EAFM Handbook On Planning and Implementation

Ecosystems Approach to
Fisheries Management
Planning and Implementation Process
HANDBOOK
PHILIPPINES
MAINSTREAMING
EAFM PROGRAM
Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries Management
Planning and Implementation Process
Handbook
Philippines
June 2017
This publication was produced by Tetra Tech-ARD for

the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) as par t of the implementation of USAID/Philippines’
Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable Fisheries (ECOFISH)
Project under contract number AID-492-C-12-00008.
PART I
EAFM Start-up Workshop
6 Mainstreaming EAFM Program
MAINSTREAMING
EAFM PROGRAM
The Mainstreaming EAFM planning and implementation process is an adaptation
of the Essential EAFM Training Course developed jointly by several institutions.
The contents of the presentations, handbook, and other learning materials are
largely based on the Essential EAFM training course materials and adapted to the
Philippine context and examples.

The development of the original Essential Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
Management (EAFM) training course was supported financially by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF), the Norwegian Agency for International Development
(NORAD), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA),
and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations through
the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) Project; and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID) through the US Coral Triangle Initiative
(USCTI) and the Coral Triangle Support Program (CTSP).
The main drafting team for the Essential EAFM training course handbook included
Rusty Brainard (NOAA), Silvia Capezzuoli (IMA), Simon Funge-Smith (FAO),
Chris Grose (IMA), Adel Heenan (NOAA), Rudolf Hermes (BOBLME), Paulo
Maurin (NOAA), Megan Moews (NOAA), Chris O’Brien (BOBLME), Robert
Pomeroy (USAID-CTSP), and Derek Staples (Fisheries Management Consultant).
Nygiel Armada, Robert Pomeroy, and Derek Staples drafted the original written
modules for this course. Additional input was provided by Janna Shackeroff,
Robert Schroeder, Jarad Makaiau, Max Sudnovsky (all NOAA), and Magnus Torell
(SEAFDEC). In addition to the handbook, the training package includes linked
PowerPoint presentations, a workbook, toolkits, and a trainer’s manual. Final
editing was undertaken by Silvia Capezzuoli, Adel Heenan, and Derek Staples,
and copy editing was provided by Claire Attwood and Stephen Needham.
Figures used and adapted with permission from the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
(ICSF). Amanda Toperoff and Amanda Dillon (NOAA) created new figures.
Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries Management Planning and Implementation Process Handbook 7
MAINSTREAMING EAFM PLANNING

AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS:
ADAPTING THE EAFM TRAINING COURSE TO THE PHILIPPINES
In April 2016, BFAR, with assistance from NOAA and the USAID-ECOFISH
Project, led development of a Philippine version of the Essential EAFM Training
Course using Philippine case examples and following the terminologies used in
the Philippine legal framework. NOAA and BFAR conducted three trainings using
these materials adapted to the Philippines. Based on the experience and lessons
learned from these three trainings, the training materials were further revised
with the intention to conduct the training course in specific fisheries management
areas. BFAR renamed the training course Mainstreaming EAFM planning
and implementation process to emphasize that this is not simply a training
exercise, but an actual planning process where participant-stakeholders give full
commitment to implement the output (EAFM Plan) in the particular fisheries
management area.
Contributors to the Mainstreaming EAFM planning and implementation process

materials include: Rafael Ramiscal, Efren Hilario, Abigail Javier, Karen Candilosas,
Marylene Mandreza, Lainie Baraocor, Jessica Muñoz, Sandra Arcamo, and Asuncion
Maputol (BFAR); Ronnie Romero and Noel Barut (NFRDI); Romeo Cabungcal
(Province of Palawan); Supin Wongbusarakum, Megan Asher, Max Sudnovsky
(NOAA), and Ma. Aleta Nuñez (NOAA representative in the Philippines); Nygiel
Armada, James Kho and Jea Louise Robelo (ECOFISH). BFAR created a Technical
Working Group to lead the implementation of the Mainstreaming EAFM Program
that includes the conduct of stakeholder planning process in identified fisheries
management areas. On recommendation of the TWG, BFAR formally adopted the
Mainstreaming EAFM Program on 23 June 2016 through Fisheries Office Order
(FOO) No. 164.
The Mainstreaming EAFM planning and implementation process materials are

available on BFAR’s website: www.bfar.gov.ph
PART 1: EAFM Start-up Workshop
CONTENTS
MODULE 1 | Introduction
MODULE 2 | Proposed FMA
MODULE 3 | Issues and Problems
MODULE 4 | Ecosystem Approach
MODULE 5 | The What and Why of EAFM
MODULE 6 | Principles of EAFM
MODULE 7 | EAFM Plans: Link between policy and action
MODULE 8 | Planning Process Overview
MODULE 9 | Introduction to Management Actions
MODULE 10 | Start-up A: Preparing the Ground
MODULE 11 | Start-up B: Engaging Stakeholders
MODULE 12 | Next Steps
MODULE ONE
Introduction
The materials for the Mainstreaming

EAFM Planning and Implementation
Process were developed with support
from USAID/PH in partnership with
NOAA and through the USAID’s
ECOFISH Project.
The materials were adapted from

the Essential EAFM Training Course
developed by several institutions. These
materials evolved from and built
on the experience of BFAR in
conducting the Essential EAFM Training
Course in recent years, including
the series of trainings conducted by
BFAR with NOAA and ECOFISH in
April 2016.
These are the overall objectives of the

EAFM Planning Process:
First, we will understand what EAFM is

and why it is needed;
Second, we will learn to develop and
implement an EAFM Plan; and
Third, we will go through the process
of preparing and adopting an EAFM Plan
for implementation in our area.
This course focuses on marine capture fisheries but all the principles and activities can also apply to inland fisheries. It also considers
the contribution of aquaculture/ mariculture in developing the EAFM Plan for the fisheries management area.
The Mainstreaming EAFM Planning

Process is designed for BFAR regional
and provincial staff TO INITIATE - to
lead the process of developing an EAFM
Plan for a fisheries management area
(FMA) with participation of partner
LGUs, NGAs and other stakeholders.
The EAFM Plan that we develop

will be a consensus document - our
common guide. The LGUs will
implement the agreed actions in their
respective municipal waters. BFAR
will align its programs, activities and
budget to support implementation of
the plan beyond municipal waters, but
also including providing technical and
material support to LGUs.
MODULE TWO
Proposed FMA
BFAR to present map of proposed FMA

(broad geographic area – subject to
validation) and explain the reasons why
this area was chosen.
Depending on available data, BFAR or

other resource persons should also
present basic information about the
area, including: habitats, fisheries, fish
landing areas and other facilities, location
of major fishing communities, socio-
economic information (poverty data,
etc), hazards, etc. - information that
may be relevant for the EAFM planning
process.
In the basis of the proposed area, BFAR

invited representatives of LGUs, other
agencies and major stakeholder groups
to this start-up workshop. They make up
the core of the EAFM Team.
EAFM Team to discuss and agree

on the proposed FMA – subject for
presentation, validation and concurrence
of all stakeholders in the EAFM planning
process.
Note: this is a sample map from Google

maps. You may also use a NAMRIA chart
of the area, if available. This will serve as
the basemap.
MODULE THREE
Issues and Problems

The state of the fisheries can affect

people – from individual fisher families
to the economy of the LGU, to the
food supply of the province or country.
The changes to fisheries can include

change in volume of catch, size of fishes
caught, and kinds of fishes caught. It can
also include the types of gear used and
where the fishers are from (local or
from other areas). Changes in fisheries
may be associated with changes in
the environment, i.e., presence of
coastal activities, such as urbanization,
agriculture, industry, etc; loss if coral
reefs and other habitats; etc.
The EAFM Plan for your area should

identify specific issue and problems that
accurately describes the local situation.
Here are some common general issues and problems and • Political and institutional planning horizons are
some related opportunities in Asia-Pacific fisheries (not all are short-term
applicable to the Philippines). These issues and problems are • Unintended negative consequences of subsidies
summarised under three headings: 1) human well-being; 2) • Weak resource management
governance; and 3) ecological well-being. • Corruption and rent seeking
• Stakeholder participation
1. Issues and problems affecting human well-being • Structure of fishery management arrangements
• Population and economic growth • Alignment of science with fisheries management needs
• Food security • Co-management
• Poverty, increasingly unprofitable fishing, unsustainable • Compliance and enforcement
livelihoods • Fishing rights
• Poor health infrastructure and vulnerability to HIV/AIDS
• Gender 3. Issues and problems affecting ecological well-being
• Conflicts and inequity in benefit sharing • Impacts on the fishery resources
• Technological advances • Impacts on the ecosystem
• Climate-related threats to resilience and vulnerability to • Other impacts that will affect the fishery and the
natural disasters ecosystem
• Cultural integrity and heritage
2. Governance issues and problems.

• Sustainable management conflicts with production
promotion and revenue generation
• Decentralization of managemen of natural resources
Philippine Fisheries profile (2014) prices of the country’s GDP of P12,643 billion (current prices)
In 2013, the Philippines ranked 7th among the top producing and P7,164 billion (constant prices).
countries in the world with its total production of 4.7 million
metric tons of shells, crustaceans, mollusks, and aquaculture The industry also accounted for 13.8% (P197 billion) and
plants (including seaweeds). The production constitutes 2.46% 18.3% (P131 billion) of the Gross Value Added (GVA) in
of the total world production of 191 million metric tons Agriculture, Hurting, Forestry and Fishing Group of P1,428
(FAO website).   billion and P717.8.

The Philippines’ 0.815 million metric tons aquaculture Employment in the Fishing Industry
production of shells, crustaceans and mollusks in 2013 ranked The industry employed a total of 1,614,368 fishing operators
11th in the world and a 1.16% share to the total global nationwide (NSO 2002 Census for Fisheries) of which
aquaculture production of 70.2 million metric tons. In terms the municipal fisheries sector accounted for more than
of value, the country’s aquaculture production of shells, one million (1,371,676) operators while the commercial
crustaceans and mollusks has amounted to over 1.98 billion and aquaculture sectors added some 16,497 and 226,195
dollars (FAO website).   operators, respectively.
Similarly, the Philippines is the world’s 3rd largest producer of Performance of the Fishing Industry
aquatic plants (including seaweeds) having produced a total Total volume of fisheries production in the Philippines from
of 1.56 million metric tons or nearly 5.78% of the total world January to December 2014 reached 4,694,000 metric tons.
production of 26.98 million metric tons (FAO website).   Fisheries production drop down by (5.6%) from 5 million
metric tons in CY 2009 to 4.7 million metric tons in CY 2013.
Contribution to the national economy Average annual production growth rate within that period
The fishing industry’s contribution to the country’s Gross was registered at (0.9%). In terms of value, the 2014 fisheries
Domestic Products (GDP) were 1.6 % and 1.8% at current production was valued at 242 billion pesos as compared with
and constant 2000 prices, respectively. This translates to some the 221.1 billion pesos in 2010, an average yearly increment of
P197 billion for current prices and P130 billion for constant 1.9 billion pesos
MODULE FOUR
Ecosystem Approach
What is fisheries management?

Fisheries management can be thought
of as an integrated process to improve
the benefits that society receives from
harvesting fish from the ecosystem. It
includes the activities of (i) information
gathering; (ii) analysis; (iii) planning;
(iv) consultation; (v) decision-making;
(vi) allocation of resources; and (vii)
formulation and implementation,
with enforcement of regulations or
rules which govern fisheries activities.
The main aim is to ensure continued
productivity of the resources and
accomplishment of other fisheries
objectives.
In the region, fisheries have been

managed mainly from a sectoral
perspective. There are few examples
of well-managed fisheries with an objective of maximizing the benefits (often considered as economic benefits) while trying
to ensure that the catch is commensurate with the natural productivity of the harvest stocks. In many other fisheries the main
objective of management has been to reduce conflict and it is often aimed at increasing the overall production
Conventional fisheries management differs

among countries and locations. Possible
characteristics include:

• Species considered mainly
focused on target species vs. All
species in the ecosystem,
particularly those impacted by
fishing
• Management objectives are
mainly sector specific (fisheries) vs.
Multiple fisheries, ecosystem, and
socioeconomic
• Management actions focus on
control of fishing vs. Broad-based
incentives (livelihoods, MPAs)
• Focus on stock assessment
vs. Multispecies and ecosystem
assessment and indicators
• Biological management objectives
(e.g. maximizing production) vs.
multiple objectives
• Predominant use of scientific data
vs. Scientific and traditional/local
knowledge
• Monitors bio-physical changes
vs. both bio-physical and
socioeconomic conditions
• Management/Governance mainly
top-down and fishery specific
vs. Participatory, co-management,
adaptive management
The ecosystem approach requires

considering a bigger picture. In this
diagram of an ecosystem also includes
habitats (mangroves and coral
reefs), other uses of the resources
(aquaculture, scuba diving), endangered
and threatened species (turtles), and
post-harvest (fish landing site, processing
and markets).
It also includes both small-scale, as

well as large-scale fishing as all these
ecosystem components interact.
What is an ecosystem?
“An ecosystem can be defined as
a relatively self-contained system
that contains plants, animals, human
communities, micro-organisms and non-
living components of the environment,
as well as the interactions between
them.” SPC, 2010.
An important thing to understand is

that many elements are interconnected.
Something affecting one part of the
system can also have flow-on effects on
other parts.
For example, community settlements

contribute nutrients, sediments and
pollutants to habitats such as mangroves,
coral reefs and seagrass. These inputs
can help or harm these habitats, which
in turn affect the productivity of fish and
the catch of fishers. The state of reefs
(healthy or damaged) affect its ability to
protect against storms, and the safety of
coastal communities….
It is important to recognise the multiple

benefits that coastal marine ecosystems
provide to human societies.
These benefits can be called ecosystem

services and include:
• supply of fish for food;
• livelihoods and incomes of fishers
and fishing communities through
harvesting, processing and trade;
• cultural and traditional heritage
values;
• economic development through
tourism, trade and transport; and
• coastal protection and resilience
against climate variability and
change, as well as natural
disasters.
In a fisheries context, fish species

depend upon their surrounding and
supporting ecosystems that are affected
by fishing activities, other human
activities, as well as natural processes.

Fishing can impact marine ecosystems
by: (1) catching unwanted species
(bycatch); (2) causing physical damage
to benthic habitats; (3) changing species
composition; and (4) disrupting food
chains.

Other human activities unrelated to
fishing, such as agriculture, forestry,
coastal development, and introduced
species and pathogens can also affect
marine ecosystems, including the many
species they contain.
Human and natural impacts on ecosystems are also increasingly being exacerbated by the effects of human-induced climate
change and ocean acidification.
The ecosystem-approach is now

accepted as the management approach
applicable to a range of scales, sectors,
and multi-sectoral approaches. This
term ecosystem-approach (EA) was
first coined in the early 1980s, but
found formal acceptance at the Earth
Summit in Rio in 1992, where it
became an underpinning concept of
the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) that defined it as:
“A strategy for the integrated

management of land, water and living
resources that promotes conservation
and sustainable use in an equitable way.”

The application of the EA helps to balance the three objectives of the CBD: conservation; sustainable use; and the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources.
In effect, the EA can be thought of as the way to implement sustainable development a concept that replaced earlier policies of
development based on economic growth only.
Sustainable development is defined by

Brundtland (1987) as:

“Development which meets the needs
of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.”

Note that “development” in this
definition refers to the improvement
in human well-being and that it is
this development that needs to be
sustainable. This means that we need
to find a balance between ecological
well-being and human well-being, so
that development does not degrade
the natural resource base on which it is
dependent, but avoids overprotection
of resources that prevents development.
This balance between human and
ecological well-being is achieved through
good governance.
With regard to marine and coastal ecosystems, ecological Human well-being reflects the various activities or
well-being comprises of at least five major aspects: achievements that constitute a good life. It is also accepted
• healthy ecosystems that maximize ecosystem goods that well-being is a multidimensional concept that embraces
and services; all aspects of human life. Income, on its own, although an
• biodiversity that leads to ecosystem resilience; important component cannot adequately capture the breadth
• supportive ecosystem structure and habitats (incl. or complexity of human well-being.
connected watersheds);
• healthy oceans, coastal areas and watersheds; and Examples of aspects of human well-being are:
• food webs based on diverse sources of primary • Material living standards (income, food and wealth);
production. • Health;
• Education;
Ecosystem health is often expressed using indicators in terms • Personal activities (recreation and work);
of measurable characteristics that describe: • Political voice and governance;
• key processes that maintain stable and sustainable • Social connections and relationships;
ecosystems (e.g. there is an absence of blue-green algal • Living environment (present and future conditions); and
blooms); • Economic security and human safety
• zones of human impacts do not expand or deteriorate
(e.g. a reduction in the spatial extent of sewage These aspects are founded on the belief that measuring
nitrogen); and human well-being goes beyond subjective self-reports and
• critical habitats remain intact (e.g. seagrass meadows). perceptions, and must include an objective measure of the
extent of peoples’ “opportunity set” and their capacity (or
Human well-being refers to all human components that are freedom) to choose from these opportunities in a life they
dependent upon, and affecting, the ecosystem. It is a collection value. Both objective and subjective factors are important in
of factors that can include cultural heritage, health, education, the measurement of the aspects listed above.
access to ecosystem services, security and safety, legally
recognized rights, as well as tangible assets, such as material Good governance refers to the effective institutions and
wealth and income-generating opportunities. It generally arrangements for setting and implementing rules and
refers to people’s ability to live the life they value. What regulations. In brief, good governance is related to stewardship
constitutes human well-being differs for each group and will where individuals, organizations, communities and societies
reflect its history, local culture and norms, political and socio- strive to sustain the qualities of healthy and resilient ecosystems
economic conditions, geography, and ecological circumstances and their associated human populations. Stewardship takes the
(Wongbusarakum et al 2014). long-term view and promotes activities that provide for the
well-being of both this and future generations.
The term ecosystem based

management (EBM) is often used
interchangeably with EA, but in
some contexts, focuses more on the
ecological/environmental dimension of
sustainable development.

