).
Aucune mission en dehors du pays d’affectation n’est prévue pour cet expert.
Des visites de terrain en dehors de son lieu normal d’affection (Dakar - Sénégal) sont prévues pour
cet expert.
Nombre de jours indicatif alloués à chaque expert principal par activité
Expert
principal 1
(jours)
Briefing avec l’Unité de Facilitation Régionale de l’Afrique
1
de l’ouest basée à Dakar et la CSRP
Revue documentaire et analyse des réglementations natio0
nales régissant l’exploitation des requins dans les pays de la
CSRP en tenant compte des objectifs, et recommandations
émis par le PAI, le PSRA et les PAN
Activités
Expert principal 2
(jours)
1
5
Revue documentaire, analyse et présentation de la situation
de la filière requins dans chaque pays
3
0
Entretien avec les acteurs nationaux de la filière requins, les
18
0
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 13 sur 134
institutions chargées de gérer la pêche, les institutions de
recherche halieutique et les autres institutions concernées
lors de la visite des 7 pays de la CSRP
Définition d’un programme de reconversion dans chaque
pays et évaluation des coûts liés à ce programme ; formulation de recommandations pour aider chaque Etat de la CSRP
à mettre en œuvre son programme de reconversion
Elaboration des propositions d’amélioration et de mise en
cohérence des réglementations nationales régissant
l’exploitation des requins ; formulation de recommandations
pour amener chaque Etat de la CSRP à opérer les changements requis dans la réglementation nationale régissant
l’exploitation des requins
14
0
0
5
Préparation et tenue de l’atelier sous régional de restitution
et de validation des travaux du consultant
Préparation et soumission du rapport technique final (RTF)
Total
3
3
3
42
2
16
Information additionnelle
a) Il est prévu que les experts passent dans les pays à visiter, le lieu d’affectation et le lieu
de tenue de l’atelier au moins 70% du nombre total de jours indicatifs alloués.
b) Les fonctionnaires d’Etat et autres membres du personnel de l’administration publique
du pays bénéficiaire ne peuvent pas être recrutés comme experts sans qu’une approbation
écrite préalable n’ait été obtenue de la Commission Européenne.
c) Le consultant devra compléter les fiches de présence en utilisant le modèle d’ACP FISH
II fourni par l’UC. Le Consultant est autorisé à travailler un maximum de 6 jours par semaine. Les jours de mobilisation et de démobilisation ne seront pas considérés comme
des jours ouvrables. Seulement dans le cas où le voyage de mobilisation dépasserait les
24 heures, ce jour additionnel de mobilisation sera considéré comme un jour ouvrable.
Personnel de soutien et appui technique
Le coût de l’appui technique et du personnel de soutien doit être inclus dans les honoraires des
experts.
Bureaux
Le prestataire doit mettre à la disposition de chaque expert engagé dans le cadre du contrat un
bureau de 10 mètres carrés environ, d'un niveau correct. Les frais de location de bureau sont
couverts par les honoraires des experts.
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 14 sur 134
Installations et équipement mis à disposition par le prestataire
Le prestataire doit veiller à ce que les experts disposent du matériel nécessaire (notamment
équipement informatique pour la rédaction et production de rapport et outil de communication
pour la prise de contacte avec le partenaire du projet) et de ressources satisfaisantes, notamment
en matière d'administration, de secrétariat et d'interprétation, pour pouvoir se consacrer pleinement à leur mission. Il doit également transférer les fonds nécessaires au financement des activités prévues au titre du contrat et s'assurer que le personnel est rémunéré régulièrement et en
temps voulu.
Si le prestataire est un consortium, les accords relatifs au consortium doivent accorder le maximum de souplesse pour la mise en œuvre du marché. Il est recommandé d'éviter des accords
prévoyant un pourcentage fixe des prestations du marché pour chaque partenaire du consortium.
Matériel
Aucun bien d'équipement ne sera acheté pour le compte du pouvoir adjudicateur/du pays bénéficiaire au titre du présent marché de services ni transféré au pouvoir adjudicateur/au pays bénéficiaire à la fin du contrat. Tout bien d'équipement qui devra être acheté par le pays bénéficiaire
pour les besoins du marché fera l'objet d'une procédure d'appel d'offres de fournitures distincte.
Dépenses accessoires
La provision pour dépenses accessoires couvre les dépenses secondaires et exceptionnelles éligibles encourues dans le cadre du marché. Elle ne peut pas être utilisée pour couvrir les coûts
incombant au prestataire au titre de ses honoraires, tels que définis ci-dessus. Son utilisation est
régie par les conditions générales et les notes de l'annexe V du contrat. Elle couvre:
a) EXPERTS PRINCIPAUX
•
les frais de déplacement et les indemnités de séjour (per diem) versés pour des missions
effectuées par les Experts Principaux, en dehors du pays d'affectation, dans le cadre
du présent marché. Si cela est applicable, indiquer si la disposition comprend des mesures environnementales, par exemple, la compensation CO2.
•
Les frais de déplacement pour les visites de terrain dans le pays d’affectation effectuées par les Experts Principaux (location de voiture ou bateau, carburant et vols intérieurs).
