Jean-Yves Weigel

Alexis Fossi

Armeris Yan Giron

Christophe Breuil

Yannick Carteret

Pablo Chavance

John Chouinard

Hamady Diop

Mohamed Lemine

Ould Tarbiya

RESED Bozena Stomal

Elisabeth Tempier

partners.

Table of contents

State of the art

Map 2

The area and ecological zones covered by the SRFC and its seven member countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1 The main partners and key players in isheries co-management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2 The co-management spectrum: from government-based to community-based management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3 Potential changes in one type of co-management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4 Cycles of decision-making and collaborative implementation of isheries co-management processes . . . . . . Table 1 Co-management drivers by type of ishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2 Simpli ied grid of the functions involved in isheries management (according to Yan Giron) . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 Distribution of stakeholders' activities in a co-management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and a centrally-managed ishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 3 Trend reversal related to co-management: the example of the Mape dam in Cameroon (1988Cameroon ( -2005) ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 4 Problematic co-management: the example of Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 5 Co-management dif iculties for an over-sized area and lack of long term companion measures: the marine responsible ishing area in the Golfo Duce (Costa Rica) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 6 Integration of several functions in a co-management system: the example of the scallop (France). . . . . . Box 7 The structured formulation of a co-management plan: the example of sole ishery in The Gambia . . . . . Box 8 Companion modelling as a possibility for isheries co-management (ComMod approach). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 9 Co-management and individual transferable quotas (ITQ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 10 The Cote Bleue Marine Park. An MPA set up and managed with the ishers.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

Thirty years in existence (France) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

Number 1 Take into account the timing of processes and secure the sustainability of co-management funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 2 Adapt the legal, institutional and administrative framework of co-management; integrate co-management into isheries sector policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 3 Stakeholder capacity building consideration and empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 4 Complete and spatialise the data on isheries socio-ecosystems, improve measuring tools, ill in co-management indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 5 Produce pre-diagnostics from data on the socio-ecosystems concerned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 6 Reinforce the co-management body through adequate stakeholder representation and mobilisation . . . Number 7 Consolidate co-management organisation and determine a plan of action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 8 Consolidate transparent and adaptive implementation of co-management as well a information adapted to the different scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 9 Optimise the enforcement of the regulations, control and surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 10 Set up a monitoring & evaluation system geared towards co-management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 11 Clarify the limits, application framework and nature of the compensatory and companion measures associated with capacity reduction in a co-managed system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 12 Test transboundary and transnational co-management experiences with caution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number 13 Create synergy between co-managed isheries and marine protected areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illustrations INTRODUCTION

1.1

Co-managed isheries: a topical issue for the SRFC area ☞ Current interest in isheries co-management is irst of all a re lection of the failure of conventional isheries mana- gement against a background of declining income from ishing and increasing con licts over the exploitation of resources. Already in the nineties, a global study on the transition towards sustainable ishing based on twenty ive case studies emphasised the success of isheries co-management (OECD, 1997).

Governments and development agencies have promoted numerous isheries co-management programmes from the end of the 1990s. In the developing countries, which include the countries within the area of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), most co-management provisions were introduced at the initiative of the donors and implemented by the international or local NGOs. The most visible part of these co-management programmes is the building of local organisations of ishers and other stakeholders, and changes to the legal, institutional and administrative framework, as co-management is included in numerous isheries codes or strategic plans of the countries in the region.

Promotion of co-management went hand in hand with the decentralisation of development aid, in the SRFC countries, as in all the developing countries recipients of international aid. To the conventional centralised forms of development aid distribution through governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, the donors sought to substitute decentralised forms achieved through promoting comanagement.

The reshaping of the institutions, a prerequisite for formulating and implementing co-management, was and remains shackled, especially in developing countries, by incomplete decentralisation and the reticence of the States to grant local authorities their own iscal resources [START_REF] Féral | Le cadre juridique de la gouvernance : un système de droit syncrétique[END_REF][START_REF] Cazalet | La recon iguration de la gouvernance et des politiques publiques[END_REF]. Most of the time, therefore, we have an administration with limited human and inancial resources on the one hand, and local authorities not assigned the necessary resources to develop cooperative of producers or grassroots organisations, on the other.

On a transnational or transboundary scale, co-management is justi ied by the large volume of shared stocks and the amplitude of the migratory lows of ishing resources and ishers, particularly within the SRFC area. Several projects have been developed on these dimensions over the past few years in the SRFC countries, including, for example, the project on "Regional policies on sustainable isheries of small pelagic ish stocks in Northwest Africa" (SRFC, 2007a), the "Support project to the Management of Small-scale Transboundary Fishing" (PARTAGE), the component relative to regional processes and frameworks for understanding and dealing with the priority transboundary problems of the Canaries Current Large Marine Ecosystem protection project.

However, co-management has been widely used to justify participatory programmes which, in terms of isheries management, do not correspond closely enough to the principal stakes and have not acted on the necessary levers for better management. The players concerned are therefore led to ponder several questions including; the contents of co-management in the face of certain abuses relative to the use of the term; how a management system evolves towards co-management; and the scales of co-management and their interactions (from local to transboundary). In the light of this situation, an overview of the literature on isheries co-management was considered a useful tool to have in 2013, to see what lessons can be learnt.

☞ At the same time, there has been renewed interest in traditional systems of isheries co-management: the ishers' corporations (prud'homies) in the French Mediterranean, the Lofoten islands isheries, the Cofradias in Catalonia, the Van Chai system in Vietnam, the Panchayat village system from Andhra Pradesh. Some of these older systems are only on the fringes of co-management proper, which evidences the wide spectrum covered by co-management in the ishing literature.

An international analysis around key issues in isheries co-management

This state-of-the-art on isheries co-management was produced using a speci ic approach combining an indepth analysis of the literature, illustrated by the boxes, and the leveraging of co-management experiences in different countries. To this end, skilled researchers and consultants from a wide range of backgrounds were brought together, who, having monitored the processes, countries and stakeholders concerned over long periods of time, capitalised on their critical and operational perspective to draw the lessons that can be useful to the SRFC countries. These international examples are presented in the technical report through a dozen experience sheets illustrating different types of co-management, the place of co-management in the whole set of functions associated with isheries management, the different scales of co-management (local, national, transboundary) in Africa (Benin, Burkina-Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mauritania and Senegal), in Asia (Indonesia, Japan, Thailand) Canada and France. Collective, inter-disciplinary work, drawing on knowledge of the SRFC zone, made it possible to highlight certain lessons, but also to formulate points for consideration which could be used as recommendations adapted to isheries co-management in the region covered by the SRFC.

This work was coordinated by BRLi, and carried out by experts and researchers from BRLi, Armeris and IRD, backed by experts from the SRFC and numerous international contributions. Three main documents were produced:

■ a technical report presenting the state of the art in i-sheries co-management;

■ this "Synthesis report", which is a synthesis of the "technical report",;

■ a ten-page summary containing the principal conclusions of the study.

The irst part of this report is devoted to the de inition and classi ication of co-management on its various scales, then to the development and adaptation of co-management. Part two deals with drivers of co-management, the costs and bene its, tools for assessing co-management potential, key success factors and major hurdles, the principal conditionalities governing co-management as part of the management of isheries (decision-making cycles and processes, sharing of functions, design and development, implementation, technical measures, transboundary and transnational co-management, integration of co-managed isheries and Marine Protected Areas, co-management applied to arti icial reefs and ish-aggregating devices). The third and inal part draws lessons from the dozen or so international experiences that have been subject to indepth analysis (cf. technical report).

This document will serve as a foundation for a regional symposium on isheries co-management to be organised by the SRFC in 2013, to enable a comparison of perspectives, enhance the discussions of the institutions and concerned stakeholders, determine the major challenges for the States in terms of co-management and the sustainable management of the region's ishing resources. One of the speci ic challenges will be to leverage this work to enhance coordination between local, national and regional governance.

☞ Several major questions related to the co-management of isheries are broached in this study:

■ What are the terms of reference that would allow adequate intervention of each stakeholder in a co-management system, at the level of the different phases and various scales (local, national, transnational)?

■ What is the relative importance of the social, economic, institutional and legal aspects of co-management, respectively?

■ What are the key factors for success or failure of isheries co-management?

■ What are the main components of conditionality for co-management in terms of framing, capacity building, data and tools?

■ Are the costs of co-management higher or lower than other, more centrally-managed systems?

■ What lessons drawn from international experience can be applied to the SRFC region?

1.3

The isheries co-management experiences of more than 30 countries leveraged in the study An analysis integrating the regional context of the SRFC For a clearer understanding of the actions to be undertaken at the level of the SRFC region, the analysis of the literature and selected examples of co-management took into account the principal characteristics of this region, that is to say:

■ A isheries sector that is critical for society and the economy, characterised by the coexistence of local and regional artisan isheries (often with a system of free access) and industrial isheries (predominantly foreign), where the stakes are major in terms of food security, direct and indirect jobs, added value and exports.

■ Relatively ineffective governance due to the inadequacy of the conventional approach to isheries management, a lack of inancial stability and sustainability, incomplete decentralisation, the weakness of State services and a fragmented civil society. These weaknesses hamper the regulation of access to resources for an oversized ishing capacity.

■ An environment that is highly productive but undergoing constant deterioration: the SRFC region comprises one of the four major upwelling zones on the planet, as well as an area covered in estuaries and mangroves, which explain the extraordinarily rich productivity ( igure 1). However, studies of the Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) con irm the steady and continuous depletion of isheries stocks on a regional scale, some of which are overexploited.

■ Fisheries resources that are varied, and migrations: the region comprises intermediate populations of temperate species and with tropical af inities. Certain stocks of pelagic ish have very marked migratory behaviour, which explains the seasonal movements of certain ishing communities, on both a national and transnational level. The amplitude and plurality of migration lows makes isheries management more complex.

DEFINITION, CLASSIFICATION AND ADAPTATION OF CO-MANAGEMENT

De inition and classi ication of co-management

☞ Fisheries co-management can be de ined as the negotiated sharing of responsibilities between government agencies and groups of users or stakeholders, on condition that it induces:

■ Negotiation and approval of management decisions by the communities or ishers' organisations, government agencies and other stakeholders, ■ A set of arrangements de ining responsibilities and decision-making powers enshrined in a formal agreement.

The idea of isheries co-management emerged after that of development (aménagement) or management and prior to that of governance [START_REF] Weigel | De la gestion des pêches à la cogestion et à la gouvernance[END_REF]. Starting from the end of the 1980s, the notion of co-management began to develop, analysis frameworks were proposed and arrangements discussed [START_REF] Kearney | Atlantic isheries, coastal communities: isheries decision-making case studies[END_REF][START_REF] Jentoft | Fisheries co-management: Delegating government responsibility to ishermen's organizations[END_REF]Pinkerton, 1989;[START_REF] Acheson | Management of common property resources[END_REF][START_REF] Feeny | The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later[END_REF][START_REF] Oakerson | Analysing the commons: a framework[END_REF].

Co-management involves different players and the development of arrangements enabling their interaction; comanagement is above all a process framed by arrangements, the success of which depends on the various aspects of conditionality described below (cf. section 3.5).

Fishermen and operators throughout the value chain

(associations, ship-owners, ϐishmongers, factories, etc.)

