Fisheries rules and regulations in 23 states of Nigeria: a note

In order to make a sound proposal to the Kainji Lake Fisheries Management and Conservation Unit regarding the amendment of the existing Fisheries Laws and Regulations, including the raise of fishing license fees, the Fisheries Departments of 21 Nigerian States were visited in August-September 2000. In that occasion the staff was interviewed, existing documents were revised, and the results were compared with those of Kebbi and Niger State

Die Ostsee-Fischereikommission setzt stärker auf biologische Vorsorge. Ergebnisse der Internationalen Ostsee-Fischereikommission (International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission - IBSFC) vom 7. bis 11. September 1998 in Warschau

Die Tagung setzte den während der vorigen Jahrestagung zu beobachtenden Kurs einer Schwerpunktverlagerung generell fort. Diese ist durch die stärkere Berücksichtigung des Vorsorgeansatzes im Fischereimanagement auf der Grundlage wissenschaftlicher Empfehlungen des ACFM (Management-Komitee für Fischerei) des ICES gekennzeichnet. Damit traten die in der Vergangenheit fischereipolitisch dominierten nationalen Managementinteressen weitestgehend in den Hintergrund und trugen somit zu einer sachlichen Tagungsatmosphäre bei. Wichtigste Tagungsthemen waren die Ausnutzung der nationalen Quoten für 1997 und 1998 (1. Halbjahr), die Festlegung der zulässigen Gesamtfangmengen (TAC) für die internationalen Fischereien 1999, aber auch Strategien zur Nutzung der lebenden Ressourcen der Ostsee unter den Bedingungen des Vorsorgeansatzes im Fischereimanagement. An den Beratungen nahmen Ländervertreter und Experten Estlands, der EU, Lettlands, Polens und der Russischen Föderation sowie Beobachter des ICES (Internationaler Rat für Meeresforschung) und der HELCOM (Helsinki-Kommission) teil.

Promoting innovative stormwater solutions for coastal plain communities

In 2008, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) surveyed seventy-three coastal plain communities to determine their current practices and need for watershed planning and low impact development (LID). The survey found that communities had varying watershed planning effectiveness and need better stormwater management, land use planning, and watershed management communication. While technical capacity is improving, stormwater programs are under staffed and innovative site designs may be prohibited under current regulations. In addition, the unique site constraints (e.g., sandy soils, low relief, tidal influence, vulnerability to coastal hazards, etc.) and lack of local examples are common LID obstacles along the coast (Vandiver and Hernandez, 2009). LID stormwater practices are an innovative approach to stormwater management that provide an alternative to structural stormwater practices, reduce runoff, and maintain or restores hydrology. The term LID is typically used to refer to the systematic application of small, distributed practices that replicate pre-development hydrologic functions. Examples of LID practices include: downspout disconnection, rain gardens, bioretention areas, dry wells, and vegetated filter strips. In coastal communities, LID practices have not yet become widely accepted or applied. The geographic focus for the project is the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain province which includes nearly 250,000 square miles in portions of fifteen states from New Jersey to Texas (Figure 1). This project builds on CWP’s “Coastal Plain Watershed Network: Adapting, Testing, and Transferring Effective Tools to Protect Coastal Plain Watersheds” that developed a coastal land cover model, conducted a coastal plain community needs survey (results are online here: http://www.cwp.org/#survey), created a coastal watershed Network, and adapted the 8 Tools for Watershed Protection Framework for coastal areas. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Enforcement of associated protected measures in particularly sensitive sea areas

The distinguished character of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) is that every application for PSSAs must be accompanied by Associated Protected Measures (APMs) which can make PSSAs efficient in practice.1 That is why APMs are regarded as the core feature of every PSSA.2 APM is “an international rule or standard that falls within the purview of an international maritime organization (IMO) and regulates international maritime activities for the protection of the area at risk.” So far, APMs have been approved by IMO as following: -Compulsory or recommended pilotage -Mandatory ship reporting -An area to be avoided -Traffic separation schemes -Discharge prohibition or regulations -Mandatory no anchoring areas -Deep water routes -Emission control areas (PDF contains 5 pages)

Challenges in using science-based shoreline setbacks: Examples from South Carolina

Beachfront jurisdictional lines were established by the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act (SC Code §48- 39-250 et seq.) in 1988 to regulate the new construction, repair, or reconstruction of buildings and erosion control structures along the state’s ocean shorelines. Building within the state’s beachfront “setback area” is allowed, but is subject to special regulations. For “standard beaches” (those not influenced by tidal inlets or associated shoals), a baseline is established at the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune; for “unstabilized inlet zones,” the baseline is drawn at the most landward point of erosion during the past forty years. The parallel setback line is then established landward of the baseline a distance of forty times the long-term average annual erosion rate (not less than twenty feet from the baseline in stable or accreting areas). The positions of the baseline and setback line are updated every 8-10 years using the best available scientific and historical data, including aerial imagery, LiDAR, historical shorelines, beach profiles, and long-term erosion rates. One advantage of science-based setbacks is that, by using actual historical and current shoreline positions and beach profile data, they reflect the general erosion threat to beachfront structures. However, recent experiences with revising the baseline and setback line indicate that significant challenges and management implications also exist. (PDF contains 3 pages)

International sources of fisheries information to enhance fish production, poverty alleviation and food security in Nigeria and developing Nigerian Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Database

The paper viewed the decline in information provision in Nigeria to poor library development, which could be attributed to poor funding. The consequence is that current journal and books are not available in nigerian fisheries libraries. Information which can be regarded as the first factor of production on which other factors like land, labour and capital depend, can only be provided at the right time when libraries are better founded. For now if there must be increase in fish production, poverty alleviation and food security in Nigeria, our fisheries scientists and policy makers will have to rely on international sources of information using the advantage of internet connectivity. Some of such sources discussed in this paper are ASFA, AGORA, FAO DOAJ, FISHBASE, IAMSLIC, INASP, INASP-PERI, INASP-AJOL, ODINAFRICA, SIFAR, WAS, and ABASFR. However, reliance on international sources must not be at the total neglect of harnessing nigerian fisheries information. For the Nigerian Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Database being developed by NIFFR to attain an international status like those enumerated above, scientists and publishers are requested to take the pain of depositing copies of their publications with NIFFR for inclusion in the Database