Challenges and Future Directions

This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] On: 02 January 2014, At: 08:39 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs21

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and Future Directions a

a

a

Vandick S. Batista , Nidia N. Fabré , Ana C. M. Malhado & Richard J. Ladle

a b

a

Institute of Biological and Health Sciences , Federal University of Alagoas , Maceió , Alagoas , Brazil b

School of Geography and the Environment , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK Published online: 02 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Vandick S. Batista , Nidia N. Fabré , Ana C. M. Malhado & Richard J. Ladle (2014) Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and Future Directions, Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 22:1, 1-15 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2013.822463

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 22(1):1–15, 2014 C Taylor and Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 2330-8249 print / 2330-8257 online DOI: 10.1080/10641262.2013.822463

Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and Future Directions ´ 1 ANA C. M. MALHADO,1 VANDICK S. BATISTA,1 NIDIA N. FABRE, 1,2 and RICHARD J. LADLE 1

Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

2

Artisanal fisheries occur all over the tropics and provide an important source of protein and income for many coastal communities. However, varied types and magnitudes of anthropogenic impacts threaten the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural sustainability of this poorly studied fishing practice. This article reviews the scattered literature on tropical artisanal coastal fisheries, identifying key challenges to ensure future sustainability. Despite huge data shortfalls, there is considerable evidence that artisanal fisheries have a significant influence on the distribution and abundance of target and by-catch species, in addition to wider impacts on biodiversity, biomass, assemblage structure, community dynamics, and ecosystem functioning. Despite these immediate and considerable threats, regulation and management of artisanal fisheries are problematic. Local communities in the coastal tropics are frequently very poor, and families frequently rely on fishing for food security and income. Ensuring social and environmental sustainability therefore entails models of governance that are able to adaptively manage these complex socio-ecological systems. Such models are being developed, but it is unclear whether there are sufficient resources and technical capacity to widely implement them before the widespread collapse of fisheries with potentially serious consequences for the communities that rely on them. Keywords

socio-ecological systems, co-management, resilience, small-scale fishing, baselines

INTRODUCTION

sary (http://www.fao.org/fi/glossary/) defines artisanal fisheries as:

It is difficult to discuss artisanal fisheries without first addressing the issue of definitions and, more specifically, the perceived differences between “artisanal fishing” and “small-scale fishing.” Although these two terms are frequently used interchangeably in the literature, there is a subtle difference of emphasis: whereas artisanal fishing implies a degree of simplicity or tradition (artisanality) in the chosen fishing method (e.g., simple traps, poisons, harpoons, lures and, at the most basic level, hand collection), the term small-scale fisheries typically implies nothing about gear or methods, focusing almost exclusively on the size of the fishing unit/operation—in practical terms, often operationalized in terms of the size of the boat. Many definitions combine both these elements (artisanality and size of the fishing operation). For example, the FAO glos-

[T]raditional fisheries involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using relatively small amount of capital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels (if any), making short fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption. In practice, definition varies between countries, e.g. from gleaning or a one-man canoe in poor developing countries, to more than 20-m. trawlers, seiners, or long-liners in developed ones. Artisanal fisheries can be subsistence or commercial fisheries, providing for local consumption or export. They are sometimes referred to as small-scale fisheries.

This definition is rendered somewhat more succinctly by Hawkins and Roberts (2004) as that “pursued by small-scale fishers using traditional methods” (p. 216) and by Ruttenberg (2001) as “small-scale fishing, using simple technology such as hand lines and hand nets” (p. 1692). In reality, it is inappropriate to make a clear distinction between small-scale fishing and artisanal fishing (FAO, 2012) or between small-scale/artisanal fishing and industrial/large-scale fishing practices (Chuenpagdee

Address correspondence to Ana C. M. Malhado, Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Av. Lourival Melo Mota, s/n, Tabuleiro do Martins, Maceió, AL, 57072-900, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]

1


2

V. S. BATISTA ET AL.

Figure 1 Definition of artisanal fishing based on technical investment and size of the fishing unit (boat/enterprise). Shaded area indicates the main focus of studies in this review. Black dots indicate examples: 1—small wooden skiff containing one or two fishers using small seine nets within the inshore reef; the most common form of artisanal on the northeastern coast of Brazil; 2—fiberglass boat with outboard motor (50–100 HP) used for trolling artificial lures/live baits with nylon handlines, characteristic of fishers in the southern Caribbean islands; 3—industrial-scale trawling using a fully crewed boat and the latest fish finding technology, typical of the developed world and rapidly industrializing nations (after FAO, 2012).

et al., 2008; Carvalho et al., 2011). Rather, different fishing practices can be thought of as occupying points on a continuum of increasing scale and levels of artisanality (Figure 1). Even this is an over-simplification, since many artisanal fishers are keen to take advantage of the latest materials and are by no means adverse to incorporating modern technology (if it is inexpensive), such as mobile phones along with more traditional methods to improve fishing performance (Salia et al., 2011; Sreekumar, 2011). Likewise, larger crafts are not necessarily engaged in industrial/large-scale fisheries (e.g., Chacko, 1998). Due to the differences in fishing methods and the smaller scale of exploitation, the ecological characteristics of the fish species exploited by artisanal fishers are typically different from those exploited by industrial/large-scale fishing. Specifically, species caught by tropical artisanal fishers tend to be more sedentary and typically include a much higher diversity of species, including many that attain small adult sizes. This pattern of exploitation reflects the biological characteristics of most tropical coastal ecosystems, which are highly diverse in comparison with highly productive off-shore temperate fisheries. For example, in tropical northeastern Brazil, artisanal fishers exploit up to 386 fish species (Haimovici and Klippel, 1999). The small-scale, spatially structured nature of artisanal fisheries with its focus on sedentary stocks has led to them being referred to as “S-fisheries” by some authors (Orensanz et al., 2005). Moreover, despite no precise delineation between artisanal/small-scale fishing and industrial/large-scale fishing, most authors agree that there exists a characteristic dualism in which most fishers or fishing operators fall into distinct groups on the basis of both the scale of the operation and the level of technology utilized, employment generation, and degree of

Figure 2 Relationship between yield and species diversity (after Regier and Henderson, 1973).

investment (Carvalho et al., 2011). The close concordance in official definitions of artisanal/small-scale fisheries (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006) also suggests that the commonalities are sufficient to make a synthetic review of artisanal fishing meaningful. Ultimately, and in the absence of constraints on economic development, the scale of the fisheries may be closely related to type of fisheries resource being exploited. Thus, industrial/large-scale fisheries can only exist (in the long-term) where there is sufficient biomass of the target species and where the economics of extraction are sufficiently favorable. Since yield is frequently inversely related to species diversity (Regier and Henderson, 1973; Figure 2), industrial fishing tends to predominate in temperate latitudes and pelagic fisheries, while artisanal fisheries predominate in the species-rich inshore waters of tropical coastlines. In summary, artisanal fishing is typically defined in relation to the focus of the fishing/economic units, type of fishing activity, level of use and cost of technology utilized, and eventual market or uses of the catch. It should be noted that there are many related terms such as “subsistence” or “benefit-aimed” fisheries (Guillemot et al., 2009) that are often used interchangeably with the more frequently used artisanal or small-scale fisheries. Nevertheless (and despite the fuzziness of existing definitions), the ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural consequences of artisanal fishing (shaded area of Figure 1) have become a major focus of research over recent decades, resulting in a large amount of literature scattered across a diverse array of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This review aims to draw upon these disparate information sources to provide a synthetic review of tropical artisanal coastal fisheries, highlighting important historical trends and identifying key challenges to ensure future sustainability.