Civil Society

(NGOs, villagers, local decision makers, etc.)

Research

(Universities, Institutes, biologists, socio-economists, etc.)

Administration

(ministries, agencies, national, regional, local, etc.) The different types of co-management refer to the different degrees of power sharing recognised in government agencies and users' groups or other stakeholders. Co-management therefore covers a broad spectrum from co-management leaning towards centralised government-based ☞ The broad spectrum of types of co-management explains why there are seven main types of co-management pro- moted in the literature [START_REF] Mccay | Management Regimes. Property Rights and the Performance of Natural Resources Systems, background paper prepared for the September 1993 Workshop[END_REF][START_REF] Berkes | Community management and common property of coastal isheries in Asia and the Paci ic: Concepts, methods and experiences[END_REF][START_REF] Sen | Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Raakjaer Nielsen | Fisheries Co-management. An Institutional innovation[END_REF]:

■ instructive co-management is characterised by a minimum of exchanges between user groups and the government agencies which impose decisions and inform the groups of planned decisions through dialogue facilitations ■ consultative co-management describes a situation where the government, while reserving large areas for consensus, remains the decision-maker even though user groups have been involved in the process ■ cooperative co-management describes the situation where government and user groups treat each other as equal.

A small number of shared stocks is managed under this type of co-management ■ advisory co-management implies that the user groups advise the government on the decisions to be taken, and the government takes this into account or approves the decisions ■ informative co-management involves delegation of the government's power to the user groups who nonetheless have the duty and responsibility of informing the government of the decisions they make ■ instrumental co-management describes a situation where the user groups are only involved in implementing the measures decided upon by the government, which avoids institutional reform ■ empowerment co-management places the government and users groups on the same footing both for de ining the management objectives and identifying the knowledge required for decision-making. This type of co-management is a learning process for all the parties involved.

management to co-management leaning towards community-based management, via simple cooperative management (Mac Goddwin, 1992;[START_REF] Allison | The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale isheries[END_REF]Allison and Horremans, 2006) ( ig.2)

Co-management

Self-management Hierarchical management

Community based management

Government based management

The development and adaptation of co-management

One type of co-management may evolve over time, with the introduction of new stakeholders, for example, which changes the respective roles of the players involved. How a type of co-management evolves can be represented by schematising the arrival of new stakeholders (NGO, the media or the courts) and changes concerning the relative importance of the different stakeholders with, for example, greater or lesser involvement of the role of the scienti ic community [START_REF] Garcia | Etude sur l'état de l'art du rôle des aires marines protégées dans la gestion des pêches. Rapport technique : Introduction et « Volet gouvernance[END_REF] ( igure 3).

The adaptation of co-management refers to the idea of adaptive co-management developed in the case of renewable natural resources, including isheries resources, or socio-ecosystems [START_REF] Borrini Feyerabend | La gestion participative des ressources naturelles. Organisation, négociation et apprentissage par l'action[END_REF][START_REF] Dietz | The struggle to govern the Commons[END_REF][START_REF] Olsson | Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden[END_REF]Folke et al, 2005, Pomeroy and[START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF]Plummer and Armitage, 2006).

Adaptive co-management is iterative: It repeats a process in stages to lead managers and ishers to a result approaching the one that was sought. Adaptive co-management is based on a slow social and institutional learning process. It involves devising plans that can be renegotiated and amended as changing conditions and needs dictate. This implies that each process for drawing up or imple- Box 1 Application of adaptive co-management to ishery according to Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 200O;[START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF] (Additional information in the technical report)

A ishing community intends to try out a new method of ishing and judge how the results obtained match or agree with the expected results. The community as a whole, or a part of it, will accept, adapt or reject the ishing method. This deliberate experimentation, apprenticeship and adaptation on the part of the ishers are an essential component of adaptive management, which also relies on the willingness to learn of the institutions concerned. When the learning is shared (including institutional learning) between stakeholders who have negotiated and delegated the implementation of co-management arrangements, this is an adaptive co-management approach menting an adaptive co-management plan is speci ic to the country and site, and cannot be reproduced identically (box 1).

The choice of the type of co-management and the different scales of isheries co-management

When drawing up a plan or a project, or reorganising a project in progress, the type of co-management can be chosen based on the following items (according to IUED's analysis framework [START_REF] Hufty | Jeux de gouvernance. Regards er ré lexions sur un concept[END_REF][START_REF] Weigel | De la gestion des pêches à la cogestion et à la gouvernance[END_REF]):

■ De ine each problem to be dealt with as expressed by the stakeholders in a speci ic context ■ Characterise the stakeholders with interests related to the problem identi ied and differentiated according to their status and positioning ■ Identify the nodes around which the stakeholders' interests converge or diverge ■ Specify the local, governmental or "global" norms that orient the behaviour of the stakeholders ■ Take into account the challenge of reconstituting the processes or the succession of states isheries management goes through

The question of scale arises mainly on the level of the problem to be dealt with: local, national, regional, transboundary or transnational. Co-management may be applied on the scale of a ishery or a set of isheries, stocks of sedentary or highly migratory ish species, a locally situated ecosystem or a wider ecosystem. With the promotion of the ecosystem approach, we witness an extension of the scale considered, from co-management of a ishery to co-management at the level of an ecosystem. This extension can reach the transnational scale as part of the cooperative co-management of shared stocks of ish (transboundary, straddling or highly migratory). The determining of scales and taking into account of interactions between the different scales are key elements of isheries co-management (cf. section 3.6: co-management in the management of isheries). The precautions to be taken in terms of mobilising the stakeholders at each scale are covered in "Implementing co-management" (cf. section 3.6.4).

SUMMARY OF THE LESSONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE LITERATURE, INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

The drivers of co-management

From an analysis of the literature and experiences of comanagement, constants emerge concerning the drivers of co-management. First of all, the diversity of points of view depending on the stakeholder expressing them, followed by some universal drivers.

With regard to the Japanese co-management experience, [START_REF] Watanuki | Manuel de congestion des pêcheries : Des théories et des études de cas au Japon, aux Philipines et au Sénégal[END_REF] insists on the diversity of points of view in terms of co-management drivers depending on whether they are expressed by the government, the users of the resource, or the defenders of sustainable development.

■ From the government's point of view, the driver is often reducing management costs, particularly those related to control and surveillance but also those related to data gathering ■ From the point of view of the users, the drivers are to re-establish an economic surplus, reduce con licts, involve these same users in the de ining of management goals and in their implementation using a participatory approach ■ From the point of view of the defenders of sustainable development, the driver is an approach to the sustainable exploitation of the resource.

For each type of ishing, the Australian Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (2008) gives nineteen comanagement drivers, the main ones concern partnerships and shared responsibility, management transparency, enhancing con idence, management lexibility and a better capacity to respond to expressed needs, management at a iner scale, acceptance and conformity with decisions taken, equity or socio-cultural considerations, reconciling economic development and environmental protection, con lict reduction and resolution, and reducing the costs of isheries development (table 1).

Driver

Type of ϐishing

Review of the costs and bene its of co-management

The literature highlights the dif iculty of precisely identifying the costs and bene its pertaining exclusively to comanagement, as well as the complexity of assessing them. This points to a lack of methodology on the subject. However, the majority of studies converge towards the conclusions mentioned below.

■ The costs speci ic to co-management relate mainly to the transaction costs involved in the new induced contractual arrangements: initiation, application, control and adaptation of contractual relations [START_REF] Williamson | Transaction Cost Economics: 'How It Works, Where It Is Headed[END_REF][START_REF] Verhaegen | Hybrid governance structures for quality farm products: A transaction cost perspective[END_REF]. These costs can be broken down into ex ante and ex post [START_REF] Mccann | Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies[END_REF], direct or indirect [START_REF] Amblard | La méthode PICA ou comment évaluer la cohérence des politiques publiques avec leur contexte de mise en oeuvre[END_REF], explicit or implicit such as opportunity costs [START_REF] Mccann | Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies[END_REF].

■ Co-management leads to higher short-term costs (in particular the costs of information and ixing objectives) than a centrally-management system. But in the long term, co-management fosters a reduction in costs (in particular the costs of distributing the resource among users, monitoring and surveillance, and regulation enforcement) [START_REF] Hanna | User participation and ishery management performance withing the Paci ic Fishery Management Council[END_REF][START_REF] Viswanathan | Mesuring Transaction Costs of Fisheries Co-Management[END_REF] (box 2).

Box 2

Comparison and trend in management costs of a co-managed ishery and a centrally-managed ishery according to [START_REF] Viswanathan | Mesuring Transaction Costs of Fisheries Co-Management[END_REF] (additional information in the technical report)

The management costs of a co-managed ishery were compared with those of a centrally-managed ishery in the region of San Salvador in the Philippines. Three phases were de ined for the period of nine years the project ran . The irst corresponds to the start-up of the co-management project characterised by the de ining of the management structures; the second phase corresponds to the implementation of the co-management project with the mobilisation of all the stakeholders. During the irst two phases, the management costs of the co-managed ishery were higher, which can be explained by a more intensive community education effort, among other things. But the trend reverses during the third phase, during the operational hand-over to local players: the management costs of the co-managed ishery decrease, as do those of surveillance, regulation enforcement and con lict resolution.

The speci ic bene its of co-management, according to Borrini-Feyerabend et al ( 2004), are:

■ Reduced costs in the long term ■ Better distribution of costs across a larger number of stakeholders following the sharing of management responsibilities ■ An attenuation in the threats to conservation and the use of resources on the part of outside interests, following the alliances set up between government agencies and local players

■ Greater potential ef iciency thanks to the pooling of knowledge and local skills (for example, in terms of the surveillance of the state of natural resources or the maintaining of sustainable exploitation practices).

The review of costs and bene its indicates the advantages of co-management (Pinkerton, 1989;[START_REF] Ostrom | Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Two to tango : The role of government in isheries co-management[END_REF][START_REF] Singleton | Constructing Cooperation: The evolution of Institutions of Co-management[END_REF][START_REF] Carlsson | Co-management: concepts and methodological implications[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF]. Co-management:

■ induces a better distribution of jobs for it encompasses a wide range of capacities (from State to local communities) and comparative advantages ■ fosters the building of a network for exchanging technology, scienti ic expertise, information on volumes caught or the status of ishing resources ■ connects different types and levels of organisation: the representatives of these different types and levels coordinate their activities on a speci ic zone or resource ■ leads to more involvement of ishers in managerial jobs, taking into consideration their know-how and expertise ■ builds the capacity of the ishers to conceive and implement regulatory measures appropriate to local conditions ■ leads to a reduction in long term costs, after an initial phase in which costs are higher ■ facilitates con lict resolution, and therefore long term planning and the desire to invest in the appropriate institutions ■ encourages the sharing of risks contrary to a management system that leans on only one or two stakeholders ■ fosters the transparency and independence of the system

■ leads the ishers to consider the resource as a long term asset ■ enhances acceptability and legitimacy through community involvement.

The tools for assessing co-management potential

An assessment of the potential of co-management can be an asset in the initial or subsequent analysis of a co-management project. This assessment requires appropriate tools. According to the literature, there are three major tools.