Note that the EA/EBM does not replace
sectoral management, i.e. management
of fisheries and agriculture, management
of the manufacturing industries,
management of mining, and petroleum,
and management of shipping. If applied
correctly, it integrates management
across (i) different interests within a
sector (e.g. harvesting a resource and
its environmental impact); (ii) across
sectors; and (iii) takes into account
externalities such as climate change.
MODULE FIVE
The What and Why

of EAFM
This video is a PEW Charitable Trust

video.
VIDEO LINK:
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fq8TKUTCXNU
NOTE: EBFM is synonymous with EAFM.
In this context, the ecosystem approach

refers more to the structure and
interactions within ecosystems, rather
than the functional aspects such as
energy flows as understood by scientists.
This video is more from the ecological

perspective and does not encompass
the entirety of EAFM--just complements
the concept. In particular, it does not
show the need for different sectors and
levels/jurisdictions of government to
work together.
EAFM is the ecosystem approach

applied to fisheries

“EAFM is a practical way to implement
sustainable development principles for
the management of fisheries by finding a
balance between ecological and human
well-being through good governance.”
— Adapted from EAFNet:
What is EAFM?)

“EAFM represents a move away from
management systems that focus only on
the sustainable harvest of target species
to a system that also considers the major
components in an ecosystem, and the
social and economic benefits that can be
derived from their utilisation”.
— State of the world’s
fisheries, FAO 2012.

The Fisheries Code uses the term ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, synonymous with EAFM. The
Fisheries Code IRR defines it as “an approach to fisheries that strives to balance diverse societal objectives or needs by taking
account of the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic, and human components of ecosystems and their interaction; and
applying in an integrated approach to fisheries management within ecologically meaningful boundaries.”
As with sustainable development,

EAFM can be thought of as balancing
ecological well-being and human well-
being through good governance for
future generations.
It is the practical participatory approach

to sustainably maximize diverse societal
benefits of fisheries.
The goal is not just the sustainability

of the commercially important fish
species, but also the sustainability of
the associated ecosystem, even the
components of the ecosystem that do
not have obvious economic value.
The Fisheries Code lists food security

as the top priority for fisheries
management. The Constitution and the
Code also emphasize that access to
fisheries resources must be equitable
– giving exclusive rights to Filipinos and
preferential rights to marginal fishers.

Poverty incidence among fisherfolk is
double that of the national average
(39.2% vs 19.7% in 2012). Poverty
in the nation is down to 16.5% in
2015; no data for fisherfolk sector, but
poverty reduction is likely not as fast as
other sectors.
Economic security, health, education,

safety, free exercise of human rights,
these are aspects of well-being desired by all, not just fishers. But since fishers are among the most vulnerable and impoverished
sectors, these are very difficult challenges.
Poor fisherfolk are almost entirely dependent on the fisheries resources for their well-being. Achieving human well-being is
directly tied to the condition of the fisheries resources and their access to these resources.
Governance is the way that rules and

regulations are set and implemented
(AusAID 2000). These rules can be
both formal and informal. Good
governance covers a broad range of
activities and arrangements that ensure
good planning, participation, as well as
compliance and enforcement.
An EAFM looks at the bigger picture,

recognizing that fish and fisheries are
part of a broader ecosystem that
includes the habitats as well as the
people. There are linkages between
ecosystem components.
Within a marine ecosystem, you may

have resources that remain in one place
and need to be managed locally, such
as coral reefs, mangroves, and small
fisheries. Or, there may be schooling fish,
demersal fish, small or large pelagic fish,
many of which will also cross political
boundaries.
There are many different users of

marine ecosystems that can impact the
fisheries or be impacted by fisheries
management decisions and good or
poor governance. Often there are both
small and large scale fishers. There may
be recreational use or tourism, shipping
or other vessel traffic.
There may be other competing or

conflicting users in the same area,
including coastal development, mining,
agriculture, and others.
By working, planning, and co-managing

across sectors, jurisdictions and levels
of government through the EAFM
planning process, we can avoid or
minimize conflicts in resource usage and
management, as well as share personnel
and financial resources.
The management benefits of an EAFM

include:
• broader consideration of links
between ecosystems and
fisheries;
• contribution to more effective
resource use planning;
• facilitation of trade-offs between
different stakeholder priorities,
balancing human and ecological
needs;
• increased stakeholder
participation which leads to:
• better planning of resource uses;
and
• more equitable use of natural
resources (both fishery and non-
fishery related);
• help with balancing fish
production with conservation
of biodiversity and habitat
protection;
• help with resolving or reducing
conflicts between stakeholders;
• taking into consideration the
needs of present and future
generations
• greater recognition of cultural and
traditional values in decision-
making; and
• enabling of larger-scale, longer-
term issues to be recognized
and incorporated into fisheries
and coastal resource management
(e.g. long-term implications of
climate change and ocean
acidification, habitat degradation,
population growth, economic
development, globalization, etc.).
EAFM recognizes that people skills are

at least as important as having technical
skills that help in understanding the
resource, the environment and the
technology. EAFM requires better
people skills, especially stakeholder
analysis and engagement, participatory
approaches, and negotiation and conflict
resolution.
But we work with what is available first

and build on it through capacity-building.
EAFM is a broadening of conventional

fisheries management that focused
mainly on target species (species that
could be eaten or sold). EAFM is the
sectorial version of EA/EBM.

In many cases in the Philippines, you
have already been taking steps to
move beyond conventional fisheries
management toward EAFM.
Coastal resources management (CRM)

and integrated coastal management
(ICM)
EAFM complements and integrates
numerous conventional approaches
to fisheries and marine and coastal
resource management. In the Philippines,
the two other common approaches are
coastal resources management (CRM)
and integrated coastal management
(ICM). While EAFM primarily focuses
on the fisheries sector (resources and
people) and the relationships of fisheries
with other sectors and stakeholders,
the scope of CRM and ICM include all
resources in the coastal zone.

EAFM can be applied to CRM and
ICM, but, depending on a defined
fisheries management unit, EAFM may
go beyond coastal management and
may also includes pelagic and offshore
fisheries, including transboundary
international waters. Between CRM
and ICM, CRM is more oriented toward
implementing conservation measures
and sustainable use of the natural
resources. ICM is geared more towards
addressing integration among users in
the coastal zone and minimizing adverse
impacts of the activities of users on the
environment.
EAFM is recognized in the amendment to Fisheries Code (RA private sector, NGOs). You can think of co-management as
10654). CRM is anchored on the Local Government Code the highest form of stakeholder participation. It is particularly
which gives broad powers to LGUs to manage their coastal relevant in CRM as it evolved from community-based coastal
resources. ICM is also recognized as the national strategy to resources management (CB-CRM) efforts that formed
achieve sustainable development in the coastal zone under partnerships with LGUs, and further evolved to integrated
EO 533. You can think of CRM as an expansion of the scope resource management approaches including ICM and EAFM
of EAFM to cover all resources in the coastal zone. You can (see Guieb, Newcombe and Foltz, 2014).
also think of EAFM as the fisheries perspective/component
of ICM. These approaches are all nested within the EA/ While it is good to differentiate the various approaches,
EBM concept. in reality these are not discrete choices, but more of a
continuum. All these approaches recognize that management
Co-management is at the core of EAFM, CRM, and ICM. Co- must deal with broad ecosystem management (both natural
management involves the sharing of decision-making power and human components) and try to optimize the social and
and implementation responsibilities between the government economic benefits without compromising long term ecological
and the non-government stakeholders (people’s organizations, health. They also adhere to the same general principles.
Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a

public process of analyzing and allocating
the spatial and temporal distribution
of human activities in coastal and
marine areas to achieve ecological,
economic and social objectives that
are usually specified through a political
process (UNESCO, 2009). The term
covers both (i) a plan for users; and (ii)
implementation tools – e.g. zonation
that includes MPAs.

In the Philippines, MSP is used as a
spatial tool that can be applied in all
three management approaches. MSP
can be thought of as a management
action for achieving EA objectives.
Use of MPA networks is often an aspect

of MSP. Marine protected areas are
really another management tool and
should be used in conjunction with
other management actions (see Module
14 Step 3.3). In the Philippines, MPAs
may also be called fish sanctuaries or
refugia, when focused on protecting fish
habitats. As a tool, they can potentially
address both fisheries management and
conservation considerations, but have
often been applied primary to address
conservation of biodiversity concerns,
not fisheries. Furthermore, it is not
uncommon for MPAs to be established
without stakeholder consultation, thus
decreasing the chance of success. Some
key elements of fisheries management
which MPAs do not usually address
include:
• control of fishing capacity;

• management of an area beyond the boundary of the MPA; and
• impacts of other uses on fisheries
MODULE SIX
Principles of EAFM
The principles of EAFM are not new

but grew out of the acceptance of the
concept of sustainable development.
The EAFM principles are based on a set

of guiding principles first put forward
in the FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) . All Asia-
Pacific countries attending this course
(with the exception of North Korea)
are members of FAO.
The CCRF is voluntary, although

parts are based on international law,
including those of the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS). The CCRF
covers all aspects of management and
development of fisheries, including
capturing, processing and trade in fish
products, fishing operations, aquaculture,
fisheries research and the integration
of fisheries into integrated coastal
management (ICM)
The key EAFM principles can be summarized as follows: 5. Cooperation and coordination both vertically across
different levels of government and society and horizontally
1. Good governance. across agencies and sectors.
2. Appropriate scale that takes into account connections 6. Adaptive management that continually improves
within and across ecosystems and social systems (these management through doing, learning and adapting. The key
connections can be place-based; across different is to have flexible systems and processes, including
environments: land-air-sea; and across geographical, feedback loops that allow for learning through doing
political or administrative scales, i.e. district/regional/ and adapting.
national/international). 7. Use of the precautionary approach when uncertainty
3. Increased participation of key stakeholders. exists.
4. Management for multiple objectives (balancing societal
trade-offs entails working across scales and with different
stakeholder objectives; the aim is to develop objectives
which address multiple challenges/concerns).
Governance is the way rules are set and implemented. It • community support through participatory processes;
includes the mechanisms, processes and institutions through • enforcement and compliance;
which citizens and governing groups (institutions and • a collaborative decision-making process;
arrangements) voice their interests, mediate differences, • information and data to support monitoring and
exercise their legal rights and meet their obligations (AusAID, learning-by-doing;
2000). Governance is often a complex mixture of formal and • adequate and dedicated resources (personnel, funding,
informal processes that might involve a geo-political entity equipment) for management;
(e.g. nation-state government), a socio-political entity (e.g. • staff skills and commitment; and
chiefdom, tribe, family, etc.), or any number of different kinds • consideration of external factors affecting governance
of institutions and arrangements. – market forces, climate change, natural disasters, level
of socio-economic or human development, etc.
Governance comprises:
• key political support; While the concept of “governance” is descriptive, the idea of
• legal authority to manage; “good governance” is standard-setting, i.e. normative in nature.
• effective institutions; The exact meaning of “good governance” varies according
• coordination arrangements with government, external to the policy area in question, but there are eight general
agents, resource user groups and community members; characteristics of good governance.
EAFM aims to secure sustainable fisheries by using Scaling can be considered in four dimensions, three of which
ecologically relevant boundaries rather than political or align to the three components of EAFM:
administrative ones. This is a big change from traditional
fisheries management which works within political or 1. Ecological scales - distribution and behavior of the target
administrative boundaries. The reality is that the scale at which species; large scale processes, smaller-scale features, food
fishery management occurs will be primarily determined web processes
by jurisdictional and political boundaries, but there are 2. Socio-economic scales - administrative boundaries; cultural
some general socio-economic and ecological issues which, norms (“we have always fished here”); changing economic
if considered, would help broaden the mandate of fisheries preferences (driven by market demand); area and species
management. Bear in mind that there is no consensus on how management or protection approaches, rules and
best to factor in these considerations and this is because the regulations price of fuel, fishing vessels and methods; and
scale of the fisheries management area (FMA) will depend on migrant fishers, illegal fishers.
the aims and goals of that specific fishery. 3. Political/governance scales - legal and jurisdictional scale
of the FMA
4. Temporal scales - short-term to long-term ecosystem
benefits.
Is there a “correct” scale to expand fisheries to a broader different from those of a highly migratory species such as tuna.
ecosystem context? There will always be activities and impacts outside the EAFM
unit that affect what goes on inside it. These externalities
There is probably no “correct” scale to expand fisheries to should not be ignored but considered and dealt in some way,
a broader ecosystem context. However, scaling issues do often through governance scaling and increased cooperation
require careful consideration because incorrect decisions on and coordination.
scale could lead to sub-optimal social, economic or ecological
outcomes for the fishery. As a baseline, all major fishing It is important to remember that moving to EAFM will
gears for the main species being managed must be included be incremental, so rather than worrying about identifying
e.g. small-scale and large-scale industrial fishing gear and the correct scale, a better approach is to take ecosystem
vessels. In reality, the scale for EAFM will be a compromise. considerations into account at a scale that is appropriate to
Many definitions of EAFM suggest “meaningful ecological the fishery in question, in terms of the stock of a particular
boundaries” but the ecosystem boundaries for a sedentary fishery (harvest and bycatch) and the economy and culture of
species such as a cockle or sea cucumber are considerably the communities where the particular fishery is based.
For the highest likelihood of success,

an EAFM Plan should be developed
pragmatically, and should be based on
practical scales and boundaries, taking
into account existing jurisdictional
boundaries. This means that the stock
or fishery under consideration should
also be framed within meaningful
jurisdictional boundaries (e.g. state or
provincial jurisdictions). The appropriate
scale strikes a balance between
ecosystem scale and the scale of
effective governance. Crossing between
jurisdictional boundaries can be a
challenge, but EAFM does provide a
framework within which cooperation or
harmonization can occur.
What scale(s) do we work at?
This discussion should take into account:

• different fish ranging from
sedentary such as a cockle to
highly migratory species such as
tuna, and
• different fishing gears harvesting
the same resource e.g. inshore
gillnets close to the coast and
trawlers further offshore. There
is not much use managing the
community fishing if most of the
problems are caused by trawlers!!!
In EAFM both the communities of local

resource users and the government
(whether local, provincial, national or
regional) share the responsibility and
authority for managing and determining
the sustainability goals of the fishery.

EAFM is participatory and this means
stakeholders are a central part of the
management process.
Stakeholders and resource users include

people, households and communities
who interact with and care about the
fishery and the associated ecosystem.
This will include a diverse number
of users, for instance fishers, tour
operators, coastal developers, shipping
industry, conservationists, etc. Different
stakeholders will have different levels
of influence and importance and levels
of engagement for these groups are
different.
Does including more people in the

fishery management process increase
conflict?
In some cases stakeholders are

competitors and their inclusion can be
challenging, especially if there is a pre- In the long run, having diverse user perspectives represented and involved in the
existing conflict (this can be between management planning process serves to increase the understanding of issues and
resource users or between institutions, can help to reconcile differences (rather than the alternative which is to become
e.g. the environment and fisheries entrenched in one’s own opinion). EAFM actually includes decision-making protocols
departments). that can pre-empt and deal with conflict and there are a number of tools to do so..
The success of EAFM depends

on reaching a balance between
conservation and sustainable use of
fishery resources within the limits
of ecosystem functioning (see Gulf
of Mannar example) and between
ecological, economic and social
objectives within specific geographical
areas. EAFM requires commitment to
overcome difficulties (both conceptual
and practical) in making choices that
require trade-offs and compromises
between different sectors of society. This
requires long-term political will (backed
by sufficient resources) and also short-
term economic and social support,
particularly for the local stakeholders.
However, as noted previously, if
successful the benefits could be very
significant.