Why Focus on Tropical Coastal Fisheries? Artisanal fishing is practiced all over the world but is especially important in the coastal tropics (Allison and Ellis, 2001) due to high population densities in these areas and the

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

vol. 22 1 2014


TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES

reliance of many communities on natural resources as a source of income and food. Here, Cheunpagdee et al. (2006) is followed in defining coastal fisheries as those that deploy gear from shore out to either 50 km in distance or from shore to 200 m in depth. The simpler and cheaper technology typically employed by artisanal fishers (see above) means that most fisheries of this type are considerably closer to the shore and shallower than the upper limits of this definition. Precise information on the number and economic contribution of artisanal fishing in the coastal tropics is very difficult to obtain (see Béné, 2006, for a discussion of the various estimates). Most estimates are likely to undershoot due to the large number of seasonal or “occasional” fishers who do not show up in official statistics (FAO, 2004). At the broadest scale, Chuenpagdee et al. (2006) estimated that there are at least 12 million small-scale fishers worldwide (as compared to 500,000 full-time crew on larger fishing vessels), most of whom reside in the tropics. Using a broader definition, the FAO estimated that in 2002 about 135 million people are directly or indirectly employed in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture (marine and freshwater) (FAO, 2004). Small-scale artisanal fishing clearly plays an important role in the economies of tropical coastal regions but is arguably even more important in the context of food security and health, as almost all small-scale fisheries catches are used for human consumption, as compared to only 57% of large-scale fishing catches (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Due to the low costs of artisanal fishing, it is often one of the only ways that the rural poor can gain access to high protein food (Kawarazuka and Bene, 2011). Recent estimates suggest that 40–60% of marine fish production in Brazil comes from artisanal fisheries (Begossi, 2006). The average level of health (e.g., fertility, child mortality, adult mortality) of artisanal fishing communities in many developing world countries is no better than equivalent agricultural communities and, in the case of women, may even be worse (Tietze et al., 2002). Fishing also has strong cultural associations in many tropical coastal communities and is frequently an important part of cultural identity rather than an option of “last resort” for the coastal poor. Thus, the behavior of artisanal fishers cannot be solely interpreted in terms of economic rationalism. Rather, decisions about when and where to fish and what species to fish are influenced by a complex interplay of socioeconomic, cultural, and historical influences (Béné and Tewfik, 2001). In some ways, this makes the management of artisanal fishing more problematic since policies and mechanisms to improve governance and management of fisheries resources need to be particularly sensitive to local factors. Another reason to be concerned about the future of tropical coastal artisanal fisheries is the increasing pressure on coastal communities through population growth and demographic shifts. Small and Nicholls (2003) estimated that 1.2 × 109 people live within 100 km of the coast at densities that are three times higher than the average global density; in the major-

3

ity of the world’s countries, this represents 80–100% of the population. Moreover, between 1992 and 2002, the global coastal population rose by 56% due to both population growth and migration. If current demographic trends continue—as seems likely—the human pressure on coastal zones (and the natural resources they provide) is predicted to increase dramatically over the coming decades (Mart´ınez et al., 2007). Even so, it is important to distinguish between general trends in the demographics of coastal populations and changes in artisanal fishing communities. Tietze et al. (2002) observed that the number of coastal fishers was actually declining or stagnating in four out of the six tropical developing countries they studied. Moreover, many fishers within these communities were turning, in part or in full, to other livelihood opportunities due to a combination of declining resource quality, competition with industrial fishers, and changes in the governance of fish stocks. Finally, coastal artisanal fishing merits academic attention because of its potential influence on fish populations (see below). Although the conservation and sustainable exploitation literature has, understandably, focused on industrial-scale fishing, it is becoming increasingly clear that artisanal fishing can also have profound consequences on fish populations, biomass, and community structure (Coblentz, 1997; Ruttenberg, 2001; Espino-Barr et al., 2002; Hawkins and Roberts, 2004; Campbell and Pardede, 2006; Goetze et al., 2011). Such evidence goes against the view of many fisheries and marine protected area (MPA) managers that artisanal fishing is somehow more “benign.” Indeed, artisanal fishing is often permitted within the boundaries of marine parks and other forms of MPAs (Grandcourt et al., 1999; Hawkins et al., 1999; Granek and Brown, 2005). Even if the effect of artisanal fishing on fish population or communities is relatively minor within a given area, the combined effects of artisanal fishing activities in the tropics are enormous given the large proportion of the coastal population involved in fishing (see above). Thus, it is in the context of increasing pressures on coastal tropical environments and fisheries, demographic shifts in coastal populations, and the social challenges of poverty alleviation and health in the developed world that the diverse and often scattered literature on artisanal fishing is reviewed, while acknowledging that one of the major challenges of assessing artisanal fisheries is the paucity and low quality of much data due to the illegal/unregulated/unreported nature of some artisanal fisheries. For the reasons given above, the present review is restricted to tropical coastal fisheries, where fishing pressure is often most intense and where enforcement of regulations is often weakest. First, a brief synopsis of the main characteristics of fishing and fishers in these regions is given, followed by a review of the evidence for the ecological and social consequences of artisanal fishing. Finally, the management options are assessed, highlighting successful strategies and identifying major challenges and unifying themes for improving the governance of artisanal tropical fisheries.


vol. 22 1 2014

4



Characteristics of Artisanal Fishing in the Coastal Tropics As outlined above, artisanal fishing is typically defined in terms of both the scale of the operation and the “artisanality” of the fishing practices. In practice, there is a suite of common fishing methods (cf., Nédélec and Prado, 1990) that are practiced across the coastal tropics to catch fish and invertebrates that are normally defined as artisanal. At the most basic level, collecting by hand or by rudimentary spears and hooks is universal. Small beach seines and boat seines, and increasingly gill nets/tangle nets, are also widely used in artisanal fishing along with a wide variety of fish traps ranging from pots to barriers. Hook-andline methods are also popular and vary immensely in level of sophistication from the use of baited hand-lines on beaches to the trolling of artificial lures from motorized boats. Jennings and Kaiser (1998) made the distinction between “active” and “passive” methods and commented that, while passive methods are more common among tropical artisanal fishers, active methods, such as drive netting, spearing, and the use of chemicals and explosives, are frequently used. Indeed, the use of explosives and poisons by artisanal fishers, though illegal in most countries, has caused great damage to coral reefs throughout the world and has been especially problematic in South East Asia (Fox et al., 2005), the Caribbean (Hawkins and Roberts, 2004), and East Africa (Wells, 2009). Despite considerable variation in methods, there is some gear (gillnets, trap fisheries, hand harvests) that is almost exclusively used by artisanal fishers (Crowder et al., 2008). Such methods tend to be less selective and consequently catch a high diversity of mainly small species. Moreover, very few species are discarded (e.g., Mangi and Roberts [2006] reported a 6.5% discard rate), and non-target species are therefore an important part of the catch. The main target fish species of artisanal fishers are larger, commercially valuable species such as groupers (Serranidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), jacks (Carangidae), snooks (Centropomidae), mullets (Mugilidae), and smaller species of the tuna family (Scombridae). However, in marked contrast to industrial fisheries, artisanal fishers exploit a much higher diversity of fish species, many of them small and not always noted for their high culinary value. Thus, in addition to the above it is not uncommon for artisanal fishers to target a wide variety of coral reef species and shallow water species, such as parrotfish (Scaridae), wrasse (Labridae), grunts (Haemulidae), drums (Sciaenidae), and sea catfish (Ariidae). Artisanal fishermen also harvest invertebrate species, especially cephalopods and larger crustaceans. As with industrial fishing, by-catch may also represent a high proportion of the catch (Rueda and Defeo, 2003) and often includes large vertebrates, such as cetaceans (Razafindrakoto et al., 2008; Mangel et al., 2010) and turtles (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2011). Artisanal fishers are as diverse as the fish that they catch and cannot easily be labeled and grouped into convenient categories. Indeed, fishing may be a supplementary activity to provide extra food or income and may be practiced seasonally or sporadically depending upon the prevailing socio-economic conditions or

cultural preferences within a community. Nevertheless, with the rise of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and similar governance frameworks centered on local groups and communities, there has been a renewed interest in the economic, social, and cultural dynamics of artisanal fishers (St. Martin, 2001; Kronen, 2004; Guillemot et al., 2009). Moreover, there has also been an acknowledgement of the important role played by other actors (indigenous groups, NGOs, scientists, local and national government, consumers, etc.) in the governance of artisanal fisheries and the pressing need to build more sophisticated and socially realistic bottom-up management structures that explicitly incorporate the complex social, economic and geographic drivers underlying fishing behaviors.

