Citizen participation is a fundamental axis of good governance because, by involving various sectors of the population and groups interested in certain problems, the debate is enriched, different points of view are incorporated and, therefore, better decisions are made.
In Mexico, formal mechanisms for citizen participation in public policy decision-making appeared in the 1980s with the creation of committees and advisory councils in the federal public administration to promote “participation in development planning” (1). More specifically, in fisheries matters, participation mechanisms appeared late, and it was until the publication, in 2007, of the General Law on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (LGPAS), that formal bases were established for the creation, operation and operation of participation mechanisms for fish and aquaculture producers 1 2.
The LGPAS mainly promotes the integration of State Fisheries and Aquaculture Councils headed by the National Council for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Articles 22 and 23), but it also promotes the creation of other participation mechanisms that, in collaboration with entities and municipalities, help to monitor and update Fisheries Management Plans for the conservation of fishery and aquaculture resources (Art. 39 section III). It is in this context that the Advisory Committees for Fisheries Management and Management (2) emerge.
Both the State Fisheries and Aquaculture Councils and the Fishery Management and Management Advisory Committees are instruments of fisheries governance that, as discussed below, have great potential for complementarity and mutual reinforcement to promote more robust and efficient management decisions.
State Fisheries and Aquaculture Councils
The LGPAS defines State Councils as mechanisms for citizen participation to issue opinions and technical observations regarding requests for the use of fishery and aquaculture resources, as well as to contribute to the objectives of Fisheries Management Plans (2). In most cases, the purpose of State Councils, stipulated in each State Fisheries and Aquaculture Act, is to serve as consultation, promotion, analysis, coordination and consultation bodies to formulate actions and/or to propose policies, programs and projects of a state nature in the field of fishing and aquaculture. However, there are State Councils that have more powers, such as the one in Puebla, whose State Law allows it to design state aquaculture and fishing policy 3, or that of Yucatán, whose Regulations of the State Law allow it to prepare proposals for preliminary draft technical standards for the use of fishing resources 4.
Despite the fact that fishing and aquaculture activities are carried out in many parts of the country, only thirteen State Councils are formally constituted or installed. However, of these thirteen, only six sessions were held during the period from 2012 to 2019: Baja California, Baja California Sur, Yucatán, Sonora, Nayarit and Tamaulipas. Among the most active Councils are those of Baja California and Yucatán, while others, such as those of Sonora and Tamaulipas, met only for installation in 2019 (4).
Regarding their level of institutionality, it is important to mention that not all installed State Councils, active or inactive, have a regulatory document or internal regulation. Only the states of Baja California, Sinaloa, Sonora and Tabasco have this important instrument that describes the structure of representation, and the functioning and responsibilities of both the Council as a whole and its members. The decrees creating the State Councils and their respective regulations require periodic updates to harmonize them with new local conditions, with new participants in the fishing sector in the states, or with the changes that are made to the organizational structure of state governments.
The regulatory documents of these fisheries governance spaces are also an indicator of their openness to participation. In the State Councils for Fisheries and Aquaculture, actors from different groups interested in the sector come together to represent and explain in full the concerns, not only of government entities, but also of fishing organizations or cooperatives, of fishing committees, companies, distributors and marketers, or of academic institutions and civil society organizations. The Index of Citizen Participation in Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020, a metric that evaluates representation, transparency and accountability, as well as autonomy and level of incidence, revealed that the Councils with the most participatory regulatory structure are those of Baja California, Michoacán, Sonora and Baja California Sur; while the most closed Councils are those of Nayarit, Campeche, Chiapas and Sinaloa (4).
Fishery Management and Management Advisory Committees
There are 17 Fishery Management and Management Advisory Committees for fisheries on the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts; of these, the oldest is that of curvina golfina in Sonora, and the most recent, that of octopus in Campeche. These committees have several objectives identified since their creation and formalization, ranging from the establishment of fisheries policy instruments, such as fisheries management plans or fisheries management programs. Committees can contribute to the definition of recommendations and strategies for managing one or more fishery resources, or in priority regions for the development of various fisheries. In addition, the Consultative Committees are multiparty and their members provide and propose management measures for the sustainable use of resources, as well as the evaluation, analysis or promotion of bans, catch quotas, schemes for assigning catch quotas, minimum sizes, fishing gear, fishing refuge areas, status of use of resources or ecosystems, among others.