In the Philippines, BFAR and LGUs have to think beyond the productivity of fish stocks in making management decisions. The
Constitution grants preferential rights to subsistence fishers that have to be reflected in national and local policies. It is not
only about conserving resources and optimizing economic benefits, but also making sure that access to and benefits from the
fisheries resources are shared equitably. This is very difficult to achieve in practice. In allocating access and use of fisheries and
coastal resources, LGUs often use coastal and marine spatial planning as a tool to allocate fishing rights.
In Panguil Bay, the proliferation of

sanggab (fish corral) has damaged the
bay and choked the waterway.
In the process of removing the sanggap,

BFAR had to address other objectives,
such as the socio-economic interests
of the operators, as well as other
ecological issues such as siltation and
pollution in the Bay.
With EAFM there is a need to ensure harmony between EAFM requires institutional cooperation and coordination
scales of governance and management; and linkages between because it more explicitly deals with the interactions of the
and among the various scales, particularly governance scales fishery sector with other sectors. But before connections
that likely range from individual communities to districts, are made with other sectors, it is important to first make
provinces and national governments. sure that internal institutional cooperation is in good order.
For instance, are fisheries science and research activities
The scaling of governance (i.e. legal and jurisdictional supporting fisheries management information requirements?
considerations) ties in closely with the need for institutional The next step is to ensure effective institutional cooperation
cooperation and coordination. This is because, to be able to and coordination between sectors that are directly related
move beyond what fisheries agencies typically do (which is to and sometimes even mandated with fishery-associated
manage fisheries in lots of places) and towards what EAFM activities. For example, do monitoring and research activities
does (manage different fishing and non-fishing activities, and within academic institutions reflect fisheries related
sectors affecting fisheries and associated ecosystems in one management requirements? Or, is the fishery agency
place), other non-fishery sectors need to be engaged and coordinating with the navy and coastguard over control and
involved in the management process. enforcement issues?
One good example of institutional cooperation and coordination is the National Program for Municipal Fisherfolk
Registration (FishR), launched by BFAR in 2013. The Fisheries Code requires registration of fishers in their LGU, but this
has not been properly implemented since the law was first passed in 1998.
BFAR took advantage of a census of farmers and fishers conducted by the National Statistics Office to create a national
database of fishers. With the help of LGUs, BFAR validated the data and added fisheries-related information. Within a
year, BFAR was able to register 1.7 million fisherfolk nationwide.
The data is readily available to LGUs for their own planning purposes. The FishR database is also cross-matched with
the database of the Department of Social Welfare and Development to identify the poorest members of the sector.
BFAR then uses this information for targeted livelihood assistance. In 2015, BFAR expanded the FishR database to
include registration of fishing vessels and gear under the National Program on Fishing Vessel and Gear Registration
(BoatR).
The databases are vital in identifying fishing communities most vulnerable to natural and man-made disasters - to
facilitate early warning, as well as post-disaster response and recovery.
Based on registration information, BFAR worked with other agencies to provide poor fisherfolk with insurance
coverage for life/illness and damage to boats/gear due to typhoons and other calamities.
Once there is better cooperation within fisheries agencies Examples of cooperative or coordinating activities or
and sectors more directly related to fishing activities, then mechanisms include:
fisheries agencies will be better positioned to coordinate • talking to others;
with less obviously related sectors. This will involve working • data sharing and information;
with sectors not traditionally associated with fisheries, for • support for local/provincial implementation;
example, ministries of agriculture, energy, tourism, housing and • harmonized or complementary work plans, budgets
development, women’s affairs, fisheries and marine resources, (across sectors/agencies) and goals;
the environment and rural water sanitation. Through better • linking in with other coordination arrangements e.g.
cooperation, the different actors actively contribute and ICM; and
work together on fisheries management and share the costs, • developing interagency arrangements.
benefits, successes and failures. Cooperation is needed for
action regarding rule making, conflict management, power In developing interagency arrangements, formalized
sharing, social learning, dialogue and communication as well as memorandums of understanding (MOUs) or other binding
development among the partners. agreements can help to establish cross-sector collaboration.
Adaptive management provides a

framework for managing change over
time (see temporal scaling issues
above) by learning from doing. Adaptive
management involves managing and
learning from what has been done
by evaluating the outcome of the
management action. It is closely linked
to the precautionary approach. It is
not necessary to wait until all the
data and information are available
and analysed before taking action.
Management actions can be put in
place and providing they are monitored
and evaluated, they can be modified
based on the lessons learnt from their
implementation.
Adaptive management aims to reduce uncertainty through time by evaluating the efficacy of what has been done in order to
retain management interventions that do work and discard or improve those that do not.
The precautionary approach can be

considered the backbone of EAFM. It
was originally defined by UNCED in
1992 as:

“… where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation”
The United Nations Conference

on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks (UN 1995) first
articulated the principle for fisheries
with the following definition:

“States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific
information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (UN, 1995).
The two ramifications of the precautionary approach, The greater the information gap and the amount of
therefore, are: uncertainty, the more risk averse management should
be. If, through adaptive management, the learning is that
1. Lack of data and information should not be used as the situation is much worse than originally described, the
an excuse for not taking action. management should allow room for later correction.

A claim of insufficient information is often used as a delaying The Philippine Supreme Court has adopted the precautionary
tactic. Instead of dealing with an obvious environmental principle in its Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
problem, the catch cry of “need more research” is used which state: “when human activities may lead to threats of
to focus the issue back on the scientific community, rather serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is
than starting to deal with it using an adaptive management scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to
approach. A common myth is that the scientific information avoid or diminish that threat.”
available is insufficient to apply EAFM to any ecosystem, let
alone ecosystems that are poorly studied. However, EAFM The Supreme Court directs all courts to apply the
is NOT about managing the whole ecosystem; it is about precautionary principle: When there is a lack of full scientific
integrating adaptive management – at a minimum it means certainty in establishing a causal link between human
managing direct human impacts of fisheries (and other human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the
activities). In fact, there is always enough information to begin precautionary principle in resolving the case before it. In
action, otherwise the issue would not have been recognized in applying the precautionary principle, the following factors,
the first place. among others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life
or health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; or (3)
2. Where there is uncertainty, management actions prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of
should be less risky. the environmental rights of those affected (Rule 20).
MODULE SEVEN
EAFM Plans: Link Between

Policy and Action
Good management needs good planning. Plans are needed to work plan (who does what and by when in the planning
implement policies – policies on their own seldom result in process).
action and plans are needed to link policies and to action.
Planning can facilitate resource mobilization that allows
Planning encourages participatory input from key stakeholders judicious allocation of scarce resources within an organization,
who will gain ownership of the plan and will facilitate better such that they have the greatest likelihood of achieving
implementation. Planning should always be participatory as the goals. A good plan can attract funding either through
it provides an opportunity to consider the future and what budgetary processes or from outside donors.
outcomes are desirable by the people who can affect or
will be affected by the plan, as well as producing a plan that It can also promote resource use efficiency as planning
can be used to chart progress. In many cases, the process of provides more certainty for the roles and responsibilities
participating is as important as the final product, especially for of the different players. This is especially important in an
those impacted socially and economically by the process. It is ecosystem approach involving players that come from
helpful to start the planning process by developing a planning different sectors, disciplines and backgrounds.
During the planning stage, stakeholder

consultations are used to determine
what is to be achieved by management
and how success will be measured.
In the jargon of management plans
this involves agreeing objectives,
management actions and performance
measures, as well as indicators and
benchmarks for monitoring progress,
and for identifying whether adjustments
are required.
In the doing or implementing

stage, management facilitates the
implementation of the action plan(s).

In the checking and improving stage,
management monitors and reviews
performance information to determine if the actions are achieving the desired result and makes adjustments to reflect learning
from experience (adaptive management). The planning stage should set up how this is going to be achieved.
Policies are usually contained in national

or provincial/state policies. They are
usually very generic e.g. better food
security, healthy ecosystems, etc.
Management cannot address these,

we need to break them down into
manageable objectives that can be
addressed by a management action.
There may be different policies

contributing to the same goal –
especially on social and economic well-
being of fishers.
In this example, there may be

policies under the DENR on reducing
pollution, in DOH on sanitation, in DA
to reduce agricultural run-off and erosion, etc. The LGU may also have local policies on waste management.
The management actions in the EAFM plan have to be aligned with the policy goals – this can greatly facilitate financial support
from the agencies involved because the actions are helping achieve their sectoral policy goals.
In this example, the national policy is to

have equity in the grant of access rights
to fisheries, but the specific mechanisms
for equitable access depend on a lot of
variables and may be area-specific. the
EAFM plan for the area could provide
the specifics of equitable allocation
appropriate for the area. the plan is
implemented through licensing systems
and harvest control rules that are set by
national agencies and LGUs according
to their respective management
jurisdictions.
In the Philippines, BFAR and LGUs are

required by law to prepare several plans.
The Fisheries Code mandates BFAR
to prepare a Comprehensive National
Fisheries Industry Development Plan
(CNFIDP). The first CNFIDP covering
the period 2006-2020 was adopted in
2006. In 2015, BFAR initiated a review
of the CNFIDP because many of the
assumptions in 2006 have significantly
changed including the enactment of a
new law amending the Fisheries Code
to strengthen enforcement against
illegal, unreported and unregulated
(IUU)fishing. BFAR conducted a
series of public consultations where
representatives from the major fishing
sectors (small and large-scale capture
fisheries, aquaculture, fish processing, and fisheries trade and marketing) agreed on a set of strategies, targets and actions for the
medium-term (2016-2020).

The Fisheries Code also mandates municipalities and cities to prepare a Municipal Fishery Development Plan. However,
most LGUs prepare a coastal resources management (CRM) plan that includes fisheries, or pass a comprehensive fisheries
ordinance (without preparing a plan). In addition, under Executive Order No. 533, LGUs are also required to prepare a local
ICM Programme (which contains principles, strategies and actions to implement ICM). Under the Local Government Code,
LGUs need to prepare comprehensive land-use plans and local development plans. For coastal LGUs, these local plans already
incorporate fisheries concerns. Ideally, the fisheries component of all these different documents should be consistent or at least
be complementary.
MODULE EIGHT
Planning Process Overview

There are 5 EAFM steps that fit under

the general management cycle (outer
circle).
Before you start the process, you

need to get organised and engage
stakeholders – this is called STARTUP
(which was initiated as groundwork
prior to this workshop and is part of
what we are doing now).
There are 3 phases in the cyclical

process of an EAFM: PLAN, DO, and
CHECK & IMPROVE, which are the
outer cycle.
The PLAN phase has 3 steps:

1) Define and scope the FMA
2) Identify and prioritize issues
and goals
3) Develop the EAFM Plan
The output of these is an EAFM
plan.
The DO phase is the 4th step – which

is to implement the EAFM Plan
The CHECK AND IMPROVE phase is

the 5th step, which is about monitoring,
evaluating and adapting the EAFM Plan
based on the results of the evaluation.
The process is a continuous adaptive

cycle.
Tasks of the EAFM Team in Startup A -

Preparing the ground consists of:
1. Identify broad geographic area

2. Coordinate with other agencies and
LGUs
3. Determine legal basis for EAFM
4. Formalize an EAFM team and
facilitators
5. Identify Stakeholders
6. Develop a start-up workplan
7. Introduce EAFM to the identified
stakeholders prior to the planning
process
The EAFM Team prepares to engage

stakeholders that involves identifying the
various potential stakeholders, raising
awareness about the EAFM process
and starting the on-going process of
involving them in the various EAFM
process stages (initially planning, and
then implementation and monitoring).
Preliminary stakeholder engagement
is important for identifying the
expectations, roles and responsibilities
of stakeholders.
Define the Fisheries Management Area (FMA): The identified Agree the FMA vision: At the outset, it is very useful for
FMA will most likely be based on a geographical area and stakeholders to agree on a vision for the EAFM Plan. A vision
ideally will coincide with a clearly and precisely defined is a long-term statement of the aspirations of the stakeholders.
ecosystem. However, ecosystems are not usually clearly
defined entities with unambiguous boundaries and they may Scope the FMA: This means the background information (fish,
cross or be contained within existing fishery management gears, people, etc.) that characterizes the FMA. Ensure you
areas. The final choice of FMA and geographic area for a have information relating to economic, social, environmental
management plan will depend on a number of factors, but at and governance factors. You may need to collect quantitative
the very least it should cover all harvesting sub-sectors, both and qualitative data (remember some of this data may already
small-scale municipal and large-scale commercial fishing, as exist, not necessarily in your agency but may be available in
well as aquaculture/ mariculture. partner agencies or departments).

Identify issues and problems: The next step is for assessment tools are available to help prioritize the identified
stakeholders to undertake an initial evaluation of the issues issues, so as to define which issues are of high priority and
and problems associated with the fisheries. These must include therefore need to be managed directly.
issues for each of the three components (ecological well-
being; human well-being/socio-economic; and governance). The Define goals for the EAFM Plan: While considering the
issues may have linkages among one another. Broad issues are issues it is useful to group them into separate themes (e.g.
further divided into more specific issues that can be tackled those to do with fishing, those to do with communities etc).
through a management intervention of some kind. Then develop a goal for each theme. These are also long-
term goals that relate to the overall vision. Each theme may
Prioritize these issues: The large number of issues that will have ecological well-being, human well-being and governance
be raised will need to be prioritized so that a manageable aspects.
number of issues are addressed in the EAFM Plan. Risk
At this point we carry out a reality

check to look at opportunities and
threats that could make it easier or
harder for us to achieve our goals.
You may be familiar with SWOT analysis:

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats. In the planning process,
we will learn about our own strengths
and weaknesses. In this part, we look
at opportunities and threats that are
external to our initiatives – we either
have limited influence or no control
of these at all. These are ‘given’ (e.g.
typhoons, global economic conditions,
national budget, laws).
Develop management objectives: Clear and appropriate benchmarks and management actions, provide a means to
management objectives are required for all high priority issues communicate with decision-makers on how well management
requiring management. The objectives need to state what will is performing and will influence future changes in management.
be achieved, preferably in a certain time period. Management If possible, specific management actions should also be
objectives are by definition objectives that can be addressed accompanied by decision rules on how they are to be applied
by management actions. They should be SMART (specific, and what to do if they are not working. The key is to try and
measureable, achievable/attainable, relevant, and time-bound). agree about what might happen and how to counteract this
before it happens.
Indicators and benchmarks: Develop indicators and
benchmarks for the above objectives. These will enable Identify institutional arrangements and sustainable
stakeholders to assess whether the objectives are being financing to support implementation of the plan.
achieved.
Finalize the EAFM Plan: This is achieved by systematically
Agree on management actions: Discuss the management collating the key data from the above steps (see template
actions needed to meet each specific objective. Often the below plus a few more considerations). This plan will guide
same action can meet several objectives. Management actions you during the EAFM process. It is not set in stone and should
should be accompanied with a description of how the actions be adapted as new information emerges and lessons are
will be complied with, by including actions to enforce and learned.
generate compliance. Collectively, the objectives, indicators,
Formalize, communicate and engage.

A simple work plan is developed that
outlines who does what tasks during
implementation, and by when. The
EAFM Plan needs to be formalized
so that it has authority and backing. A
communication strategy needs to be
developed to communicate different
types of information to different
stakeholders. The initial stakeholder
engagement develops into a process
of continuous engagement with
stakeholders to ensure that the EAFM
Plan can be carried out.
Monitor and evaluate performance of

management actions: A set of indicators
and benchmarks were identified in
the EAFM Plan. Monitoring these and
any other generic indicators allows
management to see if the plan is on
track and to take remedial action if
necessary, i.e. adaptive management. The
indicator information is collated and
reviewed periodically to assess whether
the management actions are actually
attaining the objectives as planned.
Review and adapt the plan.

Monitoring data can be collated yearly
for a quick check on progress and the
plan can be adapted if there is sufficient
evidence to indicate that a change is
necessary. Every three to five years a longer-term review should take place to assess how the EAFM Plan is performing. The
actual time of the review should reflect the nested nature of the plan, such that the outputs and reports can feed into the
broader strategic plans. In the light of longer-term data and reviews, the plan may need to be adapted considerably to allow for
unforeseen elements and to incorporate lessons learned.
If this looks familiar to you, it may be

because you already have a fisheries/
coastal management plan, or even
an ICM plan. The EAFM plan is not
ANOTHER plan. You may just want to
review your current fisheries or CRM
plan to see if it follows EAFM – and
provide that input to the EAFM Plan for
the whole FMA.
MODULE NINE
Introduction to
Management Actions
To contextualize where we are in the

planning cycle, management actions
come in Step 3.
Management actions are intended to

achieve specific objectives that in turn
contribute to achieving the goals that
we have agreed on.
In the first part of this presentation,

we will look at some of the basic
scienti c principle underlying sheries
management. We need to understand
these principles so we can design
management actions that are consistent
with what we know about our sheries,
habitats and communities.
There are 4 factors that affect the sh

stock: Growth, Recruitment, Natural
Mortality, and Fishing.
In this example, we are looking at a
single species, but may also apply to
multiple species sheries.
Among the 4 factors, there is only one
where we have control over – shing.
Management actions focus on shing are
the only ones we can directly regulate,
although our actions will also affect the
three other factors.
Sustainable fishing - means we should

take only that which will allow stock to
recover to original stock size…. if not,
eventually stocks will decline.
NOTE: this is just one stock – in reality, this

stock is part of an ecosystem. your impact
on the stock has ripple effects on the
other ecosystem components the stock is
connected to.
We do not have a complete

understanding of the ecological system
that produces and supports fishes
We cannot fully forecast natural events

and their effects on ecosystems
Systems evolve over time and knowing how the system works does not necessarily mean that an ecosystem would respond
predictably to future changes or fisheries
Our institutions (and conventional approach) are not configured to manage at the ecosystem scale
The stock you exploit is part of an

ecosystem – fishing of a stock have
impacts on other stocks – what it feeds
on, what feeds on it…
e.g. sharks – competitor in fishing –

should we kill all the sharks? what will
happen?
Harvesting of fish induces ecological

changes in the ecosystem
These changes affect future levels of

surplus production of the harvested
population, including the possibility that
there may be none
Fishing is likely to alter the structure and

function of marine ecosystems
Fishing is typically a species-selective and size-selective agent of mortality
Most of the fish removed are in the middle or near the top of food web
As fishers, fishing mortality is what you

are after – the economic activity
however, your choice of fishing method
have other impacts
Ecosystem approach to fisheries

management does not require that we
understand all the components of the
ecosystem
We know that the traditional

single-species approach of fisheries
management is useful, but we also know
that it is not sufficient
We know that an ecosystem

perspective is desirable, but it is
complex and unpredictable
There simply is not enough money, time or talent to develop a completely informed view of how fisheries should operate in an
ecosystem context
There will always be unmeasured entities, random effects, and substantial uncertainties, but these are not acceptable excuses
Recall the discussion on the precautionary approach – what do you do when you do not have all the information needed to
manage the stocks?
Growth overfishing – taking too many