Toute indemnité de séjour versée pour des missions effectuées dans le cadre du présent marché
ne doit pas dépasser le taux des indemnités journalières publié sur le site Web :
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/index_en.htm, au début de chaque mission de ce
type.
b) ORGANISATION DES ATELIERS/ RÉUNIONS
• Le coût d’organisation des ateliers, de validation y compris les frais de location de la
salle de réunion, activités de communication et média, transport (voyages intérieurs ou
location de voiture ou bateau de/à), logement et repas des participants. Pour les participants qui ne nécessitent pas de nuitées, les frais de déplacements seront pris en charge
sur la base des frais réels. Les coûts pour le logement et le repas ne doivent pas dépasser
le taux des indemnités journalières de l’UE.
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 15 sur 134
•
Le coût de la location de la salle de réunion (si nécessaire) et du déjeuner pour les réunions d’une durée inférieure à une journée avec les participants locaux.
c) TRADUCTION ET INTERPRETATION
•
Le coût de traduction du Projet de Rapport Technique Final (PRTF) et du RTF approuvé
ainsi que de son rapport exécutif seront traduit en français si le document original est
produit en anglais ou en anglais dans le cas contraire;
•
Le coût d’interprétation pendant les 2 jours d’atelier, incluant deux interprètes, un traduisant du français vers l’anglais et l’autre de l’anglais vers le français.
d) AUTRES
La provision pour dépenses accessoires s'élève à 28 910 euros pour le présent marché. Ce montant doit être inclus sans modification dans le budget ventilé.
Vérification des dépenses
La provision pour vérification des dépenses concerne les honoraires de l’auditeur qui a été chargé d’effectuer la vérification des dépenses dans le cadre du contrat afin de procéder aux paiements supplémentaires de préfinancement le cas échéant et/ou aux paiements intermédiaires s’il
y en a.
La provision pour vérification des dépenses s'élève à 1500 euros pour le présent marché. Ce
montant doit être inclus sans modification dans le budget ventilé.
Cette provision ne peut pas être diminuée mais peut être augmentée pendant l'exécution du contrat.
RAPPORTS
Rapports obligatoires
Voir l'article 26 des conditions générales. Un rapport final accompagné du Rapport Technique
Final (RTF) approuvé d’une facture finale, du rapport financier et du rapport de vérification des
dépenses devra être établi à la fin du contrat. Le Rapport Final (RF) sera soumis à l’UC après
avoir reçu l’approbation du Rapport Technique Final (RTF).
Le Rapport Final (RF) s'ajoute à ceux éventuellement requis au point 4.2 des présents Termes de
référence.
Le Rapport Final (RF) doit consister en une section narrative et une section financière. La section financière doit contenir des données détaillées relatives au temps que les experts ont consacré au contrat, aux dépenses accessoires et à la provision pour vérification des dépenses.
Pour résumer le contractant doit fournir les rapports suivants (conformément aux sections 4.2.3
et 7.1):
Intitulé du rapport
Contenu
Délai de soumission
Rapport préliminaire
Méthodologie et plan de travail Au plus tard 10 jours après
(RP)
prévus pour élaborer les pro- l’arrivée du premier consulNovembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 16 sur 134
Rapport intermédiaire
Projet de rapport technique final
Rapport technique final
(RTF)
Rapport d'activités final
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
grammes de reconversion des
acteurs de la filières requins,
améliorer et mettre en cohérence les réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation
des requins
Présentation : i) des programmes nationaux de reconversion des acteurs de la filière
requins vers d’autres activités
génératrices de revenus incluant une estimation des coûts
de la reconversion ; ii) de
l’évaluation des réglementations nationales relatives à la
gestion des stocks de requins et
des propositions d’amélioration
et de mise en cohérence des
réglementations
nationales
régissant l’exploitation des
requins dans les pays de la
CSRP; iii) des recommandations pour aider les Etats de la
CSRP à mettre en œuvre leurs
programmes de reconversion et
à opérer les changements requis dans les réglementations
nationales
régissant
l’exploitation des requins
Rapport d’étape amendé et
enrichi par les commentaires et
recommandations de l’atelier
national de restitution et de
validation
Projet de rapport technique
final intégrant les commentaires de l’Unité de Gestion du
Programme
tant
dans
son
poste
d’affectation pour la première fois.
Le rapport final avec une brève
description des réalisations de
caractère technique y compris
les problèmes rencontrés, les
recommandations et propositions, accompagné du rapport
technique final, d’une facture
finale et du rapport de vérification des dépenses.
Après réception de
l’approbation du Rapport
Technique Final (RTF)
Page 17 sur 134
Au plus 14 jours après la fin
de la première phase du
projet.
Au plus tard 14 jours après
le départ des experts du pays
Au plus tard 10 jours après
réception des commentaires
de l’Unité de Gestion du
Programme
Présentation et approbation des rapports
Le Rapport Technique Final doit être rédigé en français et en anglais. L’approbation de ce rapport incombe au gestionnaire du projet identifié dans le contrat. Deux exemplaires du Rapport
Technique Final approuvé à soumettre au gestionnaire du projet indiqué dans le contrat (UC), un
à l’UFR ; deux à chacun bénéficiaire et à la CSRP (11 en français et 5 en anglais), dont le coût
sera compris dans les honoraires.