Literature Survey Nine hundred fifty-six articles that were retrieved from Web of Science were analyzed on 26 February 2012 using the following search string: ((“artisanal fishing” OR “artisanal fisheries”) OR (“small-scale fishing” OR “small-scale fisheries”)). From this list, conference reports, temperate studies and articles that were primarily concerned with freshwater fisheries were excluded, leaving a total of 235 journal papers with a focus on tropical coastal artisanal fisheries. It should be noted that while this sample is not exhaustive and should not be considered as an estimate of the volume of research in this area, it should be relatively representative of research in this area. In this context, the papers were categorized in order to identify broad geographic and thematic trends in the literature. From each paper, the geographic location of the study was recorded (ranging from small reefs to archipelagos or group of countries such as the Caribbean region). In total, 62.2% of studies used continental study areas and 37.8% were from islands. Perhaps surprisingly, given its traditionally low research capacity and infrastructure, Africa was the continent with the most published studies (32.6%), followed by Asia (23.9%) and South America (18.3%). Preliminary analysis suggests that the high frequency of studies in Africa may be a consequence of the large number of European and North American researchers collecting data there. Likewise, tropical oceanic islands may be particularly attractive research sites for scientists from the northern hemisphere. At the country level, Brazil, Philippines, Kenya, India, and Tanzania, respectively, were the most studied countries (Table 1). The majority of studies were broadly characterized as relating to coastal ecosystems (56.7%), while reefs were the focus of 21.7% of studies, and 11.1% of articles were on artisanal fishing in pelagic ecosystems. As anticipated the thematic focus of articles varied immensely, incorporating studies of ecology, social science, development, economics, history, and politics among others. Unsurprisingly, fisheries assessment and management were the major thematic areas (18.4% and 14.2%, respectively). Other themes that were well represented (3–9% of articles in the sample) were socio-economic analysis of artisanal fisheries, socio-ecological


vol. 22 1 2014



Table 1 Worldwide distribution of artisanal fisheries research for: (a) major regions of the world, (b) countries with the biggest number of studies, and (c) major ecosystem of analyses

(a) Region of the world Africa Asia Central America North America Oceania South America (b) Countries Brazil Philippines Kenya India Tanzania Indonesia Ghana Mexico Nigeria Malaysia Peru (c) Ecosystems Coastal Reefs Marine Estuary Lagoon Inland Others (e.g., mangroves, mud flats, seagrass, etc.)

Number of papers

Proportion (%)

75 55 33 8 17 42

32.6 23.9 14.3 3.5 7.4 18.3

24 15 12 10 9 8 7 7 7 6 6

10.3 6.4 5.1 4.3 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.6

102 39 20 5 4 3 7

56.7 21.7 11.1 2.8 2.2 1.7 3.9

studies of fishing communities, by-catch, livelihood impacts on communities, impacts on fish populations, stock assessment, co-management, and policy analysis.

IMPACTS ON POPULATIONS AND COMMUNITIES Studies of the impact of artisanal fishing on specific fish populations are less prominent than in the commercial fishing research literature. This is mainly because artisanal fisheries are frequently multi-gear with low rates of discard, leading to fishing pressure on a wide range of species and where stock approaches are therefore inadequate or unviable. Indeed, the breadth of species taken by artisanal fishers and their lack of specialization mean that they will frequently and rapidly shift their exploitation patterns in relation to changes in abundance of fish species. Such “tracking” of local resources may provide some respite for low abundance species but may also impede population recovery since even low abundance species are exploited to a certain extent. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus that artisanal fishing (combined with industrial fishing) has had serious consequences on the biomass and assemblage structure of tropical marine ecosystems (Pauly, 1979); Blaber

5

(2009) estimated that fish biomass is now 6,100 fishers in 7 developing world countries suggests that by-catch of turtles,


vol. 22 1 2014


6


cetaceans, and sireneans may already be at unsustainable levels (Moore et al. 2010). Unlike populations, the impacts of artisanal fishing on species assemblages are not always easy to detect. This is partly because the variability of fishers and fishing practices make data collection and analysis difficult, but also because artisanal fisheries frequently overlap with other potentially damaging inshore activities, such as tourism, industrial and recreational fishing, shipping, and mining (Crowder et al., 2008). For example, Campbell and Pardede (2006) observed that gill-netting had particularly strong effects on the biomass of seven families in a study from Indonesia. Other studies have been unable to detect any influence of artisanal fishing on the structure of the fish communities, arguing that changes in catch composition are probably attributable to natural environmental fluctuations (Espino-Barr et al., 2002). As with population level studies, the best evidence for the effects of artisanal fishing on fish community structure are from studies comparing assemblages inside and outside protected areas (Jennings and Polunin, 1997; Hawkins and Roberts, 2004; Miller et al., 2007). Among the most prominent effects documented in these studies is a general decline in abundance and biomass (Ruttenberg, 2001) and reduced numbers of certain functional groups, such as piscivorous fishes (de Boer et al., 2001; Miller et al., 2007), reef-associated demersal fishes (Tsehaye et al., 2007), and herbivorous fishes (Ruttenberg, 2001). The removal of key trophic groups can have profound effects on community structure and ecosystem dynamics. For example, Hawkins and Roberts (2004) described how the overfishing of key grazers in the Caribbean caused excessive algal growth. The net effect of these processes is typically simpler, lower diversity assemblages dominated by smaller fish species (Crowder et al., 2008).

SOCIO-ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, AND POLITICAL ASPECTS Artisanal fisheries in the tropics are typically associated with human communities in rural areas but may also be practiced fishers from more urban settings (McGoodwin, 2001). Many of these communities suffer from high levels of poverty, and consequently, any attempt to manage artisanal fisheries faces a fundamental dilemma: how to reduce over-exploitation of fish stocks and promote sustainability while at the same time addressing basic human needs and providing livelihoods (Emmerson, 1980). There are no simple solutions to this dilemma, and it is not uncommon for different actors to promote radically different management strategies for artisanal fisheries depending upon their social/environmental priorities. Moreover, the artisanal fishers themselves are by no means passive actors within this process, and there is a constant transfer of technological and ecological knowledge from older to younger fishermen in addition to beliefs and taboos related to resource conservation

(e.g., Colding and Folke, 2001; Begossi et al., 2004). It is also interesting to note that research on tropical artisanal fisheries has had a much greater focus on social and economic themes than the literature on industrial/temperate fisheries.

Fishing for Survival: Subsistence Fishing The characteristics and definitions of subsistence fishing vary according to the motivations of the fishers and their relationship with surrounding markets (Schumann and Macinko, 2007). The standard definition is a local, non-commercial, primarily nonrecreational activity focused on fishing for direct consumption of the fishers and dependents (Berkes, 1990). It should be noted that this definition does not specify the degree of dependency on fishing yield. Thus, it includes both fishers for who are supplementing their diet and those with no access to other sources of protein. This is an important issue, since total dependence on fishing for protein requirements can put huge pressure on fisheries. For example, annual per capita fish consumption for Caribbean was approximately 62 g per day (Coblentz, 1997), varies from 13 to 110.7 kg in Pacific Island countries (Bell et al., 2009), and is a staggering 550 g per day in rural communities in Amazonia (Batista et al., 1998; Fabré and Gonzales, 1998). Thus, the social and health implications of limitations on catches for subsistence fishers without alternative sources of protein will be far more severe than those with access to other food types or alternative livelihoods. Given the above constraints, the imposition of stricter fishing regulations or a decrease in yield due to other factors (collapse of stocks, increase in number of fishers, etc.) may result in emigration to urban centers, switching to other less regulated forms of fishing, or, at worst, a significant reduction in protein with the associated health consequences. Another major barrier to developing and implementing policy aimed at subsistence fishers is that this sector is poorly monitored compared to more commercially orientated forms of artisanal fishing (Zeller et al., 2006); even when it is monitored, under-reported landings are common (Jacquet et al., 2010). Thus, the true extent and impact of subsistence fishing is poorly known, compromising the development and implementation of policies to help this most marginalized segment of artisanal fishers. It is common to find a negative relationship between human population size and fish abundance, as was found in the Caribbean region (Stallings, 2009), but without including social or economic variables. Moreover, there is evidence that subsistence fishers are least likely to stop fishing when stocks begin to decline. A recent study in East Africa, which has a high proportion of subsistence fishing, demonstrated that fishers were more likely to indicate that they would stop fishing under falling yields if they were from wealthier families and had alternative livelihood options (Cinner et al., 2009). Thus, many subsistence fishers in the coastal tropics are caught in a “poverty trap,” unable to switch to alternative forms of subsistence or income generation. Extending this logic, any approaches designed to reduce fishing pressure may need to first focus on


vol. 22 1 2014


diversifying livelihood opportunities and generating alternative forms of income generation.


