Journal of International Fisheries
vol.15，2016▶Article ◀

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)
Hiroaki TERASHIMA†, Ron ISHITANI＊ and Shinichiro KAKUMA＊＊（IC Net Ltd／＊Marino-Forum 21／＊＊Okinawa Deep Seawater Research Center）
E-mail：terashima@icnet.co.jp／ishitani@mf21.or.jp／
kakumsh@pref.okinawa.lg.jp【abstract】
Fisheries are important means for regular income source for low-income populations indeveloping countries. Many fishery resources however have been in decline withuncontrolled exploitation. In this circumstance, international cooperation for fisheryresource management is therefore indispensable especially in developing countries. Oneof the first steps for effective cooperation would be to obtain a holistic view of the current
status of fishery management in the target country. In this study, we aimed to develop atool to understand present status of fishery management according to the local andfishery characteristics. The Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing
Country (FishMAT) was then compiled by revising and combining the resource
management tool box and MCS code. After preparing FishMAT, we attempted to apply
it in six target countries to estimate the efficacy of it. FishMAT seems useful as quick
and easy assessment tool for fishery management in target countries though further
study would be needed for its quality improvement.

【keywords】
fishery management, assessment tool, coastal resource, developing country, MCS

1. Introduction
In many countries, coastal regions are some of the most populated areas. Also a large
share of the world’s marine fish harvest is caught or reared in coastal waters (Rosen(2001)). JICA (2010) has defined fishery sector with following four characteristics, viz. 1)
fishery resource naturally maintains self-sustaining reproductive capability, 2) fisheryresource is mobile and it is difficult to claim possession of it, 3) it is difficult to predict
fluctuation of fishery resource state and fish catch amount, and 4) quality of fisheryproduct easily deteriorates at normal temperature. Garcia and Rosenberg (2010) also
concluded that the fisheries would be important means for regular income source to- 23 -

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

stabilize livelihood for developing countries, especially for their low-income populations.
However, in recent years, many fishery resources have been in serious decline withuncontrolled increase of exploitation, especially in developing countries (FAO (2005)).
Consequently, it should be indispensable to advance fishery resource management in
the developing countries. With these circumstances, Japan has been providing grant aid
of fisheries-related facilities and a considerable amount of technical cooperation for
promotion and management of the fisheries in the developing countries as a part of the
Official Developing Aid (Japanese Fisheries Agency (2014a)). Japanese aid activities
regarding fishery sector have ranged over wide area such as fishing technique, resource
management,

distribution

channels,

processing,aquaculture,environmental

conservation, administration for fisheries, and development of fishing villages (JICA(2010)). However, fishery management measures to prevent overfishing are stillinsufficient in many regions, especially in many developing countries, where fisheryresources, considered as common properties, have been overexploited (e.g. FAO (1996),
FAO (1997), Hilborn et al. (2003), Hilborn and Hilborn (2012)).
One of issues for effective cooperation on fishery resource management would be toobtain a comprehensive view of the current status of fishery management in the target
country in easy and convenient way. In Japan, the concept of resource management tool
box has been developed (Fisheries Research Agency (2009), Makino et al. (2011), andMakino (2013)). In these studies, they classified important measures of the fishery
management in eight categories, and listed beneficial measures to solve the matters ineach category. The tool box would facilitate an understanding of the present fisherystatus of developing countries appropriately. However the categories and measures
were specifically drawn up for understanding Japanese status. Therefore, we need tomodify the tool box for application in developing countries.
We aimed to develop a tool to understand present status of fishery management
according to the local and fishery characteristics; to promote the adequate resource
management measures; and to contribute to the healthy development of local fisheries
in the developing countries. We then compiled the tool named Fishery Management
Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT) by revising and combining theresource management tool box and MCS code. After preparing FishMAT, we attempted
to apply it for understanding the present status of fishery resource management in six
target countries.

2. Methods- 24 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)

To understand present statuses and issues of fishery management in developing
countries, we drew up FishMAT as Table 1 and 2 by integrating the "Resource
Management Toolbox" (Fisheries Research Agency (2009), Makino (2013)) and the “MCScode” (FAO (1994)). The details of FishMAT are as follows.
Table 1 FishMAT: 1/2
Country/Area/fishing：
Entry Method：joint assessment by consultant and local counterparts
Categories

date of the entry：
Person of entry：Authors

WeightFactor

2
1
2
1
1

MCSA
Code2)
M
M
M
M
M

1

M

1
1
2
3

M
M
M
M

1)