SUIVI ET ÉVALUATION
Définition d'indicateurs
Les résultats attendus sont mentionnés au point 2.3. Les indicateurs de suivi de ces résultats sont
les suivants :
a) la rapidité de la mobilisation des consultants dans le lieu d’affectation et dans les
pays à visiter;
b) l’appui apporté par les points focaux des PAN aux missions du consultant dans
les pays;
c) la validation du rapport préliminaire et du rapport intermédiaire par la CSRP,
l’Unité de Gestion du Programme (UFR/UC) et les points focaux des PAN;
d) l’organisation de l’atelier sous régional de restitution et de validation formation et
la qualité de la participation, notamment la présence des points focaux des PAN;
e) la validation par l’atelier sous régional de restitution et de validation du rapport
du consultant ;
f) Le respect du calendrier des étapes importantes du projet et des délais de livraison des rapports;
L’UFR et l’UC pourront proposer, en cas de besoin, d’autres indicateurs de suivi pendant la durée du contrat.
Exigences particulières
Non applicable.
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 18 sur 134
Annex III: List of Persons Met
Mr Alioune SY
Dr Hamady DIOP
Coordonnateur Régional Afrique de l'Ouest (ACP Fish II)
Chef de Département Recherche et Systèmes d’information (CSRP)
Senegal
Senegal
Dr Mika DIOP
Coordonnateur Projet PSRA-Requins
Senegal
Mrs DiénabaBèye TRAORE
Chef du Département Juridique CSRP
Senegal
Mr Lamine MBAYE
Mr Framoudou DOUMBOUYA
Point focal PSRA-Requins Sénégal /DPM
Biologiste des Pêches au CNSHB. Point focal du PSRA-Requins
Senegal
Guinea
Mr Hassimou TALL
Directeur National de la Pêche Maritime
Guinea
Mr Seny CAMARA
Chef division Pêche Industrielle / Point Focal ACP Fish II
Guinea
Mr Mamadou CAMARA
Directeur Communal de la pêche de Kaloum
Guinea
Mr Abdourahmane KABA
Secrétaire Général du Ministre de Pêche
Guinea
Mr Mamadou KALY BAH
Researchers
Directeur Général CNSHB
Centre National des Sciences Halieutiques de Boussoura
Guinea
Guinea
Mr NfamaraJerro DAMPHA
Director of Fisheries Department. Chairman SRFC
The Gambia
MrJanko BOJANG
Principal Fisheries Assistant. Fisheries Department
The Gambia
Fishers
Mr Juvino VIEIRA
Brufut
Directeur Général das Pescas
The Gambia
Cape Verde
Mr Victor BARRETO
Mrs Vera F.A. GOMINHO
Directeur Régional INDP
Point Focal PSRA-Requins Cap-Vert /INDP
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Mrs Iolanda BRITES
Mrs Mecildes TAVARES
Conseillère DG das Pescas
Direcção Geral das Pescas
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Mr José SANTOS CARVALHO
Directeur quai pèche Praia
Cape Verde
Mrs Osvaldina BARROS
Mr Hotanga A. ROBBIE
Enquêteur INDP Praia
DeputyDirector of Fisheries
Cape Verde
Sierra Leone
Mr Mani KOROMA
Mr T K TAYLOR
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Ministry of fisheries and Marine Resources
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Mr Lahai SESAY
Fishers, Traders & Processors
Point Focal PSR-Requins Sierra Leone / MFMR
Goderich, Tombo
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Mr Alahi CONTEH
Enqueteur MFMR / Tombo
Sierra Leone
Mr Paul M. JAIA
Services d’extension MFMR
Sierra Leone
Mr Charles BARLEUI
Mr HAYE Ould Didi
Enqueteur MFMR /Shenge
Direction de l’Aménagement des Ressources et de l’Océanographie
Sierra Leone
Mauritania
Mr Lamine CAMARA
Point Focal PSR-Requins Mauritanie / DPM
Mauritania
Mr EBAYE Ould Mohamed
Directeur-Adjoint du PNBA
Mauritania
Mr Ibrahima NDIAYE
Pêcheur / armateur / distributeur
Coordonnateur Régional Programme Régional des Pêches en
Afrique de l’Ouest (PRAO)
Mauritania
Dr Demba KANE
Mr Ibrahim TURAY
Mr Moustapha DEME
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Expert Régional Suivi Evaluation PRAO
Chercheur économiste CRODT / ISRA
Page 19 sur 134
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Annex IV: Preliminary Report
"Renforcement de la Gestion des Pêches
dans les pays ACP"
Rapport Préliminaire
Appui à la mise en œuvre du Plan Sous Régional d’Action pour la
conservation et la gestion durable des Populations de Requins
(PSRA-Requins):
N° de ref. du projet
(WA-1.3-B4)
Région
Pays de la Commission Sous Régionale des Pêches (CSRP) : le Cap Vert,
la Gambie, la Mauritanie, le Sénégal, la Guinée, la Guinée Bissau et
la Sierra Leone
Date
09 Juillet 2012
Projet mis en œuvre par:
Ce projet est financé
par l’Union européenne
« La présente publication a été élaborée avec l’aide de l’Union européenne. Le contenu de la publication relève de la seule responsabilité
de <nom de l’auteur/contractant
et ne peut aucunement être considérée
“Le contenu de ce document ne reflète pas nécessairement le point de vue des gouvernements concernés.”
