Facilitated advocacy: supporting farmers to have a voice in policy making and the development of service provision

Listening to people, especially those who are poor, and involving them in policy making and decisions about service delivery processes are logical steps in building better services and improving policies aimed at poverty alleviation. This case describes a facilitated advocacy that helped to negotiate and support a role for poor people who farm and fish, to contribute recommendations for changes in services and policies that impact on their lives. The national Government of India’s Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying and the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, both in the capital Delhi, have been linking with farmers and fishers and state government officials in the eastern states of Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal, in partnership with the STREAM Initiative of the intergovernmental Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia Pacific and with the support of the UK Government Department for International Development, Natural resources Systems Program supporting farmers to have a voice(13 p.)

Guidelines for the Provision of Garbage Reception Facilities at Ports Under MARPOL Annex V

This report offers guidelines for the provision of adequate port reception facilities for vessel-generated garbage under the requirements of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78), Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. MARPOL Annex V prohibits at-sea disposal of plastic materials from vessels, and specifies the distance from shore at which other materials may be dumped. Annex V also requires the provision of port reception facilities for garbage, but it does not specify these facilities or how they are to be provided. Since the at-sea dumping restrictions apply to all vessels, the reception facility requirement applies to all ports, terminals, and marinas that serve vessels. These guidelines were prepared to assist port owners and operators in meeting their obligation to provide adequate reception facilities for garbage. The report synthesizes available information and draws upon experience from the first years ofimplementation of MARPOL Annex V. (PDF file contains 55 pages.)

Fish pass design - criteria for the design and approval of fish passes and other structures to facilitate the passage of migratory fish in rivers

Many of British rivers hold stocks of salmon (Salmo salar L.) and sea trout (Salmo trutta L.) and during most of the year some of the adult fish migrate upstream to the head waters where, with the advent of winter, they will eventually spawn. For a variety of reasons, including the generation of power for milling, improving navigation and measuring water flow, man has put obstacles in the way of migratory fish which have added to those already provided by nature in the shape of rapids and waterfalls. While both salmon and sea trout, particularly the former, are capable of spectacular leaps the movement of fish over man-made and natural obstacles can be helped, or even made possible, by the judicious use of fish passes. These are designed to give the fish an easier route over or round an obstacle by allowing it to overcome the water head difference in a series of stages ('pool and traverse' fish pass) or by reducing the water velocity in a sloping channel (Denil fish pass). Salmon and sea trout make their spawning runs at different flow conditions, salmon preferring much higher water flows than sea trout. Hence the design of fish passes requires an understanding of the swimming ability of fish (speed and endurance) and the effect of water temperature on this ability. Also the unique features of each site must be appreciated to enable the pass to be positioned so that its entrance is readily located. As well as salmon and sea trout, rivers often have stocks of coarse fish and eels. Coarse fish migrations are generally local in character and although some obstructions such as weirs may allow downstream passages only, they do not cause a significant problem. Eels, like salmon and sea trout, travel both up and down river during the course of their life histories. However, the climbing power of elvers is legendary and it is not normally necessary to offer them help, while adult silver eels migrate at times of high water flow when downstream movement is comparatively easy: for these reasons neither coarse fish nor eels are considered further. The provision of fish passes is, in many instances, mandatory under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. This report is intended for those involved in the planning, siting, construction and operation of fish passes and is written to clarify the hydraulic problems for the biologist and the biological problems for the engineer. It is also intended to explain the criteria by which the design of an individual pass is assessed for Ministerial Approval.

Catch rates and demographics of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) captured from the Charleston, South Carolina, shipping channel during the period of mandatory use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs)

Trawling was conducted in the Charleston, South Carolina, shipping channel between May and August during 2004–07 to evaluate loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) catch rates and demographic distributions. Two hundred and twenty individual loggerheads were captured in 432 trawling events during eight sampling periods lasting 2–10 days each. Catch was analyzed by using a generalized linear model. Data were fitted to a negative binomial distribution with the log of standardized sampling effort (i.e., an hour of sampling with a net head rope length standardized to 30.5 m) for each event treated as an offset term. Among 21 variables, factors, and interactions, five terms were significant in the final model, which accounted for 45% of model deviance. Highly significant differences in catch were noted among sampling periods and sampling locations within the channel, with greatest catch furthest seaward consistent with historical observations. Loggerhead sea turtle catch rates in 2004–07 were greater than in 1991–92 when mandatory use of turtle excluder devices was beginning to be phased in. Concurrent with increased catch rates, loggerheads captured in 2004–07 were larger than in 1991–92. Eighty-five percent of loggerheads captured were ≤75.0 cm straight-line carapace length (nuchal notch to tip of carapace) and there was a 3.9:1 female-to-male bias, consistent with limited data for this location two decades earlier. Only juvenile loggerheads ≤75.0 cm possessed haplotypes other than CC-A01 or CC-A02 that dominate in the region. Six rare and one un-described haplotype were predominantly found in June 2004.