Fishing for Income and Profit Artisanal fishing is responsible for approximately 90% of all fishing jobs worldwide and provides critical income for millions of families. However, as outlined above, there are no clear distinctions between those who fish for subsistence and those who fish for income. Moreover, even where fishing is the main livelihood activity within the household, it rarely accounts for the entire cash income; Ninnes (2004) reported that only 40–55% of the income of coastal fishing households in Mozambique and Tanzania was generated by fishing activities. Similarly, Wielgus et al. (2010) estimated 49% of artisanal catches were used for subsistence purposes in Colombia. Nevertheless, fishing has an almost unique status among income generating activities within tropical coastal communities because it is one of the few reliable ways to “instantly” generate cash—a kind of “bank in the water” (Béné, 2006). The heavy reliance of many families on artisanal fishing to generate income for buying food and essential services is an important focus of contemporary debates and has prompted numerous calls for the rapid diversification of livelihoods within artisanal fishing communities (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Perry and Sumaila, 2007). Not only does diversification provide an enhanced level of income (Degen et al., 2010), it considerably increases the resilience of communities to environmental change, reduces resource conflict, and takes some of the pressure off fish stocks (Fulanda et al., 2011). However, promoting diversification is by no means simple, and opportunities to exploit alternative income sources are both geographically and culturally variable (Kronen et al., 2010). Moreover, where fishing plays an important cultural role, there may be considerable resistance to the adoption of alternative livelihood activities.

MANAGEMENT Sustainability Objectives Sustainability of fish stocks is the general, if elusive, objective of contemporary fisheries management (Pauly et al., 2002). The origin of the concept of sustainability, or sustainable development, is relatively new. Sustainable development was first described by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987, p. 43). Many alternative definitions have subsequently been proposed, most of which are based on the idea of the “triple bottom line” (TBL) concept—the splitting of sustainability into environmental, social, and economic factors. It should be noted that the TBL is also a simplification and that additional sustain-

7

ability components (e.g., cultural sustainability) are frequently incorporated into contemporary sustainability assessment (Pope et al., 2004). The objectives and assessment of sustainability is somewhat different as applied to temperate industrial fisheries and tropical artisanal fisheries. In the former, the traditional approach to sustainability has been to focus on environmental and, especially, economic sustainability components. Commercial fisheries managers and policy makers have typically focused on the accurate determination of sustainable stock levels for a small number of target species using concepts, such as maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or sometimes maximum economic yield (MEY; Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Murawski, 2000). Approaches to sustainability in tropical artisanal fisheries have been broader and less focused on target setting and assessment of population parameters (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Berkes et al., 2001). Stock management of artisanal fisheries—if it occurs—is typically subsumed within broader ecosystem management approaches (Mathew, 2003; Crowder et al., 2008; McClanahan and Cinner, 2008). There are several reasons for this. First, artisanal fishers typically capture a much wider diversity of fish species, complicating stock assessment and target setting measures (Mathew, 2003). Second, there is an enormous lack of resources for fish population assessment and research in many tropical areas, and historical records are frequently nonexistent. Finally, fishing is frequently an integral and traditional part of the fabric of local communities, and fishers may make up a sizeable proportion of the population of tropical coastal communities (Crowder et al., 2008). Thus, sustainability approaches to fisheries that focus on environmental and economic components of sustainability need to be modified heavily to incorporate livelihood issues and to acknowledge long-held cultural practices and societal norms. Clear objectives are fundamental to fisheries management (Hilborn, 2007) at both industrial (Hilborn and Walters, 1992) and artisanal (Berkes et al., 2001) ends of the spectrum of fishing practices. Objectives depend on the profile of users and managers of the fishery resources, their interests, expectations, and the characteristics of the fisheries culture of stakeholders involved. In artisanal fisheries, sustainability objectives are typically focused on food security issues (Béné et al., 2007), maintaining traditional ways of life (e.g., Berkes, 1990), and protecting livelihoods (Pomeroy, 1994). However, the existence of multiple and often poorly defined objectives, a lack of target setting, and a focus on development objectives (as opposed to environmental sustainability) means that exploitation rates in artisanal fisheries can vary enormously according to factors such as market demands (Caviglia-Harris et al., 2003), availability of fishing power technologies (Defeo and Castilla, 1998; Bald et al., 2006), availability of alternative activities, income sources, and local culture (McGoodwin, 2001; Kronen et al., 2010). More generally, the lack of any sort of regulation or management in probably the majority of artisanal fisheries in the coastal tropics means that, initially, management objectives may need


vol. 22 1 2014

8



to be stripped down to basic priorities. This is exactly what has been recently suggested by Cochrane et al. (2011), who recommended that artisanal fisheries management should be based on precautionary principles in an attempt to prevent the fishery crossing undesirable thresholds. Referred to as “primary fisheries management,” the authors cautioned that this should be viewed as a first step to ensure sustainability for data-poor, currently unregulated fisheries and that ultimately the aim should be to move toward that sort of adaptive management approach (e.g. Berkes, 2003).

Top Down Versus Bottom Up The management of tropical coastal resources has undergone a paradigm shift over the last two decades toward greater public participation and stakeholder involvement in resource management regimes (Christie and White, 1997; Pomeroy et al., 2004). Old models based on top-down “command and control” management—often a legacy of colonial centralization (Christie and White, 1997)—are being increasingly challenged by notions based around ideas of engaging stakeholders, especially those that are involved in the day-to-day use of a resource, such as artisanal fishers and their families, in the management of natural resource (White et al., 1994; Nielsen and Vedsmand, 1999). Top-down strategies are also losing favor because, in the words of one researcher, “it is almost socially immoral to try to impose fishing effort or catch restrictions on subsistence and artisanal fishers” (Russ, 2002, p. 421). Thus, traditional management approaches are being replaced by those that more fully embrace the inherent uncertainty and complexity of both the fisheries and the communities that exploit them. This has lead to the creation of numerous systems of participatory management and crossscale governance: human-oriented approaches that also draw upon ideas of adaptive ecosystem-based fisheries management (Pikitch et al., 2004; Crowder et al., 2008), providing linkages between social and natural systems (Berkes, 2003). Despite the almost universal shift toward greater public participation in the management of coastal resources, effective comanagement is by no means a panacea for the problems of sustainability of artisanal fishing resources in the tropics, and there are many potential barriers to the successful implementation (reviewed in Wilson et al., 2003). First, conflicts over resource use—especially fishing rights—may prove to be intractable problems for which mutually satisfactory resolution may not be possible. In this context, participation of local stakeholders may merely give a platform for the legitimization of vested interests in the guise of community aspirations (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Second, existing or historic political, cultural, or administrative structures may not have the flexibility to enable effective local community involvement and may even result in disempowerment through channeling local stakeholders to interact within an intrinsically biased framework (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Third, there may be insufficient political will to facilitate a move toward participatory management, especially if

there are many and competing vested interests involved. Fourth, there may be insufficient interest or engagement of the local stakeholder community in the management of the resource to create strong and democratic local organizations (Brown, 2002). If the participatory process is externally imposed and local stakeholders do not fully “buy in” to the initiative, then the process may break down when the initiative finishes or financial support is withdrawn. Finally, insufficient time may be given for the creation of local organizations and stakeholder groups and/or refinement of the participatory process. Nevertheless, co-management appears the most appropriate framework for managing artisanal fisheries in the tropics, and considerable progress has been made in identifying both local and universal factors that facilitate successful co-management. Among the most important of these factors is how the comanagement process is initiated and who leads it. Implementation is necessarily different in contrasting cultures and institutional settings and success or failure of co-management is therefore heavily context dependent (Hill and Hupe, 2002). Chuenpagdee and Jentoft (2007) clearly demonstrated the importance of understanding local context in their review of coglobal management initiatives. They concluded that (1) the preimplementation period is of critical importance and may last several years; (2) practitioners must be aware of how the implementation of co-management may interfere with “on-going social system processes that need to be balanced and sustained” (p. 667); and (3) the support of government agencies is often essential for successful implementation. Indeed, there is often a “legal vacuum” that surrounds co-management initiatives—something that only the state can fill. The necessity for a clear legal framework within which community-based management initiatives can flourish demonstrates the continued importance of local or national government in the governance of artisanal fisheries. It also indicates the false dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up management systems. Of course, legal frameworks can also have a customary basis, and traditional systems of marine tenure may also have an important role in the management of some artisanal fisheries (see discussion in Dahl, 1988).