■ listing of all costs and bene its whether ex ante or ex post, direct or indirect, explicit or implicit, such as the cost and gains of opportunity [START_REF] Hanna | User participation and ishery management performance withing the Paci ic Fishery Management Council[END_REF][START_REF] Borrini-Feyerabend | Sharing Power. Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world[END_REF][START_REF] Viswanathan | Mesuring Transaction Costs of Fisheries Co-Management[END_REF].

■ a linear regression model relating the level of success of a co-management system (measured by a composite index) to a series of variables considered as explanatory factors (community quotas, social cohesion, etc.). The regression serves to con igure a decision tree which classiies the importance of the different factors in the success of the co-management. The results are represented graphically in the form of a decision tree [START_REF] Gutierrez | Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful isheries[END_REF].

■ an evaluation grid of the co-management potential of several areas or isheries, constituted by indicators divided into three classes depending on whether they relate to ex-ante conditions, conditions during implementation, or conditions regarding the community values and principles of the isherfolk. A scale of assessment is proposed concerning the validation of the conditions under consideration, and then a global aggregate score is assigned to each case study. This scale of assessment can be used to highlight the area or ishery with the greatest co-management potential [START_REF] Fargier | La participation des pêcheurs atisanaux à la gestion des ressources marine côtières tropicales[END_REF].

Key success factors and principal dif iculties in isheries co-management

The key factors for the success of co-management

The success or failure of a co-management process is affected by context-dependent variables that can be divided into three categories: Those pertaining to the supra-community level, community level and the level of the household or individual (Pollnac, 1988;[START_REF] Pomeroy | Small-Scale Fisheries management : Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World[END_REF].

These key conditions concern the different stages (exante and while the co-management is in place) and the different levels of organisation. The literature brings to light fourteen key conditions for the success of co-management in the ield of renewable and isheries natural resources (Pinkerton, 1989;[START_REF] Ostrom | Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action[END_REF][START_REF] Ostrom | Community management and common property of coastal isheries in Asia and the Paci ic: concepts, methods and experiences[END_REF][START_REF] Berkes | New and Not-So-New[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Two to tango : The role of government in isheries co-management[END_REF]Jentoft et al, 1998;[START_REF] Pomeroy | Conditions affecting the success of idheries co-management: lessons from Asia[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Small-Scale Fisheries management : Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Conditions affecting the success of idheries co-management: lessons from Asia[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Belize case study: Marine protected areas co-management by Friends of Nature[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Small-Scale Fisheries management : Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World[END_REF][START_REF] Pomeroy | Belize case study: Marine protected areas co-management by Friends of Nature[END_REF][START_REF] Pinkerton | Integrating Holism and Segmentalism: Overcoming Barriers to Adaptive Co-Management Between Management Agencies and Multi-Sector Bodies[END_REF]Guttierez et al, 2011;[START_REF] Pomeroy | Small-Scale Fisheries management : Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World[END_REF].

☞

The key factors that contribute to the success of a co-management process are the following: Another condition for success is a suf iciently long period for the co-management plan or project and sustainable funding for the co-management system implemented. For in fact, the processes associated with the sharing of responsibilities among several stakeholders in such a system requires learning curves that last several years, whereas national decision-makers and the donor agencies base their intervention on short periods (most often under ive years). The problem of sustainable funding is all the more important as the evaluation, capitalising on lessons and continuous adjustment must be estimated in relation to long term goals and policies. There are numerous contradictions, for, while seeking to secure the sustainability of their actions, the national public authorities and donor agencies lack political will and consistency, whereas new mechanisms adapted to the speci ic needs of co-management are expected.

Meeting these conditions leads to the success of the plan or project and can potentially reverse the trend regarding the status of the resource, social cohesion and con lict reduction (box 3).

Point for Take into account the timing of consideration processes and secure the n° 1 sustainability of co-management funding

■ Integrate the learning time for the different co-management phases (pre-diagnostics, design, implementation, monitoring-evaluation) in order to build trust and enable a better match between means deployed and expected results

■ Steer towards public policies and project funding mechanisms (donors/institutions) that take into account the length of the learning process associated with co-management (in excess of ten years, generally) according to [START_REF] Belal | La cogestion des pêches au Cameroun : une analyse des politiques qui la sous-tendent. MINEPIA/DIRPEC[END_REF], [START_REF] Bigombe | L'Apprentissage par l'action de la cogestion des ressources halieutiques au Cameroun (Rapport de l'atelier de formation à la cogestion de la Retenue de la Mape[END_REF] In 1988, the illing of the Mape dam (550 square kilometres) in Cameroon attracted more than 4,000 ishers in 128 camp settlements using a multitude of types of gear and sometimes illegal ishing practices. The multiethnic community, diversity of interests and divergences in the management of the areas shook social cohesion and created tension and con licts. This worrying situation led the administrative authorities and the Fisheries Department to initiate a co-management process in 2002. The following activities were given priority: the setting up of a committee in 2003, the running of social communication campaigns, the organisation of communities and training for stakeholders (negotiation, management plan).

■
In 2005, an assessment showed a trend reversal that was attributed to co-management. The achievements of the co-management process were to build social cohesion and reduce con licts, as well as enhancing stakeholder cooperation, better enforcement of the regulations and a decrease in juvenile catches.

The major dif iculties associated with co-management

One of the irst dif iculties of co-management derives from the necessity of a certain degree of independence on the part of the local communities to whom authority is delegated in terms of management, rights and responsibilities. The main obstacle to this independence may emanate from government agencies that refuse to give up their powers, whether at national or local level.

Box 4 Problematic co-management: the example of Senegal

Author: Jean Yves Weigel, adapted from Ministry of Maritime Economy ( 2011) (additional information in the technical report)

In Senegal, the authorities are more concerned about enforcing administrative procedures than running the Local Artisanal Fishing Committees (CLPA), the main operating constraints of which are: the lack of coordination between the different levels they comprise, the low involvement of grass-roots players in decision-making, the inadequate capacities of the players, the passive attitude of the authorities, the lack of operating means, the lack of technical and inancial support from the authorities, the absence of synergism with the initiatives of the other programmes or projects of the Maritime Fisheries Department, the use of the CLPA in the validation of initiatives without their prior involvement in design, and the lack of dynamics of certain CLPAs in taking initiatives.

There are six types of causes of this situation. The irst is the absence of a clear strategy with precise objectives assigned to the CLPA. The second is defective communication. The third cause relates to training programmes that are ill-adapted and intermittent. The fourth cause is the lack of empowerment of the players. The ifth cause is the lack of devolution of inancial means. The sixth cause is the existence of several regulatory texts ill-adapted to the ishing sector.

Une deuxième dif iculté de la cogestion a trait à l'intégration des savoirs locaux dans la prise de décision. L'intégration de ces savoirs permet des appréciations qualitatives nécessaires et très utiles dans le cas de socioécosystèmes caractérisés par une grande incertitude et des processus naturels irréversibles. Une des dif icultés notables dans la gestion des pêches a été la différence d'appréciation de l'état et des conditions de la ressource entre les communautés locales, les scienti iques et les agences gouvernementales.

A third dif iculty is the obligation for transparent processes, decisions, and the results of research, monitoring and evaluation. This transparency favours not only the comprehension and apprenticeship of all the stakeholders, but also their participation and implication in the implementation of co-management. This obligation presupposes methods for updating and disseminating information to the stakeholders as a whole.

A fourth dif iculty relates to the complexity of factoring in all the functions critical to effective isheries management; one pitfall to be avoided being excessive focus on one such function, which could lead to partitioning that would be prejudicial to the effectiveness and sustainability of the co-management.

A ifth dif iculty concerns the equitable allocation of access and of the resource itself. This is because co-management projects often include restrictions, or even exclusions, pertaining to local ishers (industrial or artisans) or foreign ishers. To mitigate the effects of these restrictions or a possible exclusion, considerations of equity accompanied by attenuation or compensation measures should prevail. Managing these compensation measures can also engender dif iculties (cf. section 3.6.5).

A sixth dif iculty relates to the coordination of stakeholders. The increased power of certain stakeholders ( ishers' communities, NGOs) brings about the necessity of intensive coordination. In particular to avoid redundancy (check the justi ication of new institutions before they are created) and competition between "development brokers" in the least developed countries.

A seventh dif iculty resides in the change of scale with the problem of the transferability of generalisations from a much localised situation to a broader spatial co-management framework [START_REF] Raakjaer Nielsen | Fisheries co-management -an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa[END_REF]). In the case of the co-management of stocks on the scale of a large ecosystem or of shared stocks, one speci ic dif iculty is the distribution of powers among community bodies, government or international agencies who are guarantors of the national or international legal regimes applicable to ishing.

The reasons for failure or problematic co-management relate most often to the size of the zone concerned, the weakness of accompaniment to the process, a per project approach that is too short term, the lack of a clear strategy, lack of communication, inadequate structuring of communities, no stakeholder empowerment, and the lack of devolution of inancial means [START_REF] Fargier | La participation des pêcheurs atisanaux à la gestion des ressources marine côtières tropicales[END_REF]MEM, 2011; boxes 4 and 5).

Box 5

Co-management dif iculties for an over-sized area and lack of long term companion measures: the marine responsible ishing area in the Golfo Duce (Costa Rica according to Luc [START_REF] Fargier | La participation des pêcheurs atisanaux à la gestion des ressources marine côtières tropicales[END_REF] The scale of assessment of co-management from Fargier (2012) reveals that the marine responsible ishing area in the Golfo Duce only meets a third of the necessary conditions for the success of a co-management process. The extensive area involved did not foster its appropriation, management and surveillance, as con irmed by the fact that most of the ishers do not know where the boundaries of the area lie. Its sheer size means that ishers far from the centre have to travel for three days to attend a meeting at the headquarters of the marine area. This is an obstacle to the ishers' participation in negotiating and implementing the management plan. To this dif iculty can be added the number of communities concerned, the lack of continuous technical support throughout the process, the fact that a new approach is adopted for each (there have been interventions from many opportunistic NGOs who apply this type of logic). These elements seem to be strong initial decisive factors that could explain the low co-management potential of the marine resources of the Golfo Dulce.

3.5

The principal conditionality of isheries co-management

Clari ication of the legal, institutional and administrative framework

The legal, institutional and administrative framework is typically ill-adapted to co-management or lacks consistency. The principles of co-management are rarely asserted or recognised, the rights of stakeholders and the sharing of responsibilities typically not really clari ied and not secured. Steering by means of a rigid institutional and administrative framework is not suited to processes that evolve, which are typical of isheries resource co-management. The incorporation of the principles of co-management into isheries sector policy on an institutional or administrative level, as well as in terms of means, has not been achieved, or, in some instances, even started.