Novembre 2010
TdR WA-1.3-B4
Page 20 sur 134
dans les pays ACP"
TABLE DES MATIERES
1.
BRÈVE PRÉSENTATION ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.
APPROCHE DE LA MISSION (MÉTHODOLOGIE) .................................................................................... 3
2.1
PHASE 1 : REVUE DOCUMENTAIRE, VISITES DE TERRAIN, DEFINITION DES PROGRAMMES DE RECONVERSION ET PROPOSITION
D’AMELIORATION DES REGLEMENTATIONS NATIONALES .......................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Revue documentaire...................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Visites de terrain ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.3 Définition des programmes de reconversion et proposition d’amélioration des
réglementations nationales........................................................................................................... 5
2.2
PHASE2 : ORGANISATION D’UN ATELIER SOUS REGIONAL ET PREPARATION DU RAPPORT TECHNIQUE FINAL ....................... 7
2.2.1 Atelier de partage.......................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Rapport Technique Final ................................................................................................................ 7
3.
CONSTITUTION ET COMPOSITION DE L’EQUIPE TECHNIQUE ............................................................... 7
4.
PLAN DE TRAVAIL ................................................................................................................................ 8
5.
RÉSULTATS DE LA RÉVISION INITIALE DES DOCUMENTS ..................................................................... 9
6.
PRINCIPAUX PROBLÈMES IDENTIFIÉS À DISCUTER / RÉSOUDRE ........................................................ 11
7.
RECOMMANDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 11
2
Ce projet est financé par l’Union européenne
Un projet mis en œuvre par (Contractant)
dans les pays ACP"
1. BREVE PRESENTATION
Ce Rapport Préliminaire, soumis endéans les 10 jours après le démarrage de la mission, le 3
juillet 2012, présente la méthodologie et le plan de travail proposé pour atteindre les trois
résultats spécifiques prévus dans les TdR :
1. Un programme de reconversion des acteurs de la filière requins vers d’autres
activités génératrices de revenus incluant une estimation des coûts de la reconversion est élaboré pour chaque pays concerné;
2. Des propositions d’amélioration et de mise en cohérence des réglementations
nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins dans les pays de la CSRP en tenant
compte des objectifs et recommandations émis par le PAI-requins, l’ICCAT, le PSRArequins, les PAN requins. Les réglementations tiendront compte des recommandations de l’ICCAT pour la conservation des requins pélagiques.
3. Des recommandationspour aider les Etats de la CSRP à mettre en œuvre leurs
programmes de reconversion et à opérer les changements requis dans réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins.
Dans la deuxième phase de l’intervention les résultats préliminaires seront présentés et discutés lors d’un atelier d’une durée de deux jours avec une participation prévue de vingt personnes
2. APPROCHE DE LA MISSION (MÉTHODOLOGIE)
Les interventions de l’assistance technique se dérouleront en deux phases :
2.1
Phase 1 : Revue documentaire, visites de terrain, définition des programmes de
reconversion et proposition d’amélioration des réglementations nationales
2.1.1 Revue documentaire
L’équipe de projet a mis à la disposition du consultant tous les documents et toutes les informations disponibles pour la conduite de cette mission d’assistance.
Le consultant fera un inventaire des documents mis à sa disposition ou produits au cours de
la mission pour les besoins de l’étude. Ces documents, considérés comme confidentiels et
utilisés comme tels, seront restitués à la fin de l’intervention.
Le recueil de données sera surtout qualitatif, les données secondaires étant de nature quantitative. L’approche qualitative induit naturellement les entretiens semi structurés, les focus
group et l’observation, qui seront les principales techniques de collecte des informations.
3
dans les pays ACP"
La définition des sources d’information reste en réalité soumise à l’identification des acteurs/clés impliqués dans le processus de reconversion. Il est important que les sources
d’information ne soient pas limitées aux seuls acteurs.
Il est tout aussi important de recueillir des informations au niveau des programmes ou projets
de même nature, d’ONG et de partenaires au développement impliqués dans la conservation
et la gestion durable des Populations de Requins. A ce propos, l’on peut citer :
2.1.2. Visites de terrain
La liste des interlocuteurs et autorités à rencontrer dans les sept pays, avec l’appui des
Points Focaux, comprendra, dans la mesure du possible compte tenu des délais pour les
visites aux pays (deux jours), entre autres :
-
Acteurs de la filière requins : organisations de pêcheurs, transformatrices, mareyeuses et expéditeurs, société civile, ONG…
Autorités sectorielles et collectivités décentralisées
Partenaires techniques et financiers
Institutions de recherche halieutique
La CSRP apportera au consultant l’appui nécessaire pour la réalisation de la mission, en
particulier son introduction auprès des points focaux des PAN Requins qui seront chargés de
faciliter le recueil des données et coordonner les entretiens.