of the immature individuals – before
it has a chance to grow (use of fine
mesh net)
Recruitment overfishing – not enough

mature individuals to spawn and
sustain the population (either not
enough parents, or you destroy nursery
grounds)
Ecosystem overfishing – overfishing of

selected species (usually top predators)
altering ecosystem balance – ‘fishing
down the food chain’ – once the top
level high price fishes are gone, what
remains are lower level (generally lower
price) fishes.
Economic overfishing - catching too many small/immature individuals, or less valuable species -- economic value low.
These types of overfishing are inter-related.
Compare when you catch 1 large individual (1 per kilo) with higher price, to catching 20 immature ones (20 to a kilo) with
much lower price…
Inputs controls regulate who, when,

where and how fishing is done.
most types of regulations on fishing are
input controls.
Output controls control of what is

removed e.g. catch limits and allocation
We don’t have many regulations that

may be considered output control
– except for bans on catching of
certain species. The Fisheries Code
requires BFAR to institute harvest
control regulations – this is still under
consderation.
Note: In limiting the catching of juveniles,

for example, we regulate the mesh size
of the gear (input control) rather than
prohibit the catching (or requiring the
return) of undersized/immature individuals.
Some LGUs have started regulating the

catching of gravid crabs, by ‘buying back’
gravid females and placed in ‘nurseries’
so they can spawn.
One of the simple management action –

let the stock and habitat rest (no fishing;
closure) for a period of time. In this
example, the proposed closure is during
the time when the siganids (danggit) are
pregnant and about to spawn.
The crafting of the regulation was

based on the experience of fishers –
they were asked when they observe
the danggit are pregnant. The local
knowledge is validated by sampling
and dissection. For this knowledge, we
learned that the peak spawning period
occurs a few days after the new moon,
and highest during certain months.
In Palonpon, Leyte (inset - these are

months of peak spawning) photo
confirms that during this time photo taken, fish are ‘pregnant’ – validation of local knowledge
Because of local knowledge and science,

the community and LGU were able to
narrow down the period of closure – 3
days (3rd, 4th and 5th day) after the
new moon. The short period of closure
means minimizing the loss of income
of fishers, while still maximizing the
beneficial impact of the closure (since
most pregnant individuals are allowed to
spawn before being caught).
The development and implementation

of the regulation is so much easier
because the management action is
based on local knowledge… science
confirms effectiveness – if you fish after
the closed season, there will be more
fish to catch because you allowed the
pregnant fish to spawn first before
being caught.
Some LGUs have passed ordinances

banning the harvest and selling of gravid
crabs. Ask participants: Is this easy or
difficult to enforce? why?
LGUs combine the ban with incentives

to ‘buy back’ the live gravid crabs – so
they can be temporarily placed in a
nursery to spawn – before being sold or
released again.
Another example of regulation of crab

harvesting: obvious from data that crab
liftnet is catching mostly juveniles –
therefore possible management action
is to gear swap liftnets with crab pots
(although gillnet has better catch, but
BFAR discourages use of gillnet)
Note: liftnet catches juveniles because

these are deployed nearshore (compare
maps). in gear swap, need to consider
that fishers should be able to deploy
crab pots farther out from shore (need
for motorized boats)
In Lanuza Bay, the traditional catch is

alamang (Acetes) - but the presence of
alamang is seasonal.
However, fishers use beach seine

throughout the year. During the off
season for alamang, the beach seines
catch mostly juvenile fishes. graphs show
the size of matambaka caught by beach
seines at different times of the year
(very small compared to its mature size
(red line).
What is the effect of that practice?
Bar graph shows which months there

are alamang… Feb-May; yellow in map
– where alamang is caught. ideal solution
is for seasonal/spatial control of beach
seine use.
When consulted with the proposal,

fishers said they could not afford to
stop using beach seine over a long
period in all three areas. So they struck
a compromise – there would be a ban
but only in one area at a time (not all
three at once).
In Balayan Bay, Batangas, commercial

fishers observe that their catch has
declined over the years, they asked the
provincial government to do something
about it.
with assistance of Conservation

International and ECOFISH, scientific
studies were done to learn about what
fishing gear was catching what fish
and when (fish catch monitoring), and
also when these fishes were spawning
(repro-bio studies).
Stakeholders (LGUs, commercial

fishers, small fishers, NGOs, BFAR,
PNP, DSWD) regularly met for
updating of results of studies and to
discuss possible management actions
- on recommendation of scientists,
stakeholders discussed imposing a
closed season.
Further scientific studies narrowed

down the coverage of the closed season
(2 species) and 3 gears (commercial),
and the period of the closure (21 days
in December, coinciding with moon
phases). This is important to limit the
adverse impact on livelihoods.
DSWD provided support for displaced

commercial fishing boat crew during the
closed season by providing ‘cash-for-work’ jobs. The LGUs identified the ‘work’ related to coastal clean-up and enforcement.
Science and technology can be used to

design management actions, and also to
monitor compliance with management
actions
In Palawan, information about nutrients

and fishing activities were used to
develop a closed season for galunggong.
Night lights technology was used to
monitor compliance
top left – high chlorophyll A

top right – exploitation (night lights)
bottom left (data from fishers of where
they fish)
The night lights data show proof of

voluntary compliance (even if the JAO
was delayed in signing). bottom right
shows very little lights in December
during the closed season, compared to
Sep and Oct.
Management interventions can improve

the status of stocks – but we sometimes
forget impact on fisher behavior.
In the graph, there is an increase in

biomass and economic values - but
look at who benefited: fishers with
increased harvest are the destructive
gear (*), and those that benefit a few
(commercial boat operators as opposed
to small fisherfolk).
Right sizing seeks to both reduce fishing

effort and reallocate fishing effort to
benefit more people, especially poor
fisherfolk.
To achieve right-sizing, stakeholders

play a ‘game’ – where they decide the
number of different types of fishing gear
that will be allowed in their area.
Stakeholders in an FMA first agree

on upper limits of gears for the entire
area, then the LGUs decide the limits
in their respective municipal waters, in
accordance with the overall limits.
The actual number of gears and their

catch is collected ahead of time through
fish catch monitoring.
The combination of gears that

stakeholders decide on is run through
a modeling software – ECOPATH – to
show the effect on the fish stocks. The simulation can tell you if the outcome of the decision will favor either of three priorities:
ecosystem structure, profits or jobs.
Stakeholders play the game for several iterations until they come to an outcome that is acceptable to all.
Several runs of models based on

negotiation of LGUs among themselves
about the max limits of gears overall,
and allocation of gears allowed in each
LGU.
The end-output is the agreement of

LGUs on allocation of gears across
the entire FMA. Stakeholders confirm
this agreement in a document that
stakeholders commit to uphold.
The next three slides emphasize the

need to include habitat/fish catch
monitoring as a specific management
action – not just as part of M&E.
Management should invest in data

gathering. There may be data already
available from NSAP and contribution of
partners in scientific studies.
Data gathering is the foundation for

fishing effort management actions.
In this sample data on sapsap

(Leiognathidae) - the gears at the
bottom of the list (circled) are
considered destructive – these catching
too many juveniles (using fine mesh
net). Even in the lowly sapsap, you can
still introduce management actions that
can improve the catch and incomes of
fishers when you have the information
necessary to make the right decisions.
Danish seine catches all – competes

with all other gears. If you remove
the DS (that benefits a few) – you an
improve the livelihood of so many other
people using other gear.
The goal of MSP is to put spatial order

in the different uses and priorities; to
avoid/minimize use-use conflicts and
use-habitat conflicts
Zones may not necessarily be mutually

exclusive
MSP is able to prioritize certain

activities/objectives (e.g. fisheries for
livelihood) without compromising
pursuit of a healthy marine ecosystem
It is able to recognize spatial mismatches:

human uses incompatible with
adjacent critical habitats; human uses
incompatible with each other
It is able to allocate appropriate space for future developments/use
HOW CAN THIS HELP IN THE REALIZATION OF THE FMA GOALS AND IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ITS PROGRAMS?
2-level zoning/planning:
1) compatibility of activities of resource users within the municipality,
2) compatibility of plans and spatial allocation among neighboring municipalities
We used the principles that were used

in the Great Barrier Reef…. localized for
use in zoning of FMA.
This is the product of zoning:
start with people mapping current use;

then determine conflicts (red in the
interaction matrix)
zoning plan – how to deal with the

conflict areas
In this example of Danajon Bank,

hydrodynamic studies show where the
benefits of MPA goes
currents flow from northeast to

southwest; (Note: seaweed farms rich in
northeast - southwest not so much –
all nutrients have been used up in NE)
To be effective, several MPAs have to

form a network that take advantage of
the hydrodynamics of the area.
Where do we put the MPAs?

MPA can either be a source or sink –
better if it functions as both.
We can also use information about

larval distribution to decide on the
location of MPAs
Put MPA where there is largest

concentration of fish larvae (circles).
Map shows ideal location of MPAs.

However, establishment of MPAs
also have a psychological effect on
communities - many communities
want to establish MPAs in their area,
even if it is not of ideal location or
size. While the impact of such MPAs
may not be significant, it gives a sense
of accomplishment and pride to the
community.
MODULE TEN
Start-up A
Preparing the Ground
Task 1. Identify our broad geographic area and possible the EAFM Team will only facilitate the planning process and
fishery to be managed – BFAR has initially determined this, will not be making the major management decisions (that is
but the area should be validated by the EAFM Team, and also for all the stakeholders to do). Key consideration for additional
by all stakeholders during the EAFM planning process. membership in the EAFM Team: potential planning workshop
facilitators, funding partners.
Task 2. Coordinate with LGUs within the broad area, as
well as other agencies (e.g. DENR if in a NIPAS area, ARMM Task 5. Identify stakeholders and organizations who will
Regional Government, or NCIP if area includes an ancestral take part in the EAFM planning process – the identified
domain stakeholders will be invited to participate in the planning
process.
Task 3. Determine the legal basis for EAFM – from the
Fisheries Code, including complementary policies (NIPAS, Task 6. Develop startup work plan – that will lay down
ICM) and local ordinances/ policies. schedules, mechanics, logistics, financing for the EAFM planning
process.
Task 4. Formalize an EAFM team and facilitators – BFAR
has invited representatives from the LGUs (provinces, cities, Task 7. Introduce EAFM to stakeholders to give them an
municipalities) and government agencies, as well as major overview in p[reparation for their participation in the planning
stakeholder groups - Additional members may be invited – process.
Taking into account the scaling issues

identified in earlier Module. the EAFM
team should agree on what it is they
are managing. This will be defined more
formally later on in the process but
at this Startup stage all should agree
roughly on the area, taking into account
existing jurisdictional boundaries. This
area defines, to some extent, who the
relevant stakeholders will be.
EAFM requires coordination,

consultation, cooperation and joint
decision-making, not only between
different fisheries operating in the same
ecosystem or geographical area, but
also between the fisheries management
agency and the other sectors that have
an impact on fisheries or are affected by
fisheries.
It is important to ensure that coastal

and fisheries institutions at each level of
government (from barangay, municipal,
provincial, regional to national) are
informed and engaged early in the
EAFM planning and implementation
process. This helps to harmonize policies
and objectives across different levels
of governance, as well as in situations of overlapping or mismatched jurisdiction (e.g. where several agencies have management
authority over different parts of a fish species’ lifecycle). It may require bringing agencies together that may traditionally have had
very little interaction, but are actually working towards complementary goals or addressing overlapping issues.
Advantages of working in collaboration can include pooling or sharing of limited resources and expertise, and a unified approach
that can help avoid community confusion and disenchantment when separate groups interact with communities in different
ways.process and will not be making the major management decisions (that is for all the stakeholders to do). Key consideration
for additional membership in the EAFM Team: potential planning workshop facilitators, funding partners.
It is desirable to have a legislative or

policy mandate to undertake an EAFM.
Although establishing a legal basis
for an EAFM is desirable, the lack of
appropriate existing legislation should
not be used as a reason to delay
starting the process. Nevertheless,
reviewing the legal basis for EAFM is
essential in order to understand the
existing supporting or non-supportive
policy.
* FOO 2016-164 designated the Chief of the Fisheries Management and Regulatory Division of the Regional Office as the regional focal
person for M-EAFM.
BFAR is the ideal initiator of the process

because most fishing grounds include
municipal and “national” waters, and
would typically involve more than
one LGU. The BFAR PFO or regional
focal person* (depending on the scale
and location of the target fisheries
management area) shall be the lead
facilitator of the EAFM planning and
implementation process.
The lead facilitator convenes an

initial EAFM Team composed of:
BFAR regional focal person, PFO(s),
representative from the Office of
the Provincial Agriculturist, one
representative from each municipality/
city in the proposed FMA, and the
provincial fisherfolk representative. Membership in the EAFM Team can include other stakeholder group representatives after the
EAFM introduction.
The EAFM Team and facilitators have to make it clear who will formally adopt the EAFM plan and implement it. This would be
the municipality or city, or several contiguous LGUs together (in case the FMA is larger than one LGU). BFAR’s role is facilitative
- providing technical support; the EAFM Plan should be approved or adopted by all stakeholders and implemented according to
legal mandates of BFAR, LGUs, and in some cases, the PAMB of protected areas.
* FOO 2016-164 designated the Chief of the Fisheries Management and Regulatory Division of the Regional Office as the regional focal
person for M-EAFM.
A stakeholder is any individual, group or

organization which has an interest in or
which can affect or is affected, positively or
negatively, by the EAFM process.
The network of stakeholders that needs

to be involved in EAFM is complex (see
Figure 8.2), both in terms of vertical
linkages (national to local), horizontal
linkages (between different users of
the natural resources) and in terms of
geographic coverage. Many potential
stakeholders are needed to implement
an EAFM effectively, especially in
surveillance or compliance.
One form of stakeholder analysis is 2x2

matrix where stakeholders are plotted
according to (i) how important the
stakeholder is to the EAFM process
on one axis (Y axis) and how much
influence (power) they have over the
EAFM process on the other axis (X
axis).
By “important”, we mean how much

the stakeholder will affect or be affected
by the EAFM process; in other words,
how much “stake” the group has in the
process and outcome. “Influence means
how much power the stakeholder has
over the EAFM process.
According to where stakeholders fall

on the matrix a different strategy is
adopted for four groups. There will be
those that were (i) high importance
(stake) and high influence (ii) those
that were high importance (stake)
and low influence, (iii) those that
were low importance (stake) but high
influence and (iv) those that were low
importance (stake) and low influence.
Those in the red box are key

stakeholders for EAFM success; they
need to be kept motivated and
on board as they are ‘allies’. Keep
communicating results to them. They
do not need convincing about the
importance of EAFM- they already
know. Those in green box are not interested and have little influence; they need to be kept informed and involved, with minimal
effort and monitoring. Those in yellow boxes require active strategies.
High influence + low importance: these need to be moved along to the red box, they need to ‘buy in’ into the EAFM process,
as they could be potential supporters and could use their influence to support the process. However, some of these influential
stakeholders could also hinder/ block the EAFM process (for political or other gains) so they need to be actively monitored.
Those with high importance + low influence are often the most affected (i.e. have a high stake in the EAFM process) but do not
have the power or a voice. They need to be represented and supported in having more of a say and influence over the EAFM
process.
Another way of visualising stakeholders

is to plot them on a Venn diagram that
describes their relationships as part
of institutional analysis. In the diagram,
the size of circle indicates importance
and the proximity of circle indicates
the frequency of contact. Separate
circles = no contact; touching circles =
information passes between institutions,
small overlap = some cooperation in
decision-making and large overlap =
considerable cooperation in decision-
making.
The EAFM team should begin making

courtesy calls, holding meetings and
raising public awareness to establish
the initial working relationship between
the community, the prospective agency
partners, and the facilitator or agency.
This entails a number of activities,
including:

• formally introducing EAFM to
prospective partners;
• answering questions about EAFM;
• establishing rapport with
prospective partners;
• identifying roles of partners;
• organizing and attending meetings,
training and awareness-raising
sessions;
• collection of baseline data and information on the management area;
• meeting with local leaders, government officials, etc. and obtaining approvals; and
• initiating the EAFM process with the community, government agency partners, and other stakeholders.
The seven Startup tasks in Startup