Point for Adapt the legal, institutional and consideration administrative framework of n° 2 co-management; integrate co-management into isheries sector policy

■ Adapt the legal framework to co-management prior to the implementation of plans or projects including the:

-assertion of the principles of co-management (partnership and shared responsibility, transparency and lexibility, local scale) within the framework of effective decentralisation -securing of co-management rights to render them enforceable -capacity and the possibility for rights holders to obtain compensation -protection of individuals against abuse of local powers -nature of the legal and administrative provisions (binding, non-binding, compulsory, voluntary, etc.) -nature and extent of the recognition of locally promulgated rules -limits and conditions of State intervention -methods for interaction between partners and with the State -recognition of speci ic isheries co-management arrangements and their adaptability (mechanisms, regulations, speci ic measures)

■ Integrate co-management into isheries sector policy on an institutional and administrative level by:

-Af irming completed decentralisation as a prerequisite to co-management and the guideline for isheries policy -Including as part of the isheries sector policy a statement of principle on the necessity of co-management for transparent, consultative and participatory management -Clarifying mandates, powers and the institutional and administrative coordination relative to the isheries sector -Redirecting institutional and administrative means -Support for innovative research meeting the needs of co-management, capable of incorporating local knowledge into the decision-making process and assessing the impacts of co-management, combining local level decision-makers and researchers 20

Stakeholder capacity building

Local and national stakeholders do not all have the same capacity to discuss, negotiate and choose the management rules. They do not control all the vocabularies, the technical aspects of resource management, the issues at stake related to the different implementation phases of a co-management process. The lack of clari ication of goals, of respective roles, lack of attention paid to dissemination needs can affect consensus and management decisions.

The stakeholders' availability for cooperation partly depends on their diversity, history and socio-cultural references. Improvement can be attempted but it remains a management constraint to be reckoned with. Accompaniment, training-action in an iterative, progressive process constitutes one of the major challenges for projects involving co-management arrangements.

Point for

Stakeholder capacity building consideration and empowerment n° 3

■ Assess the effective capacities and needs in terms of control over the negotiation processes and tools used. This assessment should be done for each stakeholder, given the different co-management phases they take part in. The phases and actions in terms of co-management must be conceived in accordance with a realistic assessment of the stakeholders' co-management capacities.

■

In plans or projects, develop a "capacity building" component in the form of a "training-action" adapted to needs, integrated into the co-management process and drawing on methodology guides and processes involving the representatives of local players in their diversity.

■

Build the capacity of the stakeholders involved in co-management in terms of participation, negotiation of agreements, con lict resolution, etc.

The necessity for reliable data and suitable tools

The lack of data on the socio-ecosystems concerned and the territories they are rooted in, which relates to a lack of means on the part of the research centres in the SRFC member States, represents one of the major dif iculties for setting up co-management schemes. Some of these weaknesses affect, or even in luence, the diagnostics. On the other hand, this causes regular calling into question, which affects dialogue and decision-making within the areas of consensus.

The lack of spatialisation of data on the socio-ecosystems exploited (players, habitats, resources, etc.) is important. Spatialisation is the basis for ecosystem management and, for example, for the allocation of territorial usage rights in the coastal zone. It is therefore urgent to improve the data collection process pertaining to the spatial structures of isheries (distribution and migration of stocks, distribution and migration of leets, nurseries, breeding grounds), to vulnerable marine ecosystems, zones where vulnerable species are concentrated, various prohibition zones, etc.

A review of the tools for assessing co-management shows a relative weakness concerning the indirect and implicit cost-bene its analysis as well as the illing in of their indicators. The robustness and simplicity of the indicators and an improvement in the arrangements for gathering and centralising data are to be sought.

Point for

Complete and spatialise the data consideration on isheries socio-ecosystems, n° 4 improve measuring tools, ill in co-management indicators

■

Complete the missing data on the socio-ecosystems potentially co-managed by boosting the resources of the national research institutions, by securing regular monitoring of socio-economic and bio ecological governance, by integrating traditional knowledge or knowledge from previous projects.

■

Promote the development of spatialised co-management with the creation of databases, digitalisation of data, in the GIS data format, in particular, the production of an atlas. These elements must be coordinated at national and regional level.

■

Improve the tools for assessing co-management, in particular cost-bene it analyses, by providing more indepth estimates of indirect and implicit costs and bene its and developing and testing cost-bene it indicators at sub-regional level.

■

Identify and ill in the co-management indicators making use of methodological achievements, drawing inspiration from and adapting the indicators of governance (level of participation and involvement of stakeholders, degree of interaction between stakeholders, perception of stakeholders, how the legislation matches co-management, level of con lict, etc.). These co-management indicators must be completed by socio-economic indicators giving precedence to the effects of ecosystem uses on the local economy (revenue, jobs, net added value, etc.), and bio ecological indicators (abundance, biomass, speci ic richness, trophic level, etc.) ■ Develop a methodology guide: "design, implementation and assessment of isheries co-management" (in the form of instruction sheets) adapted to the speci ic features of the SRFC domain and regularly improved through stakeholder feedback on use.

☞ The sharing of functions (data acquisition, monitoring system, surveillance and application of sanctions, assessment) between the main stakeholders leads to a distinction between the elaboration phase and the implementation of a management plan (tables 2 and 3), and the identi ication, for each function, of the stakeholders concerned, whether ishing communities or ishers' associations, government agencies, outside agents, or other stakeholders [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF]. The effectiveness of a co-management plan is associated with the fact that the responsibilities for each function are clearly de ined, each function is rooted in an institution and possesses means, and the functions are integrated (cf. box 6 and technical report).

La cogestion dans la gestion des pêches

The analysis of how co-management is included in isheries management led us to consider the sharing of functions associated with isheries management, decisionmaking cycles and processes in an uncertain milieu, to distinguish the design and drawing up of a co-management plan or a project from the implementation, reviewing one by one the technical measures for isheries development applicable to co-management, then going into greater depth on certain subjects of interest for the SRFC area. These are: transboundary and transnational co-management, integration of isheries co-management and Marine Protected Areas, application of co-management to arti icial reefs and ish-aggregating devices.

The sharing of the functions associated with isheries management

All operational isheries management systems take several functions into account. This may appear complex to implement in a co-management system with levels of sharing that vary depending on the expected results. It is simpli ied by the use of grids describing the isheries management functions in three broad categories (cf. tables above and technical report): Decision support, decision-making, implementation of decisions, which clari ies the position of the functions of knowledge acquisition, monitoring, control & surveillance and planning.

These grids allow decision-makers to take the different technical parameters into account more effectively and coordinate the strategies related to isheries management.

Operational implementation of decisions

The monitoring and application of rules (surveillance and control)

The legal capacity to sanction offenders

The capacity to enforce legal decisions

The major functions associated with ϐisheries management

The name of the function associated with ϐisheries management

Stakeholder Activities during set up Activities during implementation

Box 6

Integration of several functions in a co-management system: the example of the scallop (France)

Author: Yan Giron (additional information in the technical report)

The management of the exploitation of scallops in the Bay of St Brieuc is an example of the sharing of responsibilities and isheries management functions in the coastal strip. In France, coastal resource management is conducted in a form of co-management involving professionals and the State, with the support of scienti ic evaluations. For this stock, the management tasks are shared as follows. At the start of the campaign, professional vessels collect samples to conduct a biomass evaluation. The scientists then generate an exploitation advisory notice. The shell ish commission of the Regional Fisheries Committee ixes the levels of capture authorised based on this notice and submits it to the State for legal validation. The ishers perform the daily regulation and control measures as follow: time of ishing, duration of ishing, aerial veri ication. The State services conduct all or part of the control, with any legal actions or combating illegal traf icking conducted in parallel. In the event of an infringement, the representatives of the profession ile a complaint against the offenders and may de ine internal penalties (suspension of licences, or other). This system has allowed the ishery to become one of the best managed in Europe, enabling the ishers to reduce operating costs, better manage commercialisation and sustainably maintain their activity. This form of co-management is technically ine-tuned. It comes at a cost. But the bene its have made it possible to sustainably share ishing potential between large numbers of ishers, since the 1980s.

Decision-making cycles and processes

Fisheries management entails decisional processes that are part of risk decision cycles in uncertain environments and which transcend the scales of the decision (global, regional, national or local). Compared to conventional isheries development, adaptive co-management enables a better completion of these cycles through better implementation of the decision processes thanks to a set of interactions between the different stakeholders, according to a gradual process (iterative and selfevaluation or "step by step"). In particular, the cycles are characterised by numerous feedback loops for reining the management strategy and possibly the sector policy at any point in the cycle. This approach can be recorded in a more or less formal catalogue of good practices that represents the social memory built up over successive iterations on the site under consideration.

Financing

The design and formulation of a co-management plan or project

Pre-diagnostics are justi ied by the frequent lack of clariication of the issues at stake in the co-management in liaison with an imprecise identi ication of the problem facing the ishery (overcapacity, depletion of the resource, etc.). More speci ically, the link between the ishing problem and the existing system of governance and its possible weaknesses is rarely highlighted.

☞ There are several stages involved in the design and drawing up of a co-management plan or project: pre-diagnostics, the setting up of a co-management body to draft the mission statement, the formalising of a co-management organisation encompassing an agreement on the rules and procedures for negotiation and decision-making, a co-management plan or project, a co-management agreement which is the last stage of the design and set-up. Related to the conditionality of co-management, the design and development require the adaptation of the legal, institutional and administrative framework, the strengthening of the stakeholders, reliable data on the socio-ecosystems and suitable tools.

Point for

Produce pre-diagnostics from consideration data on the socio-ecosystems n° 5 concerned ■ Identify and precisely analyse the problem of the ishery and the link with the issues at stake for co-management ■ Relate this problem to the current system of governance and its possible weaknesses through an analytical framework (problem, players, norms, nodes, processes) and to the illing in of indicators ■ De ine the major stakes for co-management, the main goal and the speci ic objectives in relation to the isheries management functions ■ Choose the type of co-management suited to the problem at hand and the stakes, which means giving preference to certain stakeholders, a scale of analysis and the determining of modes of interaction between scales, and the relative importance of each stakehol-How representative the stakeholders are and how they are designated are a key factor in the smooth running of co-management framework. Nonetheless, insuf icient consideration is sometimes given to existing organisations. The co-management body should be set up on the basis of the local system of stakeholder representation to the extent that this can be reconciled with co-management. The body's constitution poses the problem of the mobilisation and proper representation of all the stakeholders concerned, in particular women and migrants. It is understood that certain representatives will be mobilised to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the type of co-management, the scale concerned (not all the players need to be mobilised on each geographic scale) and the co-management phase. The co-management body writes a mission statement stipulating the management goal, strategy and values shared by the different stakeholders [START_REF] Margoluis | Measures of Success: Designing, Managing and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects[END_REF]. It ixes the co-management organisation and establishes a co-management agreement. It is the node for negotiation, decision-making and the drafting of documents. It may be a formal or informal body [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF].

The formalising of the co-management organisation encompasses the:

■ agreement on the rules and procedures for negotiation and decision-making which should contribute to the transparency of the process [START_REF] Borrini Feyerabend | La gestion participative des ressources naturelles. Organisation, négociation et apprentissage par l'action[END_REF], ■ responsibilities of each stakeholder which must be recorded in the co-management organisation [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF], ■ choice of management unit which should refer to an existing system of governance and pre-de ined limits [START_REF] Berkes | Managing small scale isheries[END_REF] and the size of which should be suf iciently restricted to allow effective management [START_REF] Fargier | La participation des pêcheurs atisanaux à la gestion des ressources marine côtières tropicales[END_REF] but large enough to take ecological management considerations into account [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF],

Point for

Reinforce the co-management consideration body through adequate stakeholder n° 6 representation and mobilisation ■ Identify and spatialize the stakeholders and their existing governance method; ■ Try to simplify the co-management body and the way it works; ■ Make sure the stakeholder representatives are truly representative; ■ Give preference to the local system of stakeholder representation to the extent that this can be reconciled with co-management; ■ Mobilise all the stakeholders concerned, without omitting those who tend to be marginalised; ■ Choose the stakeholders to be mobilised according to the scale in question and depending on each management unit: local ( ishing communities and local representatives of the sector, local powers, local authorities, local groups and project managers, experts and researchers), national (national ishers' organisations and sector players, central authorities, representatives of donors, experts and researchers), and transnational (representatives of the countries, regional organisations, experts and researchers); ■ Specify the stakeholders to be mobilised for each co-management phase, assigning them the status of decision-maker or observer.