Lors des visites, l’expert procédera à collecter des études socioéconomiques réalisées dans
le cadre de la mise en œuvre des PAN, permettant d’avoir une meilleure connaissance de la
filière requins, des acteurs qui la caractérisent, de son organisation et de son fonctionnement. Le consultant procédera également à recueillir les textes réglementaires régissant
l’activité de pêche dans les pays de la CSRP.
À partir de l’information primaire et secondaire obtenue, les tableaux de résultats suivants
seront produits par pays :
Indicateur
Pêche
Embarcations actives dans le pays (spécialisées requins)
Marins pêcheurs
Valeur actuelle del'unité de pêche (barque, moteuret équipes)
Sorties de pêche par an
Production et valeur (ailerons + carcasse)
Système de rétribution
Transformation/distribution
Personnes qui achètent pour transformer
Personnes qui achètent pour commercialiser
Nombre de personnes travaillant pour des transf./comm.
Quantité acheté par an
Poids sec / poids frais
Nombre
Moyenne par barque / nombre total
Moyenne
Moyenne
Moyenne par an
% propriétaire et base de partage
Nombre
Nombre
Moyenne
Moyenne
Pourcentage
4
dans les pays ACP"
Prix de vente
Valeur des investissements
Moyenne
Moyenne
2.1.3 Définition des programmes de reconversion et proposition d’amélioration des
réglementations nationales
Conformément aux TdR, cette étape consistera d’une part à définir un programme de reconversion des acteurs de la filière requins dans les différents pays, et d’autre part à apporter un
appui juridique pour l’amélioration et la mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales
en vue de la conservation et de la gestion durable des Populations de Requins.
a) Programme de reconversion
En principe, les contenus prévus sont :
1. Introduction
2. Méthodologie
3. Principes
4. Diagnostic de la filière
4.1. Description et histoire de l’activité extractive
4.1.1. Effort de pêche et état d’exploitation des stocks
4.1.2. Production
4.1.3. Profil socio-économique des acteurs
4.2. Valorisation des produits de la pêche artisanale
4.2.1. Distribution
4.2.2. Transformation
4.3. Financement et rentabilité des activités
4.4. Problème central, causes et effets
5. Objectifs et axes de l’intervention
6. Activités génératrices d’emploi : actions concrètes sur les possibilités de reconversion
des acteurs, actions pilotes à mettre en œuvre et besoins en termes d’appui technique
et financier pour la reconversion (vers des nouvelles filières et dans le secteur).
7. Mesures d’accompagnement et méthodes permettant de décourager les acteurs impliqués dans la transformation et la commercialisation des produits de Requins
8. Institutions impliquées et fonctions
9. Recommandations pour la mise en œuvre du Plan de Reconversion et le suivi
10. Matrice de planification
11. Estimation des coûts de la reconversion et pistes de financement. Coûts liés à
l’abandon de l’activité (estimation du remboursement de l’investissement existant) et
au démarrage d’une activité alternative.
5
dans les pays ACP"
12. Chronogramme.
L’évaluation se fera d’abord par pays (mission sous régionale) puis sera synthétisée pour
l’ensemble de l’espace CSRP.
Les principales limitations envisagées sont liées à i) la durée des visites aux pays et ii) la disponibilité
d’informations quantitatives permettant d'estimer les coûts des mesures de reconversion et le
nombre de bénéficiaires. Pour surmonter ces problèmes, dans la mesure du possible, il est envisagé
de :
1. Compter sur les points focaux nationaux pour l’organisation des agendas de travail, pour la
collecte de données existantes au niveau de chaque pays et pour l’obtention des textes juridiques en vigueur. L’organisation de focus groups avec des acteurs est vivement recommandée.
2. A défaut de données précises, les estimations seront faites sur la base d’informations indirectes.
b) Propositions d’amélioration des réglementations nationales
Les travaux réalisés au cours de cette phase déboucheront sur des recommandations spécifiques du consultant en direction des Etats pour garantir la bonne conduite des programmes
de reconversion ainsi que l’amendement des réglementations nationales.
Dans ce cadre, le consultant évaluera l’état de mise en œuvre
l’ICCAT relatives à la conservation des requins pélagiques dans
nales. Il proposera ensuite une application harmonisée de cette
sous régionale. Des propositions quant à la nature des nouvelles
prendre seront également faites par le consultant.
des recommandations de
les réglementations natioréglementation à l’échelle
mesures réglementaires à
La revue de la base de données disponible à la CSRP et les informations recueillies permettront au consultant :
1. d’évaluer le degré d’application des mesures réglementaires axées spécifiquement
sur la pêche aux requins quand elles existent, puis de formuler des recommandations
pour leur mise en œuvre effective le cas échéant ;
2. d’identifier les mesures réglementaires nouvelles et pertinentes à faire adopter
dans chaque pays pour limiter l’effort et la capacité de pêche, en vue d’assurer la durabilité des pêcheries de requins.
La phase 1 donnera lieu à la soumission d’un Rapport Intermédiaire (RI) au plus tard la
troisième semaine d’Août. Ce rapport, en français et anglais, sera soumis à la CSRP, à
l’UFR et à l’UC, et aux ponts focaux des PAN pour commentaires. Ces derniers, s’il y a lieu,
seront formulés dans un délai maximum de 10 jours à compter de la date de réception dudit
rapport.
