14
Uzbekistan:
98. Associations want to have nothing to do with the regulatory authorities, as they tend to interfere
in everything, leaving Associations no room to control even their own (leased) water bodies.
4) Do you see opportunities to increase collaboration between governmental agencies and
recreational fi sheries association to further reduce illegal fi shing? What should be done?
Kazakhstan:
99. The public could monitor the resources better than the authorities. Research, Monitoring and Control
should be well separated. Research institutes should be independent from any control or monitoring in
order to determine the catch limitations.
Kyrgyzstan:
100. The moratorium on fi shing in Issyk-Kul lake bans also the recreational fi sheries by mistake. Only
commercial fi sheries should have been included under the moratorium. Recreational fi shers are only
enjoying themselves when fi shing and should not be convicted as a poachers. Recreational fi shers aim
at catching mainly the predatory fi sh, so the moratorium should be lifted for them.
101. It is good that the Government has now established 5 year terms forleasing of water bodies and it is
also good that there is a rotation system in the use of these water bodies by recreational fi sheries. Local
population involvement is very important in issues like the implementation of a moratorium. Policy
exists to allow self governance of the water bodies by the local authorities.
Tajikistan:
102. People involvement is very important, i.e. voluntary inspectors should combat against the illegal
fi shing.
Uzbekistan:
103. Associations would like to extend cooperation with governmental institutions of fi shery for further
reduction of illegal fi shing However, occuring problems are too large to be solved for the time being.
Conclusions of Working Group 1:
104. Poaching is a social problem. It is bigger in the poor countries than in rich countries. Fisheries
Associations have an important role in controlling illegal fi shing, but that role is not fully recognized
by the Government authorities in any of the countries. Association’ rangers lack enforcement power,
they can only inform state inspectors or law enforcement bodies that a violation of fi shing rules and
regulations has taken place. Different practices exist in rewarding the informers. All working group
participants agreed that the way forward would be to increase the involvement of local people and
communities in the fi sheries monitoring, control and enforcement activities (on a voluntary basis), but
with a reasonable reward in case lawsuits would follow.
Working Group 2
105. This working group discussed how recreational fi sheries associations could work better together to
protect their interests in governmental policy making and legal framework development processes that
affect the recreational fi sheries sector.
15
The working group members addressed the following questions:
1. Do the recreational fi sheries associations in your country work together?
There exists co-operation between associations of recreational fi shers in matters concerning for instance
fi shing competitions. In some countries recreational fi sheries is promoted by the activities of nationwide
recreational fi shers´ union, which provide a framework for the issue.
2. Are recreational fi sheries associations taking part in general fi sheries policy and legal
framework development processes in your countries?
The role of recreational fi shers and the ways of promoting their interests in policy formulation varies. In
some countries even existing legislation includes regulations about recreational fi shers´ involvement in
policy formulation by consultation and preparation of documents. However, the actual role of recreational
fi shers, and the signifi cance and effectiveness of their participation depends greatly on the amount of
information shared and the channels of delivering it between different players.
3. Do you have the capacity to lobby for the interests of your members within the Government?
If no, what capacity is lacking?
It was recognized that in each country there are qualifi ed human resources, which are provided with
excellent contacts for lobbying.
4. Are your lobbying activities (to protect the interests of your recreational fi shers/members)
effective?
In spite of some lobby successes in some regions, recreational fi shers have faced diffi culties in their
efforts to ensure access to fi shing grounds for their members.
5. Do you see opportunities to strengthen the collaboration with governmental agencies working
in the fi eld of promoting recreational fi sheries? How and on which specifi c subjects?
106. The working group considered that one of the most effective ways to improve co-operation
between recreational fi shers´ organizations and the government would be the establishment of an
advisory committee (or alternatively of a consultative committee). It should focus on developing norms
and creating recommendations for the improvement of recreational fi shing, as well as to follow the
implementation of the existing legislation as concerns to recreational fi sheries.
Working Group 3
107. This working group discussed the usefulness of the EIFAC Code of Practice for Recreational
Fisheries for the Central Asian region.
108. The working group members addressed the following questions:
1) Are the articles that are included in EIFAC Code of Practice (COP) for Recreational
Fisheries also relevant for the Central Asian countries?
• It was confi rmed by the Working Group that the contents of the Code are applicable to Central
Asia. Some articles might however need further editing in Russian language. It was argued that
the main objective of Code is conservation of fi sh resources and stimulation of recreational
fi sheries.
• It was suggested that for Central Asia a COP could be more compact (simpler and shorter) for
articles 1 until 7. However, it was also explained that the reason for the length of articles 2, 3 and
4 was to avoid wrong interpretation of the meaning.
|