■ co-management plan or project details the activities to be conducted to achieve the objectives, the expected outputs, the schedule, the business plan estimating the cost of the operations for each activity decided upon, to which is associated a source and method of inancing (DENR et al, 2001).

During project design or the development of a new phase, the preparation for co-management should include the de inition of a plan of action which should be budgeted and inanced for the duration of the project. It should incorporate a system of evaluation and adjustment. It should be validated collectively in order to enhance ownership on the part of the different players.

The drafting of a co-management agreement is the responsibility of the co-management body: It should have the status of a rule or contract and should be respected. It details the composition of the management body, the roles and obligations of the stakeholders, the description of the co-management organisation, provisions for con lict resolution, monitoring and evaluation, and compensation for aggrieved stakeholders [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF][START_REF] Borrini Feyerabend | La gestion participative des ressources naturelles. Organisation, négociation et apprentissage par l'action[END_REF].

Point for

Consolidate co-management consideration organisation and determine n° 7 a plan of action ■ Find a way of simplifying co-management organisation ■ Make sure there are mechanisms for steering the transparency of the negotiation and decision processes ■ Clarify the responsibilities of each stakeholder and their organisational interactions, drawing on the analysis of their legitimacy and representativeness ■ Encourage institutional synergy between the local, national and regional scales ■ Give preference to the matching of proposed activities with the weaknesses identi ied in the pre-diagnostics at the level of each of the key isheries management functions ■ Integrate into the co-management plan or project a system for monitoring-evaluation, the cost of which should be scheduled ■ Integrate into the co-management plan or project a system for informing the population concerned about the pre-diagnostics, co-management body, co-management organisation, the proposed activities, the results of the monitoring and evaluation and the decisions taken ■ Integrate into the co-management plan or project a system for the distribution and dissemination of traditional knowledge and the main results of the research, taking local languages into account ■ If possible, integrate into the plan or project an expert system adapted to the type of co-management chosen and the scale in question ■ Have the plan or project validated collectively so that the stakeholders assume ownership of it ■ Put in place a legitimate co-management facilitator and ensure there is sustainable funding for their actions ■ Give preference to collective learning (including institutional) of the stakeholders to foster the development of the organisation within the framework of adaptive co-management.

The implementation of a co-management plan or project TRANSPARENCY AND GRADUAL COLLECTIVE LEARNING OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

Co-management depends, among other things, on the gradual building of trust both in the instances and in the reliability of the information provided by each party. The lack of information or outreach can contribute to the lack of comprehension of the new processes and tools developed in co-management. This often leads to the participants having dif iculty positioning themselves and acting ☞ The implementation of a co-management plan or project induces speci icities at the level of each of the main com- ponents of the implementation (according to [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF], in terms of:

■ governance and involvement of the players; transparency, the dissemination of mechanisms, outputs and regularly informing all the players consolidates the adaptive implementation of co-management which should develop step by step. Along with sustainable funding of processes and facilitation, it contributes to consolidating the processes in the long term;

■ the application of the regulations, control and enforcement of sanctions; the speci icities are the promotion by the communities or associations of isherfolk and their involvement in applying the rules, controling and enforcing sanctions;

■ control and surveillance, the speci icities concern the development of synergies between government agencies and communities or organisations of isherfolk, as well as the redistribution of part of the related resources towards the latter;

■ monitoring; co-management is accompanied by the involvement of all the stakeholders in gathering data and choosing indicators, but also by the transparency of the results of the monitoring;

■ evaluation; the principal speci icity is a participatory approach which leads to experience feedback, fostering the learning of all the stakeholders, including the institutions;

■ networking and advocacy; the speci icity of co-management is the effort to create and maintain interconnection aswell as the encompassing of all the stakeholders which fosters the apprenticeship of co-management.

fully within the co-management process. In addition, the studies and data produced by the research centres remain obscure, little-disseminated and are not systematically presented to the operators concerned by the co-management.

Furthermore, processes that are not consolidated, commitments not met or discontinued support can sustainably affect the dialogue and involvement of the stakeholders and therefore the governance as a whole. In this sense, the sustained political will of the parties and the meeting of commitments are to be sought, as well as the development of sustainable funding mechanisms.

More or less intense disruptions from the outside may also occur in the course of the process (political change, the addition of a new instance of representation, bio-climatic effect on the resource, arrival of a project run by an NGO or a new donor agency, etc.). The consolidation of collective learning and the maintaining of strong institutional and legal anchorage should make it possible to cope with such disruptions.

Point for

Consolidate transparent and consideration adaptive implementation of n° 8 co-management as well a information adapted to the different scales

■

Implement successive cycles of increasing complexity enabling start-up on small, achievable goals, test and develop the system, reinforce collective learning of the process and of the way the instances of comanagement work;

■ Check that the measures are coordinated in time and space (geographically); ■ Regularly formalise the process and the new co-management responsibilities to allow each of the participants to understand the changes made to governance; ■ Accompany and make sure transparency is respected during the periods of transition and renewal of comanagement instances; ■ Maintain information arrangements throughout the duration: develop the mechanisms for information circulation and transparency (between ministries, players and sites, etc.), use multiple communication tools, and take national languages into account. Assess and improve the arrangements where necessary; ■ Promote traditional knowledge and involve researchers and the expert system in the dissemination and transmission of regular information to the players; ■ Take into account the different national languages and multiple communication tools to disseminate the results of the diagnostics, evaluations, decisions taken, control measures and results of the enforcement of penalties, depending on the scales and the target players; ■ Ensure sustainable funding for "information" and the implementation of the co-management. Consolidate and perpetuate the national co-management funding mechanisms and take into account the critical transition phases between major programme phases to ensure continuity.

Box 7

The structured formulation of a co-management plan: the example of sole ish ishery in The Gambia

Author: Jean Yves Weigel (additional information in the technical report) according to Ministry of Fisheries, 2012 and[START_REF] Tobey | An Overview of Marine Fisheries in the Gambia and preliminary Governance Baseline[END_REF] The Fisheries Act 2007 provides the legal basis for the co-management of small-scale isheries in The Gambia.

The irst isheries co-management plan concerns artisanal sole ish ishing. The government of The Gambia, in partnership with the USAID, the University of Rhode Island and the WWF, supported this plan by organising co-management workshops, direct training, collaborative research and institutional capacity building. The ishers and the industry also helped to formulate this Plan with their knowledge of sole ish ishery and by gathering data. The Plan was designed as scalable in keeping with availability and data analysis and changes affecting catches and environmental conditions. A special sole ish management zone was promulgated encompassing the waters of the Atlantic shoreline and shorelines adjacent to the estuarine areas of The Gambia River out to 9 nautical miles.

The Ministry in charge of ishing delegated exclusive sole ish ishery rights to NASCOM (National Sole Fishery Co-Management Committee) and LACOM (Landing sites Co-Management Committees) which are attached to it through the intermediary of the CFC (Community Fisheries Centers). NASCOM consists of representatives from the ishing communities, ishmongers and processors, LACOMS, the Gambian Artisanal Marine Fisheries Development Association (GAMFIDA), the National Association of Artisanal Fishing Operators (NAAFO), municipalities, the Department of Fisheries and the industrial sector.

In 2012, without anticipating on the development of this co-management system, the lessons that can be drawn are: an adequate legal and institutional framework, the successful mobilisation and capacity building of all the stakeholders involved, and the matching of operating rules to objectives.

Box 8 Companion modelling as a possibility for isheries co-management (ComMod approach)

Authors: David de Monbrison and Pablo Chavance (additional information in the technical report) adapted from [START_REF] Voinov | Modelling with stakeholders[END_REF][START_REF] Worrapimphong | A companionmodeling approach applied to ishery management[END_REF], The ComMod Group, 2009 The ComMod approach takes place in two phases. First of all, the building of shared, spatialised diagnostics, scenarios for future changes in the resource which are explored by the players in the form of simulations /game playing. Secondly, the results of the simulations/game playing are used as the basis for de ining possibilities for improving the management of the resource in question and the building of collective commitments. This approach can usefully be developed in systems with little information as it promotes traditional knowledge and collective learning, through a concrete vision of the consequences of the decisions taken or of the options for ishery development. There are a number of conditions for their application, including strong involvement and investment by people and institutions, both to effectively accompany the different stages and to allow the optimal transfer of the tool and perpetuation of the process undertaken.

Point for

Optimise the enforcement consideration of the regulations, n° 9 control and surveillance ■ De ine the respective roles of the ishing communities and government agencies in the system for enforcing the regulations; ■ Train new stakeholders involved in the chain of decisions and sanctions and in the technical means for control and surveillance; ■ Develop synergies between modern and traditional control-surveillance systems thanks to the pooling of means enabling active participation of the stakeholders in determining the methods for control and surveillance and sanctions; ■ Adopt dissuasive sanctions which vary depending on the seriousness of the offence and amend them over time;

■ Mobilise the requisite means, possibly with the use of the funds generated from ines to pay for the control and surveillance system; ■ Set up optimally cost-effective systems (AIS-Radar systems combined with coastal telescopes); ■ Communicate the results, frauds and sanctions, arrests, and any lessons to be drawn to increase transparency and the sense of justice for those who respect the rules.

The application of the regulations presupposes an effective, optimised control and surveillance system which represents a considerable expense but may help to keep con licts at bay. Performance levels in this domain relate to administrative and institutional capacity, the adequacy of the legal framework, but also to the perception of the players concerning the legitimacy of the measures binding on them. The direct involvement of the ishers, whether industrial or artisanal, is not devoid of risks since the divergent interests of the players, combined with the detection of illegal activities, expose the ishers to major repressive actions. The de inition and conducting of the plan or project relative to the application of the regulations, control and surveillance, must also be appropriately supervised with the corresponding means of execution. The setting up of warning systems and the development of synergies between government agencies to be combined speci ically according to each national or local situation are recommended (cf. sheet no. 11 of the technical document "Fisheries co-management and the surveillance and control of ishing activities in Canada and

CO-MANAGEMENT, CONTROL, SURVEILLANCE AND REGULATION ENFORCEMENT

The application of the regulations pertaining to a co-management plan or project should follow four principles: (i) the regulations must have the agreement of the associations and individuals concerned, (ii) the promotion of the application should be voluntary, (iii) socio-cultural sensibilities must be taken into account, (iv) an of icial public sanction should be practiced [START_REF] Oposa | Legal marketing of environmental law[END_REF]. Enforcement of the regulations in a co-management system requires the consultation and coordination of all the comanagement units; a co-managed ishery has the advantage of a greater moral obligation on the part of isherfolk and professionals in the sector who were involved in formulating the regulations and the methods for applying them.