Interventions As indicated above, there are numerous approaches to the management of artisanal fisheries that incorporate elements of both top-down and bottom-up approaches to management. Perhaps the most emblematic intervention is the creation of exclusion and sustainable use zones, normally created within the context of an MPA (Roberts and Polunin, 1991). A good example is the development of marine extractive reserves (MERs) in Brazil, defined as “community-based, site-specific, multi-use, land and sea resource management approach based on claims of culturally distinct groups with longstanding livelihood ties to ‘artisan-scale’ production territories” (Cordell, 2003). One of the most innovative aspects of MERs is the requirement that


vol. 22 1 2014



local fishers formally ask for their establishment in addition to interdisciplinary studies that seek to incorporate traditional knowledge and management practices into the MER design (Diegues, 2008). Moreover, the fishers take an active role in defining boundaries and establishing no-take areas within the MER. The success of MERs in Brazil is difficult to assess, although initial reports suggest that smaller reserves with homogenous communities of fishers have had fewer problems with enforcement and the establishment of co-management with government officials (Diegues, 2008). In contrast, larger MERs that contain several distinct communities have had problems with both enforcement and managing the expectations of diverse user groups (e.g., urban fishers and tourism operators). Indeed, the MER case study is probably indicative of a more general scale dependence for successful governance of artisanal fisheries. An alternative or complementary approach to zoning and notake areas is to place limitations on the type of fishing that is permissible within a given area (e.g., Guzmán and Jácome, 1998) or on the type and size of fish that are permissible. A common approach is to formulate recommendations on the basis of studies of selectivity of different fishing gear. McClanahan and Mangi (2004) identified the elimination or reduction of beach seines and small traps as the most effective way to reduce the catch of small fish and reduce the overlap in selectivity among the existing gears among coastal artisanal fishers in Kenya. More generally, gear-based management alone is probably insufficient to restore sustainability to artisanal fisheries, especially if implemented on an ad hoc basis; a study of the artisanal sea cucumber fishery in the Solomon Islands observed that size limits, bag limits, gear restrictions, and seasonal closures generally failed, possibly due to limited human, financial, and technical resources (Ramofafia et al., 2004). However, gear-based management and other fishing regulations could still play an important role within an adaptive management framework that selectively imposes restrictions depending on perceived ecological trends (McClanahan and Cinner, 2008). Another approach to the governance of artisanal fisheries is to focus on the consumers, using education or market-based strategies to influence what species are bought or eaten. However, since a large proportion of artisanal fishing is for subsistence, these strategies are unlikely to have the impacts of similar schemes (e.g., eco-labeling, consumer guides, boycotts) aimed at commercial fisheries (Jacquet and Pauly, 2007); indeed, sustainable fisheries initiatives may even be creating barriers for the development of more sustainable small-scale fisheries (Jacquet and Pauly, 2008). One of the simplest strategies to influence consumption is through sales bans on certain species. However, a recent study in Micronesia demonstrated that a seasonal ban on the sale of reproductively active serranids had the unintended consequence of increasing fishing pressure on other equally threatened fish families (Rhodes and Tupper, 2007). The success of any of these interventions, whether they are aimed at fishers or consumers, is ultimately dependent upon levels of support and compliance. However, building sufficient

9

levels of community support is by no means easy, especially for unpopular restrictions on when, where, and how to fish imposed on fishers who have previously been completely unregulated. Even when government controls generate population recovery, the sustainability of the protection is often low. For example, the abundance of green turtles Chelonia mydas in the Caribbean region increased from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s as a consequence of increased regulation but began to decline again when government controls were reduced (Troëng and Eddy, 2005). Although there are no quick fixes, changing attitudes and building support can be gradually achieved through targeted education programs, increased professionalism, and broader shifts in cultural attitudes in the wider community (McClanahan et al., 2009). A good example of the success of targeted education is the widespread change in attitudes to turtle conservation among artisanal fishing communities. In Brazil, Projeto Tamar has achieved notable success in halting the harvesting of gravid female sea turtles and their eggs by focusing their efforts on local participation, even employing ex-egg poachers to patrol beaches and protect nests (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999).

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS One of the greatest challenges in artisanal fisheries research in the tropics is the enormous shortfalls in data, from basic information on fishing pressure and the demography of artisanal fishers (cf., Béné, 2006) to the detailed socio-demographic and cultural research (e.g., Parsram, 2010) that is required to plan genuinely sustainable co-management initiatives, including risks related to the activity (e.g., Quinn and Kojis, 2012; Salas et al., 2012). Perhaps most critical is the lack of accurate, geo-referenced estimates of fishing pressure in coastal zone areas (e.g., Shivlani and Koeneke, 2011), although these may be somewhat mitigated by the use of indirect indicators such as population size or coastline length (Stewart et al., 2010). The lack of historical information is also a considerable challenge for fisheries managers in the tropics. Given that even low levels of artisanal fishing can significantly affect slow-growing, late maturing fish species and that artisanal fishing has been practiced across the coastal tropics for centuries or millennia, it is very difficult to assess genuine baselines (Pinnegar and Engelhard, 2008). This situation has been exacerbated in many areas that have undergone a huge increase in fishing pressure over recent decades, further shifting the baseline for stock assessment. As a social group, artisanal fishers are relatively understudied and, in the context of management, are often treated as more or less static elements within the system. In reality, artisanal fishers are highly heterogenous with diverse social and economic priorities driving complex behavioral dynamics in relation to the fisheries resource. Such dynamics largely dictate the flexibility and responsiveness of fishing tactics and strategies in response to changes in resource abundance, environmental conditions, and market or regulatory constraints (Salas and Gaertner, 2004).


vol. 22 1 2014


10


Understanding the behavior and decision-making processes of artisanal fishers is therefore essential for the development of more sophisticated, realistic, and responsive management systems. Closely related, and possibly of greater immediate importance, is collecting data on fishing effort (rather than simply yield), as this provides critical information for assessing sustainability in the broader context and for assessing environmental impacts (Stewart et al., 2010). Recent decades have seen clear shifts in governance philosophy in artisanal fisheries, from the ad hoc implementation of (often unenforceable) gear and catch regulations to approaches based on co-management and adaptive ecosystem management. These approaches hold great promise, but need to be carefully adjusted to the local context, which is a time-consuming and potentially expensive exercise that requires robust data on both the local fishing communities and ecological data on target species and ecosystems (Fabré et al., 2012). Moreover, effective comanagement requires strong local institutions and decentralized government (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997; Kaplan and McCay, 2004), conditions that are not always met in tropical countries. There are also considerable risks associated with failure, as each failed initiative makes it harder to establish the levels of trust and cooperation that are essential ingredients of successful management systems (Brockington et al., 2008). This fact alone suggests that the socioeconomic and cultural conditions that provide a back-drop for successful governance systems need to be in place before more traditional interventions are implemented (Figure 3). Moreover, the consequences of any interventions (social or ecological) need to be carefully moni-

tored, and the governance structure should be sufficiently flexible to allow adaptive change and modifications to suit local conditions. Developing management models that successfully negotiate social, cultural, economic, and environmental barriers is neither simple nor rapid, and successful case studies in the tropics are at a premium. One promising candidate is the sustainable open system (SOS) approach (Figure 4) developed for rural Amazonian fishing communities (Ribeiro and Fabré, 2003; Fabré et al., 2012). The SOS approach has five overlapping and integrated phases: (1) the community self-identifies the geographic extent of the management; (2) long-term studies (several years) are conducted to identify the temporal and spatial dynamics of extractive practices and norms of use; (3) territories, microhabitats, frequencies of use, and other measures of exploitation are mapped in order to identify key areas and periods of resource use conflict; (4) observed norms of practice are reified and codified into an legally binding “agreement of integrated use,” tightly linking the inhabitants of management units into a partnership with governmental and non-governmental organizations; and (5) monitoring and evaluation based on both self-assessment and external assessment are performed. SOS appears to be working and has the potential to be implemented in other artisanal fishing communities. However, SOS and similar models are no quick fix; researchers, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and community groups needed eight years to implement the full program (Fabré et al., 2012). Ultimately, the greatest challenge for the creation of socially and environmentally sustainable artisanal fisheries in tropical