6
dans les pays ACP"
2.2. Phase2 : Organisation d’un atelier sous régional et préparation du rapport technique final
2.2.1 Atelier de restitution et validation
Dans une deuxième phase, les consultants présenteront lors d’un atelier d’une durée de 2
jours, et réunissant une vingtaine de personnes (2 participants par pays de la CSRP + 6 locaux) les résultats des travaux notamment :
1. les programmes nationaux de reconversion élaborés
2. la revue et l’analyse du cadre réglementaire régissant l’exploitation des requins à
l’échelle sous régionale
3. les propositions d’amélioration et de mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins à l’échelle sous régionale.
Le consultant sera chargé de l’organisation et de la logistique de l’atelier, mais il lui sera
possible de sous-traiter cette organisation et logistique.
2.2.2 Rapport Technique Final
A la fin de cette phase le Consultant soumettra un Projet de Rapport Technique Final
(PRTF) prenant en compte les commentaires et recommandations de l’atelier de restitution
et de validation 14 jours après la fin de la mission (octobre).
Il comprendra les versions révisées des documents constitutifs du rapport intermédiaire, notamment, les programmes nationaux de reconversion, l’évaluation des réglementations nationales relatives à la gestion des stocks de requins les propositions d’amélioration et de
mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales.
Ce rapport sera transmis à la CSRP, aux points focaux nationaux des PAN, à l’UFR et à l’UC
qui disposeront d’un délai de 14 jours à compter de la date de réception dudit rapport pour
effectuer leurs commentaires. A défaut de commentaires durant ce délai de 14 jours, le Projet de Rapport Technique Final sera considéré comme approuvé et réputé être le Rapport
Technique Final.
3. CONSTITUTION ET COMPOSITION DE L’EQUIPE TECHNIQUE
Les deux experts responsables pour cette mission sont :
1. Javier MACÍAS : Expert principal 1, Chef d’équipe, socio-économiste de la pêche
2. Mohamed FALL : Expert principal 2, Spécialiste en droit des pêches, juriste des pêches.
7
dans les pays ACP"
4. PLAN DE TRAVAIL
Semaine
Juillet
1 2 3
Phase 1
Mobilisation Expert principal (Dakar)
Briefing avec l’Unité de Facilitation Régionale de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et la CSRP (Dakar)
Élaboration de la méthodologie et plan de travail prévu
Soumission du Rapport Préliminaire à la CSRP à l’UC et à l’UFR pour validation
Revue documentaire, analyse et évaluation de la réglementation
Revue documentaire et analyse de la situation de la filière requins dans chaque pays
Demande de visas auprès des ambassades à Dakar et préparation de l’agenda
Entretiens dans les pays de la CSRP
- Sénégal
- Guinée
- Gambie
- Cap Vert
. Sierra Leone
- Mauritanie
Définition et rédaction des programmes de reconversion, évaluation des coûts et recommandations
Élaboration du Rapport Intermédiaire
Soumission de Rapport Intermédiaire (RI)
Révision et finalisation du RI
Phase 2
Tenue de l’atelier sous régional de 2 jours pour la restitution et la validation des travaux (Dakar)
Rédaction du projet de RTF
Soumission du projet de Rapport Technique Final (RTF)
Soumission du Rapport Technique Final
Soumission du Rapport Final
Soumission du Rapport d’activités final
4
5
Août
6 7
8
9
Septembre
10 11 12
13
Octobre
14 15
●
●
●
●
●
●
pg. 8
16
dans les pays ACP"
PLANNING DE MOBILISATION D'EXPERTS
Semaine
Juillet
1
2
Août
3
4
5
6
Septembre
7
8
9
10
11
Octobre
12
13
14
15
16
Expert principal 1, Chef d’équipe – Économiste
Expert principal 2, spécialiste en droit des pêches
Terrain
Siege
Le total de jours de travail prestés est de 58 (42 pour l’expert principal et 16 pour le spécialiste en droit des pêches).
PLAN DE VOYAGES DE L’EXPERT PRINCIPAL
Semaine
Juillet
1
2
3
Août
4
5
6
7
Septembre
8
9
10
11
12
Dakar - Conakry - Dakar
Dakar – Banjul – Dakar
Dakar – Praia - Dakar
Dakar – Freetown - Dakar
Dakar – Nouakchott – Dakar
Dakar – Las Palmas
Las Palmas – Dakar
Dakar - Las Palmas
9
dans les pays ACP"
5. RÉSULTATS DE LA RÉVISION INITIALE DES DOCUMENTS
Le tableau suivant montre les données disponibles sur la situation de la filière à partir de la révision
des rapports des études socioéconomiques réalisées dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des Plans
d’action nationaux requins mis à disposition par le coordonnateur du Projet PSRA-requins :
-
Réflexions sur les actions pilotes de reconversion des acteurs spécialisés dans la filière pêche
aux Requins : Cas de la Guinée (2006, 11 pages)
Identification des mesures fiscales pour la régulation de la pêche aux Requins dans l’espace de
la Commission Sous Régionale des Pêches (2008, 11 pages)
Rapport de réunion d’information des pêcheurs du Cap Vert sur l’état de conservation des Requins et les perspectives de reconversion des acteurs spécialisés dans la filière (2009, 5 pages)
La place de la pêcherie de Requins dans le secteur de la pêche et dans l'économie sénégalaise
(2010, 12 pages)
Étude d’évaluation du cout financier de la reconversion des pêcheurs sénégalais spécialisés a
la pêche aux requins et installes au Sénégal (2007, 15 pages)
Etude des paramètres essentiels des principales espèces de Requins pêchées en Casamance
(Sénégal) (2009, 23 pages)
Study on evaluation of financial cost for re-conversion of actors specialized in shark fishery in
the Gambia (10 pages)
Report on reconversion of shark fisher folks to alternative forms of livelihoods in Sierra Leone
(14 pages)
Atelier régional de concertation sur les actions de reconversion des acteurs spécialisés dans la
filière Requins dans l’espace CSRP (2009, 40 pages)
Estimation du coût de reconversion des pêcheurs de Requins en Guinée-Bissau (2008, 6 pages)
Etude pour le développement d’un programme pilote d’appui à la reconversion des acteurs
spécialisés de la filière d’exploitation des requins dans les Etats membres de la CSRP : cas du
Sénégal (2007, 11 pages)
10
dans les pays ACP"
Pêche
Embarcations spécialisées actives
Pêcheurs (Moyenne par barque)
Pêcheurs (Nombre total)
Valeur actuelle del'unité de pêche (Moyenne)
Valeur actuelle des engins de pêche (FCFAS,
Moyenne)
Sorties de pêche par an (Moyenne)
Sénégal
(1)
Guinée
(2)
Gambie
(3)
G. Bissau
(4)
CapVert
Sierra
Leone
Mauritanie
144
8-10
1.300
180
4-7
800
83
10-12
900
9.000 $
3
4-6
16
20
500
4-7
3.000
500
3-4
1.800
993
1.878
3.225.40
6
10
7.000 $
Production par sortie des embarcations spécialisées (ailerons /carcasse)
Prixchair/ailerons
Valeur par sortie des embarcations spécialisées (ailerons + carcasse) (milles FCFAS)
1.926
Production par an (ailerons + carcasse) Tons.
6.000
(2009)
2.125
0,8/1 tn.
(transf)
8-15 kg
aileron
0,8 $/kg
40-60
$/kg
1.000 2.000 $
3.500.000
0,6 – 3
tons.
400
CFAS/kg
240 –
1.200
Valeur par an (ailerons + carcasse) Total
(FCFAS)
Transformation/distribution
Personnes qui achètent pour transformer
300
53
100
3
400
Personnes qui achètent pour commercialiser
2
Nombre de personnes travaillant pour des
3
femmes (Moyenne)
Nombre de personnes travaillant pour des
900
femmes (Total)
Quantité acheté par mois d’activité (Moyenne)
Poids sec / poids frais (Pourcentage)
Prix de vente (Moyenne)
Valeur des investissements (Moyenne)
Coût de production (Moyenne)
(1) Rapports Lamine MBAYE / Moustapha DEME, 2007 et 2010
(2) Rapport DIOP Mika Samba / FramoudouDoumbouya
(3) Rapport AsberrNatoumbiMendy
4
( ) Enquête sur les aspects socio-économiques de la Pêche Artisanale en Guinée Bissau, 2009. Javier MACIAS
400
11
dans les pays ACP"
6. PRINCIPAUX PROBLÈMES IDENTIFIÉS À DISCUTER / RÉSOUDRE
Suivant les instructions reçues du Coordonnateur Régional Afrique de l'Ouest du Programme ACP
FISH II, le travail de terrain dans la Guinée Bissau a été annulé en raison de la suspension de la collaboration de l’UE avec ce pays après le coup d’État du 12 avril.
7. RECOMMANDATIONS
Compte tenu du problème décrit ci-dessous, afin de profiter du séjour de l’expert socioéconomiste, il est proposé d’augmenter le temps de travail de l’expert 1 au Sénégal avec
l’équipe de la CSRP.
12
dans les pays ACP"
Annexe V: Photographs of Main Events and Activities
Restitution and Validation Workshop
dans les pays ACP"
dans les pays ACP"
dans les pays ACP"
dans les pays ACP"
Field Work
Goderich (Sierra Leone)
Goderich (Sierra Leone)
dans les pays ACP"
Tombo (Sierra Leone)
Tombo (Sierra Leone)
Ghana Town (The Gambia)
Praia (Cape Verde)
dans les pays ACP"
Annex VI: Press Communiqué
Dakar, le 12 Septembre 2012
Annex VI: Communiqué de presse Atelier Dakar
Objet : Tenue de l’atelier sous régional de restitution et de validation des travaux d’appui à la
mise en œuvre du Plan Sous Régional d’Action pour la conservation et la gestion durable des
Populations de Requins (PSRA-Requins): reconversion des acteurs de la filière requins et amélioration et mise en cohérence des réglementations nationales régissant l’exploitation des requins, prévu à Dakar de 19 à 20 septembre 2012, à l’Hôtel Océan.
Le Programme ACP Fish II est un important outil de coopération entre l’Union européenne et le
Groupe des Pays ACP (Afrique, Caraïbes, Pacifique) visant à améliorer la gestion des pêches dans ces
pays. Son objectif global est de contribuer à une gestion durable et équitable des pêches en vue de
lutter contre la pauvreté et d’améliorer la sécurité alimentaire.
Préoccupés par la dégradation des stocks des Requins, les Etats membres de la CSRP qui ont adhéré
au Plan d’Actions International sur la conservation des Requins (PAI) initié par la FAO, ont mis en
place un Plan Sous Régional d’Action pour la conservation et la gestion durable des Populations de
Requins (PSRA- Requins) en 2001. Ce plan permet de développer une stratégie de conservation et de
gestion durable des Requins dans la sous-région.
La concertation entre les acteurs des Plans de Action Nationaux en 2008 et 2009 a fait ressortir que la
mise en place de mesures de conservation devra passer par une stratégie à deux axes :
-
La reconversion des acteurs de base de la filière requins (pêcheurs, transformateurs, mareyeurs) dans d’autres activités du secteur pêche (dans des pêcheries d’espèces ne présentant
pas de signes de surexploitation) ou hors pêche ;
-
L’amélioration et la mise en cohérence des réglementations de pêche aux requins dans
l’espace CSRP pour contribuer à une gestion durable des populations de requins.
Le projet contribue à la mise en œuvre de ces orientations stratégiques que les initiateurs du PSRARequins et des PAN considèrent décisives pour assurer le succès de toute politique de gestion durable
des stocks de requins.
Participent à cet atelier régional :
dans les pays ACP"
-
les points focaux représentant les administrations des pêches impliquées dans la mise en
œuvre du PSRA-Requins dans les pays de la CSRP, à l’exception de la Guinée Bissau : Mauritanie, Sénégal, Cap-Vert, Gambie, Guinée, et Sierra Leone ;
-
les représentants de l’Unité de Gestion du Programme ACP Fish II (UFR/UC)
-
les représentants de la Commission Sous Régionale des Pêches (CSRP).
Le programme de l'atelier est structuré comme suit :
Mercredi 19
09.00
09.30
10.00
10.30
Accueil et inscription des participants
Cérémonie d’ouverture (M P. Cacaud / M Kane / M Sy)
Présentation des objectifs de l’atelier et d l’ordre du jour (M Diop)
Rappel des activités du PSRA-Requins sur la reconversion des acteurs et la mise en cohérence
des réglementations (M Diop)
11.00 Présentation du Rapport Intermédiaire (M Macías et M Fall)
14.00 Perspectives nationales (Représentants des pays)
14.00 Mauritanie
14.20 Sénégal
14.40 Cap-Vert
15.00 Gambie
15.20 Guinée
15.40 Sierra Leone
16.00 Fin de la journée
Jeudi 20
09.00 Constitution des groupes de travail :
1. Reconversion socio-économique
2. Mesures de gestion des pêches et de contrôle de la commercialisation
11.00 Restitution des travaux de chaque groupe et discussion générale
14.00 Réflexions sur l’avenir du PSRA-Requins (colloque)
15.30 Présentation des conclusions de l’atelier
16.00 Fin de l’atelier
Les représentants des médias sont invités à participer à cette conférence portant sur ces thèmes de
haute importance pour la gestion des pêches.
Pour obtenir plus d’informations sur le Programme ACP FISH II et l’atelier, nous vous prions de bien
vouloir contacter :
-
M. Alioune Sy, Coordonnateur régional du Programme, Téléphone: (221) 33 867 68
65 ; Mobile (221) 76 680 52 14 ; e-mail : [email protected]
M. HamadyDiop, Chef de département Recherche et Systèmes d’Information, CSRP,
Téléphone (221) 33 864 04 75
M. Claude Sène, chargé de l’organisation matérielle de l’atelier, Téléphone (221)
33835 82 38
http://www.acpfish2-eu.org
dans les pays ACP"
Projet financé par l’UE
La Commission Européenne est l’organe exécutif de l’UE.
«L'Union européenne est constituée de 27 États membres qui ont décidé
de mettre graduellement en commun leur savoir-faire, leurs ressources et
leur destin. Ensemble, durant une période d'élargissement de 50 ans, ils
ont construit une zone de stabilité, de démocratie et de développement
durable tout en maintenant leur diversité culturelle, la tolérance et les
libertés individuelles. L'Union européenne s'engage à partager ses réalisations et ses valeurs avec les pays et les peuples au-delà de ses frontières.»

Final Technical Report

Transcription

Documents pareils

INVITATION Business Happy Birthday Cocktail

Peugeot 207 SW 1.6 HDI112 FAP OUTDOOR

Kelt white shark 206 cabine

Évoluer librement, sans cage, avec ce grand prédateur a longtemps

Charte - Association Citoyenne de Saint

WHITE SHARK 268 - KELT - annonce de bateau d`occasion moteur

color book - White Shark

Show Notes ()

Naviguez en White Shark sur www.whiteshark