Benin"). However, the involvement of communities of artisan ishers in control and surveillance requires that the artisan ishers keep within the limits stipulated by the legislation and the operational procedures involving other government players. This involvement poses the problem of the redistribution and sustainability of the means which are often assigned by the more or less serious involvement of the stakeholders or the administrative authorities concerned.

MONITORING-EVALUATION SYSTEMS AND THE CO-MANAGEMENT PROCESS

The challenge for monitoring is to provide elements to assess the degree of realisation of the activities scheduled through the management plan or project and what should be done to improve them. Monitoring is performed by gathering data and calculating indicators which enable a comparison of the effective results with a reference point. The comparisons may concern the change that affected a target group following the implementation of the plan or compared to a similar group that was not targeted. Monitoring is a process of continuous examination of data as it is collected, classi ied and veri ied, and of the conclusions that can be drawn from it [START_REF] Margoluis | Measures of Success: Designing, Managing and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects[END_REF]. Co-management implies that all the stakeholders are involved in data collection and the choice of indicators, but also that the results of monitoring are presented to internal and external audiences in order to share them.

Evaluation, based on the monitoring, should diagnose implementation problems, make adjustments and take the decisions transposed into the annual work plan and budget concerning the activities, the needs in term of resources and inance. Concerning the evaluation procedures for a management plan or project, there are several different approaches: i) performance evaluation, which aims to determine the extent to which goals and speci ic objectives have been achieved; ii) process evaluation, which examines how the goals and objectives were achieved; iii) results evaluation, which concerns the socio-economic and environmental impact of a co-management plan; iv) evaluation of the costs and bene its (Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998; [START_REF] Berkes | Managing small scale isheries[END_REF]. What is speci ic about evaluation in a co-management system is, on the one hand, the importance given to governance indicators, and, on the other hand, a participatory approach to evaluation which, through the feedback it creates, favours learning among all the stakeholders, including the institutions.

Point for

Set up a monitoring & evaluation consideration system geared towards n° 10 co-management ■ Continuously collect the data required for illing in the selected co-management indicators; ■ Carry out evaluations of performance, processes and results (socio-economic and environmental impacts), and lastly an evaluation of the costs and beneits; ■ Diagnose the variances between actual activities and planned activities; ■ Transpose into the annual work plan the adjustments decided on concerning the activities in respect of monitoring, and adapt the needs in resources and inance; ■ Give preference to iteration (progress step by step) which facilitates the learning of co-management and the evaluation of the processes.

THE ADVANTAGE OF NETWORKING FOR CO-MANAGEMENT APPROACHES

Connecting the ishing community and its organisations to the other stakeholders external to the community through a network is critical for the success of co-management in the long term. This should help establish links by means of which the interests of the community can be taken into account, that provide a source of technical support, and for sharing experience and strategy. These links are forged with other communities and co-managed projects, NGOs and bilateral or multilateral technical support systems, government bodies, and people of in luence such as women or politicians [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF].

Technical isheries development measures that can be applied to co-management

The implementation of a co-management plan or project may draw on technical measures used in conventional isheries development: the introduction of ishing licences, limitations relative to the ishing effort, such as the number of days or hours authorised, the seasonal or permanent closure of ishing grounds, restrictions concerning gear, catch quotas and total admissible catches (TAC), the distribution of the total admissible catches between participants in the ishery, individual ishing quotas (IFQ), whether transferable (ITQ) or not, or minimum size limits on ish. However, the TAC and quotas, and even more so the ITQ, seem to pose a problem when it comes to artisanal multi-species isheries in developing countries. We could mention, for example, the dispersion of the ishing units, the variety of ishing gear used, the collection of data on the stocks subject to quotas, the limited capacity of the managers, and equity considerations.

This implementation may also draw on traditional development measures that typically concern territorial usage rights to semi-open aquatic areas (lagoons) and are expressed as the seasonal or permanent closure of ishing grounds, prohibitions or restrictions on certain ishing techniques, or regulations on ishing effort [START_REF] Weigel | Traditional management of some lagoons of the Gulf of Guinea[END_REF]Freeman et al, 1991). These measures may have a deliberate or incidental effect on the preservation of the ishing resources and the avoidance of con licts over use, but their localised nature, empiricism and the ambiguity of their goals lead to a case-by-case analysis, prior to integrating them into the implementation of a co-management plan.

The implementation of a co-management plan or project may have an adverse effect on certain stakeholders, which poses the question of compensation associated with temporary measures (temporary exclusion, technical or biological stoppage) or de initive measures (decommissioning, destruction of ishing gear). However, the results of compensation can be disappointing [START_REF] Holland | Do ishing vessel buyback programs work: a survey of the evidence[END_REF][START_REF] Clark | Subsidies, buybacks, and sustainable isheries[END_REF] insofar as they may encourage irresponsible behaviour on the part of the players and lead to a "loss of the sense of ishing dialogue".

The dif iculty in establishing this dialogue resides essentially in the possibility the stakeholders have of implementing new, restrictive measures in isheries management during the transition period, whereas the bene its will only be felt later on. Some stakeholders may have to stop their activity without the possibility of diversifying in Alternative Livelihoods and Income Generating Activities (AL/IGA); others may not be able to accept a fall in income and prefer to refuse the measures, and remain in a deteriorated situation with an income that is low but guaranteed in the short term.

The technical measures relative to reducing overcapacity in artisanal ishing arouse interest related to the role that befalls the communities of artisan ishers in the implementation of co-management. adapted from [START_REF] Cléach | l'apport de la recherche à l'évaluation des ressources halieutiques et à la gestion des pêches,-2008-Commission de l'of ice parlementaire d'évaluation des choix scienti iques et technologiques de l'évaluation de l'assemblée nationale française[END_REF], [START_REF] Mongruel | Le propriétaire l'exploitant, le salarié, l'exclu : les conséquences sociales de la gestion des pêches par des systèmes de marché de droits[END_REF], [START_REF] Buisson | Les quotas individuels de pêche transférables -Bilan et perspectives.pour une gestion durable des ressources[END_REF][START_REF] Buisson | Les quotas individuels de pêche transférables -Bilan et perspectives.pour une gestion durable des ressources[END_REF][START_REF] Plattner | Selection of property rights management system in R. Shotton[END_REF] Individual transferable quotas (ITQ) may appear to be effective tools for reducing capacities as a complement to or substitute for decommissioning schemes. They are sometimes promoted as the least expensive mechanisms for reducing ishing pressure and helping to achieve environmental resource management goals. Nonetheless, this type of tool does not systematically save on the costs of implementation (monitoring and controls) due to the need for close stock management.

In highly industrialised, capital-intensive single species isheries they become one management method among others. However, for multi-species artisanal isheries they present a large number of limitations and risks in terms of concentration, external dependency and, on a socio-economic level, they could weaken a branch or a territory as a whole due to their impact on society. Information on the positive and negative effects and recommendations for counteracting the adverse effects of this management method are illustrated by the examples from the literature given in the technical report. The issues facing co-management in terms of ITQ are therefore to:

■ measure the limits of these tools clearly and procure more contradictory insights as to their advantages and disadvantages,

■ develop co-management agreements that make more room for ishing dialogue and the place of the ishers in decisions related to the management tools associated with the allocation of ishing rights, ■ develop, in a concerted manner, new mechanisms that restrict the transferable aspect to prevent the phenomena of concentration and dependency, ■ develop governance associated with the ITQ involving isheries management functions and companion measures with robust inancing (research, cooperation, surveillance) enabling adjustments.

society and the economy. This challenge points to the complex diversity of the types of ishing and ishers, the amplitude of ishing migrations, the high demographic growth rate, the dependency of ishers with respect to the resource, and the scarcity of alternative livelihoods to ishing (cf. technical report). It also points to the in lexibility and limited transferability of the production factors, the lack of a coordinated and integrated economic development approach between ishing and other sectors and the dif iculties of implementing the "control, surveillance and enforcement" function [START_REF] Pomeroy | Fishery co-management : a practical handbook[END_REF].

Reducing excess artisanal ishing capacity implies relating isheries management measures to the socio-economic development of the communities and households of isherfolk. The sustainable livelihoods approach offers such a perspective of linking isheries management and socio-economic development, all the more so as it can only be implemented through a participatory approach like co-management [START_REF] Chambers | Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century[END_REF][START_REF] Ashley | Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early experience[END_REF].

The co-management of transboundary and transnational isheries

Since the advent of the ecosystem approach, the scale of co-management can be extended to a transnational level, with cooperative management of shared stocks of ish which, for certain authors, become co-managed stocks. This explains why the management of certain transboundary, straddling or highly migratory stocks is sometimes classi ied as cooperative management. In the literature, it is essentially cooperative management or transnational co-management of transboundary stocks that has been developed.

The co-management of transboundary stocks has mainly been approached from the organisational, institutional, normative, legal and economic angle in detail in the technical report (Russell and van der Zwaag (2010), [START_REF] Burke | Convention of the Law of the Sea Provisions on Conditions of Access to Fisheries Subject to National Jurisdiction[END_REF] and van Houtte ( 2003), Björndal et al ( 2004), [START_REF] Munro | The Optimal Management of Transboundary Renewable Resources[END_REF]; [START_REF] Sumaila | Management of shared hake stocks in the Benguela Marine Ecosystem[END_REF]). In general, two levels of cooperation are established: the irst level relates to cooperation in terms of research which may be decisive if the research is independent; the second level rest in formulating a programme including an optimal long-term management strategy, the allocation of catch shares, and execution and enforcement methods.

Point for

Clarify the limits, application consideration framework and nature of the n° 11 compensatory and companion measures associated with capacity reduction in a co-managed system ■ Do not be naïve in terms of co-management: ishers and the players are jointly responsible for the situations and there are numerous ways of bypassing measures. Consider that the destruction of gear remains illusory, which can have numerous adverse effects in a system where control and surveillance are not optimal; ■ Do not play a game of give and take: Aid is not made available in return for restrictive measures. Nonetheless, it is important to properly measure the negative impacts the communities must bear during the transition phase; ■ In a crisis situation, take drastic measures to resolve a situation in two different ways relating to decommissioning:

-i) exclude by directive, with compensation from the State (Europe); -ii) co-management of overcapacity with a concern for the adequacy of available stocks (example of scallops): This management requires highly effective control and surveillance by the State and the existence of exemplary sanction enforcement, highly responsive and accurate searching, the reduction of the exploitation periods adjusted to the resource and to the market ( ishing periods, hours per day, etc.); ■ Take into account the fact that the AL/IGA may be ineffective (temporary withdrawal from the effort, incentive to postpone effort, etc.) and give preference to isheries dialogue and the responsibility of the players.

The institutional angle poses the question of the necessity of creating a speci ic body or of working with a straightforward, informal structure. The answer may be that this choice should be made depending on considerations of cost, sovereignty and effectiveness, which point to the complexity of the management problems to be resolved. In addition to the usual constraints related to national co-management, transboundary management combines additional dif iculties such as the formal signing of international agreements, the coordination of national authorities and dif iculties in harmonising.