On water

On Land

1. Information on the number of fishing vessel and local fishers
2. Information on the number of days of fishing operation
3. Information on the catch amount of principal species
4. Information on the distribution amount of principal species
I)
5. Price data on landing and retail site for principal species
I) Basic
6. Information on the facilities of landing site such as number of
information ofice-making machines and storage
current situation
7. Information on the domestic consumption of principal species
8. Information of the number of middle-persons in active
9. Information of fisheries cooperatives in active
10. Information of resource management activities in local fishers
Score
1. Regulations on inflow/outflow sediment including sands/soil
mining
2. Regulations on sewage and industrial effluent water
3. Regulations on deforestation including mangroveII)
4. Regulation on waste disposal and control
Maintenance/
5. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factors
Rehabilitation
6. Activities for rehabilitation of environment (Coral reef,mangrove, tidal flat and seaweed bed)of the7. Surveillance system for preventing IUU fishing
Ecosystem
8. Seed production & release and installation of nursery groundfor stock enhancement
9. Conservation activities for rare and endangered species
10. Public awareness on the practice of the above factors
Score
1. Fishers / vessel registration system for each fishing type
2. License / permission system for each fishery
3. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factors
4. Zoning of fishing ground by fishing method
5. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
6. Regulation on fishing vessel capabilities such as HP, Tonnage,
lengthIII) Management7. Restrictions on the fishing method including destructive fishing
8. Surveillance system for destructive fishingof efforts(Input-Control) 9. Restrictions on the fishing gear or equipment of fishing vessel
10. Restrictions on the fishing period (months in year)
11. Restrictions on the operational time of fishing（time in a day)
12. Restrictions on allowable operational days (days a year)
13. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
14. Regulation on fishing ground such as no-fishing zones, marine
preserves, MPAs.
15. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
Score
1. Systematic mechanisms to understand fish-catch informationsuch as catch amount, size of caught fish.
2. Regulation on catch size of principal fishery species or
restrictions on catch by maturation stage or sex ofcrustaceans.
3. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
4. Restrictions on by-catch in industrial fishing
5. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
IV)
Management of 6. Restrictions on upper-limit of catch amount per each fisher
7. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
harvests(Output-Control) 8. Restrictions on upper-limit of catch amount per region or in
the nation
9. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factors
10. Regulation or support system on local fishers or fisherycooperative for fish catch recordings
11. Public awareness or fishers' training program regarding
above factors
12. Periodical communications between fishers and government
regarding above factors
Score- 25 -

15

2

C

1
1
1
2

C
C
C
S

2

A

2

S

2

A

1
1

S
A

2
1
2
2
2

15

C
C
S
C
S

1

C

2
2
1
1
1
1
1

C
S
C
C
C
C
S

3

C

3

25

S

2

M

2

C

2
1
1
2
2

S
C
S
C
S

1

C

1

S

2

M

1

A

1

Score

Remarks

%

%

%

A
18

%

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

Table 2 FishMAT: 2/2
Categories

FactorAfter landing

Onboard

1. Activities or guidelines for cost saving of fishing operation
2. Activities or guidelines for fish preservation
3. Activities or guidelines for value-adding to fish products
4. Activities or guidelines for alternative income sources
5. Activities for diversion or change of fishing type
6. Activities for cooperative shipping or marketing by local
fishers groups or fishery cooperatives
V) Business
7. Finance support system such as tax reduction or financial
improvementcompensation for local fishers or fishery cooperatives whichassist any resource management scheme
8. Micro-finance scheme for local fishers
9. Activities for the business development service (BDS) for
fishery cooperatives and related small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs)
10. Public awareness activities by administrative institutions
regarding above factors
Score
1. Activities for improvement of fish preservation techniques
2. Technical guidance by administrative institutions
3. Fishing vessels equipped with cold storage facilities for fishpreservation
4. On-board sanitary standard
VI) Post
5. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
harvest
6. Sanitary and quality standard for fishery products
treatment /7. Surveillance system on the practice of the above factor
processing
8. Activities for improvement of processing techniques
9. Activities for improvement of fishery products distribution
10. Activities for improvement of fish landing factors
11. Activities for improvement of fish markets
12. Public awareness activities by administrative institutions
regarding above factors
Score
1. Officers for dissemination and protection in each local area
2. NGOs supporting fishery management activity
3. Periodical communications between central and local fisheryauthorities
4. Periodical communications between fishery authority andrelated other authorities such as ministry of environment andVII) Human and coast guard
organizational 5. Periodical communications between fishery authority andfisheries cooperatives
capacity
6. Periodical communications between private organizations
such as fisheries cooperatives and NGOs
7. Education system for the local officers
8. Education system for the staff of research institutes
9. Education system for the local fishers
10. Education system for the middlepersons and processing
personsScore
1. Research institutes for fishery science
2. Stock assessment to principal species by local researchers or
institutes
3. Studies for ecological and biological characteristics such as
spawning ground, period on principal species by local
researchers or institutes
4. Studies for oceanography such as current variation, salinitychange and ocean temperature anomaly by local researchers
VIII) Assessment or institutes.
and analysis 5. Studies for biological chemistry on coastal, estuarine andswampy waters by local researchers or institutes
capacity
6. Studies for socioeconomics on fishery by local researchers or
institutes
7. Studies for processing techniques by local researchers or
institutes
8. Studies for fishing equipment and techniques, by local
researchers or institutes
9. Periodical communications between the administrative
organizations and researchers regarding above factors
10. Dissemination activities for the research results regarding
above factors
Score

MCSA
Weight1） Code2）
1
A
2
A
1
A
3
A
1
A
2

A

1

A

2

A

1

A

1
2
1

A
A
A

1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2

C
S
C
S
A
A
A
A

1

%

A
15

M
A

1

M

1

M

2

M

2

M

1
1
2

A
A
A

1
2

Remarks

A
15

1

2
2

Score

%

A
15

M

2

M

2

M

1

M

1

M

2

M

1

M

1

M

1

A

1

%

A
14

%

Notes: 1) Larger number shows high importance2) “M”: Monitoring, “C”: Control, “S”: Surveillance, “A”: Activity

2-1．Modification of Resource Management Toolbox
FishMAT was based on the Resource Management Toolbox (Fisheries Research- 26 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)

Figure 1 Modification of the categories in FishMAT

Figure 1 Modification of the categories in FishMAT

Agency (2009) Makino (2013)) developed for Japanese fishery management. This
Resource Management Toolbox classifying important measures of the fishery
management consists of 8 categories from “A” to “H” as shown in Figure 1. The original
toolbox however contains relatively few factors regarding the traditional activities forfishery management, political will of local leaders and politicians, and local fishers'
concerns about fishery management. These issues have been important to improve
fishery management in developing countries although they are difficult to assess
quantitatively. We modified these categories from I) to VIII) to adapt to the current
conditions of developing countries as described as Figure 1.
For many developing countries, one of important issues for implementing viable
resource management is to understand present status in the country. We appended new
category “Basic information to understand current situation”. The category B isunfamiliar in the developing countries whereas it has been one of standard means inJapan. We combined the category B with category A and renamed the category as“Maintain/Rehabilitation of the Ecosystem”. The category H is for overall advancementof science and technology. It might be practical for developing countries to narrow thescope and renamed it as Assessment and analysis capacity.

2-2．Addition of an item to MCS code
FAO (1994) considers that Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) performances
are crucial for realizing national fishery strategies and capacity building for resource
management. It therefore arranged and defined MCS code as M for “Monitoring” offishing effort characteristics and resource yields, C for “Control” to regulatory
conditions with resource exploitation and S for “surveillance” required to maintaincompliance on fishing activities. However, these MCS code concepts have been
insufficient in many developing countries, where periodic surveillance has not been
- 27 -

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

realistic due to insufficient human and financial resources. Flewwelling et al. (2002)
described the participatory control-with-consensus approach that might be suitable fordeveloping countries due to its cost-effectiveness and ability to deal with social,economic, biological and ecological issues. We considered that the information regarding
management activities in participatory approach and jointly undertaken by local fishers
and administrative institution is also important as well as Monitoring, Control andSurveillance to understand present status of fishery management in developing
countries. Local authority usually must take on such management way with local
fishers or their communities in order to develop effective and sustainable fisheries
management (Kakuma (2003)). Many authors have already noted that the importanceto practically understand the these management activities (e.g. Pinkerton (1987),
Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb (2006), Townsend and Shotton (2008), Cohen et al. (2008),
Ruddle and Satria (2010)). We therefore appended “Management Activities (A)” inparticipatory approach or co-management activities to the MCS code for developing
countries and employed MCSA (Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and management
Activity) code to understand the present status more effectively in this study.
2-3．Arrangement and weighting of factors in each category
We aimed at identifying the vulnerable and therefore high priority domains in fishery
management by utilizing FishMAT combining eight categories with MCSA code. Factors
in each category were selected as basic information for fishery management. These werebasically adopted from the Resource Management Toolbox. However factors attributing
to the category of “I) Basic information of current situation” were chosen as basic
information for resource management. Similarly, for the category of “VIII) Assessment
and analysis capacity”, activities and facilities for collecting basic information tounderstand current situation were selected as the factors. Within the “III) Managementof efforts (Input-Control)” and “IV) Management of harvests (Output-Control)”, we
excluded factors regarding TAC and IQ listed in the Resource Management Toolbox
since there were few cases in coastal waters of the developing countries. We thenchecked the presence or absence of each factor in the target country. However, it isdifficult to judge the presence or absence of factors due to the fact that target countries
have varied conditions depending on target area, target species and fishing method,even within the same country. We decided to count it as "present" when even one case of
the factor was recorded in the country to avoid temporal constraint. In addition, eachfactor was categorized into MCSA code in order to understand practical accomplishment- 28 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)

in each MCSA performance.
Furthermore, due to each factor in the category varying in importance to contribute to
the fishery management, we set weighted score on each factor to three ranks (1~3, 3prime) based on our experience and knowledge obtained through many fishery
management

projects.

We

then

calculated

proportionofweightedcodeofimplementation factors and all factors in each category for multidimensional evaluationof fishery management of target country.
The details of each category for fishery management were shown as follows.
(1) I) Basic information of current situation
In this category, we selected ten factors as necessary information for improvement offishery management. Within these factors, factor 10 would be the most important one
for effective fishery management and we weighed it as 3. Likewise, factors 1, 3 and 9
would be the indispensable information and we weighed them as 2. We weighed theremaining factors as 1. We also categorized all ten factors as the M (Monitoring) in
MCSA code.
(2) II) Maintenance/Rehabilitation of the Ecosystem
We divided this category into two sub-categories, viz. On-land and On-wateraccording to Fisheries Research Agency (2009) and Makino (2013) and selected fivefactors in each sub-category. Within these factors, factor 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would be theindispensable for conservation and restoration of coastal ecosystem and we weighed it
as 2. We weighed the remaining factor as 1. We also categorize factors 1 to 4 as C
(Control), factors 5 and 7 as S (Surveillance), factors 6, 8 and 10 as A (Management
Activity) in MCSA code.
(3) III) Management of efforts (Input-Control)
In this category, we selected fifteen factors as necessary information for improvementof fishery management. Since this category was directly connected to resource
management, the number of factors in this category was larger than other categories.
Within these factors, factor 14 and 15 would be directly related to effective resource
management and we weighed it as 3. Likewise, factors 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 would be theindispensable information and we weighed them as 2. We weighed the remaining factor
as 1. We also categorize factors 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 as C (Control), factors 3,
5, 8, 13 and 15 as S (surveillance) in MCSA code.
(4) IV) Management of harvests (Output-Control)
In this category, we selected twelve factors as necessary information for improvementof fishery management. Since this category was directly connected to resource- 29 -

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

management as well as the category III, the number of factors in this category waslarger than other categories. Within these factors, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 10 would be theindispensable information and we weighed them as 2. We weighed the remaining
factors as 1. We also categorize factors 1 and 10 as M (Monitoring), 2, 4, 6 and 8 as C
(Control), 3, 5, 7, 9 as S (surveillance), 11 and 12 as A (Management Activity) in MCSA
code respectively.
(5) V) Business improvement
This category would be closely related to the standard of living improvement of local
fishers and therefore would be essential for sustainable fishery management indeveloping countries. In this category, we selected ten factors as necessary information
for improvement of fishery management. Within these factors, factor 4 would be themost important one for effective fishery management in developing countries and weweighed it as 3. Likewise, factors 2, 6 and 8 would be the indispensable information andwe weighed them as 2. We weighed the remaining factors as 1. We also categorized allten factors as the A (Management Activity) in MCSA code.
(6) VI) Post harvest treatment / processing
As well as category V, this category would be also important for improvement of
livelihood of local fishers and distributor for fishery products. Fisheries Research
Agency (2009) and Makino (2013) divided this category into two sub-categories such as"On-board" and "After landing" to make the meanings of the factors in this category
clearer. We followed their arrangement and selected twelve factors as necessary
information for Improvement of processing and distribution for fish products. Withinthese factors, factors 1, 9 and 11 would be the indispensable for improvement of thelivelihood of local fishers and distributors for fishery products and we weighed them as
2. We weighed the remains as 1. We also categorize factors 4 and 6 as C (Control), 5 and
7 as S (surveillance), 1 to 3 and 8 to 12 as A (Management Activity) in MCSA code
respectively.
(7) VII) Human and organizational capacity
It might be essential for carrying out sustainable fishery management to establish ahuman resource administration and organization system. In this context, we selected
ten factors in this category as necessary information regarding enforcement of humanresource and organization system. Within these factors, factors 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 would be
the indispensable information since these factors were important to maintain andexpand capacity building and institutional reinforcement and we weighed them as 2.
We weighed the remaining factors as 1. We also categorize factors 1 and 3 to 6 as M
- 30 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)(Monitoring), 2 and 7 to 10 as A (Management Activity) in MCSA code respectively.
(8) VIII) Assessment and analysis capacity
This category might be essential for understand the standing stock of fishery resourceand environmental status in coastal waters. In this category, we selected ten factors asnecessary information for improvement of fishery management. Within these factors,
factors 1 to 3 and 6 would be the indispensable information since these factors wereclosely related to stock assessment and other scientific research. We therefore weighedthem as 2. We weighed the remaining factors as 1. We also categorize factors 1 to 8 as M
(Monitoring), 9 and 10 as A (Management Activity) in MCSA code respectively.

Table 3 Factors in category and MCSA code
MCSA code
CategoryI) Basic information ofcurrent situation

M(Monitoring)C(Control)S(Surveillance)I)1(2), I)2(1), I)3(2),I)4(1), I)5(1), I)6(1),I)7(1), I)8(1), I)9(2),I)10(3)II)1(2), II)2(1),II)3(1), II)4(1)II)5(2), II)7(2),II)9(1)

III) Management ofefforts(Input-Control)III)1(2), III)2(1),III)4(2), III)6(1),III)7(2), III)9(1),III)10(1), III)11(1),III)12(1), III)14(3)III)3(2), III)5(2),III)8(2),
III)13(1),III)15(3)IV)2(2), IV)4(1),IV)6(2), IV)8(1)IV)3(2), V)5(1),IV)7(2), IV)9(1)IV)1(2), IV)10(2)V) Business
improvement

VI) Post harvest
treatment /processingV)4(1), V)6(1)

V)5(1), V)7(1),II)6(2), II)8(2),II)10(1)

IV)11(1), IV)12(1)12 (18)V)1(1), V)2(2),V)3(1), V)4(3),V)5(1), V)6(2),V)7(1), V)8(2),V)9(1), V)10(1)10 (15)V)1(2), V)2(1),V)3(1), V)8(1),V)9(2), V)10(1),V)11(2),V)12(1)12 (15)10 (15)VII)1(2),VII)3(1),VII)4(1),VII)5(2),VII)6(2),VII)2(2),VII)7(1),VII)8(1),VII)9(2),VII)10(1)

VIII) Assessment andanalysis capacity

VIII)1(2),VIII)2(2),VIII)3(2),VIII)4(1),
VIII)5(1),VIII)6(2),VIII)7(1), VIII)8(1)

VIII)9(1),VIII)10(1)25 (39)20 (28)14 (22)

Notes: 1) Number in bracket shows weight of each factor- 31 -

10 (15)15 (25)VII) Human andorganizational
capacity

Total in each MCSA
code

Total ineach
category

10 (15)II)Maintenance/Rehabil
itation of the
EcosystemIV) Management of
harvests(Output-Control)A(Management
Activities)

32 (42)10 (14)

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

2-4．The way to understand present status of target country by FishMAT
Using FishMAT, we calculated the total weight of factors marked in each category andcalculated the percentage of each in the total weight of the category. In the samemanner, we calculated percentage of total weight of factors marked in each MCSA code.
Each percentage calculated was utilized as benchmark for the performance measure ofeach category. We sorted out factors and the total of these weights in each category and
MCSA code as shown in table 3.
2-5．The verification of efficacy of FishMAT
To verify the efficacy of FishMAT, we implemented field survey at Republic of
Suriname in South America and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean
region from November 30th to December 6th and December 9th to 18th 2014
respectively. In the survey, we interviewed local officers and fishers and reviewed local
sites of coastal villages to understand present status of the local fisheries in bothcountries. Along with these activities, we had trial session to complete FishMAT with
officers in charge for fishery management section of the fishery division or department
in each country. As the criteria of selecting interviewees, we selected a number of theofficers and section chiefs who have field experience of fishery sector more than 10 years
and the leaders of local fishery cooperatives. We then compared the results of FishMAT
and the field survey in order to confirm the effectiveness of FishMAT.
2-6．Comparison of current situations of target countries implemented
After the verifications of FishMAT as described above, we compared current
situations of the countries estimated by FishMAT with another four countries, which we
had baseline data through studies for overseas fishery resources management for"Socialist Republic of Viet Nam" and "Republic of Senegal" (Japanese Fisheries Agency,(2013)) and for "United Republic of Tanzania" and "Republic of Palau" (JapaneseFisheries Agency (2014b)).

3．Results
3-1．Republic of Suriname
The results for Republic of Suriname are shown in Table 4.
In the FishMAT for Republic of Suriname, the percentage of categories V), VI) andVIII) were 33 %, 47 % and 14% respectively, all less than 50 %. The lowest score was in- 32 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)

Table 4 Results for Republic of Suriname in the category and MCSA code
MCSA code
CategoryI.
Basic information tounderstand current
situation
II.
Maintain/Rehabilitationof the Ecosystem
III. Resource management(Input-Control)
IV. Resource management(Output-Control)
V.
Improvement of businessstructure
VI. Improvement ofprocessing anddistribution for fish
products
VII. Reinforcement of humanresource andorganizations
VIII. Reinforcement of
Capabilities forassessment and analysis
Total(%)

M
CS(Monitoring) (Control) (Surveillance)A(Management
Activities)

11 / 15

2/4

Total (%)
11 / 15 (73 %)

4/5

3/5

12 / 152 / 10

3/6

3/6

1/5

8 / 15 (53 %)14 / 25 (56 %)2/2

10 / 18 (56 %)5 / 155 / 15 (33 %)5 / 11

7 / 15 (47 %)

8/8

2/7

10 / 15 (67 %)2 / 120/2

2 / 14 (14 %)15 / 42(36 %)

67 / 132(51 %)

1/2

23 / 39(59 %)

20 / 28(71 %)

1/2

9 / 23(39 %)

category VIII), indicating that the Republic of Suriname seems to need powerfulmeasures for reinforcement of "capabilities for assessment and analysis (VIII)", followed
by "reinforcement of improvement of business structure (V)" and "improvement ofprocessing and distribution for fish products (VI)" for improvement of its effective
fishery management from the result of FishMAT. In MCSA code, S (Surveillance) and A(Management Activity) were less than half at 39 % and 36 % respectively. Even in the
category showing more than half, the score of S (Surveillance) in category III was 2/10
and the scores of A (Management Activity) in II and VII were 1/5 and 2/7 respectively.
Therefore, Surveillance might be a key action for the further reinforcement of category
III as well as Management activity for the categories II and VII.
The qualitative information of each category collected in our field survey was shownin Table 5.
In Republic of Suriname, industrial fishery has been developed relatively and various
fishery systems and their monitoring schemes have been relatively equipped. However,the Reinforcement of Capabilities for assessment and analysis has been rather poor. It
would be exigent to step up analytical facility and capability for fishery and related data.
In addition, many artisanal fishers appealed for the improvement of business structure.
It seems that the trial run of microfinance would be an especially important issue.
The above-mentioned result almost accords with a result provided in FishMAT.
- 33 -

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

Table 5 Qualitative information of each category in Republic of Suriname
CategoryI) Basic
information ofcurrent situation

II) Maintenance /Rehabilitation of
the Ecosystem
III) Managementof efforts(Input-Control)IV) Managementof harvests(Output-Control)V) Business
improvement

VI) Post harvest
treatment /processingVII) Human andorganizational
capacityVIII) Assessment
and analysis
capacity

Suriname
Data collectors dispatched from the Department of Fisheries recorded
landing amount of fishery product in main landing stations every day.
Most of the fishery products have been exported with a customs
record and the landing and distribution amounts of fishery products
have been comparatively determined by the government entity.
Therefore, this category seems to work effectively.
The regulation and law enforcement for earth and sand mining,
deforestation and waste disposal have been relatively provided.
Control for rare species conservation and its propagation have been
implemented. Therefore, this category seems to reach a certain level
though of sewage control and resource propagation activities.
As mentioned above, registration and licensing systems with a focus
on industrial fishery have been comparatively provided since large
proportion of fishery products have been exported with record andcustom control have been undertaken on foreign fishing vessel. In
addition, the legislative bill for jurisdiction of the coast guard forcontrol of IUU fishing has been tabled in the parliament. Therefore,
this category seems to reach a certain level while record systems forartisanal fishers and small out-board engine boat have not been
sufficient.
The controls for size limit and fishery amount for high value andexported fish have been securely implemented. Therefore, thiscategory seems to reach a certain level though monitoring systems forcoarse fish species by artisanal fishery have not been sufficient.
It seems there is not enough to support for business development anda need to establish the system of microfinance. Althoughdevelopments of guidelines for the administrative improvement ofsmall scale fishery and related activities have been progressing, theseare only halfway complete. A trial of microfinancing scheme is now
undertaken in agriculture whereas there is no this activity in fisherysector.
In the fishery targeting high value and exported fish, there have been
several improvements for storage and quality control. Responding tothese activities, many small-scale fishers also have brought blocks ofice for their fishing operation. The Department of fisheries also has
been promoting fish processing activities. However, in our interviews
with local fishers, many described the requirement for fulfillment of
ice making machinery and the beneficial change of distribution
system for fishery products. Therefore, the need for several actions inthis category seems to be high.
Local authority’s mandates for fishery management or distribution offishery products have been set up and have been relatively active.
Therefore, this category seems to reach a certain level although few
training courses for extension workers, artisanal fishers anddistributors have been implemented.
Human and financial resources for scientific research and assessment
have been insufficient. There is no research institute for fisherystatistics, stock assessment and marine surveys exclusive of the
University of Suriname. Consequently, analysis of fishery datacollected from local fishing vessels has not been thoroughly
implemented.

- 34 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)

3-2．Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
The results for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are shown in Table 6.
In the FishMAT for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the percentage of categories
IV), V) and VIII) were less than half as 44 %, 40 % and 43 % respectively. Therefore fromthe result of FishMAT., Saint Vincent and the Grenadines seems to need measures forreinforcement of "reinforcement of improvement of business structure (V)", "capabilities
for assessment and analysis (VIII)" and "Resource management (Output-Control) (IV)”to realizer improvement of its effective fishery management. In MCSA code, there wasno item less than 50%.
However checking the categories individually, the score of A (Management Activity) in
category II was 1/5, scores of C (Control) and S (Surveillance) in category IV were both
2/6, score of A (Management Activity) in category V was 6/15 and score of M
(Monitoring) in category VIII was 4/12 respectively. Therefore, management activities
may be a key action for the reinforcement of category II and V as well as control andsurveillance for the categories IV and monitoring for the category VIII.
The qualitative information of each category collected in our field survey was shownin Table 7.
In the case of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the results of FishMAT are almost
same as qualitative information collected in our field survey.

Table 6 Results for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in the category and MCSA code
MCSA code
CategoryI.
Basic information tounderstand current
situation
II.
Maintain/Rehabilitation of
the Ecosystem
III.
Resource management(Input-Control)
IV.
Resource management(Output-Control)
V.
Improvement of businessstructureVI.
Improvement of processing
and distribution for fish
products
VII.
Reinforcement of humanresource and organizations
VIII. Reinforcement of
Capabilities for assessment
and analysis
Total(%)

M

C

S

A

8 / 15

2/4

Total (%)
8 / 15 (53 %)

5/5

5/5

9 / 155 / 10

2/6

2/6

1/5

11 / 15 (73 %)
14 / 25 (56 %)2/2

8 / 18 (44 %)6 / 156 / 15 (40 %)9 / 1112 / 15 (80 %)

8/8

6/7

14 / 15 (93 %)4 / 12

2/2

6 / 14 (43 %)26 / 42(62 %)

79 / 132(60 %)

2/2

22 / 39(56 %)

18 / 28(64 %)- 35 -

1/2

13 / 23(57 %)

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

Table 7 Qualitative information of each category in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
CategoryI) Basic
information ofcurrent situation

II) Maintenance/ Rehabilitationof the Ecosystem

III) Managementof efforts(Input-Control)IV) Managementof harvests(Output-Control)V) Business
improvement

VI) Post harvest
treatment /processingVII) Human andorganizational
capacity

VIII)
Assessment andanalysis capacity

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
The Division of Fisheries allocated data collectors in main landing
stations including isolated islands in the Grenadines to collect dataon landing amount of fishery product. The basic information on
landing and distribution amounts therefore has been comparatively
figured out by the government and this category seems to work
effectively.
The regulations and law enforcement for earth and sand mining,
deforestation and waste disposal have been provided. The
conservation for rare species and its propagation have been
implemented. With Japanese cooperation, the division of Fisheries
deployed artificial reefs for lobster in the marine protected area.
Therefore, this category seems to reach an acceptable level.
In Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, registration and licensing
systems for local fishers have been provided. Regulations for the size
limit and fishing period for high value species such as lobster andconch have been also enforced. Therefore, this category seems toreach an acceptable level although record systems for coastal fish
species such as sardine and horse mackerels have not been sufficient.
The controls for size limit and fishery amount for high value andexported fish have been securely implemented. Therefore, thiscategory seems to reach an acceptable level though data collecting forsmall coastal fish species targeting for self-consumption by artisanal
fishery have not been sufficient.
The outreaches of alternative income sources and processing
activities have been comparatively implemented. However support
systems for business development and microfinance have been hardly
implemented. The needs of activities regarding this category would behigh in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
For high value and exported fish, there have been several
improvements for storage and quality control. Although some local
artisanal fishers wanted maintenances of ice making facilities andaccess to the fishery markets in our interview, the basic facilities
seems to be relatively provided.
Local authority’s mandates for fishery management or distribution offishery products have been provided and training schemes forextension workers, artisanal fishers and distributors have been
implemented with assistances of multilateral development banks andbilateral donors.
Human and financial resources for scientific research and assessment
have been insufficient and these research works have depended
heavily on assistance of regional organizations such as Caribbean
Region Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM).

3-3．Comparison of current situations of target countries
We compared the results of the FishMAT for two countries viz. Republic of Suriname(hereinafter referred to as Suriname) and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines(hereinafter referred to as SVG) with the other four countries viz. Socialist Republic of- 36 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)

Table 8 Comparison of six countries based on the results of FishMAT
Countries
Suriname
Category
Basic information toI.
understand current
73%
situation
Maintain/Rehabilitation ofII.
53%
the Ecosystem
Resource management
III.
56%(Input-Control)
Resource management
IV.
56%(Output-Control)
Improvement of businessV.
33%
structure
Improvement of processingVI.
and distribution for fish
47%
products
Reinforcement of humanVII.
67%
resource and organizations
Reinforcement of
VIII. Capabilities for assessment
14%
and analysis

SVG

Tanzania

Palau

Viet-Nam Senegal

53%

80%

47%

53%

93%

73%

53%

100%

60%

87%

56%

68%

56%

64%

68%

44%

61%

39%

44%

72%

40%

33%

33%

93%

67%

80%

20%

13%

100%

80%

93%

47%

60%

60%

67%

43%

64%

64%

86%

57%

Viet Nam (hereinafter referred to as Viet-Nam), Republic of Senegal (hereinafterreferred to as Senegal), United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as
Tanzania) and Republic of Palau (hereinafter referred to as Palau), collected data in thetwo studies (Japanese Fishery Agency (2013), Japanese Fishery Agency (2014b)).
Results of FishMAT for those four countries were also compared with the qualitative
information of each category described in the reports. There were no wide differences
between the results of FishMAT and the qualitative information of each target country
described in the reports as well as two countries above-mentioned. The results of
FishMAT are shown in Table 8.
Within the table, highlighted columns show values less than 50%. These results
indicated that the percentages of the categories I, II, III and VII were high in the mostcountries whereas the percentage of category V ranged from 30 to 40% in four countries
out of the six. It therefore suggested that the category of the improvement of businessstructure might be in need of international assistance in these countries. Regarding
categories VI and VIII, some countries exhibited high percentages while some exhibitedvery low percentages. This suggests that the needs vary according to the situation ofeach country.

4．Discussion
4-1．A quick and easy tool
- 37 -

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA

To date, there are almost no tools to understand the present status of fishery
management comprehensively in developing countries, with quick and easy methods.
FishMAT was designed for such a quick and easy tool. The present status obtained fromthe FishMAT results of six countries corresponds well to the results of fieldworks we
implemented in these countries. It therefore might be useful to overview the fishery
management status in developing countries. Tietze et al. (2006) collected case studies offishery management in the Caribbean region with comparative studies of Malaysia andthe Philippines. They described the status of each country with extensive description in
the report. By combining quick and easy FishMAT and these extensive descriptions, we
could gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of present status of thefishery management in developing countries.
4-2. Collaboration among local staff and outside experts
Since FishMAT was designed to provide quick and easy way to assess the present
status of fishery management, even one case on each factor provides the score in the
category in our six country case studies. If a similar approach is adopted, a local person
who knows detailed local situation would tend to mark high score. For example, hemight take up cases performed in a small scale in remote districts or cases performed
mainly by foreign donors. On the other hand, a person dispatched from an internationalorganization to study the present status of the fishery management would tend to marklow score because of his or her unfamiliarity with local country situation. Althoughthese tendencies still need to be resolved, one of solutions for increasing accuracy of
FishMAT would be collaboration among local staff and outside experts. The local officers
in charge who know local situation well can cooperate with outside experts who know
general issues on marking FishMAT. When Japanese or other missions use FishMAT, it
would be preferable to reach a consensus between the mission side and the local side foreach factor.
4-3．A mutual learning tool
Although FishMAT was designed primarily for assessment, it could be used as amutual learning tool. In the Philippines where thousands of community-based or
government-set Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) exist, Marine Protected Area
Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT) was devised (Philippines CTI NCC(2011)). MEAT was designed mainly for assessment. However, people in the hundreds ofcommunities have learned how to make their MPAs more effective by filling the MEAT
- 38 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)

sheets of their MPAs, and observing the sheets of the other site MPAs. The local staff orcounterparts of Japanese cooperation projects who are responsible for the fisheries
management could thus learn the status of the management in their countries, anddevelop potential measures to make the management better. If FishMAT is applied forthe fisheries in many fishing villages, people in the villages could learn from finding
developed at the other sites, like the cases of MEAT in the Philippines.

4-4．Other issues of FishMAT
Since the conditions of fishery management may differ greatly, and the factors andtheir weights in the eight categories were decided based on our experiences, the factors
and weights could be reconfigured depending on the situations and the needs of thetarget countries.
The numbers of factors among each category and MCSA code are different since theconsiderable and indispensable factors usually vary in each category and in MCSA code.
These divergences however would not deflect from showing present status of the target
countries in the result of this study. Nevertheless, since we collected data from only six
countries and the effectiveness was evaluated by qualitative verification, the present
FishMAT might be considered as a prototype, and we need to raise the reliability byaccumulating additional data and revising it appropriately in future.
Similarly, we adopted weighted score on each factor to three ranks due to importanceof each factor on FishMAT. These ranks are simple ordinal numbers and do not mean
Euclidean distance. For instance, rank 2 is more important than 1, but not necessarily
twice as much. Within this study we simply treated the score as numeric measures andcalculated the ratio of each category, though some technical aspects of handling therank might be questioned. The subtle variations in the obtained values therefore may
not show relative merit. In the future, we must consider utilizing more statisticallyrobust manners. It would be possible to apply the multi-attribute decision analysis or
analytic hierarchy process to cope with this weighting issue.

References[1] Cohen P., Valemei A.D. and Govan H. (2008) Annotated bibliography on socio-economicand ecological impacts of marine protected areas in Pacific island countries, World Fish
Center, Malaysia.
[2] FAO (1994) An introduction to monitoring, control and surveillance systems for capture

fisheries, FAO fisheries technical paper, 338, FAO, Rome, Italy.

- 39 -

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA[3] FAO (1996) Fishing operations, FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries 1,
FAO, Rome, Italy.
[4] FAO (1997) Fisheries management, FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries 4,
FAO, Rome, Italy.
[5] FAO (2005) Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviationand food security, FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries 10, FAO, Rome,
Italy.
[6] Fisheries Research Agency (2009) The way of the management of the general marine

resources, fishery in our country (Final Report) , (wagakuni niokeru sougoutekina
suisan shigen gyogyou no kanri no arikata (saishu houkoku) , Fisheries Research
Agency, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
[7] Flewwelling P., Cullinan, C., Balton, D., Sautter, R. P. and Reynolds, J. E. (2002) Recent

trends in monitoring, control and surveillance systems for capture fisheries, FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 415, FAO, Rome, Italy.
[8] Garcia, S. M. and Rosenberg, A. A. (2010) “Food security and marine capture fisheries:
characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 365,2869-2880.
[9] Hilborn, R., Branch, T. A., Ernst, B., Magnusson, A., Minte-Vera, C. V., Scheuerell, M. D.
and Valero, J. L. (2003) “State of the world's fisheries”, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour,

2003, 28, 359-399.
[10] Hilborn, R. and Hilborn, U. (2012) Overfishing, what everyone needs to know, Oxford
University Press, New York, USA.
[11] Japanese Fisheries Agency (2013) Baseline study for overseas fishery resourcesmanagement 2012 (Heisei 25 nendo kaigai suisan shigen kanri kiso chousa itakujigyou
houkokusyo), Japanese Fisheries Agency, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
[12] Japanese Fisheries Agency (2014a) White Paper on fisheries 2014, (Suisan Hakusyo,heisei 26 nenban), Association of Agriculture and Forestry Statistics, Tokyo, Japan (inJapanese).
[13] Japanese Fisheries Agency (2014b) Baseline study for overseas fishery resourcesmanagement 2013, (Heisei 26 nendo kaigai suisan shigen kanri kiso chousa itakujigyou
houkokusyo), Japanese Fisheries Agency, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
[14] JICA (2010) Guideline of fishery sector (Kadaibetsu Shishin, Suisan), JICA, Tokyo,
Japan (in Japanese).
[15] Kakuma, S. (2003) “Coral reef fisheries co-management in tropic and sub-tropic
regions”, Galaxea, 5, 69-77.

- 40 -

Fishery Management Assessment Tool for Developing Country (FishMAT)[16] Makino, M. (2013) Institutional analysis of Japanese fisheries, fishery management andecosystem conservation, (nihon gyogyou seido no seido bunseki, gyogyou kanri to seitai
hozen), Kouseisha-kouseikaku, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
[17] Makino, M., Hirota, M. and Machiguchi, Y. (2011) “An application of the management
tool box to coastal fisheries - a case of sea cucumber fisheries”, Fisheries biology andoceanography in the Kuroshio, 12, 25-39 (in Japanese).
[18] Philippines CTI NCC (2011) MPA MEAT, Marine Protected Area Management

Effectiveness Assessment Tool, TheMarine Science Institute, University of thePhilippines, Quezon, Philippines.
[19] Pinkerton E. (1987) “Introduction: attaining better fisheries management throughco-management-prospects, problems, and propositions”, in E. Pinkerton (ed.)

Co-operative management of local fisheries, University of British Columbia Press,
Canada, 1-33.
[20] Pomeroy R.S. and Rivera-Guieb R. (2006) Fishery co-management; A practicalhandbook, CABI Publishing, UK.
[21] Rosen, C. (2001) World resources 2000-2001, people and ecosystems, the fraying web oflife, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK.
[22] Ruddle K. and Satria A. (2010) “An introduction to pre-existing local management
systems in southeast Asia”, in K. Ruddle and A. Satria (ed.) Managing coastal andinland waters, Springer, 1-30.
[23] Tietze, U., Haughton, M. and Siar, S. V. (2006) Socio-economic indicators in integrated

coastal zone and community-based fisheries management, case studies from the
Caribbean, FAO fisheries technical paper 491, FAO, Rome, Italy.
[24] Townsend R. and Shotton R. (2008) “Fisheries self-governance: new directions infisheries management”, in R. Townsend and R. Shotton (ed.) Case studies in fisheries

self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, FAO, Rome, Italy, 1-19.

[Acknowledgments] This study was undertaken as a part of baseline study of overseas

fishery resources management organized by and reported to Japanese Fishery Agency.
We would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Hidenao Watanabe, Mr. Yasuo Aoki, Mr.
Tsuyoshi Koga and other staff of Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Office, Japanese fisheries
Agency for giving us the opportunity to implement this study with providing valuable advice.
We also would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Harusuke Inuki and Mr. Atsushi Sagaand other staff of Marino-Forum 21 for their patient logistic and administrative supports.
We are grateful to Dr. Takaomi Kaneko of National Research Institute of Fisheries Science,- 41 -

Hiroaki TERASHIMA, Ron ISHITANI and Shinichiro KAKUMA
Mr. Jun Machida of National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations, and Mr.
Naoshi Tamura of Iwate University for giving us several valuable comments and advices for
implementation of the study. We would like to thank Mr. Rene B. L. Lieveld, Mr.
Radjeskumar Asraf and other staff of Fishery Department of Republic of Suriname, Ms
Jennifer Howard, Kris Isaacs, Jeremy Searles and other staff of Fisheries Division of Saint
Vincent and the grenadines, and Dr. Susan Singh-Renton, Ms. June Masters, Ms. Elizabeth
Mohammed and other staff of Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism for their
enthusiastic support for preparing FishMAT. Our thanks also go to Dr. Daniel Sheehy of
Aquabio Inc. and Mr. Javed Iqbal Mosaheb of the Mauritius Oceanography Institute for
their valuable comments and advice to improve this manuscript.

- 42 -