Figure 3 Hypothetical decision framework for developing management strategies for tropical artisanal fisheries stressing the importance of creating alternative livelihood opportunities as an important precursor to species and ecosystem-based management approaches.


vol. 22 1 2014



11

Figure 4 Schematic representation of SOS methodology for the co-management of artisanal fisheries in Amazonia, including the major steps, activities, and socio-economic drivers.

coastal areas is probably the lack of time. Fisheries researchers and managers were relatively slow to realize the importance of artisanal fishing, both ecologically and socially. The resulting data shortfalls limit the effectiveness of prioritization and monitoring strategies. There is also a lack of cross-cultural and transnational studies, analyzing how artisanal fisheries and their governance differ geographically as a result of regional sociocultural characteristics. In this context, it would be immensely valuable to create a global database of management actions taken and their impacts on coastal fisheries, fishers, and community livelihoods; such an “evidence-based” approach has been adopted with great success in the field of biodiversity conservation (Sutherland et al., 2004). Finally, the most effective potential solutions (e.g., comanagement, diverse stakeholder involvement, adaptive ecosystem management) are time consuming and difficult to implement; there are no short-cuts in the painstaking process of collecting data, constructing informal and formal organizations, and building much needed trust among interested parties (Gruber, 2010). Successful, locally tailored governance models exist (see above), but it is doubtful if the political will and resources exist to apply these where they are most needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the referees for their comments on the manuscript. This study was partially funded by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq), the Alagoas Research Foundation (FAPEAL), and the Coordination for Enhancement of Higher Education Personal (CAPES).

REFERENCES Alfaro-Shigueto, J., J. C. Mangel, F. Bernedo, P. H. Dutton, J. A. Seminoff, and B. J. Godley 2011. Small-scale fisheries of Peru: A major sink for marine turtles in the Pacific. J. Appl. Ecol., 48: 1432–1440 (2011). Allison, E. H., and F. Ellis. The livelihood approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy, 25: 377–388 (2001). Aswani, S., and A. Sabetian. Implications of Urbanization for Artisanal Parrotfish Fisheries in the Western Solomon Islands. Conserv. Biol., 24: 520–530 (2010). Bald, J., A. Borja, and I. Muxika. A system dynamics model for the management of the gooseneck barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) in the marine reserve of Gaztelugatxe (Northern Spain). Ecol. Model., 194: 306–315 (2006).


vol. 22 1 2014


12


Batista, V.S., A. J. I. Silva, C. E. C. Freitas, and D. Freire-Brasil. Characterization of the fishery in riverine communities in the LowSolimões/High-Amazon region. Fisher. Manag. Ecol., 5: 101–117 (1998). Begossi, A. Temporal stability in fishing spots: Conservation and comanagement in Brazilian artisanal coastal fisheries. Ecol. Soc., 11. Available from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art5/ (2006). Begossi, A., N. Hanazaki, and R. M. Ramos 2004. Food chain and the reasons for fish food taboos among Amazonian and Atlantic Forest fishers (Brazil). Ecol. Appl., 14: 1334–1343 (2004). Bell, J. D., M. Kronen, A. Vunisea, W. Nash, G. Keeble, A. Demmke, S. Ponifex, and S. Andrefouet. Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Mar. Policy., 33: 64–76 (2009). Béné, C. Small-scale fisheries: Assesssing their contribution to rural livlihoods in developing countries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1008. Rome: FAO (2006). Béné, C., G. Macfadyen, and E. H. Allison. Increasing the contribution of small scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 481. Rome: FAO (2007). Béné, C., and A. Tewfik. Fishing effort allocation and fishermen’s decision making process in a multi-species small-scale fishery: Analysis of the conch and lobster fishery in Turks and Caicos Islands. Hum. Ecol., 29: 157–186 (2001). Berkes, F. Native subsistence fisheries—a synthesis of harvest studies in Canada. Arctic, 43: 35–42 (1990). Berkes, F. Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons from small-scale fisheries. Environments, 31: 5–19 (2003). Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. Mcconney, R. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy. Managing small-scale fisheries alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: IDRC (2001). Blaber, S. J. M. Relationships between tropical coastal habitats and (offshore) fisheries, pp. 533–564. In: Ecological Connectivity among Tropical Coastal Ecosystems (Nagelkerken, I., Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer (2009). Brockington, D., R. Duffy, and J. Igoe. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas, Chapter 5. London: Earthscan (2008). Brown, K. Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr. J., 168: 6–17 (2002). Campbell, S. J., and S. T. Pardede. Reef fish structure and cascading effects in response to artisanal fishing pressure. Fish. Res., 79: 75–83 (2006). Carvalho, N., G. Edwards-Jones, and E. Isidro. Defining scale in fisheries: Small versus large-scale fishing operations in the Azores. Fish. Res., 109: 360–369 (2011). Caviglia-Harris, J. L., J. R. Kahn, and T. Green. Demand-side policies for environmental protection and sustainable usage of renewable resources. Ecol. Econ., 45: 119–132 (2003). Chacko, T. Artisanal Fishing along the Alleppey Coast, Southwest India. Hum. Devel., 57: 60–62 (1998). Christie, P., and A. T. White. Trends in development of coastal area management in tropical countries: From central to community orientation. Coast. Manage., 25: 155–181 (1997). Chuenpagdee, R., and S. Jentoft. Step zero for fisheries comanagement: What precedes implementation. Mar. Policy, 31: 657–668 (2007). Chuenpagdee, R., L. Liguori, M. L. D. Palomares, and D. Pauly. Bottom-up, global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries

catches. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia Canada (2006). Chuenpagdee, R., J. Nielsen, J. J. Dodson, K. Friedland, T. R. Hamon, J. Musick, and E. Verspoor. Small is beautiful? A database approach for global assessment of small-scale fisheries: Preliminary results and hypotheses, pp. 587–595. In: Reconciling Fisheries with Conservation: Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress (Nielson, J. Ed.), Vancouver, 3–6 May 2004. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society (2008). Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. Mcclanahan. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conserv. Biol., 23: 124–130 (2009). Coblentz, B. E. Subsistence consumption of coral reef fish suggests non-sustainable extraction. Conserv. Biol., 11: 559–561 (1997). Cochrane, K. L., N. L. Andrew, and A. M. Parma. Primary fisheries management: A minimum requirement for provision of sustainable human benefits in small-scale fisheries. Fish Fisher., 12: 275–288 (2011). Colding, J., and C. Folke. Social taboos: “invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecol. Appl., 11: 584–600 (2001). Cooke, B., and U. Kothari. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books (2001). Cordell, J. Brazil’s Coastal Marine Extractive Reserves (MER) Initiative: Protected Area Management: Capacity Building, Social Policy and Technical Assistance. Rio de Janeiro: The Ford Foundation/IBAMA/CNPT (2003). Crowder, L. B., E. L. Hazen, N. Avissar, R. Bjorkland, C. Latanich, and M. B. Ogburn. The impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems and the transition to ecosystem-based management. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 39: 259–268 (2008). Dahl, C. Traditional marine tenure: A basis for artisanal fisheries management. Mar. Policy, 12: 40–48 (1988). de Boer, W. F., A. M. P. Van Schie, D. F. Jocene, A. B. P. Mabote, and A. Guissamulo. The impact of artisanal fishery on a tropical intertidal benthic fish community. Environ. Biol. Fish., 61: 213–229 (2001). Defeo, O., and J. C. Castilla. Harvesting and economic patterns in the artisanal Octopus mimus (Cephalopoda) fishery in a northern Chile cove. Fish. Res., 38: 121–130 (1998). Degen, A. A., J. Hoorweg, and B. C. C. Wangila 2010. Fish traders in artisanal fisheries on the Kenyan coast. J. Enterpris. Commun., 4: 296–311 (2010). Diegues, A. C. Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil. Chennai: I.C.S.F (2008). Diele, K., V. Koch, and U. Saint-Paul 2005. Population structure, catch composition and CPUE of the artisanally harvested mangrove crab Ucides cordatus (Ocypodidae) in the Caeté estuary, North Brazil: Indications for overfishing? Aquat. Living Resour., 18: 169–178 (2005). Emmerson, D. K. Rethinking artisanal fisheries development: Western concepts, Asian experiences. Washington: World Bank (1980). Espino-Barr, E., A. Ruiz-Luna, and A. Garcia-Boa. Changes in tropical fish assemblages associated with small-scale fisheries: a case study in the Pacific off central Mexico. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 12: 393–401 (2002). FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: United Nations Fisheries and Agriculture Organization (2004).