A do not need to be carried out
sequentially; in fact tasks are likely to be
parallel or overlapping. The minimum
requirements to complete Startup A are
include: forming the EAFM team with a
facilitator; making a Startup work plan;
identifying stakeholders and forming a
key stakeholder group; engaging with
other agencies and institutions; carrying
out a legal review and identifying the
broad area of the FMA.
MODULE ELEVEN
Start-up B
Engaging Stakeholders
Stakeholder engagement is not a step:

it is an ongoing activity that is initiated
in Startup B and continues throughout
the EAFM process and is likely to
evolve. The stakeholder engagement
activities build institutional knowledge
of the EAFM team, key stakeholders
and participating partners, agencies and
institutions.
In the picture – can you provide an

example of a message sent (with
associated emotion), and guess how
the message is received? How does the
receiver respond (to the message and
to the emotion)?
Communication is the foundation of

stakeholder engagement. In a simple
communication loop, when we send
a message, the message includes the
substance as well as the emotion that
we attach to it. The person who receives
the message also responds with both
substance and emotion. It is important
to recognize both the substance and
the emotion, because both make up the
message.
An important aim of the participatory

approach is to empower people and
groups who are most vulnerable
and less able to ensure their needs
and expertise are represented in
decision-making. For the EAFM
process to succeed, men and women
resource users, local organizations
and communities, as well as local
government officials and other
stakeholders need to be enabled
to take control and make decisions.
To do this they will need to increase
their awareness and understanding
of fisheries resources and their
management in an ecosystem context.
The benefits of such empowerment

include:
• increased awareness, knowledge,
skills, institutional capacity;
ownership of decisions and
outcomes; responsibility; power
to act and make decisions;
motivation; and sustainability.
In the Philippines, it is important

to remember that the Fisheries
Code established a formal forum
for participation - the Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources Management
Council (FARMC) at the LGU and
national levels. Contiguous LGUs in
a bay may also form an integrated
FARMC. In protected areas, the NIPAS
Act also created the Protected Area
Management Board (PAMB). The
FARMC and PAMB include representatives from various stakeholder groups. Management decisions relating to the management
of fisheries/ natural resources have to go through these institutions before these can be approved and implemented.
The FARMC and PAMB have limited membership, and many stakeholders may not be represented. Therefore, a stakeholder
analysis is still important, and a broader process of inclusive decision-making that engages more stakeholder groups is desirable in
preparing a management plan, such as the EAFM Plan. The ideal process would be for the FARMC or PAMB to lead the broader
participatory process, so that the endorsement that has wider base of support.
MODULE TWELVE
Next Steps
PART 2
EAFM Planning Workshop
MAINSTREAMING
EAFM PROGRAM
In April 2016, BFAR, with assistance from NOAA and the USAID’s ECOFISH
Project, conducted a series of training for BFAR provincial fisheries officials using
the Essential EAFM Training Course developed by several institutions:
This Handbook contains the key presentation slides used during the training
series. The Essential EAFM Training Course materials were revised using Philippine
examples based on the experience and lessons learned from the training and
following the terminologies used in the Philippine legal framework. BFAR created
the Mainstreaming EAFM Program on June 23, 2016, through Fisheries
Office Order (FOO) No. 164 mandating BFAR regional offices to facilitate the
preparation of EAFM plans in identified fisheries management areas.
This book is called the EAFM Planning and Implementation Process to

emphasize that this is not simply a training exercise, but an actual planning process
where participant-stakeholders give full commitment to implement the output
(EAFM Plan) in their fisheries management area. BFAR, NOAA, and USAID
ECOFISH Project refined the materials after conducting planning processes in the
San Bernardino-Ticao Pass and Biliran Province fisheries management areas.
This Handbook has two parts corresponding to the two stakeholder workshops
convened to prepare the EAFM plan: Start-up Workshop and EAFM Planning
Workshop.
Contributors to the EAFM Planning and Implementation Process materials

include: Rafael Ramiscal, Efren Hilario, Abigail Javier, Karen Candilosas, Marylene
Mandreza, Lainie Baraocor, Jessica Muñoz, Sandra Arcamo, and Asuncion Maputol
(BFAR); Ronnie Romero and Noel Barut (NFRDI); Romeo Cabungcal (Province
of Palawan); Supin Wongbusarakum, Megan Asher, Max Sudnovsky (NOAA), and
Ma. Aleta Nuñez (NOAA representative in the Philippines); Nygiel Armada, James
Kho, and Jea Louise Robelo (ECOFISH).

PART 11: EAFM Planning Workshop
CONTENTS
MODULE 1 | Introduction
ACTIVITY 1 | Introduction of Participants

ACTIVITY 2 | Hopes, Concerns and What We Bring to the Process
ACTIVITY 3 | Issues and Problems
MODULE 2 | Recap of the Science of Fisheries Management

and EAFM Concepts and Principles
MODULE 3 | Planning Process Overview
MODULE 4 | Proposed FMA I Vision
ACTIVITY 4 | Vision
ACTIVITY 5 | Identify and Prioritize Issues
ACTIVITY 6 | Define Goals
ACTIVITY 7 | Develop Objectives
ACTIVITY 8 | Reality Check
ACTIVITY 9 | Develop Indicators and Benchmarks
MODULE 5 | Introduction to Management Actions

ACTIVITY 10 | Start-up Workplan
MODULE 6 | Formalize, Communicate and Engage
ACTIVITY 11 | Communication Strategy
MODULE 7 | Monitor, Evaluate and Adapt
ACTIVITY 12 | Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

MODULE ONE
Introduction
Mainstreaming EAFM is a BFAR

program to facilitate preparation and
implementation of EAFM Plans in
identified FMAs.
The EAFM Plan that comes out of

the process is not a BFAR plan, but
the plan of all stakeholders (including
BFAR). The plan is an ’agreement’
of all stakeholders to implement
management actions. Implementation
will be according to the processes and
mandates of the participating agencies
and stakeholder groups.
The materials for the EAFM Planning

and Implementation Process were
developed with support from USAID/
PH in partnership with NOAA and
through the USAID’s ECOFISH Project.
The materials were adapted from

developed by several institutions
(acknowledged above). These
materials evolved from and built on
the experience of BFAR in conducting
in recent years, including the series
of training conducted by BFAR with
NOAA and ECOFISH in April 2016.
The EAFM Planning and

Implementation Process is designed
for BFAR regional and provincial
staff to initiate and lead the process
of developing an EAFM Plan for a
fisheries management area (FMA) with
the participation of partner LGUs,
NGAs, and other stakeholders.
The EAFM Plan that is developed will

be a consensus document. It will be
our common guide. The LGUs will
implement the agreed actions in their
respective municipal waters. BFAR will
align its programs, activities, and budget
to support the implementation of the
plan beyond municipal waters, including
providing technical and material
support to LGUs.
We will list down the issues and

problems that we find in our fishing
ground (later we will define this as our
fisheries management area) that are
related to fisheries and coastal habitats.
As a general guide, describe or define

the issue in specific terms, including the
place where the issue or problem is
relevant. For example, blast fishing in X
municipality, overharvesting of danggit
(rabbitfish) in Barangay Y. Define the
issues in a way that we can easily
propose solutions.
If the issues and problems are

very broad, e.g. poverty or climate
change, it will be difficult to propose
solutions that are within our capacity
to implement. Unpack these broad issues into more specific problems that can be solved. For example, instead of stating
‘poverty’ as a problem, break it down into several related issues or problems: ‘baon sa utang’ (trapped in debt), ‘walang ice’
(no ice); ‘mababa presyo’ (low price).
MODULE TWO
Recap of the Science of

Fisheries Management and
EAFM Concepts and Principles
In the first part of this presentation,

we will look at some of the basic
scientific principles underlying
fisheries management. We need to
understand these principles so we can
design management actions that are
consistent with what we know about
our fisheries, habitats, and communities.
There are four factors that affect the

fish stock (in this example, we are
looking at a single species, but may also
apply to multiple species fisheries)
Stocks increase in size when fish grow

and give birth (recruitment); stocks
decrease in size when fish die (natural
mortality) and when we harvest
(through fishing).
Among the four factors, there is only

one where we have control over
fishing. Management actions often
focus on regulating fishing activities,
which we can directly regulate.
But other human activities also affect

the three other factors.
• Agriculture/ mariculture brings fertilizers and pesticides to the coastal habitats through erosion and run-off;
• Human-enduced climate change increase sea surface temperature
• Establishment of marine protected areas/ fish sanctuaries increase recruitment.
In this series of diagrams, we see that a

stock with a maximum size decreases
with fishing, but it can grow back in
time. However, if we fish more than
what can grow back, the stock will
decline (can not fully recover to the
original size). As the stock gets smaller
and smaller because of overfishing,
it will come to a point when the
remaining individuals cannot grow or
reproduce enough to make the stock
viable.
Sustainable fishing means we should

take only that which will allow stock
to recover to original stock size. If not,
eventually stocks will decline, and even
disappear totally.
• The stock you exploit is part of

an ecosystem. Fishing of a stock
impacts on other stocks, i.e.,
what it feeds on, what feeds on.
• Harvesting of fish induces
ecological changes in the
ecosystem.
• Ecological changes in the
ecosystem affect future levels of
surplus production of the harvested
population.
• Fishing is likely to alter the
structure and function of marine
ecosystems.
• Fishing is typically a species-
selective and size-selective agent of
mortality.
• Most of the fish removed is in
the middle or near the top of food
web.
• What do you think will happen if we remove the following:
> Sharks?
> Large pelagic species (tuna)?
• Your choice of fishing

methods have other impacts the
ecosytem
• Ecosystem-approach to fisheries
management does not require
that we understand all the
components of the ecosystem.
• We know that the traditional
single-species approach of
fisheries management is useful,
but we also know that it is not
sufficient.
• We know that an ecosystem
perspective is desirable, but it is
complex and unpredictable.
• There simply is not enough
money, time or talent to develop
a completely informed view of
how fisheries should operate in an ecosystem context.
• There will always be unmeasured entities, random effects, and substantial uncertainties, but these are not acceptable
excuses.
There are different types of

overfishing. These are:
• Growth overfishing – taking

too many immature young
juveniles before they have a
chance to grow (e.g. use of fine
mesh net)
• Recruitment overfishing – not
enough mature young juveniles
are allowed to spawn and sustain
the population (either not
enough parents or nursery
grounds are destoryed so no
new recruits survive into
adulthood)
• Ecosystem overfishing –
overfishing of selected species
(usually top predators) altering
ecosystem balance i.e. ‘fishing down the food chain.’ Once the top level, high-priced fishes are gone, what remains are
lower level (generally lower-priced) fishes.
• Economic overfishing - catching too many small/immature fishers or less valuable species (economic value is low).
The What and
Whys of EAFM
Conventional fisheries management

differs among countries and locations.
Possible characteristics include:
• Species considered mainly focus

on target species vs. All species
in the ecosystem, particularly
those impacted by fishing
• Management objectives are
mainly sector specific (fisheries)
vs. Multiple fisheries, ecosystem
and socioeconomic
• Management actions focus on
control of fishing vs. Broad-
based incentives (livelihoods,
MPAs)
• Focus on stock assessment
vs. Multispecies and ecosystem
assessment and indicators
• Biological management objectives (e.g. maximizing production) vs. multiple objectives
• Predominant use of scientific data vs. Scientific and traditional/local knowledge
• Monitors bio-physical changes vs. both bio-physical and socioeconomic conditions
• Management/Governance mainly top-down and fishery-specific vs. Participatory, co-management, adaptive
management
What is an ecosystem?
“An ecosystem can be defined as

a relatively self-contained system
that contains plants, animals, human
communities, micro-organisms
and non-living components of the
environment, and the interactions
between them.” SPC, 2010.
It is important to understand that

many of the elements in the ecosystem
are interconnected and changes in one
element can have a flow-on effect on
others. For example, overfishing of the
top predators can drasticaly alter the
whole food web.
EAFM looks at the bigger picture,

recognizing that fish and fisheries are
part of a broader ecosystem that
includes the habitats as well as the
people. There are linkages between
ecosystem components.
Within a marine ecosystem, you may

have resources that remain in one
place and need to be managed locally,
such as coral reefs, mangroves, and
small fisheries. Also there may be
schooling fish, demersal fish, and small
or large pelagic fish, of which many will
also cross political boundaries.
There are many different users of

marine ecosystems that impact on
fisheries. They are also impacted by
fisheries management decisions and
governance. Often, there are small-
scale and large-scale fishers.
There are recreational users, such

as tourists, shipping or other vessel
traffic, and other competing or
conflicting users in the same area,
including coastal development, mining,
agriculture, and others.
By working, planning, and co-managing

across sectors, jurisdictions, and levels
of government through the EAFM
planning process, we can avoid or
minimize conflicts in resource usage
and management, as well as enable
sharing of personnel and financial
resources.
In a fisheries context, fish species

depend upon their surrounding
and supporting ecosystems that are
affected by fishing activities, other
human activities, as well as natural
processes.
Fishing impacts on marine ecosystems

by: (1) catching unwanted species
(bycatch); (2) causing physical damage
to benthic habitats; (3) changing
species composition; and (4) disrupting
food chains.
Other human activities unrelated to

fishing, such as agriculture, forestry,
coastal development, and introducing
species and pathogens can also affect
marine ecosystems, including the many
species they contain.
Human and natural impacts on ecosystems are also increasingly being exacerbated by the effects of human-induced
climate change and ocean acidification.
EAFM is the ecosystem approach

applied to fisheries
“EAFM is a practical way to implement

sustainable development principles for
the management of fisheries by finding a
balance between ecological and human
well-being through good governance.”
— Adapted from EAFNet:
What is EAFM?)
“EAFM represents a move away from

management systems that focus only on
the sustainable harvest of target species
to a system that also considers the major
components in an ecosystem, and the
social and economic benefits that can be
derived from their utilisation”.
— State of the World’s
Fisheries, FAO 2012.
The Fisheries Code uses the term “ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management”, which is synonymous with EAFM.
The Fisheries Code IRR defines it as “an approach to fisheries that strives to balance diverse societal objectives or needs by
taking account of the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic, and human components of ecosystems and their
interaction; and applying in an integrated approach to fisheries management within ecologically meaningful boundaries.”
As with sustainable development,

EAFM can be thought of as balancing
ecological well-being and human well-
being for future generations through
good governance.
It is the practical, participatory

approach to sustainably maximize the
diverse societal benefits of fisheries.
The goal is the sustainability of not

only the commercially important
fish species, but also the associated
ecosystem, and even the components
of the ecosystem that do not have
obvious economic value.
The Fisheries Code lists food security

as the top priority for fisheries
management. The Constitution and the
Code also emphasize that access to
fisheries resources must be equitable,
giving exclusive rights to Filipinos and
preferential rights to marginal fishers.
Poverty incidence among fisherfolk is

double that of the national average
(39.2% vs. 19.7% in 2012). National is
down to 16.5% in 2015; no data for
fisherfolk sector, but poverty reduction
is likely not as fast as other sectors.
Economic security, health, education,

safety, free exercise of human rights –
these are aspects of well-being desired
by all, not just fishers. But since fishers are among the most vulnerable and impoverished sectors, these are very difficult
challenges.
Poor fisherfolk are almost entirely dependent on the fisheries resources for their well-being. Achieving human well-being is
directly tied to the condition of the fisheries resources and their access to these resources.
Governance is the way that rules and

regulations are set and implemented
(AusAID 2000). These rules can be
both formal and informal. Good
governance covers a broad range of
activities and arrangements that ensure
good planning, participation, as well as
compliance and enforcement.
Good governance is further discussed

under the Principles of EAFM.
The principles of EAFM are not new.

It grew out of the acceptance of the
concept of sustainable development.
The EAFM principles are based on

a set of guiding principles first put
forward in the FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). All
Asia-Pacific countries attending this
course (with the exception of North
Korea) are members of FAO.
The CCRF is voluntary, although

parts are based on international law,
including those of the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS). The CCRF
covers all aspects of management and
development of fisheries, including capturing, processing and trade in fish products, fishing operations, aquaculture, fisheries
research, and the integration of fisheries into integrated coastal management (ICM).
The key EAFM principles can be

summarized as follows:
1. Good governance
2. Appropriate scale that takes into
account connections within and
across ecosystems and social systems
(these connections can be place-
based; across different environments:
land, air, sea; and across geographical,
political or administrative scales, i.e.
district/regional/national/
international).
3. Increased participation of key
stakeholders
4. Management for multiple
objectives (balancing societal trade-
offs entails working across scales and
with different stakeholder objectives; the aim is to develop objectives which address multiple challenges/concerns).
5. Cooperation and coordination both vertically across different levels of government and society and horizontally across
agencies and sectors
6. Adaptive management that continually improves management through doing, learning, and adapting. The key is to have \
flexible systems and processes, including feedback loops that allow for learning through doing and adapting.
7. Use of the precautionary approach when uncertainty exists
Governance is the way rules are set and implemented. It - community support through participatory processes
includes the mechanisms, processes and institutions through - enforcement and compliance
which citizens and governing groups (institutions and - a collaborative decision-making process
arrangements) voice their interests, mediate differences, - information and data to support monitoring and
exercise their legal rights, and meet their obligations (AusAID, learning-by-doing
2000). Governance is often a complex mixture of formal and - adequate and dedicated resources (personnel, funding,
informal processes that might involve a geo-political entity equipment) for management
(e.g. nation-state government), a socio-political entity (e.g. - staff skills and commitment; and
chiefdom, tribe, family, etc.), or any number of different kinds - consideration of external factors affecting governance –
of institutions and arrangements. market forces, climate change, natural disasters, level of
socio-economic or human development, etc.
Governance comprises:
- key political support While the concept of governance is descriptive, the idea of
- legal authority to manage good governance is standard-setting, i.e. normative in nature.
- effective institutions The exact meaning of good governance varies according
- coordination arrangements with government, external to the policy area in question, but there are eight general
agents, resource user groups and community members characteristics of good governance.
EAFM aims to secure sustainable fisheries by using 1. Ecological scales - distribution and behavior of the target
ecologically relevant boundaries rather than political or species; large scale processes, smaller-scale features, food
administrative ones. This is a big change from traditional web processes
fisheries management, which works within political or
administrative boundaries. The reality is that the scale in which 2. Socio-economic scales - administrative boundaries;
fishery management occurs will be primarily determined cultural norms (“we have always fished here”); changing
by jurisdictional and political boundaries, but there are economic preferences (driven by market demand); area
some general socio-economic and ecological issues which, and species management or protection approaches, rules
if considered, would help broaden the mandate of fisheries and regulations, price of fuel, fishing vessels and methods;
management. Bear in mind that there is no consensus on how and migrant fishers, illegal fishers
best to factor in these considerations because the scale of the
fisheries management area (FMA) will depend on the aims 3. Political/governance scales - legal and jurisdictional scale
and goals of that fishery. of the FMA
Scaling can be considered in four dimensions, three of which 4. Temporal scales - short-term to long-term ecosystem
align with the three components of EAFM: benefits.
For the highest likelihood of success, an EAFM Plan should - A number of LGUs in Bohol province worked
be developed pragmatically and should be based on individually to manage the reef areas in their municipal
practical scales and boundaries, taking into account existing waters. But obviously this is too small a scale compared
jurisdictional boundaries. This means that the stock or fishery to the ecologically ideal scale for Danajon.
under consideration should also be framed within meaningful
jurisdictional boundaries (e.g. state or provincial jurisdictions). - With the support of the Bohol provincial government,
the LGUs of Bohol adjacent to Danajon formed
The appropriate scale strikes a balance between ecosystem inter-LGU cooperation.
scale and the scale of effective governance. Crossing
between jurisdictional boundaries can be a challenge, but - Following the success of the inter-LGU cooperation, a
EAFM does provide a framework within which cooperation council was formed (CELEBOSOLE - Cebu, Leyte, Bohol
or harmonization can occur. and Southern Leyte) in 2002. It was renewed in 2008 to
focus on coastal resources management in the Danajon
In this example of Danajon Double Barrier Reef, the area. However, this arrangement is sustained only with
reef ecosystem spans the area between the provinces of outside technical support (through projects that fund
Cebu, Bohol, Leyte, and Southern Leyte. There are two the secretariat and council activities). The political scale
administrative regions involved (Regions 7 and 8). From an appears to be too large to be efficient and self-sustaining.
ecological standpoint, it is ideal to treat the Danajon area as
one management area. However, political scale is an issue.
In EAFM, both the communities of local resource users and Philippines, it is not uncommon to have uniformed
the government (whether local, provincial, national or personnel sit in meetings and consultations. Over time,
regional) share the responsibility and authority for managing community members have been accustomed to police, coast
and determining the sustainability goals of the fishery. guard, navy representatives sit as partners in enforcement
EAFM is participatory and this means stakeholders are a activities (unlike in some countries, this is not considered
central part of the management process. intimidating but this is in the context of fisheries/ coastal law
enforcement only).
In this photo (Coron, Palawan), the municipal agriculture
office convenes a meeting to discuss matters related to Is this true in your community? In your experience,
fisheries law enforcement with representatives of the what factors facilitate (and what factors hinder) your
maritime police and fisherfolk organizations. In the participation?
Stakeholders and resource users include people, households, existing conflict (this can be between resource users or
and communities who interact with and care about the between institutions, e.g. the environment and fisheries
fishery and the associated ecosystem. This will include a departments).
diverse number of users, for instance fishers, tour operators,
coastal developers, shipping industry, conservationists, etc. In the long run, having diverse user perspectives represented
Different stakeholders will have different levels of influence and involved in the management planning process serve to
and importance and levels of engagement. increase the understanding of issues and help to reconcile
differences (rather than the alternative, which is to become
Does including more people in the fishery entrenched in one’s own opinion). EAFM actually includes
management process increase conflict? decision-making protocols that can pre-empt and deal with
conflict and there are a number of tools to do so.
In some cases, stakeholders are competitors and their
inclusion can be challenging, especially if there is a pre-
The success of EAFM depends on reaching a balance In the Philippines, BFAR and LGUs have to think beyond the
between conservation and sustainable use of fishery productivity of fish stocks in making management decisions.
resources within the limits of ecosystem functioning and The Constitution grants preferential rights to subsistence
between ecological, economic, and social objectives within fishers that have to be reflected in national and local policies.
specific geographical areas. EAFM requires commitment It is not only about conserving resources and optimizing
to overcome difficulties (both conceptual and practical) in economic benefits, but also making sure that access to and
making choices that require trade-offs and compromises benefits from the fisheries resources are shared equitably.
between different sectors of society. This requires long-term This is very difficult to achieve in practice. In allocating
political will (backed by sufficient resources) and also short- access and use of fisheries and coastal resources, LGUs
term economic and social support, particularly for the local often use coastal and marine spatial planning as a tool to
stakeholders. However, if successful the benefits could be allocate fishing rights.
very significant.
With EAFM there is a need to ensure harmony between EAFM requires institutional cooperation and coordination
scales of governance and management; and linkages between because it more explicitly deals with the interactions of the
and among the various scales, particularly governance scales fishery sector with other sectors. But before connections
that likely range from individual communities to districts, are made with other sectors, it is important to first make
provinces, and national governments. sure that internal institutional cooperation is in good order.
For instance, are fisheries science and research activities
The scaling of governance (i.e. legal and jurisdictional supporting fisheries management information requirements?
considerations) ties in closely with the need for institutional The next step is to ensure effective institutional cooperation
cooperation and coordination. This is because, other non- and coordination between sectors that are directly related
fishery sectors need to be engaged and involved in the and sometimes even mandated with fishery-associated
management process. To be able to move beyond what activities. For example, do monitoring and research
fisheries agencies typically do (which is to manage fisheries activities within academic institutions reflect fisheries
in lots of places) and towards what EAFM does (manage related management requirements? Or, is the fishery agency
different fishing and non-fishing activities, and sectors coordinating with the navy and coastguard over control and
affecting fisheries and associated ecosystems in one place). enforcement issues?
One good example of institutional cooperation and coordination is the National Program for Municipal Fisherfolk
Registration (FishR) launched by BFAR in 2013. The Fisheries Code requires the registration of fishers in their LGU,
but this has not been properly implemented since the law was first passed in 1998.
BFAR took advantage of a census of farmers and fishers conducted by the National Statistics Office to create a
national database of fishers. With the help of LGUs, BFAR validated the data and added fisheries-related information.
Within a year, BFAR was able to register 1.7 million fisherfolk nationwide.
The data is readily available to LGUs for their own planning purposes. The FishR database is also cross-matched with
the database of the Department of Social Welfare and Development to identify the poorest members of the sector.
BFAR uses this information for targeted livelihood assistance. In 2015, BFAR expanded the FishR database to include
registration of fishing vessels and gear under the National Program on Fishing Vessel and Gear Registration (BoatR).
The databases are vital in identifying fishing communities most vulnerable to natural and man-made disasters to
facilitate early warning, as well as post-disaster response and recovery.
Based on registration information, BFAR worked with other agencies to provide poor fisherfolk with insurance
coverage for life / illness and damage to boats/gear due to typhoons and other calamities.
Once there is better cooperation within fisheries agencies Examples of cooperative or coordinating activities or
and sectors more directly related to fishing activities, mechanisms include:
fisheries agencies will be better positioned to coordinate
with less obviously related sectors. This will involve working - talking to others
with sectors not traditionally associated with fisheries, for - data sharing and information
example, ministries of agriculture, energy, tourism, housing - support for local/provincial implementation
and development, women’s affairs, fisheries and marine - harmonized or complementary work plans, budgets
resources, the environment, and rural water sanitation. (across sectors/agencies) and goals;
Through better cooperation, the different actors actively - linking in with other coordination arrangements
contribute and work together on fisheries management and e.g. ICM
share the costs, benefits, successes, and failures. Cooperation - developing interagency arrangements.
is needed for action regarding rule making, conflict
management, power sharing, social learning, dialogue, and In developing interagency arrangements, formalized
communication, as well as development among the partners. memorandums of understanding (MOUs) or other binding
agreements can help establish cross-sector collaboration.
Adaptive management provides a

framework for managing change over
time (see temporal scaling issues)
by learning from doing. Adaptive
management involves managing and
learning from what has been done
by evaluating the outcome of the
management action. It is closely linked
to the precautionary approach. It is not
necessary to wait until all the data and
information are available and analysed
before taking action. Management
actions can be put in place and
providing they are monitored and
evaluated, they can be modified
based on the lessons learnt from their
implementation.
Adaptive management aims to reduce

uncertainty through time by evaluating
the efficacy of what has been done
in order to retain management
interventions that work and discard or
improve those that do not.
The precautionary approach can be considered the cry of “need more research” is used to focus the issue back
backbone of EAFM. It was originally defined by UNCED in on the scientific community, rather than starting to deal
1992 as: with it using an adaptive management approach. A common
myth is that the scientific information available is insufficient
“… where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, to apply EAFM to any ecosystem, let alone ecosystems that
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for are poorly studied. However, EAFM is not about managing
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental the whole ecosystem; it is about integrating adaptive
degradation.” management. At a minimum, it means managing direct
human impacts of fisheries (and other human activities).
The United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks In fact, there is always enough information to begin action,
and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN 1995) first articulated otherwise the issue would not have been recognized in the
the principle for fisheries with the following definition: first place.
“States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain, 2. Where there is uncertainty, management actions
unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific should be less risky.
information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or The greater the information gap and the amount of
failing to take conservation and management measures (UN, uncertainty, the more risk averse management should be. If,
1995).” through adaptive management,it is learned that the situation
is much worse than originally described, the management
The two ramifications of the precautionary approach, should allow room for later correction. The Philippine
therefore, are: Supreme Court has adopted the precautionary principle in
its Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which state
1. Lack of data and information should not be used as “when human activities may lead to threats of serious and
an excuse for not taking action. A claim of insufficient irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically
information is often used as a delaying tactic. Instead of plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or
dealing with an obvious environmental problem, the catch diminish that threat.”
The Supreme Court directs all courts

to apply the precautionary principle:
When there is a lack of full scientific
certainty in establishing a causal
link between human activity and
environmental effect, the court shall
apply the precautionary principle in
resolving the case before it. In applying
the precautionary principle, the
following factors, among others, may
be considered: (1) threats to human
life or health; (2) inequity to present
or future generations; or (3) prejudice
to the environment without legal
consideration of the environmental
rights of those affected (Rule 20).
MODULE THREE
Planning Process Overview

There are three phases in the cyclical

process of an EAFM: plan, do, and
check and improve.
The Plan phase has three steps:
• Define and scope the FMA

• Identify and prioritize issues and
goals
• Develop the EAFM Plan (the
output of these is an EAFM
plan)
The fourth step is the Do phase, which

is to implement the EAFM Plan.
The Check and Improve phase is the

fifth step, which is about monitoring,
evaluating, and adapting the EAFM Plan
based on the results of the evaluation.
The process is a continuous adaptive

cycle.
Tasks of the EAFM Team in Startup A -

Preparing the ground consists of:
1. Identify the broad geographic

area
2. Coordinate with other agencies
and LGUs
3. Determine legal basis for EAFM
4. Formalize an EAFM team and
facilitators
5. Identify stakeholders
6. Develop a start-up workplan
7. Introduce EAFM to the
identified stakeholders prior to
the planning process
The EAFM Team prepares to engage

stakeholders. This involves identifying
the various potential stakeholders,
raising awareness about the EAFM
process, and starting the on-going
process of involving them in the
various EAFM process stages (initially
planning, and then implementation and
monitoring).
Preliminary stakeholder engagement

is important in identifying the
expectations, roles, and responsibilities
of stakeholders.
Define the Fisheries Management Area (FMA): The Agree on the FMA vision: At the outset, it is very useful
identified FMA will most likely be based on a geographical for stakeholders to agree on a vision for the EAFM Plan.
area and ideally, will coincide with a clearly and precisely A vision is a long-term statement of the aspirations of the
defined ecosystem. Ecosystems, however, are not usually stakeholders.
clearly defined entities. They have unambiguous boundaries
and they may cross or be contained within existing fishery Scope the FMA: This refers to the background information
management areas. The final choice of FMA and geographic (fish, gears, people, etc.) that characterizes the FMA.
area for a management plan will depend on a number Ensure you have information relating to economic, social,
of factors. At the very least, it should cover all harvesting environmental, and governance factors. You may need to
sub-sectors, both small-scale municipal and large-scale collect quantitative and qualitative data (remember some of
commercial fishing, as well as aquaculture/ mariculture. this data may already exist, not necessarily in your agency
but may be available in partner agencies or departments).
Identify issues and problems:The next step is for assessment tools are available to help prioritize the
stakeholders to undertake an initial evaluation of the issues identified issues so as to define which issues are of high
and problems associated with the fisheries. The evaluation priority and therefore need to be managed directly.
must consider issues for each of the three components
(ecological well-being; human well-being/socio-economic; Define goals for the EAFM Plan:While considering the
and governance). The issues may be linked with one another. issues it is useful to group them into separate themes (e.g.
Broad issues are further divided into more specific issues those that have to do with fishing, those that have to do
that can be tackled through a management intervention. with communities, etc), then develop a goal for each theme.
These may be long-term goals that relate to the overall
Prioritize these issues: The large number of issues that will vision. Each theme may have ecological well-being, human
be raised will need to be prioritized so that a manageable well-being, and governance aspects
number of issues are addressed in the E AFM Plan. Risk
In this part, we conduct a SWOT

analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats.
As a general guide, strengths and

weaknesses are internal to us (as
stakeholders preparing the plan) -
including human capacity, financial and
materials resources, etc. Opportunities
and threats are external factors that
we have little or no control of things
that we will have to take as given. For
example laws that define political or
management jurisdiction are given and
cannot be changed easily. These laws
can either provide an opportunity (e.g.
LGUs can collect fees from resource
use activities and the fees can be used
to finance implementation of the plan)
or can be a threat (e.g. when the law requires layers of bureaucratic decision-making that delays management actions).
Opportunities and threats may include natural conditions (i.e. severe weather events such as flood or drought that pose a
threat; or market conditions (i.e. high demand for certain fishery products) that are both an opportunity and threat.
We are often quite familiar with our strengths and weaknesses but not with our opportunities and threats. In our activity, we
will try to analyze opportunities and threats that can facilitate or hinder the successful implementation of our EAFM Plan.
Develop management objectives: Clear and appropriate indicators, benchmarks, and management actions provide a
management objectives are required for all high priority means to communicate with decision-makers on how well
issues requiring management. The objectives state what management is performing and how it will influence future
will be achieved, preferably in a certain time period. changes in management. If possible, specific management
Management objectives are, by definition, objectives that actions should also be accompanied by decision rules on
can be addressed by management actions. They should be how they are to be applied and what to do if they are
specific, measureable, achievable/attainable, relevant, and not working. The key is to try and agree about what might
time-bound (SMART). happen and how to counteract what might happen before it
happens.
Indicators and benchmarks: Develop indicators
and benchmarks for the objectives. These will enable Identify institutional arrangements and sustainable
stakeholders to assess whether the objectives are being financingto support implementation of the plan.
achieved.
Finalize the EAFM Plan: This is achieved by systematically
Agree on management actions: Discuss the management collating the key data from the above steps (see template
actions needed to meet each specific objective. Often, below plus a few more considerations). This plan will guide
the same action can meet several objectives. M anagement you during the EAFM process. It is not set in stone and
actions should be accompanied by a description of how the should be adapted as new information emerges and lessons
actions will be complied with, including actions to enforce are learned.
and generate compliance. Collectively, the objectives,
Formalize, communicate and engage.

A simple work plan is developed. It
outlines who does what tasks during
implementation, and when.
The EAFM Plan needs to be formalized

so that it has authority and backing. A
communication strategy needs to be
developed to communicate different
types of information to different
stakeholders.
The initial stakeholder engagement

develops into a process of continuous
engagement with stakeholders to
ensure that the EAFM Plan can be
carried out.
Monitor and evaluate performance

of management actions: A set of
indicators and benchmarks were
identified in the EAFM Plan. Monitoring
these and any other generic indicators
allows management to see if the plan
is on track and take remedial action if
necessary, i.e. adaptive management.
The indicator information is collated
and reviewed periodically to assess
whether management actions are
actually attaining the objectives as
planned.
Review and adapt the plan.

Monitoring data can be collated yearly
for a quick check on progress and
the plan can be adapted if there is
sufficient evidence to indicate that
a change is necessary. Every three to five years, a longer-term review should take place to assess how the EAFM Plan is
performing. The actual time of the review should reflect the nested nature of the plan, such that the outputs and reports can
feed into the broader strategic plans. In light of longer-term data and reviews, the plan may need to be adapted considerably
to allow for unforeseen elements and to incorporate lessons learned.
If this looks familiar to you, it may be

because you already have a fisheries/
coastal management plan, or even
an ICM plan. The EAFM plan is not
ANOTHER plan. You may just want to
review your current fisheries or CRM
plan to see if it follows EAFM – and
provide that input to the EAFM Plan
for the whole FMA.
MODULE FOUR
Proposed FMA I Vision

Refer to the EAFM planning steps

- we are now in Step 1, where we
will define our FMA, agree on an
FMA vision, and gather materials and
information to better understand our
FMA (scope our FMA).
In this slide, insert map of the

proposed FMA. Use NAMRIA chart
(map) or Google map so that we have
an accurate visual representation of
the area we are making a plan for.
There may be exisiting studies about

the coastal habitats in your area, i.e.,
assessment of coral reefs, seagrass
beds, or mangrove areas. In these
studies, there may be maps that
indicate where these important
habitats are. If there are no existing
studies, use the NAMRIA chart or
Google map and indicate where these
habitats are based on our common
knowledge. The satellite photos used
by Google may also indicate the
coral reef areas; in some areas, the
photos are detailed enough to show
vegetation (e.g. mangrove areas).
For fisheries data, BFAR shares

available data from the National Stock
Assessment Program (NSAP) in the
area. NSAP only covers major fishing areas. If the FMA is not included among NSAP sites (or only partly included), BFAR
may still be able to share data on fisheries based on records of fish landings.
We can also add important information related to fisheries, e.g. location of fish ports/ landing areas; facilities such as
wet markets, ice plants, etc.
We need to have a basic and common understanding of the • Poverty information among fishers may also be
socio-economic condition of our communities, particularly derived indirectly through BFAR programs, such as
our fishing communities. The information may include: TARGET, by identifying how many beneficiaries there
are and where they are in the area.
• Number of fishers and the types of boats and gears • In the absence of data, we may be able to get a
used in the municipality. This information is available general sense of the socio-economic condition of
from BFAR through the FishR and BoatR databases. fishing communities through a perception survey
The data is disaggregated down to municipality and among participants. Answer the forms in the EAFM
barangay. Workbook individually, based on your personal
• Poverty incidence - this is available from the Philippine knowledge and experience. We will collate all the
Statistics Authority website. Poverty incidence may answers and get the collective perception of the
not be disagreggated by municipality or barangay, stakeholders.
but a general sense of the poverty incidence in the
province(s) covered by the FMA is helpful.
• Here we summarize existing fisheries/coastal institutional arrangements and require certain

resources management initiatives. For example, processes for planning and management. These
establishment of MPAs, ordinance on fishing activities, provisions must be considered in preparing the EAFM
creation of Bantay Dagat, preparation of CRM plan, Plan. We must als be clear about the relationship of
creation of CRM office or designation of CRM officer, the EAFM planning process with what is required
etc. In some areas, there are advanced institutional under these special laws.
arrangements, such as inter-agency or inter-LGU
councils and technical working groups. • In the absence of data, we may be able to get a
general sense of the socio-economic condition of
• We should note if the FMA, or a part of it, is under fishing communities through a perception
special management jurisdiction, such as as protected survey among participants. Answer the governance
area under the NIPAS law, ancestral domain under benchmarking form in the EAFM Workbook
IPRA law, or part of the ARMM. These laws, including individually, based on your personal knowledge and
the special laws for each NIPAS protected area and experience. We will collate all the answers and get the
the SEP law of Palawan, provide for specific collective perception of the stakeholders
In the absence of data, we present the

collective perception of stakeholders
based on our answers in the EAFM
Workbook
Before initiating the EAFM planning

process, BFAR has already a proposal
for the scope of the FMA based on its
studies of fishing grounds. Alternatively,
LGUs may have earlier proposed
the creation of an FMA. These will
have been discussed in the Start-up
workshop and then validated here.
There may still be some discussion

about expanding the FMA or excluding
some areas. The scope of the FMA is
partly based on scientific assessment
and partly a result of negotiations. We
may not be in complete agreement,
however, what is important is that we
have a workable starting point. The
scope of the FMA is not cast in stone.
It may still be reviewed in the future
as we also review and update the EAFM Plan. In the meantime, we can continue to engage with LGUs and stakeholders
outside of the FMA and consider their interests, as well as activities that can affect our FMA and the implementation of
our EAFM Plan.
These are the building blocks of our EAFM

Plan. We have a common vision; to reach
our vision, we define a number of specific
goals. Under each goal, we identify specific
objectives that we hope to achieve through
management actions and we agree on
measurable indicators. We match the
measurements with our agreed benchmarks
(baselines and targets).
Our vision is what we want to see twenty

to thirty years from now. The vision
describes the state of our resources and the
condition of our communities. The vision
goes beyond the timeframe of the EAFM
plan. Think of it as the ultimate ambition that
we will only achieve after several cycles/
updates of the EAFM Plan.
The goal is more specific and

short-term (5-10 years) - matching the
timeframe of the EAFM plan. A goal may
cover a certain aspect of the vision - such as
focusing on reducing poverty among fishing
communities, or increasing fish stocks. All
the goals, taken together, should contribute
towards attaining the vision.
The objectives are even more specific

aspects we want to accomplish towards
meeting each goal. Later, we will learn
how to define objectives that are specific,
measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely
(SMART).
We all need to agree on a common

vision statement. However, it would be
very difficult to craft a statement with
30-50 people involved.

To facilitate the process, we will use
metacards. Each person will write on a
card a word or phrase that describes
the vision, or an element of the vision.
Based on the cards, we will propose
draft vision statements that best
capture the key elements as stated in
the cards. Each group, except for one
group, will propose a draft statement.
After each group has prepared a
draft, we will look at all the cards
and see if we can combine the ideas
and language into a common vision
statement that we can all agree on. The
one group (volunteers) that is not working on a draft statement will illustrate (draw) our vision on the map of the FMA.

At the end of this Activity, we will have agreed on a vision statement, and have an illustration of our vision, all based on the
idea cards that everyone contributed.
With the vision statement and

illustration, and the background
information that we have collected, we
are now able to put together the first
two sections of the EAFM Plan: Vision
and Background.
MODULE FOUR
Activity 5
Identify and Prioritize Issues
Activity 6
Define Goals
The state of the fisheries can affect

people from individual fisher families to
the economy of the LGU to the food
supply of the province or country.

The changes to fisheries can include
change in volume of catch, size of
fishes caught, and kinds of fishes
caught. It can also include the types
of gear used and where the fishers
are from (local or from other areas).
Changes in fisheries may be associated
with changes in the environment, i.e.,
presence of coastal activities such as
urbanization, agriculture, industry, etc;
loss if coral reefs and other habitats;
etc.
The EAFM Plan for your area should

identify specific issue and problems that accurately describe the local situation.
When issues and problems are

identified through a participatory
process, variety of issues to arise: some
may be very broad (e.g. pollution) and
some may be very specific (e.g. blast
fishing in reefs).
The EAFM planning process is likely

to bring out many potential issues and
problems, but there is a practical limit
to how many issues can be dealt with
by a management system.
One approach to prioritization of

specific threats and issues is to conduct
a risk or vulnerability assessment. Risk
assessments can be either qualitative
and expert opinion-based, or highly
quantitative and data-based. There are
many ways to carry out a qualitative
risk assessment.
The risk assessment can be either

qualitative and opinion based or highly
quantitative and data based.
A risk analysis typically seeks answers

to four questions:
1. What can go wrong? (Risk)
2. How likely is it to go wrong?
(Likelihood)
3. What would be the consequences
of it going wrong? (Impact)
4. What can be done to reduce either
the likelihood or the consequences
of it going wrong? (Action)
Remember: risk = likelihood x impact
High priority issues are those with

a high likelihood of occurrence and
high impact. These high priority issues
are the ones that require direct
management.
A simple semi-quantitative risk

assessment is to rate each issue as to
whether it has (i) high, medium or low
likelihood of occurring and (ii) high,
medium or low impact when it does
occur. These are then plotted on a 2x2
matrix diagram.
In this way, the high likelihood/high

impact issues are identified. These are
the high priority issues that need to
be taken forward into the planning
process. The medium risk issues might
also be identified and mentioned in
the EAFM plan in case their priority
changes over time.
From the results of the risk assessment

matrix, we can see that many cards
have similar or related ideas.
With the help of our facilitators, we

shall cluster these related cards into
4-5 clusters of issues. We begin with
the issues that are high impact-very
likely (top right). There may be issues
that are in the low impact-very likely
and high impact-not likely boxes
that relate to the issue that we have
clustered. We can include these cards
in the issue clusters, so that we may
also consider them in formulating our
goals.
After we have prioritized the issues, we

are now ready to set goals for each of
the cluster of issues.
• A goal or set of goals are

prepared related to the
prioritized issues and problems
identified.
• A goal is a general statement of
the desired state towards which
the stakeholders are working. A
good goal meets the following
criteria: Relatively general and
addresses a set of issues that can
be grouped under a theme.
• A goal statement is written in
the past tense to indicate that it
has been achieved.
MODULE FOUR
Activity 7
Develop Objectives
We are now in Step 3, where we will

define our management objectives
with their relevant indicators and
benchmarks.
We can prepare 2-4 objectives under

each goal - focusing on objectives that
are doable and realistic within our
management timeframe.
Relevant questions:
For each issue that is to be directly

managed, the following relevant
questions apply:
1. What are the management
objectives relevant to this issue
cluster and what specifically should
the fishery try to achieve for this
cluster of issues/ theme?
2. Are any of the objectives for the
theme in conflict with each other. If
so what is the order of priority?
3. Is there stakeholder agreement on
the objectives?
4. Are the agreed set of management
objectives and outcomes for the
theme still consistent with the high
level goals, other policies, treaties, legislation, etc.?
Key actions
• For each issue requiring direct management, identify possible management objectives.
• If there is more than one management objective for an issue, determine their hierarchy or relative priority.
• Obtain stakeholder input or advice on their appropriateness and practicality.
• Review management objectives to ensure they are consistent with high level objectives, legislation or policies.
• Confirm the set of management objectives that will be used for developing the management system.
The examples show what a good and

bad objective statement looks like. If
the objective statement is generally
framed “limit fish catch,” it will be very
difficult to know if the objective has
been achieved.
SMART - this is our guide to

formulating good management
objectives.
MODULE FOUR
Activity 8
Reality Check
MODULE FOUR
Activity 9
Develop Indicators
and Benchmarks
Key actions
• Identify possible indicators to
measure performance for each
management objective.
• Agree on the level of precision and
accuracy required.
• Review what data/information is
available and the relative costs for
each possible indicator given their
relative uncertainty.
• Determine the most cost effective
options.
• Given the levels of uncertainty in
the indicator, determine what will
signify acceptable and unacceptable
performance.
• If more than one indicator is to be
used for the objective, determine
how they will work together to determine the assessment outcome.
• In practice it should be possible to estimate the indicators from data that have been or can be collected.
Put simply, the benchmark describes

where you want to go (target), where
you came from (baseline) and where
you do not want to be (limit).
Benchmarks are often targets that

specify the desired state of the
indicator (e.g. 20 percent of area
under an MPA) or the boundary
within which to operate, or that should
not be exceeded (e.g. 50 percent of
existing fishing effort). In fisheries
jargon, these are often referred to as
target and limit reference points.
It is always desirable to set benchmarks

using a precautionary approach, which
involves setting reasonable levels and
taking firm actions when these are
approached or exceeded.
Similar to management objectives,

indicators and benchmarks need to be
SMART:
• Specific (in terms of quantity, quality
and time);
• Measurable (objectively verifiable at
acceptable cost);
• Available (from existing sources or
with reasonable extra effort);
• Relevant (to objectives and sensitive
to change. For indicators related
to people, they should be relevant
to local situation, cultural and
socially appropriate); and
• Timely (to ensure usefulness to
managers).
It is also important that that the

measureable changes are indeed contributed or attributed by the management actions. An indicator can be strongly linked
to the management actions. Indicators that can be influenced by factors unrelated to the management are less useful. It is
also beneficial to have indicators that address the needs and interests of multiple audiences.
Relevant questions:
1. Who is responsible for measuring
the indicator(s)?
2. Where will the data come from
(new or existing)?
3. If new, what method will be used?
4. What are the costs, skills, and
resources required?
5. Who is the target audience of the
results, what is their interest, and
how best to communicate with
them?
It is also good practice to carry out

data validation. A combination of
different types of qualitative and
quantitative data collection methods
and sources should be used. This will
provide a more complete analysis of the subject matter and enhance the credibility of evaluation conclusions and confidence
in the recommendations.
Where possible, participatory

monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
should be used to collect data and
monitor indicators. Participatory M&E
focuses on who measures change,
who benefits, and how concerns are
negotiated. It specifies what to measure
as indicators and sets the benchmark
targets and limits. The composition
and skills of the assessment/M&E team
are very important. Note that the
assessment/M&E team may be the
same as, or different from, the EAFM
team.
MODULE FIVE
Introduction to
Management Actions
Inputs controls regulate who, when,

where, and how fishing is done. Most
types of regulations on fishing are input
controls.
Output controls control of what

is removed - e.g. catch limits and
allocation
We don’t have many regulations that

may be considered output control
except for bans on catching of certain
species.

The Fisheries Code requires BFAR to
institute harvest control regulations.
This is still under consideration.

In limiting the catching of juveniles, for
example, we regulate the mesh size
of the gear (input control) rather than
prohibit the catching (or requiring the
return) of undersized/young juveniles.

Some LGUs have started regulating the catching of gravid crabs, by buying back gravid females and placing them in nurseries
so they can spawn.
One simple management action is

allowing the stock and habitat to rest
(no fishing; closure) for a period of
time. In this example, the proposed
closure takes place when the siganids
(danggit) are pregnant and about to
spawn.
The crafting of the regulation was

based on the fishers’ knowledge
of when siganids spawn. The local
knowledge is validated by sampling
and dissection. It was learned that
peak spawning period occurs a few
days after the new moon, and, highest
during certain months.
This photo was taken during the

closed season in Palonpon, Leyte, during months of peak spawning, fish are gravid.
Because of local knowledge and

science, the community and LGU were
able to narrow down the period of
closure on the 3rd, 4th and 5th day
following the new moon. The short
period of closure means minimizing
the loss of income of fishers, while still
maximizing the beneficial impact of
the closure (since most gravid fish are
allowed to spawn before being caught).
The development and implementation

of the regulation is so much easier
because the management action is
based on local knowledge. Science
confirms effectiveness – if you fish after
the closed season, there will be more
fish to catch because you allowed the
fish to spawn first before being caught.
Some LGUs have passed ordinances

banning the harvest and selling of
gravid crabs. Ask participants: Is this
easy or difficult to enforce? Why?

LGUs combine the ban with incentives
to buy back live gravid crabs so they
can be temporarily placed in a nursery
to spawn before being sold or released
again.
This is another example of regulation

of crab harvesting. Data shows that
crab liftnet is catching mostly juveniles.
Therefore possible management action
is to swap liftnets with crab pots
(although gillnet has better catch, BFAR
discourages the use of gillnet)
Note: Liftnet catches juveniles because

these are deployed nearshore (compare
maps). In gear swap, we need to consider
that fishers should be able to deploy crab
pots farther out from shore (need for
motorized boats).
In this area, the traditional catch is

alamang (Acetes), but the presence of
alamang is seasonal.

However, fishers use beach seine
throughout the year. During the off
season for alamang, the beach seines
catch mostly juvenile fishes. Graphs
show the size of matambaka caught
by beach seines at different times of
the year (very small compared to its
mature size (red line).

What is the effect of this practice?
The bar graph shows that alamang is

bountiful from February to May. The
yellow in map shows where alamang
is caught. The ideal solution is for
seasonal/spatial control of beach seine
use.
When consulted with the proposal,

fishers said they could not afford to
stop using beach seine over a long
period in all three areas. So they
arrived at a compromise: a ban would
be imposed but only in one area at a
time (not all three at once).
In Balayan Bay, Batangas, commercial

fishers observe that their catch has
declined over the years. They asked the
provincial government to do something
about it.
With the assistance of Conservation

International and ECOFISH, scientific
studies were done to learn about what
fishing gear was catching what fish and
when (fish catch monitoring) and also
when the fish were spawning (repro-
bio studies).
Stakeholders (LGUs, commercial

fishers, small fishers, NGOs, BFAR, PNP,
DSWD) regularly met for updating of
the results of studies and to discuss
possible management actions. Based
on the recommendation of scientists,
stakeholders discussed imposing a
closed season.
Further scientific studies narrowed

down the coverage of the closed
season 2 species and 3 commercial
gears and the period of the closure
(21 days in December, coinciding with
the moon phases).
This is important in order to limit the

adverse impact on livelihoods.
DSWD provided support for displaced commercial fishing boat crew during the closed season through cash-for-
work jobs. The LGUs identified the work related to coastal clean-up and enforcement.
Science and technology can be used

to design management actions and to
monitor compliance with management
actions
In Palawan, information about nutrients

and fishing activities were used to
develop a closed season for galunggong.
Night lights technology was used to
monitor compliance.
top left – high chlorophyll A

top right – exploitation (night lights)
bottom left (data from fishers of
where they fish)
bottom right – night lights show
voluntary compliance
The night lights data show proof of

voluntary compliance (even if the JAO
was delayed in signing). Bottom right
shows very little lights in December
during the closed season compared to
September and October.
Management interventions can

improve the status of stocks, but we
sometimes forget the impact on fisher
behavior.
In the graph, there is an increase in

biomass and economic values. But
look at who benefited: those with
increased harvest are those with
the destructive gear (*). Those who
benefited less are small fisherfolk
Right sizing seeks to reduce fishing

effort and to reallocate fishing effort to
benefit more people, especially poor
fisherfolk.
To achieve right-sizing, stakeholders

play a ‘game’ where they decide the
number of different types of fishing
gear that will be allowed in their area.
(Stakeholders in an FMA first agree

on upper limits of gears for the entire
area then the LGUs decide the limits
in their respective municipal waters in
accordance with the overall limits).
(the actual number of gears and
their catch is collected ahead of time
through fish catch monitoring).
The effect on the fish stocks of the

combination of gears that stakeholders
agree on is simulated through a
modeling software ECOPATH. The
simulation shows if the outcome of the decision will favor any of the three priorities: ecosystem structure, profits, or jobs.
Stakeholders play the game for several iterations until they come to an outcome that is acceptable to all.
Several simulations based on

negotiation of LGUs among themselves
about the maximum limits overall and
allocation of gears allowed in each
LGU.
These 3 slides emphasizes the need to

include habitat/fish catch monitoring as
a specific management action and not
just as part of M&E.
Invest in data gathering. Highlight

NSAP and contribution of partners
in scientific studies. Data gathering
is the foundation of fishing effort
management actions.
In this sample data on sapsap

(Leiognathidae) - the gears at the
bottom of the list (circled) are
considered destructive – these catching
too many juveniles (using fine mesh
net). Even in the lowly sapsap, you can
still introduce management actions that
can improve the catch and incomes of
fishers when you have the information
necessary to make the right decisions.
In this data set from Danajon, Danish

seine catches all – it competes with all
other gears. If you remove the DS (that
benefits a few) – you can improve the
livelihood of so many other people
using other gear.
To put spatial order in the different

uses and priorities to avoid/minimize
use-use conflicts and use-habitat
conflicts.
• Zones may not necessarily be
mutually exclusive.
• Able to prioritize certain
activities/objectives (e.g.
fisheries for livelihood) without
compromising pursuit of a
healthy marine ecosystem
• Able to recognize spatial
mismatches: human uses
incompatible with adjacent
critical habitats; human uses
incompatible with each other
• Able to allocate appropriate
space for future developments/
use

We used the principles that were used

in the Great Barrier Reef and localized
for use in the zoning of FMA.
• This is the product of zoning.

• Start with people mapping
current use; then determine
conflicts (red in the interaction
matrix).
• Zoning plan – how to deal with
the conflict areas
• Zoning is not simply mapping.
It is about planning (minimizing
conflicts among users,
relationship of user and habitat,
optimize use of resources).
• MPA, (also known as sanctuaries,

refugia), serve as a laboratory
for fisheries management. People
can immediately see the impacts
of MPAs.
• Spillover effect: the recruits
in the MPA eventually grow
and move out of the area. More
fish is available for fishers to
catch because of the movement
of fish from the MPAs to nearby
areas. Fishers know this, and they
tend to fish near MPAs.
• In many cases, it is not enough to
have single MPAs, especially if the
areas are small.

• To be effective, form network of

MPAs. Hydrodynamic studies will
show where the benefits of MPA
goes.
• Currents from northeast to
southwest; Seaweeds rich in
northeast, While in the
southwest, not so much. All
nutrients have been used up in
NE)
• Where do we put the MPAs?

• MPA can either be a source or
sink. Better if it functions as both.
• This is a map of Danajon Bank
showing the dispersal of larvae
in the reef area.
Put MPA, where there is largest

concentration of fish larvae (circles).
Map shows ideal location of MPAs.

However, establishment of MPAs
also have a psychological effect on
communities - many communities
want to establish MPAs in their area,
even if it is not of ideal location or
size. While the impact of such MPAs
may not be significant, it gives a sense
of accomplishment and pride to the
community.
Fisherfolk Registration (FishR): Across the archipelago, via wide consultations across sectors. There is a lot of buy-
a national database was created and accessed by all local in to the implementing rules; unlike the amendments to
government unit. As of March 2016, 1,656,174 fisherfolks RA 8550 that were not widely consulted.
already in the registry system. This is a way to gather data
on fishers in the country. It is now easier to know and EO 154, s. 2013, National Plan of Action against IUU
monitor who are the legally operating fishers and those who Fishing is a product of concerted efforts of government.
are not. It is also used for DRRM in providing assistance Outline in accordance with the IPOA-IUUF adopted by
to fisherfolks. FAO-COFI in June 2001
Fishing Vessels and Gear Registration (BoatR): A #700 Daloy or some other SMS service that allows
centralized database system to guide local government in community to report detected violations. Bantay Dagat or
the registration of fishing boats three (3) gross tonnage and community-based fish wardens have long been in place. We
below nationwide. A mobile application is used for BoatR to also see a lot of inter-agency enforcement teams or patrols
validate and transmit information on the fishing vessels being teams. BFAR now has enhanced its enforcement efforts to
registered. As of March 2016, 151,550 municipal fishing ensure that management actions are not followed. There is
vessels are registered in the system. In some LGUs, they also also the use of technology for detecting compliance through
use color-coding of fishing boats to easily monitor who are VIIRS boat detection alert services for closed season.
registered fishers in their jurisdiction.
Since 2011, there has been a dedicated enforcement
The National Stock Assessment Program, with its office and quick response teams. FleQRT, with Multi-
expanded data collection points from 173 to 739 landing Mission Vessels Fisheries Law Enforcement - Quick
sites, enables us to know the state of our resources. Response Team.
RA 10654 (February 2015) amended the 1998 Fisheries - RA 10654 requires VMS for commercial vessels, on a
Code that increased penalties up to PhP 45 Million (USD phased approach.
1M) based on gross tonnage. This strengthened measures - Development of a fully operational, on-line VMS for all
against IUU fishing and facilitated the lifting of “Yellow vessels above 30GT, in particular for fishing vessels operating
Card” from EU. The implementing rules were developed in the High Seas, RFMO areas and EEZ of third countries
Developing management actions

for sustainable livelihood involves a
process of ensuring informed pathway
to achieve relevant sustainable
livelihoods for fishers.
Fishers themselves, local government,

local NGOs, local service providers
must be willing to participate. The
session provides key considerations for
this process.
Livelihood is composed of different

aspects ranging from material assets to
skills/capacities, to human and financial
resources. All these are brought
together to provide a mean of living.
Livelihood needs to be sustainable

for people to be able to secure their
means of living. A sustainable livelihood
can cope and recover from stresses
and shocks. It is also for now (current
generation) and for the future (next
generations).

The livelihoods can be supplementary
(adding to the existing ones) or
alternative (replacing the existing).
Either should be sustainable.
1. Human capital
• Education
• Knowledge and skills
• Capacity to work
• Capacity to adapt
• Enterprice skills and innovativeness
2. Natural capital/resources
3 Social capital
• Networks and connections
• Kinship (extremely important in the
Philippines) and neighborhoods
• Relations of trust and mutual
support
• Formal and informal groups
• Common rules and sanctions
• Collective representation
• Mechanisms for participation in
decision-making
• Leadership
4. Physical capital • Tools and techology 5. Financial capital
• Infrastructure • Tools and equipment for production • Credit/loands
Transport - roads, vehicles, etc. • Traditional technology • Savings
Communications
Management actions often focus

on building skills through training or
providing tools. However, capacity
building is just the beginning. For
sustainable livelihoods to be successful,
enabling environments need to be built
to establish and sustain livelihoods.
Enabling factors that include availability
of natural resources and markets,
financial assets, infrastructure (including
demands and market access) and
supporting socio-cultural context.
In some cases, where strengths and

visions are common across the fishing
community, community action is
required to enable conditions that will
allow livelihood change for everyone.
Support from other sectors will be
needed, e.g. better access to education
or availability of credits or markets.
In such cases, community strategies
will need to be developed, and the
engagement of relevant agencies,
decision makers and service providers
will be more essential.

In other cases, alternative livelihood
options may involve only households
or individuals who already have
relevant capacities but just need some
enabling conditions.
These principles summarize key

principles relevant to the content we
just covered.

Management actions should always
take people (in this case fishers) and
relevant stakeholders in mind, and not
what tools, money, or technology, are
available to provide.
The management actions should

focuses on building on their strengths
and capitalize on existing opportunities.
The questions to ask is who they
are, what they need, what they have,
what are their interest and aspirations.
They should also take into account
economic, human, social, cultural,
natural, political contexts.
Their voices should be heard and taken into consideration when a sustainable livelihood strategies are being developed and
considered (relevant tools in EAFM start-up or E-EAFM)
The key to sustainable livelihood is to create self reliance and sustainability, and not dependency.
Some of the considerations for

management actions focusing on
livelihood assistance are listed here.
Engage participants to see whether
they can think about other points or
have relevant experiences they would
like to briefly share.

In a fisheries management context,
it would be ideal if the sustainable
livelihoods focus on community-
level actions even while developing
individual skills. For example, one major
activity often included in planning is
training on X (e.g., sardine bottling).
Outside a fisheries management

context (e.g., done by the Social
Welfare and Development or the
TESDA (Tech. Education and Skills
Development Authority), this can stop with conducting a series of trainings to whoever’s interested. This is well and good
but it could also lead to further fish depletion if demand suddenly shoots up and competition intensifies. Trainings on sardine
bottling under a fisheries management context would not only train individuals but also build a community that would
ensure that this sustainable livelihood does not become detrimental to the resource base.
MODULE FIVE
Activity 10
Start-up Workplan
MODULE SIX
Formalize, Communicate,
and Engage
To implement the agreed set of management arrangements arrangements are both legally and socially enforceable by
it is often necessary to have them formalized. Depending the relevant authority or groups. This may involve a central
upon the jurisdiction and fishery, this may need to be a management authority, local or regional authorities or local
formal, legal document and in some cases may require community leaders, or some combination of these. There is
parliamentary approval. In other cases, legislation may be little chance of success if the plan is not endorsed by those
needed to recognize and implement the EAFM Plans. At the who influence the implementation of the plan.
other end of the spectrum it may be as simple as a list of
activities agreed to, and maintained by, the local community Once a new or revised EAFM Plan has been formally
leadership group. approved it is vital that this is communicated to all the
stakeholders who could be affected by any changes to their
It is necessary to determine what level of formalization previous activities.
is required for the plan to ensure that the specific
Communication includes sharing the results of the EAFM • What should the frequency of the communication
Plan with the identified target audiences and identifying products be for each audience?
ways to adapt management practices to improve EAFM. A • What should the report contain: information on
communication strategy provides a clear process for sharing successes and failures; progress and blockages;
results in a logical and strategic way. problems and solutions; present as well as future
perspectives?
Once the implementation of the EAFM process is underway, • What action is expected from the audience in return?
keeping stakeholders informed at a community level is very • What impact are the reports expected to have: the
important to maintain the momentum and legitimacy of the raising of awareness; institutional response?
management system and its functionality (e.g. its capacity • How to get feedback from the reports?
to adapt to change). This is especially important in the case
of a community-based fishery. Keeping the government A communication strategy will include:
committed to controversial actions will generally require • an analysis of the range of possible internal and
direct discussions with key political leaders and not merely external audiences, their characteristics and a set of
submission of reports. priority target audiences;
• a plan for how and where results will be delivered by
Relevant questions: identifying which media and formats will be used with
• Who needs to know about the fishery and why? Are each audience group, and the approach and style of
they interested in all aspects or just some aspects of delivery to be taken;
the fishery? • a set of key messages which illustrate examples
• What communication format is appropriate for and stories that explain the results and help focus the
different target audience types: formal report, attention of particular target audiences; and
newsletter, website, etc.?
• the timeline of when messages and presentation Media and format could include: meetings, workshops, news
formats are to be released and delivered to target articles, web pages, emails, newsletters, status reports, social
audiences. media and PR materials. Give due consideration not only
• a list of people responsible for leading different tasks. to levels of literacy, but also to what is socially or culturally
acceptable.
Possible headings for a communication strategy:
• Communication objectives Remember how some audiences are more accessible than
• Stakeholder audience others; ensure ALL audiences are catered for (including the
• Messages less powerful, less literate, the ones with a lesser voice).
• Media and format
• Personnel/human resources
• Relationship strategy
MODULE SEVEN
Monitor, Evaluate, and Adapt

Essential to any project/effort, it is

important to plan, do, then check
and improve. In EAFM, fisheries and
marine resource managers follows the
process.

1. Define and scope Fisheries
Management Area
2. Identify and prioritize issues and
goals
3. Develop EAFM plan
4. Implement the plan
5. Monitor, Evaluate and Adapt

Ecosystem sciences can be applied
to inform every step in the process
towards sustainable fisheries and
marine resource management
This step links one EAFM cycle to the

next. Based on the results of the M&E,
the plan adapts to take into account
how well the plan is tracking and what
needs to be done to improve the
plan. So each cycle spins into the next
cycle. Stress that the plan is usually
in place for at least 10 years and is a
living document and can be modified
and improved as we learn by doing
(adaptive management).
Monitoring is continuous process that

provides information on the changes
the management is tracking. It helps
ensure that the planned management
actions are well executed and the
management objectives are met.
Monitoring should be done during the
whole of the plan’s implementation.
The frequency of monitoring activities
will be indicator dependent i.e. some
indicators will need to be monitored
monthly, some seasonally and
some annually. Monitoring provides
management and stakeholders with
information on how much progress
and achievement are being made
towards objectives. It provides
feedback on areas of success and
where improvements may be needed
(adaptive management). The indicators and benchmarks developed and the FMA background information generated in the
scoping phase acts as the baseline, against which to measure progress. This is gradually built on over time.
The first sub-step is M&E. Monitoring

refers to the collection of data and
because we have set up indicators
that link to the plan’s objectives, the
focus should be on these. At regular
intervals, evaluate how well you are
meeting the objectives by comparing
the indicator against the benchmark.
Later, we do regular reviews against the
M&E reports and adapt the plan as
required.
The EAFM Plan should be adapted

periodically, based on the M&E results.
This involves using the results of the
monitoring and periodic evaluations to
improve the plan and is usually carried
out during regular reviews of the plan
based on the evaluation and reports. These take place with the purpose of assessing the performance of the management
actions in achieving the objectives. These reviews are the time to consider whether the plan should be changed or not. The
assessment/M&E team will be involved in this process, though the review could be facilitated by outsiders. Such reviews
should be carried out under guidance from, and while making regular reports to, the EAFM team.
Monitoring is the collecting of data

for each indicator. Monitoring is an
ongoing activity and the frequency of
monitoring depends on the indicators
and resources.
Process indicators are used to assess

the processes or actions taken to
move toward objectives or how well
EAFM principles are met.
At each of these steps, there are

indicators that can be developed:
• To track whether management
activities are well implemented
(process or implementation
indicators)
• To track level of input (e.g.
numbers of provisions, trainings)
• To track the results of activities
in term of immediate output
(number of people trained
or household participating in an
activity) or longer terms
outcome (higher level of
compliance, increase income)
• To evaluate the impact (e.g.
whether conservation or human
wellbeing have been achieved)
An M&E plan can help us determine

what to monitor, how to monitor and
how often. Based on the information
we collect at regular intervals, we will
be able to evaluate progress in meeting
our objectives.
Let us go back to our matrix of

objectives, management actions and
indicators. Prepare a monitoring and
evaluation plan for each objective.
The parameters that we monitor may

be related to the management actions
(inputs). For example, how many
law enforcement operations were
conducted
The parameters may also be about

the impact (that the management actions were supposed to make) – e.g. fish biomass (which may increase or decrease
depending on the effectiveness of management interventions).
The benchmarks developed earlier

provide standard against which we
compare.
At the simplest level, because specific

objectives and indicators have been
chosen to cover the important
ecological, social and economic issues,
assessing each indicator against its
benchmark provide a snapshot of how
well management is performing.
Do this for all indicators and

analyse the overall performance of
management actions. Cross-validate
what the indicators are telling you with
other evidence.
The benchmarks developed earlier

provide standard against which we
compare.
At the simplest level, because specific

objectives and indicators have been
chosen to cover the important
ecological, social and economic issues,
assessing each indicator against its
benchmark provide a snapshot of how
well management is performing.
Data collection, monitoring, evaluation,

and reviews all need to be budgeted
for. When financing options for EAFM
are explored, it is essential to earmark
part of the budget for M&E activities,
especially for evaluation and reviews,
otherwise these are unlikely to happen.
To summarize, evaluations should

be made at least annually. The yearly
evaluations may trigger a review and
adaptive responses in the management
(if they are not working very well) and
in the compliance and enforcement
(MCS) activities. Once every five years
or so a major evaluation and review
of the plan should take place, and
if appropriate, the issues, goals and
objectives should be examined
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

PCA Building, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
info@bfar.da.gov.ph

EAFM Handbook On Planning and Implementation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

EAFM Handbook On Planning and Implementation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ecosystems Approach to

This publication was produced by Tetra Tech-ARD for

MAINSTREAMING EAFM PLANNING

Contributors to the Mainstreaming EAFM planning and implementation process

The Mainstreaming EAFM planning and implementation process materials are

The materials for the Mainstreaming

The materials were adapted from

These are the overall objectives of the

First, we will understand what EAFM is

The Mainstreaming EAFM Planning

The EAFM Plan that we develop

BFAR to present map of proposed FMA

Depending on available data, BFAR or

In the basis of the proposed area, BFAR

EAFM Team to discuss and agree

Note: this is a sample map from Google

Issues and Problems

The state of the fisheries can affect

The changes to fisheries can include

The EAFM Plan for your area should

2. Governance issues and problems.

What is fisheries management?

In the region, fisheries have been

Conventional fisheries management differs

The ecosystem approach requires

It also includes both small-scale, as

An important thing to understand is

For example, community settlements

It is important to recognise the multiple

These benefits can be called ecosystem

In a fisheries context, fish species

The ecosystem-approach is now

“A strategy for the integrated

Sustainable development is defined by

The term ecosystem based

The What and Why

This video is a PEW Charitable Trust

In this context, the ecosystem approach

This video is more from the ecological

EAFM is the ecosystem approach

As with sustainable development,

It is the practical participatory approach

The goal is not just the sustainability

The Fisheries Code lists food security

Economic security, health, education,

Governance is the way that rules and

An EAFM looks at the bigger picture,

Within a marine ecosystem, you may

There are many different users of

There may be other competing or

By working, planning, and co-managing

The management benefits of an EAFM

EAFM recognizes that people skills are

But we work with what is available first

EAFM is a broadening of conventional

Coastal resources management (CRM)

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a

Use of MPA networks is often an aspect

• control of fishing capacity;

The principles of EAFM are not new

The EAFM principles are based on a set

The CCRF is voluntary, although

For the highest likelihood of success,