Point for

Test transboundary and consideration transnational co-management n° 12 experiences with caution ■ Build national governance and systems before developing transboundary or transnational co-management, which is necessarily more complex, particularly in terms of stock management, acquiring reliable bioecological and socio-economic data (research, monitoring); ■ Draw on independent, impartial research; ■ Promote long-term co-management, more particularly concerning technical measures. Integrate considerations of sustainable exploitation of the resources and give preference to an ecosystem-based approach; ■ Analyse the legal, institutional and administrative constraints and develop and converge the corresponding framework to enable decisions and the signing of agreements relative to the management of stocks; ■ Develop collaboration between the States in the sub-region in terms of measures and tools for the management of the stocks; ■ De ine responsibilities, adequate means and guarantee them at the level of the countries concerned; ■ Adapt the institutional and administrative organisation to considerations of sovereignty, effectiveness and cost; ■ Find the smallest common denominator before beginning the transition from national co-management to transboundary or transnational co-management, particularly regarding the de inition of an agreed management target for the shared stock; ■ Ensure transnational agreement on goals for stock and isheries management so that the technical measures implemented on all sides do not cancel each other out at the level of a stock taken as a whole; ■ Assess the costs and bene its of the different components of transboundary or transnational co-management; ■ Promote the capacity of the Conference of Ministers of the SRFC to take binding decisions for implementing the necessary regional agreements.

The integration of isheries co-management and a marine protected area

This section is a summary of the elements produced in the "Review of the State-of-the-art in the role of MPAs in isheries management" also published by the SRFC in 2011 (cf. the corresponding technical and summary reports). Co-management has been recognised as the most ef icient form of governance for both MPAs and for isheries [START_REF] Garcia | Etude sur l'état de l'art du rôle des AMP dans la gestion des pêches[END_REF]. Integrating the co-management of a ishery and of an MPA nonetheless poses problems of adjustment, evaluation of joint positions and the fundamental differences to be accommodated after an objective analysis of the advantages and disadvantages. This requires the development of linkages between the different institutions at every scale, and represents a major challenge with innovative experimentation at institutional level.

An observation of isheries and MPA management at the level of the sub-region shows a lack of consistency and synergy which is an obstacle to the design, formulation and implementation of co-management plans or projects:

■ The legal, institutional and administrative framework of the ishing sector and the MPAs is rarely harmonised, and institutional linkages often entirely absent. Yet these connections are precisely what makes it possible to develop a higher national integration framework, identify a leading institution and clarify the roles and the distribution of tasks, to jointly de ine and develop co-management plans, and achieve economies of scale in spatialised management;

■ The development of the co-management of a ishery or an MPA is often not harmonised, which makes arrangements more complex, in particular for the enforcement of regulations, monitoring and evaluation, control and surveillance;

■ The management of migratory resources and the development of transnational networks are often not enough to decree the transboundary co-management of a ishery or an MPA;

■ It is often not clear whether it is appropriate to create an MPA to resolve a problem related to ishing, or associated with a speci ic resource, rather than using other tools, which imply straightforward spatial or temporal restrictions on ishing;

■ The necessity of regulating ishing capacity taking into account artisanal ishing is often not suf iciently emphasised prior to the creation of an MPA, in particular when migratory species are involved. Whatever the resources involved, the effectiveness of an MPA in relation to isheries management in fact resides in effective control of the ishing capacity and effort.

Box 10

The Cote Bleue Marine Park. An MPA set up and managed with the ishers.

Thirty years in existence (France)

Author: David de Monbrison, Elisabeth Tempier (additional information in the technical report)

When the modest Carry le Rouet reserve (85 ha) was created in 1983, at the initiative of Frédéric Bachet backed by the Provence-Alpes-Côte d' Azur Regional council, Marine Protected Areas were not in fashion, and only professional ishers concerned by the area showed their approval by supporting biological recovery, in the spirit of the tradition of the "prud'homies de pêche" dating back to the 14th century. Monitoring studies quickly con irmed the expected build up of stocks (reserve effect). As trawlers frequently crossed the coastal strip illegally, cooperation between ishers/managers/administration gradually turned into a real partnership, with the planting of anti-trawler posts, arti icial production reefs and inally, a second reserve of 210 ha in 1996. Over the years, the management was strengthened through the involvement of the local authorities, the ishers and permanent members and results began to emerge with the colonisation of reefs multiplying biomass by 5, increasing appeal to tourists, and for ishers who came to set their nets on the edge of the MPA. Starting out with small resources, the MPA has gradually become a reference in the Mediterranean in thirty years. Through this long-term partnership, the ishers have come to work more closely with the scientists, the administration and the local authorities; their organisations are strengthened by this, at least at local level, and they learn to negotiate with partners such as the Marseilles Port Authorities. In parallel to the intensi ication and increasing specialisation in ishing methods, the techniques and know-how of these "craft trades" and the wide variety of their catches which are sold direct to the customer, are an integral part of a cultural heritage which deserves to be recognised, promoted and extended. These points are today entrenched in the Park's management plan.

Point for Create synergy between consideration co-managed isheries and marine n° 13 protected areas

■ Create institutional linkages to establish a national integrating framework, identify a leading institution, jointly de ine and develop co-management plans; ■ Make sure it is appropriate to create an MPA to solve a problem of ishing or related to a speci ic resource, rather than implementing straightforward spatial and temporal restrictions; ■ Regulate ishing capacity, including artisanal, prior to creating an MPA, particularly when migratory species are involved.

Applying co-management to arti icial reefs and FADs

There are four main categories of arti icial reef associated with the various present day goals ( ishing and productivity, recreation, restoration of the environment and optimisation of coastal developments). Over the past few years, the concept of "arti icial reef" has gradually been replacing that of "arti icial habitat".

An analysis of arti icial reef management in the experience of Senegal (Bargny and Yenne) brings to light the comparative advantages of a co-management system [START_REF] Mbaye | La gestion des récifs arti iciels pour l'maménagement des pêches et la conservation des ressources marines[END_REF]. Arti icial reef co-management requires joint decisions, particularly in terms of use allocation. It also requires adaptive co-management, which is achieved through joint design and formulation, clear goals, inancing of management, adaptable management rules de ined upstream, and control and surveillance of rule enforcement.

☞ The review of regional experiences in terms of the installation and management of FADs or arti icial reefs indicates that:

■ They should be part of integrated coastal management and sustainable isheries management incorporating control of ishing effort and pressure;

■ Their co-management presents the same conditionality and phases as an MPA, with an additional concern related to end of life and renewal of structural work (essential for FAD, sometimes necessary for arti icial reefs).

Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) differ signi icantly from arti icial reefs since they are clearly de ined not as tools for increasing natural productivity or improving local biodiversity, but as actual ishing gear targeting small or large pelagic ish. There are two major types of FAD, those anchored in deep waters and loating, at considerable cost (often used by large ocean seiners) and those anchored in shallow waters or near the coast (even if sometimes in deep waters), which are affordable to local or traditional ishers in terms of maintenance and can be co-managed.

In the SRFC region, Cape Verde is emblematic of the installation and management of FADs with the Maio and Pedra Badejo projects.

Observation of FAD management reveals a number of weaknesses [START_REF] Rey-Valette | Évaluation pluridisciplinaire de la durabilité des pêcheries artisanales autour-des dispositifs de concentration de poissons[END_REF] which can be explained by the following inadequacies: Irregular maintenance and renewal of the FAD, poor transfer of management to the professionals and lack of empowerment of the latter, poor integration or lack of institutional change in response to technological changes, irregular monitoring, and the absence of a legal framework.

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES IN FISHERIES CO-MANAGEMENT

Eleven detailed "experience sheets" were produced in the "technical report" on co-managed isheries, each pertaining to a different country, including examples from Europe, Asia, Africa and America (cf. map in section 1.3). All the experts who produced an analysis of a co-management experience have in-depth knowledge of the subject and country concerned, enabling a detailed analysis while at the same time following an identical model for each example.

The experiences analysed were selected according to several criteria, such as available hindsight on the process implemented, the exemplary nature of the case in question (Japanese co-management or the Mediterranean prud'homies, for instance), the illustrative nature of the scale of application of the co-management, whether local, national or transnational, the degree of success, and, lastly, the importance in terms of lessons that can be drawn for the SRFC area.

The analysis of eleven experiences made it possible to highlight the dif iculties encountered, what worked well in the design and formulation or implementation, how the players found ways to adapt the sharing of responsibilities depending on how the situation and power relations were evolving and on the progress of the projects.

The Japanese experience con irms two conditions for success: (i) effective decentralisation at sector level, and (ii) the necessary building of community-based management.

It also underscores the role of the State in creating a legal framework conducive to co-management and an institutional framework conducive to effective decentralisation, with the creation of multiple-scale organisations for coordinating the development of marine isheries. Lastly, it emphasises the importance of the structuring of community-based management around the territorial use rights granted by the legislator, and the possibility of a co-management system changing scale, from ishery to ecosystem, for instance.

Thailand's experience shows the necessary adaptation of co-management methods to the institutional framework of the country concerned, to the constraints and needs of the community concerned. It underlines the necessary revision of the legislative arsenal in order to recognise and af irm the isheries co-management; the necessary clariication and de inition of ishing rights on the scale of the community; the advantages of involving ishers in the collection and processing of data in collaboration with the scientists; the advantage of targeting achievable goals to obtain swift results and create an awareness of the beneits of commitment and effort.

☞ Eleven "experience sheets" were analysed in depth and are presented:

■ Sheet no. 1. An example of co-management institutionalised on a national scale: coastal isheries in Japan. ■ Sheet no. 2. A gradual adaptation of the co-management framework for artisanal isheries: the example of the Thai isheries ■ Sheet no. 3. The concerted action of setting up a co-management process: The example of co-managed isheries in the province of Aceh (Indonesia).

■ Sheet no. 4. From legalisation to the legitimisation of co-management: The example of lake isheries in Burkina Faso. ■ Sheet no. 5. The co-management of local isheries and protection of a stock -Rio Grande de Buba (Guinea Bissau). ■ Sheet no. 6. The dif iculties of co-management: The example of artisanal isheries in Senegal. ■ Sheet no. 7. Fisheries co-management and management plan implementation process. The example of the "Octopus Plan" (Mauritania). The isheries co-management experience in Aceh province, Indonesia draws attention to the importance of negotiation and of four of its components; awareness raising, capacity building, action on the ground and networking. It con irms the necessity of explicit sharing of responsibilities among the stakeholders, and of the players in the co-management assuming ownership of the different phases. The example stresses the necessity of adapting co-management arrangements as the situation and needs evolve, but also of placing isheries co-management in the broader context of the ecosystem and the local economy.

The experience of Burkina Faso bring to light the necessity of an adaptable legal co-management framework in the form of laws, decrees, orders and speci ications documents; the necessity for completed institutionalisation with recognised centrality and a detailed remit for the management committees; the achieving of the goal of legitimisation integrating the oral tradition and custom, beyond the simple legalisation of co-management; the advantages of restricting the co-management unit since this restriction favours legitimisation by the stakeholders.

The experience of Guinea Bissau in the co-management of Rio Grande de Buba isheries reveals: The advantages of leadership for formulating a management plan; the importance of local facilitators and the involvement of associations in surveillance; lastly, the possibility of replicating the experience on condition that the ecosystem and ishing community are comparable. It also shows how it is easier to set up co-management in a small, circumscribed territory and how co-management can be used to de ine rules for restricting territorial use.