vol. 22 1 2014


TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES FAO. Small-scale and artisanal fisheries. Available from http://www. fao.org/fishery/topic/14753/en (2012) Fabré, N., V. Da Silva Batista, M. De Albuquerque Ribeiro, and R. Ladle 2012. A new framework for natural resource management in Amazonia. Ambio, 41: 302–308 (2012). Fabré, N. N., and J. C. A. Gonzales. Recursos ´ıcticos no Alto Amazonas e sua importância para as populaço˜ es ribeirinhas. Bol. Mus. Paraense Em´ılio Goeldi, 14: 19–55 (1998). Fox, H. E., P. J. Mous, J. S. Pet, A. H. Muljadi, and R. L. Caldwell. Experimental assessment of coral reef rehabilitation following blast fishing. Conserv. Biol., 19: 98–107 (2005). Fulanda, B., J. Ohtomi, E. Mueni, and E. Kimani 2011. Fishery trends, resource-use and management system in the Ungwana Bay fishery Kenya. Ocean Coast. Manage., 54: 401–414 (2011). Gobert, B., P. Berthou, E. Lopez, P. Lespagnol, M. D. O. Turcios, C. Macabiau, and P. Portillo 2005. Early stages of snapper–grouper exploitation in the Caribbean (Bay Islands, Honduras). Fish. Res., 73: 159–169 (2005). Goetze, J., T. Langlois, D. Egli, and E. Harvey. Evidence of artisanal fishing impacts and depth refuge in assemblages of Fijian reef fish. Coral Reefs, 30: 507–517 (2011). Grandcourt, E., R. Rajaonarison, L. Rene De Roland, and C. Andrianarivo. Status and management of the marine protected areas in Madagascar. International Coral Reef Action Network Eastern African Component (ICRAN PROJECT) UNEP/FAO (1999). Granek, E. F., and M. A. Brown. Co-management approach to marine conservation in Mohéli, Comoros Islands. Conserv. Biol., 19: 1724–1732 (2005). Gruber, J. S. Key principles of community-based natural resource management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Env. Manage., 45: 52–66 (2010). Guard, M., and Y. D. Mgaya. The artisanal fishery for Octopus cyanea gray in Tanzania. Ambio, 31: 528–536 (2002). Guillemot, N., M. Léopold, M. Cuif, and P. Chabanet. Characterization and management of informal fisheries confronted with socioeconomic changes in New Caledonia (South Pacific). Fish. Res., 98: 51–61 (2009). Guzmán, H. M., and G. Jácome. Artisan fishery of Cayos Cochinos Biological Reserve, Honduras. Rev. Biol. Trop., 46: 151–163 (1998). Haimovici, M., and S. Klippel. Diagnóstico da biodiversidade dos peixes teleósteos demersais marinhos e estuarinos do Brasil. Rio Grande: Fundaça˜ o Universidade Federal de Rio Grande (1999). Hall, M. A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals. By-catch: Problems and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 41: 204–219 (2000). Hawkins, J. P., and C. M. Roberts. Effects of artisanal fishing on Caribbean coral reefs. Conserv. Biol., 18: 215–226 (2004). Hawkins, J. P., C. M. Roberts, T. Van’t Hof, K. De Meyer, J. Tratalos, and C. Aldam. Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. Conserv. Biol., 13: 888–897 (1999). Hilborn, R. Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Mar. Policy, 31: 153–158 (2007). Hilborn, R., and C. J. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. New York: Chapman and Hall (1992). Hill, M., and P. Hupe. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice, Chapter 8. London: Sage Publications (2002). Jacquet, J. L., and D. Pauly. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Mar. Policy., 31: 308–313 (2007).

13

Jacquet, J., and D. Pauly. Funding priorities: Big barriers to small-scale fisheries. Conserv. Biol., 22: 832–835 (2008). Jacquet, J., H. Fox, H. Motta, A. Ngusaru, and D. Zeller. Few data but many fish: Marine small scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania. Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 32: 197–206 (2010). Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems, pp. 201–352. In: Advances in Marine Biology (Blaxter, A. J. S. J. H. S., and P. A. Tyler, Eds.). London: Academic Press (1998). Jennings, S., and N. V. C. Polunin. Impacts of predator depletion by fishing on the biomass and diversity of non-target reef fish communities. Coral Reefs, 16: 71–82 (1997). Kaplan, I. M., and B. J. Mccay. Cooperative research, co-management and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Mar. Policy, 28: 257–258 (2004). Kawarazuka, N., and C. Bene. The potential role of small fish species in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries: Building evidence. Public Health Nutr., 14: 1927–1938 (2011). Kronen, M. Fishing for fortunes?: A socio-economic assessment of Tonga’s artisanal fisheries. Fish. Res., 70: 121–134 (2004). Kronen, M., A. Vunisea, F. Magron, and B. McArdle. Socio-economic drivers and indicators for artisanal coastal fisheries in Pacific island countries and territories and their use for fisheries management strategies. Mar. Policy, 34: 1135–1143 (2010). Lewison, R. L., L. B. Crowder, A. J. Read, and S. A. Freeman. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19: 598–604 (2004). Mangel, J. C., J. Alfaro-Shigueto, K. Van Waerebeek, C. Cáceres, S. Bearhop, M. J. Witt, and B. J. Godley. Small cetacean captures in Peruvian artisanal fisheries: High despite protective legislation. Biol. Conserv., 143: 136–143 (2010). Mangi, S. C., and C. M. Roberts. Quantifying the environmental impacts of artisanal fishing gear on Kenya’s coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52: 1646–1660 (2006). ˆ and G. G. Marcovaldi. Marine turtles of Brazil: The Marcovaldi, M. A., history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biol. Conserv., 91: 35–41 (1999). Mart´ınez, M. L., A. Intralawan, G. Vázquez, O. Pérez-Maqueo, P. Sutton, and R. Landgrave. The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol. Econ., 63: 254–272 (2007). Mathew, S. Small-scale fisheries perspectives on an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, pp. 47–464. In: Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson, Eds.). Rome: FAO (2003). McClanahan, T., J. Castilla, A. White, and O. Defeo. Healing smallscale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 19: 33–47 (2009). McClanahan, T. R., and J. E. Cinner. A framework for adaptive gear and ecosystem-based management in the artisanal coral reef fishery of Papua New Guinea. Aquat. Conserv., 18: 493–507 (2008). McClanahan, T. R., and S. C. Mangi. Gear-based management of a tropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capture size. Fish. Manage. Ecol., 11: 51–60 (2004). McGoodwin, J. R. Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: A key to fisheries management and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 401. Rome: FAO (2001). Miller, M. W., D. B. Mcclellan, J. W. Wiener, and B. Stoffle. Apparent rapid fisheries escalation at a remote Caribbean island. Environ. Conserv., 34: 92–94 (2007).


vol. 22 1 2014


14


Moore, J. E., T. M. Cox, R. L. Lewison, A. J. Read, R. Bjorkland, S. L. Mcdonald, L. B. Crowder, E. Aruna, I. Ayissi, P. Espeut, C. Joynson-Hicks, N. Pilcher, C. N. S. Poonian, B. Solarin, and J. Kiszka. An interview-based approach to assess marine mammal and sea turtle captures in artisanal fisheries. Biol. Conserv., 143: 795–805 (2010). Murawski, S. A. Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57: 649–658 (2000). Nédélec, C., and J. Prado. Definition and classification of fishing gear categories. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 222, Revision 1. Rome: FAO (1990). Nielsen, J. R., and T. Vedsmand. User participation and institutional change in fisheries management: A viable alternative to the failures of ‘top-down’ driven control? Ocean Coast. Manage., 42: 19–37 (1999). Ninnes, C. Improving the collection, analysis and dissemination of information in small-scale fisheries. Bangkok: FAO, Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research—Working Party on Small-Scale Fisheries (2004). Orensanz, J. M., A. M. Parma, G. Jerez, N. Barahona, M. Montecinos, and I. Elias. What are the key elements for the sustainability of “S-fisheries”? Insights from South America. Bull. Mar. Sci., 76: 527–556 (2005). Parsram, K. People, issues, and networks in Small-scale fisheries in the Eastern Caribbean. Proc. 62nd Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 62: 128–136 (2010). Pauly, D. Theory and Management of Tropical Multi-species Stocks: A Review, with Emphasis on the Southeast Asian Demersal Fisheries. Manila: ICLARM (1979). Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C. J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418: 689–695 (2002). Perry, R. I., and U. R. Sumaila. Marine ecosystem variability and human community responses: The example of Ghana, West Africa. Mar. Policy, 31: 125–134 (2007). Pikitch, E. K., C. Santora, E. A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D. O. Conover, P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E. D. Houde, J. Link, P. A. Livingston, M. Mangel, M. K. Mcallister, J. Pope, and K. J. Sainsbury. Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science, 305: 346–347 (2004). Pinnegar, J., and G. Engelhard. The ‘shifting baseline’ phenomenon: A global perspective. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 18: 1–16 (2008). Pomeroy, R. S. Community management and common property of coastal fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, methods and experiences—introduction, pp. 1–11. In: Community Management and Common Property of Coastal Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, Methods and Experiences (Pomeroy, R. S., Ed.). Manila: ICLARM (1994). Pomeroy, R. S., and F. Berkes. Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy, 21: 465–480 (1997). Pomeroy, R. S., P. Mcconney, and R. Mahon. Comparative analysis of coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean. Ocean Coast. Manage., 47: 429–447 (2004). Pope, J., D. Annandale, and A. Morrison-Saunders. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 24: 595–616 (2004). Quinn, N.J., and B.L. Kojis. Occupational hazards of artisanal fishers in the US Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Instit., 64: 135–141 (2012).

Ramofafia, C., I. Lane, and C. Oengpepa. Customary marine tenure in Solomon islands: A shifting paradigm for management of sea cucumbers in artisanal fisheries, pp. 259–260. In: Advances in Sea Cucumber Aquaculture and Management (Lovatelli, A., C. Conand, S. Purcell, S. Uthicke, J. F. Hamel, and A. Mercier, Eds.). Rome: FAO (2004). Razafindrakoto, Y., N. Andrianarivelo, S. Cerchio, I. Rasoamananto, and H. Rosenbaum. Preliminary assessment of cetacean incidental mortality in artisanal fisheries in Anakao, Southwestern Region of Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci., 7: 175–184 (2008). Regier, H. A., and H. F. Henderson. Towards a Broad Ecological Model of Fish Communities and Fisheries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 102: 56–72 (1973). Rhodes, K., and M. Tupper. A preliminary market-based analysis of the Pohnpei, Micronesia, grouper (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) fishery reveals unsustainable fishing practices. Coral Reefs, 26: 335–344 (2007). Ribeiro, M. O. A., and N. N. Fabré. Sustainable Open Systems: Environmental Management Alternative in Amazonia. Manaus: EDUA publications (2003). Roberts, C. M., and N. V. C. Polunin. Are marine reserves effective in management of reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 1: 65–91 (1991). Rueda, M., and O. Defeo. Linking fishery management and conservation in a tropical estuarine lagoon: Biological and physical effects of an artisanal fishing gear. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 56: 935–942 (2003). Russ, G. R. Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fishery management tools, pp. 421–433. In: Coral Reef Fishers: Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem (Sale, P. F., Ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press (2002). Ruttenberg, B. I. Effects of artisanal fishing on marine communities in the Galápagos Islands. Conserv. Biol., 15: 1691–1699 (2001). ´ Salas, S., J. Euan-Avila, E. Coronado, L. Palomo-Cortés, and L. A. Muñoz. Análisis sobre Riesgos y Accidentes en Pesquer´ıas Artesanales en el Sureste de México. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 64: 294–301. (2012). Salas, S., and D. Gaertner. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: Management implications. Fish Fisher., 5: 153–167 (2004). Salia, M., N. N. N. Nsowah-Nuamah, and W. F. Steel. Effects of mobile phone use on artisanal fishing market efficiency and livelihoods in Ghana. Electron. J. Inform. Syst. Devel. Count., 47: 1–26 (2011). Schumann, S., and S. Macinko. Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What’s in a word? Mar. Policy, 31: 706–718 (2007). Shivlani, M., and R. Koeneke. Spatial characterization of artisanal fisheries in Puerto Rico: Geographic information systems (GIS) approach for assessing the regional effort and landings. Proc. 63rd Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 63: 60–66 (2011). Small, C., and R. J. Nicholls. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. J. Coast. Res., 19: 584–599 (2003). Soykan, C. U., J. E. Moore, R. Zydelis, L. B. Crowder, C. Safina, and R. L. Lewison. Why study bycatch? An introduction to the Theme Section on fisheries bycatch. Endang. Spec. Res., 5: 91–102 (2008). Sreekumar, T. T. Mobile phones and the cultural ecology of fishing in Kerala, India. Info. Soc., 27: 172–180 (2011). St. Martin, K. Making space for community resource management in fisheries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 91: 122–142 (2001).


vol. 22 1 2014


TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES Stallings C. D. Fishery-independent data reveal negative effect of human population density on Caribbean predatory fish communities. PLoS ONE, 4: e5333 (2009). Stewart, K. R., R. L. Lewison, D. C. Dunn, R. H. Bjorkland, S. Kelez, P. N. Halpin, and L. B. Crowder. Characterizing fishing effort and spatial extent of coastal fisheries. PLoS ONE, 5: e14451 (2010). Sutherland, W. J., A. S. Pullin, P. M. Dolman, and T. M. Knight. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends. Ecol. Evol., 19: 305–308 (2004). Tietze, U., G. Groenewold, and A. Marcoux. Demographic change in coastal fishing communities and its implications for the coastal environment. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 403. Rome: FAO (2002). Troëng, S., and E. Rankin. Long-term conservation efforts contribute to positive green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biol. Cons., 121: 111–116 (2005). Tsehaye, I., M. A. M. Machiels, and L. A. J. Nagelkerke. Rapid shifts in catch composition in the artisanal Red Sea reef fisheries of Eritrea. Fish. Res., 86: 58–68 (2007). Watson, M., and R. F. G. Ormond. Effect of an artisanal fishery on the fish and urchin populations of a Kenyan coral reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 109: 115–129 (1994).

15

Wells, S. Dynamite fishing in northern Tanzania—pervasive, problematic and yet preventable. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 58: 20–23 (2009). White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi. The need for community-based coral reef management, pp. 1–18. In: Collaborative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons from Experience (White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi, Eds.). West Hartford: Kumarian Press (1994). Wielgus, J., D. Zeller, D. Caicedo-Herrera, and R. Sumaila. Estimation of fisheries removals and primary economic impact of the smallscale and industrial marine fisheries in Colombia. Mar. Policy, 34: 506–513 (2010). Wilson, D. C., J. R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol. The Fisheries Comanagement Experience: Challenges and Prospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers (2003). World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future, p. 43. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1987). Zeller, D., S. Booth, P. Craig, and D. Pauly. Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950–2002. Coral Reefs, 25: 144–152 (2006).


vol. 22 1 2014