Most of these committees meet at least once a year and others are extremely active, meeting up to five times a year. Several of them require tristate coordination, since, on occasion, a fishery can be shared between coastal communities in several states. Within these committees, there may be representation of one or two fishing fleets, as well as representatives of indigenous communities; or, they not only analyze a single fishery, but they were formed to organize fishing management decisions for an ecosystem where up to five fisheries are exploited.
Strengths and weaknesses of spaces for citizen participation in the field of fishing
One of the greatest strengths of the State Fisheries and Aquaculture Councils is that they are spaces for participation formally recognized in the LGPAS, with a structure directed and supported by a central body that is the National Council for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture. This gives them a significant degree of impact on the decision-making process by the authorities in the field of fisheries, the National Aquaculture and Fisheries Commission (Conapesca) and the National Fisheries Institute (Inapesca).
Its great weakness, however, is that there are few State Councils that operate, besides that they are not really perceived as spaces where grassroots organizations, such as fishing cooperatives and the same Advisory Committees for Fisheries Management and Management, can bring their concerns and interests, in search of solutions. The State Councils for Fisheries and Aquaculture are identified, rather, as spaces where the government informs the productive sector about the decisions it has taken in fishing matters (4).
Unlike the State Fisheries Councils, which have a very homogeneous structure and functioning, similar to that presented by the National Council for Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Advisory Committees for Fishery Management and Management are tailor-made participation mechanisms. Each committee is organized according to its needs; its members (users, agencies, civil society organizations and academics) are structured according to their regulations, participatory dynamics of each fishery and convene sessions as required.
The institutional design and the formal or informal rules that govern these spaces define the involvement of their members, and the attention given to the problems of each fishery. Those committees whose board representatives are local (and who represent federal and state agencies) tend to meet more frequently than those where representation requires the managers of the agencies involved. On the contrary, other committees do not meet as often, since the representation of federal authorities depends on the availability of managers of the central offices of the agencies. This measure, although it can address problems in a more expeditious manner, also causes a disadvantage in coordinating agendas for the attention of urgent issues, or those that require consensus.
Opportunities to improve and strengthen the functioning of State Fisheries Councils and Fishery Management and Management Advisory Committees
Thus, the State Councils for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Advisory Committees for Fishery Management and Management present enormous opportunities to make these authentic spaces for citizen participation, where fisheries actions and policies are defined in a coordinated manner. Although both pursue a common goal, they operate in a disjointed manner with opportunities for improvement in their design and operation.
Some recommendations that are identified to reinforce them, making them more useful spaces are:
First, it is important to promote the installation of all State Fisheries Councils, as well as to modify their design, allowing for wider and more equitable participation. This will motivate greater appropriation of social subjects and, consequently, will trigger greater dynamism in their operation.
Second, it is recommended that the Advisory Committees for Fisheries Management and Management have the endorsement of the general directorates of Conapesca and Inapesca so that their representatives of state coordinators and regional centers chair the committees, since this will improve expeditious attention to issues of interest.
Third, representatives of the fishing sector who participate, both in Councils and in Committees, must inform their members about the issues addressed in the sessions and, in the same way, bring concerns, problems and proposals for solutions to the assemblies of these spaces for participation. This will keep its spirit alive, as an informed sector is more proactive in finding solutions for each fishery.
Fourth, communication ties must be strengthened between the two mechanisms of participation, ensuring a seat with voice and vote for the Advisory Committees on Fisheries Management and Management in the State Fisheries Councils. The latter must take advantage of the inputs generated in the Consultative Committees for Fisheries Management and Management, such as background information from fishermen, scientists and civil associations, who work directly on coastal and marine ecosystems.
The existence of State Fisheries Councils and Advisory Committees for Fishery Management and Management represent important elements for achieving participatory management, however, it is important that they remain active and current.
Managing a fishery can have varying degrees of difficulty. The Fishery Management and Management Advisory Committees offer this flexibility so that citizen participation is adapted to the particularities of each fishery. The State Fisheries Councils, on the other hand, are a link that coordinates strategies and actions between municipal, state and federal authorities to coordinate the development of fishing activity throughout the country. Thus, there is enormous potential for these spaces to work in a coordinated manner to improve decision-making regarding the management of fishery resources and their ecosystems.
Comentarios (0)