The experience of Senegal con irms that donor support must be continuous, in order to consolidate pilot experiences, since throughout the projects we ind a focus on certain sites; that the support of the population is evident in the sites where the co-management was set up with substantial and continuous means; that organising the comanagement players in occupational groups or by territory may gain the support of the population concerned.

The dif iculties of the Senegalese experience led to the proposal of a series of recommendations including: Harmonise the legislation governing ishing with that of decentralisation; formulate a co-management strategy document; de ine the application criteria and mechanisms and clarify the interactions between them to lighten the administrative procedures; formulate a suitable communication policy oriented towards all the players concerned and the territorial administrations; enable the co-management body (in Senegal, the Local artisanal isheries committees) to collect taxes and contributions.

The experience of the octopus management plan in Mauritania shows how initial objectives can be insuf iciently appropriate and how the different institutions are mobilised to a greater or lesser degree. This example above all shows how, in the implementation of a management plan, the institutional function (de inition of the legal and institutional frameworks, de inition and distribution of roles, assuming of responsibility and policy orientations, and allocation of inancial resources) is important and makes or breaks the implementation of binding measures. It also shows the importance of synergies between the different institutions.

The experience of cooperative transboundary co-management of shared stocks of hake in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem shows the advantages of signing a Fisheries Protocol explicitly binding on all the States concerned; and progressive implementation of co-management with respect to the dif iculties to be smoothed over (diversity of institutions and management methods, the absence of real regional procedures for managing transboundary stocks).

The experience of the prud'homies in the French Mediterranean highlights how ishers were able to maintain links with the preservation of the quality of the ishing grounds and sustain a small, diversi ied ishery and the oral transmission of the traditional prud'homies culture. The prud'homies enabled the integration of immigrant ishers from a variety of backgrounds, a certain degree of involvement in coastal management and the life of the community, the initiation of actions such as the creation of reserves, structuring (prud'homie collectives, prud'homie members elected to the isheries committees) and recognition from the local authorities. Lastly, they enabled good practices to be maintained in terms of local co-management and surveillance arrangements. This example shows how, over the years, a decentralized co-management organisation can deal with different political inluences, cultural change and technological advances. It brings to light the foundations on which decisions, processes, dif iculties and successes are based to maintain the system in a context of a reduction in the numbers of ishing jobs and institutional change.

Madagascar's experience of mixed development zones combining artisan ishers and industrial ishers around shrimp resources places emphasis on the setting up of consultation bodies and methods; the formulation of "development contracts" authorising validation at the level of the regional, then national, bodies, within which the competent administration is represented; lastly the realisation of concrete action likely to contribute in the short or medium term to a better management of the resource, the consolidation of consultation, and the sustainable development of the pilot zones. This example stresses the timing dif iculties involved in short-term projects associated with the implementation of long-term processes. It also shows an example of an approach in a context of co-management of artisanal and industrial ishing of the same resource. This example speci ies the importance of step-by-step support enabling collective learning through the implementation of decentralised co-management bodies. It also shows the advantages of creating a co-management area with boundaries that favour the anchorage of the stakeholders in a perimeter that is easily identi iable by all.

The Canadian experience of co-management of surveillance and control shows the importance of having a legal framework prior to the introduction of new co-management methods associated with industrial ishing. It also shows an innovative surveillance funding mechanism by the ishers in support of State surveillance actions and the factors leading to the maintaining or weakening of the mechanism.

The experience of Benin in isheries surveillance speci ies the limits and the importance of mobilising the players in programmes to combat illegal ishing and the overexploitation of the resources to make up for the weakness of State-run surveillance programmes. It highlights the precautions to be taken and the recommendations for implementing co-management that involves ishers in surveillance.

  FIGURES AND TABLESMap 1 Map of the co-management experiences considered in the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Map 2The area and ecological zones covered by the SRFC and its seven member countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure1The main partners and key players in isheries co-management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure2The co-management spectrum: from government-based to community-based management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure3Potential changes in one type of co-management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure4Cycles of decision-making and collaborative implementation of isheries co-management processes . . . . . . Table1Co-management drivers by type of ishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table2Simpli ied grid of the functions involved in isheries management (according to Yan Giron) . . . . . . . . . . . . Table3Distribution of stakeholders' activities in a co-management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box 1

 1 Application of adaptive co-management to ishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 2 Comparison and trend in management costs of a co-managed ishery

Fisheries

  co-management experiences shown as inserts in the report Legend * Other countries and co-management experiences mentioned in the study : Co-Management and ITQ, FADs, MPAs, transboundary management, technical measures, etc.)

(

  Source : PRCM, 2011 ; with the UICN authorization) Map 2 The area and ecological zones covered by the SRFC and its seven member countries

Figure 2

 2 Figure 2 The co-management spectrum: from government-based to community-based management (according to Berkes et al, 2001)

Figure 3

 3 Figure 3 Potential changes in one type of co-management (adapted from Garcia, 2011)

■

  The existence of decentralisation and delegation of authority on the part of the government, including the right to organise and make arrangements concerning management ■ The existence of organisations prior to the co-management ■ Clear identi ication of those who have the right to participate in management ■ The existence of mechanisms for the coordination of the government and community concerned ■ The existence of cooperation and direction at community level ■ The participation of all the stakeholders involved and group cohesion characterised by the desire to engage in co lective action and the common understanding of problems and alternative solutions■ Adaptive co-management based on self-assessment and gradual adjustments leading managers and ishers to a r sult approaching the desired one, and based on learning■ The drafting of collective decision-making rules and the enforcement of regulations and a penalty structure ■ Con lict resolution mechanisms ■ The recognition of traditional knowledge ■ Participatory monitoring and evaluation and a transparent distribution of information ■ Well-de ined, suitable limits (community, resource, management area) ■ Bene its greater than costs and made explicit to the players.

  Estimate the costs of a programme co-management, distinguishing between ex ante and ex post, direct and indirect, explicit and implicit costs of the different comanagement phases ■ Make sure the different stakeholders concerned have the capacity to fund their participation in the different co-management phases and fully play their part ■ Develop mechanisms for the redistribution of funding and allocation of iscal resources speci ic to the local communities or organisations involved in co-management ■ Develop innovative mechanisms for the long term funding of co-management (trust fund, taxes, etc.) Box 3 Trend reversal related to co-management: the example of the Mape dam in Cameroon (1988-2005) Authors: Bozena Stomal and Jean Yves Weigel (additional information in the technical report)

■■■■

  Participation in the negotiation and drafting of the plan ■ Contribution to the formulation of the goals of the plan ■ Contribution of information and comments on the plan project ■ Contribution to the mission statement ■ Organisation of meetings ■ Participation in the co-management organisational diagram Elaboration of community consensus ■ Contribution of a legislative, public policy and planning framework ■ Participation in negotiation and planning ■ Assistance in identifying sources of ϐinancing ■ Participation in the organisation of the co-management ■ Invitations to and running of meetings ■ Clariϐication of responsibilities ■ Facilitation of the negotiation and planning processes ■ Technical support and training ■ Assistance with the setting up of a co-management organisation ■ Training in negotiation and planning ■ Assistance with the mission statement ■ Elaboration of consensus ■ Participation in the negotiation and drafting of the plan ■ Contribution of information and comments on the plan project ■ Participation in the implementation of the plan ■ Conformity with rules and regulations ■ Participation in the monitoring of the implementation of the plan ■ Active participation in educational and training activities Proposals in terms of development and of means of existence ■ Contribution of information and comments on the plan implementation ■ Assistance with the implementation of the plan ■ Institutionalisation of a structure for the implementation of the plan ■ Writing and approval of laws, decrees or orders ■ Assistance and support with fund raising ■ Organisational capacity building for obtaining funds Technical support and training ■ Strengthening of community organisations ■ Training of managers ■ Assistance in monitoring ■ Support in terms of development and of means of existence ■ Participation in the implementation of the plan ■ Conformity with rules and regulations ■ Contribution of information and comments on the plan implementation

  Figure 4 Cycles of decision-making and collaborativeimplementation of isheries co-management processes (according to Yan Giron)

■■

  Harmonise the legal, institutional and administrative framework; ■ Coordinate the development of the co-management of a ishery and of an MPA by simplifying the arrangements;Boost the management of migratory resources and develop transnational networks before decreeing transboundary co-management of a ishery or an MPA;

■

  Sheet no. 8. Transboundary management of shared stocks of hake in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem. ■ Sheet no. 9. Decentralized co-management withstands time and institutional change -the Prud'homies de pêche in the French Mediterranean ■ Sheet no. 10. The development of co-managed artisanal-industrial isheries: The example of mixed development zones (ZAC) in shrimp isheries (Madagascar) ■ Sheet no. 11. Fisheries co-management and surveillance/control of ishing activities (Canada and Benin)

Figure 1 The main partners and key players in isheries co-management (according to Alexis Fossi and Staples and Funge-Smith, 2009)

Table 1 Co-management drivers by type of ishing (inspired by Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, 2008)

 1

	Partnerships and shared responsibility for achieving common results	Commercial, recreational, native
	Reducing conϐlicts, improving conϐidence and working relations
	between managers and ϐishers	Commercial, recreational, native
	Reducing the necessity for political decisions	Commercial, recreational, native
	Transparency of the costs of management and service provisions	Commercial, recreational, native
	Reducing management costs	Commercial, recreational, native
	To examine the existing regulatory approach and the possibility of developing
	more effective management	Commercial, recreational, native
	Improving acceptance and conformity of decisions in terms of management	Commercial, recreational, native
	More encompassing and transparent decision-making	Commercial, recreational, native
	Flexibility and the ability to adapt in "real time"	Commercial, recreational, native
	Improving innovation capacity and the response to the sector's development needs Commercial, recreational, native
	Capacity building and skills development	Commercial, recreational, native
	Improving public opinion regarding the sector	Commercial, recreational
	Improving cooperation between ϐishers	Commercial, recreational
	Improving the ϐisheries investment climate	Commercial
	The possibility of better social results via a better work-life balance	Commercial, recreational, native
	The possibility of highlighting the economic and social importance
	of the impacts of the recreational ϐishing	Recreational
	The implementation and recognition of environmental management
	systems and codes of good practice	Commercial, recreational, native
	Enhanced dissemination and education	Commercial, recreational, native
	Spatial or regional management on a ϐiner scale	Commercial, recreational, native

Table 2 Simpli ied grid of the functions involved in isheries management (according to Yan Giron)

 2

	Decision support	Basic knowledge acquisition
		Information system
		Expert system
	Decision	Deϐinition of a guideline
		Actual decision-making
		Deϐinition of administrative rules

Table 3 Distribution of stakeholders' activities in a co-management plan (adapted from Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb, 2006)

 3

  The challenge of implementing co-management, in this case, is to facilitate the reduction of excess capacity (if overcapacity is the ishery problem) without causing unacceptable perturbations to

	Box 9	Co-management and individual
		transferable quotas (ITQ
	Authors: David de Monbrison and Jean Yves Weigel
	(Additional information in the technical report)

Funding

French Development Agency (AFD) Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC)