Operationalizing an ecosystem approach to small ...

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Operationalizing an ecosystem approach to small-scale fisheries in developing countries: The case of Uruguay ⁎

I. Gianellia, , S. Hortaa, G. Martínezb, A. de la Rosab, O. Defeoa,b,c,

⁎⁎

a

Unidad de Ciencias del Mar, Facultad de Ciencias, Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay GEPEIA, Centro Universitario de la Región Este, Ruta nacional No. 9 intersección con Ruta No. 15, Rocha, Uruguay c Dirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos, Constituyente 1497, 11200 Montevideo, Uruguay b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ecosystem approach to fisheries Small-scale fisheries Co-management Social-ecological systems Enabling conditions

Small-scale fisheries (SSFs) constitute a critical socioeconomic sector by providing a source of income and animal protein for fishing communities worldwide. In Uruguay this sector has traditionally been neglected. More recently, the Uruguayan government has shown an increasing interest in readdressing this situation by setting a high-level policy for SSFs. This paper addresses the long-term process from conceptualization to operationalization of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) in Uruguayan SSFs. An overview of the socialecological enabling conditions that facilitated EAF operationalization across four pilot sites is also provided. Long-term results showed that the intrinsic characteristics of each fishery conditioned the goals achieved. Fishery systems with more favorable enabling conditions served as starting points for operationalizing an EAF strategy. By contrast, SSFs with historical conflicts of use and a complex relationship between the fisheries management agency and fishing communities are still challenging. These results were used as learning platforms to strength and enhance the normative framework regarding management of SSFs. Progresses in EAF implementation at pilot sites have provided initial building blocks for scaling practices to other Uruguayan SSFs. The translation of processes and results into the long-term fishery policy allowed establishing an appropriate legal basis for further EAF development at a national level. Despite the above, long-term political will is critical for sustaining responsible fishing practices and the involvement of fishers as stewardships of their own activity.

1. Introduction The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been promoting the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) as a framework to redress the critical situation of fisheries worldwide [1]. The aim of EAF is to address the multiple needs of societies by balancing diverse objectives and trade-offs in fisheries [1,2]. Additionally, the approach is intended to reinforce ecological and human dimensions into fisheries management [3–5]. Despite the wide acceptation of EAF, its rate of implementation has been much lower than expected [6,7]. Furthermore, when implemented, the operationalization process has been highly variable and how it is perceived and interpreted depends on each country and fishery sector [8,9]. Indeed, EAF has been mainly focused on industrial fisheries at developed countries where accurate and reliable long-term data is usually available [6]. As EAF has historically been misperceived as a “science-driven process” [6], the data-poor situation of most small-scale fisheries (SSFs), particularly in developing countries, has precluded its

⁎

implementation [10]. More recently, FAO led a global process that resulted in the first international instrument entirely dedicated to SSFs, the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (hereafter SSFs guidelines: [11]). SSFs guidelines place special emphasis on EAF as an important guiding principle for securing long-term sustainable SSFs [12]. Many Latin American SSFs have chased the fundamental steps of conceptualization, development and implementation of EAF, even without making explicit reference to the EAF concept [13,14]. These steps included the existence of long-term policy goals, a combination of tools such as marine protected areas [15], tenure systems [16–18] and participatory decision-making processes as formal governance modes (e.g., co-management: [19,20]). However, management of Latin American SSFs has proved to be challenging, partially because of the weak monitoring and enforcement capacity to ensure compliance with regulations and the lack of investment in research programs to diagnose their biological and socioeconomic status [14,20–22]. This vision implies that “problems and solutions” rely within the domain of fisheries,

Corresponding author. Corresponding author at: Unidad de Ciencias del Mar, Facultad de Ciencias, Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I. Gianelli), [email protected] (O. Defeo).

⁎⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.020 Received 2 January 2018; Received in revised form 19 March 2018; Accepted 19 March 2018 0308-597X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Gianelli, I., Marine Policy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.020


I. Gianelli et al.

Fig. 1. Milestones that have contributed to the implementation of EAF in Uruguayan SSFs. LFC: Local fishery councils.

marginal system, which prevented their social inclusion, access to credits and loans, and their active participation in the management process [31]. SSFs landings are locally sold and eventually exported to international markets, representing a substantial source of revenues for low income families. However, several factors are threatening Uruguayan SSFs, including [27,30,32–34]: (i) technological interdependencies with industrial fisheries; (ii) generalized lack of control and compliance with fishing regulations, (iii) weak collective representation at both local and national levels; (iv) low market competitiveness due to the lack of adequate fish conservation infrastructure, marketing channels and final product elaboration for direct consumption; (v) habitat degradation (i.e. reproduction and nursery areas) and, in some cases, compromised stock situation.

although management failures often rely on the interaction between SSFs and the wider external environment [7,23,24]. Indeed, local and external drivers such as coastal population growth, climate change, globalization of markets and implementation of regional and global policies are increasingly affecting SSFs [23,25]. Thus, these socialecological systems (SES) will not deliver their full socioeconomic potential until these vulnerability sources are addressed in integrated and holistic management frameworks that recognize their biophysical and socioeconomic complexities [21,23]. In Uruguay, since the development of the fishery sector in the 1970s, the government has given special emphasis on industrial fisheries [26]. More recently, the Uruguayan government showed an increasing interest in setting high-level fishery policy goals, enhancing SSFs. Thus, the National Direction of Aquatic Resources (Dirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos: DINARA for its acronym in Spanish) drew up a Fisheries Management Program, with a clear long-term strategy directed to transform the utilization of Uruguay's fisheries resources into sustainable production systems through the integration of ecosystem-related principles and concepts into national legal and planning frameworks. The aim of this paper is to address and review the long-term process from conceptualization to operationalization of EAF into SSFs of Uruguay. Despite a common institutional framework at the national level, operational contexts varied widely among Uruguayan SSFs. Thus, an overview of the operationalization of EAF across four pilot sites with dissimilar social-ecological enabling conditions is shown. In order to identify which factors facilitated or hindered the implementation of EAF, an assessment of such conditions in each pilot site through a broad participatory consultation with local experts related to SSFs is provided. Strengths and weaknesses detected during the whole process at local and national levels are also highlighted. Finally, key barriers to overcome and potential pathways towards future effective participation of SSFs beyond piloting experiences selected as learning platforms are discussed.

3. Moving ahead: EAF pre-implementation into practice Although the institutionalization of EAF into the national fishery policy is not a necessary and sufficient condition for its implementation, long-term political support would facilitate EAF inception and development. Thus, the initial steps taken by DINARA for the period 2005–2007 included mechanisms for consensus building and public awareness of the need to promote EAF as a high-level policy goal (Fig. 1). The political juncture detailed above encouraged the conceptualization and development of the project “Piloting of an Ecosystembased Approach to Living Aquatic Resources Management” financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), implemented by FAO and executed by DINARA for the period 2008–2014 (Fig. 1). This government agency-led project had a fundamental role in translating high-level policy goals into tangible and operational measures in Uruguayan SSFs. Two of the most important goals pursued were: (i) implementation of ecosystem principles into SSFs; and (ii) development of capacity and empowerment of fishers through the institutionalization of co-management as the governance mode, which was explicitly included in an EAF context.

2. Small-scale fisheries of Uruguay

3.1. Setting the scene for EAF operationalization: a participatory approach

Uruguayan SSFs are characterized by low capitalization levels, performed by a single or a small group of fishers operating in smallscale vessels with < 10 Gross Register Tonnage (GRT; [27–29]). Coastal shellfisheries developed on intertidal rocky and sandy shores through hand-gathering techniques are also defined as SSFs. Uruguayan SSFs are based primarily on continental and coastal waters extending from the intertidal to 7 nm offshore. Approximately 56% of small-scale fishers are concentrated in the area of influence of the Río de la Plata and the Atlantic coast [29]. There are 59 main ports in the country where about 675 small-scale vessels operate, exploiting some 50 species of finfish and shellfishes. The main species caught are whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnieri), brazilian menhaden (Brevoortia aurea), streaked prochilod (Prochilodus lineatus), brazilian codling (Urophycis braziliensis), stripped weakfish (Cynoscion guatucupa), boga (Leporino obtusidens) and tararira (Hoplias sp.). This sub-sector, which historically accounted for only 3% of Uruguayan landings in the second half of the last century, represents nowadays more than 20% of total landings and supports approximately 46% of the total number of fishers (the sector supports 1250 full and part-time fishers and 3750 indirect workers; [27,30]). Most small-scale fishers have developed an informal and

The identification and participation of stakeholders since the very beginning of the process was a critical element for consolidating next steps. To this end, DINARA carried out discussion meetings attended by a wide range of stakeholders and created bonds between institutions and across fishing communities. Multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder inception workshops (fishery managers, lawyers, FAO staff, scientists and fishers) resulted in positive feedbacks and the explicit interest of fishing communities to participate in the EAF process (Fig. 1).1 Among other relevant stakeholders, The Uruguayan Coast Guard, local municipalities, the Ministry of Social Development and the Academy were also fully engaged. High-level policy goals, including EAF, co-management and fishery protected areas, as well as the path to make them operational by setting EAF management units and Local Fishery Councils (LFCs), were discussed from the very beginning to incorporate novel concepts in the normative framework. 1 Several local fishing communities expressed their interest through formal letters in which they committed themselves to provide support for project activities through human resources and logistics (April 2009).

2


I. Gianelli et al.

ecological knowledge (TEK). The participatory research was focused on what resource users perceived as critical steps to improve fishery status (e.g. spatial distribution of fishing effort and fishing grounds, catch data, potential areas to implement temporal fishery bans, barriers for landings commercialization) and to enhance fishers’ participation in management activities. 4. Results 4.1. General patterns EAF conceptualization and operationalization in Uruguayan SSFs followed the management circle scheme proposed by FAO [1], which implied the whole process ranging from high-level policy goals formulation to the performance assessment of fisheries management plans (Supplementary Fig. S2). However, according to social-ecological enabling conditions in each UFMEP (e.g. size, number of resource users involved, resource characteristics, community involvement and social cohesion), different goals were pursued (Table 1 and Fig. 5). Furthermore, the wide range of priorities identified to tackle in each UFMEP determined that some of the achievements could be directly translated into quantitative metrics, whereas other accomplishments were captured by qualitative indicators, which remain critical for interpretation and assessment of the performance of SES [38].

Fig. 2. Conceptual scheme of the operational EAF management unit (UFMEP by its Spanish acronym) in Uruguayan SSFs. UFMEPs could include several co-managed fishing grounds and closed areas intended to conserve critical habitats for ecosystem functioning and population processes of targeted resources, and also other activities (e.g., tourism).

The functional management units for EAF operationalization were spatially-structured areas named UFMEPs (for its acronym in Spanish; Unidad Funcional de Manejo Ecosistémico Pesquero) (Fig. 2). UFMEPs are intended to cover: (i) core zones, which are protected fishery areas that include essential reproduction and nursery habitats of targeted species and other relevant areas for ecosystem functioning; and (ii) fishing grounds, in which exclusive use rights are assigned to organized smallscale fishers. These areas are co-managed through LFCs and operational management tools such as temporal closures, minimum landing sizes and catch quotas. This zoning approach also allows for multiple uses, such as recreational fishing and tourism nearby to traditional fishing grounds. Critical coastal areas for ecosystem management [35], the consideration of diverse Uruguayan SSF métiers, and the relationship between fishing communities and the management agency, were identified as priorities for the selection of pilot sites to implement EAF. The four sites selected were (Fig. 3 and Fig. S1): (i) Rincón del Bonete; (ii) Santa Lucía-Solís Grande; (iii) Punta del Diablo; and (iv) La CoronillaBarra del Chuy. These sites represent a broad range of aquatic ecosystems (i.e. estuarine, coastal marine and freshwater) sustaining major SSFs of Uruguay (Table 1 and see Supplementary information for details). The coastal area of Santa Lucía-Solís Grande was strategically selected by the government agency (DINARA) because of the long-term space-use conflict including issues such as: fishing operations in urbanized areas, high numbers of fishers, and technological interdependencies with the industrial fleet. There is no magic recipe for EAF implementation and differences from country to country and site to site can be significant. Thus, interventions in each site required the adjustment of the national strategy into local realities. The recognition by fishing communities of the main problems and barriers to be tackled in each site served as a pathway to promote a broad participation in the design, implementation and enforcement of management actions (Table 1). The task force, composed by project staff members, DINARA officers, fisher representatives and local authorities, agreed to draw up a roadmap for the further progress in each UFMEP. One of the first barriers to overcome in most UFMEPs was the lack of suitable data to establish baselines and assess management interventions, which is a common issue in most SSFs at developing countries [36]. Therefore, EAF implementation in Uruguay promoted fishers’ participation in multiple stages of the management process, allowing incorporating fishers’ knowledge and expertise in data-poor situations [31,37]. For this purpose, several consultation workshops were performed to gather and socialize traditional

4.2. Management achievements Management achievements across UFMEPs could be summarized as follows (see also Table 2): (i) normative regulation of fishers involved in some of the UFMEPs (i.e. allocation of individual fishing licenses); (ii) implementation of agreed management tools (e.g. spatio-temporal fishing closures); (iii) development of internal fishery agreements that sets the norms, penalties and management tools to be adopted by fishing communities; and (iv) preparation of Fishery Management Plans agreed by stakeholders in some UFMEPs. The relatively limited number of fishers involved in Rincón del Bonete and La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy, and their participation in past experiences with the fishery management agency, facilitated the identification and consequent grant of fishing permits. Indeed, 90% of the active fishers at Rincón del Bonete were legally recognized through individual fishing licenses, and they organized themselves into two cooperatives during EAF implementation. In the same vein, yellow clam fishers grouped themselves into one association (without legal entity), which was granted with a restricted number of fishing licenses allocated in a year-to-year basis, giving priority to those fishers with longer experience in the fishery and to local residents. On the other hand, the large number of fishers at Santa Lucía-Solís Grande, and their seasonal migration pattern within the UFMEP (see Supplementary information for details) led to a tough situation for regulation but also in monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) activities. Furthermore, fishers stated that traditional fishing rules, regarding respect and reciprocity between fishers, but also towards the environment, were ignored by foreign unregulated fishers, generating conflicts and disrupting social cohesion. Thus, fishers’ regulation and involvement in management activities were urgently needed to improve management and governance of this highly complex SES. For this purpose, a fuel tax reimbursement system for registered fishers was adopted as a way to encourage regulation, meanwhile also alleviated the tax burden and thus improved the profitability of the sector. Additionally, a community network at the main settlement of Santa Lucía-Solís Grande UFMEP (i.e. San Luis), was created as a way to approach fishers’ needs, problems and constraints, but also to strengthen social cohesion and to promote compliance with regulations. This network, composed by a broad diversity of stakeholders such as Municipal Government, local social NGOs, fishers, community members, primary and high schools, facilitated the implementation of social interventions. A census was held 3


I. Gianelli et al.

Fig. 3. Map of Uruguay showing the four pilot sites (stripped red) selected to implement an EAF. Other small-scale fishery ports are highlighted in black dots.

to identify the effective number of fishers (63 families, with 81% being active fishers or directly related to the activity) and to identify unmet basic needs. Some of them, such as lack of clean water for consumption and also for post-harvest activities, were addressed and solved during project implementation. Social inclusion of fishers within the local community was promoted through a fishing community festival (Fiesta de la Corvina de San Luis, Uruguay), which has been successfully held year after year. This activity provided societal valuation, local pride and social identity of fishing activities among the local community and reinforced local organization and capacity development, providing the first building blocks for the institutionalization of a functional LFC at this UFMEP. However, due to the characteristics of this UFMEP (e.g. resource and fishers seasonal migration), fishers’ organization and compliance with established regulations still represents a major challenge for managers. Operational management tools introduced in each UFMEP were agreed between fishing communities, fishery managers and scientists. The commitment of fishing communities to comply with management tools, but also to be involved in MCS activities, increased its effectiveness and diminished enforcement costs [36], which was especially

relevant in the context of Uruguay due to a restricted budget of the management agency to address these activities. The Rincón del Bonete fishing community was fully engaged in a participatory mapping of nursery areas and key habitats, which were critical to set spatio-temporal closures. A “one-month” fishing closure, which covered the entire lake, was experimentally established by fishers in agreement with fishery managers. The positive outcomes of this closure were translated into institutional resolutions that establish fishery closures during the spawning period of targeted species in spawning areas identified by fishers themselves (Table 2). The main concern of the fisheries management agency with regard to Santa Lucía-Solís Grande UFMEP was to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. For this purpose, a monitoring and tracking pilot program for small-scale vessels was designed and implemented in close coordination with the local Coast Guard, which registered information on fishing grounds, catch, fishing gears and effort for each vessel. This information was contrasted and complemented with fishers’ official reports. Moreover, through voluntarily participation, eleven small-scale fishing vessels where equipped with Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracking devices. The integration of all

Table 1 Summary of the main characteristics of the four selected UFMEPs to implement the EAF in Uruguay. Rincón del Bonete

Santa Lucía-Solís Grande

Punta del Diablo

La Coronilla -Barra del Chuy

Ecosystem Area (km2) Fishery type Fishing method Main target species

Freshwater reservoir 1010 Inland Gill-nets Hoplias spp., catfishes

Coastal marine zone 407 Benthopelagic Bottom-fixed gill-nets, small bottom trawl nets Mustelus schmitti, Pleoticus muelleri

Sandy beach 2.3 Benthic Hand-gathering (shovels) Mesodesma mactroides

Landings (t) Number of fishers Organization type Implementation year Main priorities

160 61 Cooperatives (2) 2010 Stock rebuilding. Economic improvements

Estuary 2820 Demersal, sequential Gill-nets, longlines Micropogonias furnieri, Cynoscion guatucupa 1300a 900 Associations, Cooperatives 2010 Reduction of space-use conflicts. Organization of communities

60–65 30 Association Not formally implemented Reduction of bycatch and technological interdependencies with other SSF fleets

4.5 40 Family groups 2008 Stock recovery Development of market opportunities

a

This value could be underestimated because of underreporting of fishing activities in this UFMEP [29].

4


Zoning scheme and clam monitoring

information sources with AIS results allowed identifying main fishing grounds, fishing effort patterns and space use conflicts between fishers from different ports, providing essential inputs for policy actions [30]. In Punta del Diablo, which represents one of the most emblematic fishing places in Uruguay, progresses have been few. At the beginning of EAF implementation (2009), the fishing fleet was composed by 12 active vessels and approximately 30 active fishers. However, due to intense tourism development and the reduction of fishing yields, most fishers diversified its labor in other economic activities, and in 2012 only 4 fishing vessels were active. Thus, most efforts of EAF implementation were deflected to other UFMEPs. Nevertheless, several activities were conducted together with the local community to set the initial steps for EAF implementation. In this context, a zoning scheme, which explicitly considers socioeconomic objectives and conservation of essential habitats, was proposed as one of the main building blocks of EAF implementation. The zoning scheme consisted in three sub-areas (i.e. fishing grounds, buffer zones and no-take zones) that spatially defined the UFMEP. The local community would be co-responsible for resource management and ecosystem conservation, and also in MCS activities. At the same time, exclusive access rights would be given to the local community in order to diminish conflicting uses for fishing grounds with fishing fleets with high fishing power operating from nearby ports. This was partially implemented by a recent decree by DINARA,2 which prohibits the operation of fishing vessels with a GRT > 6 from nearby ports within 5 nm around the port of Punta del Diablo. Management of the yellow clam fishery at La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy improved significantly during EAF implementation (Table 2), leading to an increase and stabilization of landings (Fig. 4a) and an enhancement of bioeconomic indicators, including abundance (Fig. 4a), CPUE and unit price (Fig. 4b). This does not imply that EAF implementation was the single explanatory factor for the observed longterm patterns; rather, it highlights EAF as a useful strategy for sustainable exploitation of this resource. Economic indicators showed positive responses to EAF implementation in La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy UFMEP. Unit prices of yellow clam significantly increased through time, being highest during the EAF fishery phase when compared with historical fishery regimes. The mean unit price (2.38 US$ kg−1) was 1.5 times higher than during a previous de facto co-managed phase and almost three times higher than under centralized management (Fig. 4b), denoting a dissimilar expectation of unit prices for a given CPUE (Table S1) and a willingness to pay higher prices during the EAF phase. These economic improvements were due to a shift in the marketing strategy developed jointly by the fishing community and the government. The product, originally channeled as bait for sport fishing, is currently sold as a luxury seafood product for human consumption [39]. Furthermore, fishers also agreed to set base unit prices at the beginning of each fishing season in order to avoid conflicts and rent-seeking behavior of external middlemen.

Mark-recapture studies for main targeted resources; fish surveys Mapping of nursery and feeding areas

4.3. Decentralizing governance Most fishing communities identified weak empowerment and low organization levels as barriers to overcome in order to improve participation in management and governance. These issues were partially tackled in most UFMEPs through participatory workshops during EAF implementation. Local communities were strengthened through the institutionalization of LFCs at three pilot sites (Table 2). Rincón del Bonete had the first co-management decision making body in Uruguayan SSFs, followed by La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy through a two nested decision-making bodies: the Fishers’ Assembly and the LFC.

Local knowledge incorporation

Biodiversity assessment

Resolutions in relation to EAF implementation

Catch quota system Effort and catch restrictions

No Number of boats/permits, minimum legal size, restriction of fishing power (GRT) Prohibition of gillnets in nursery and spawning areas (Decrees N° 93/ 2008, 35/2010 and 90/ 2014) Comprehensive assessment before EAF implementation Mapping of fishing grounds and potential yields

Benthic, fish and bird surveys

Not implemented Developed but not fully implemented; conservation of biodiversity hotspots No Exclusion of fishing vessels from other ports within the UFMEP Exclusion of fishing vessels with higher fishing power within 5 nm around the port (Decrees N° 144/ 2015) Benthic surveys and experimental assessment of by-catch reduction devices (BRD) BRD experiments

Fishing licenses, community and individual quotas (Decree N° 383/ 2015)

Implemented Implemented, including areas reserved for recreation near seaside resorts TAC and individual quotas Number of fishers, minimum legal size,

No

Regulation of number of users (currently is closed to new users) Implemented Under development; conservation of nursery areas Fishery council (LFC) Zoning scheme

No No

Goals and operational objectives set in participatory meetings. Management plan drafted 90% of active fishers legally recognized through fishing permits Implemented Implemented; no-take zones, fishing grounds and recreational fishing zones No Number of fishers, regulation of mesh size and net length, minimum legal size landings Temporal fishing closures during spawning periods (Decrees N° 256/ 2014 and 326/ 2015) Management plan

Fishery access rights

Full management cycle completed Before/ after comparisons through biological and socio-economic indicators Goals and operational objectives set in participatory meetings; management plan drafted Priority given to local fishers Formulation of actions and rules Not formally assessed yet Formulation of actions and rules. Implementation Not formally assessed yet Implementation and enforcement Not formally assessed yet Stage of EAF EAF performance

Table 2 Management tools introduced and main achievements fostered by EAF implementation in pilot sites at Uruguay.

Punta del Diablo

La Coronilla – Barra del Chuy Santa Lucía-Solís Grande Rincón del Bonete

I. Gianelli et al.

2 http://www.mgap.gub.uy/sites/default/files/multimedia/1687_resolucin_144_15_ embarcaciones_que_superen_medidas_en_zonas_e_y_l_0.pdf.

5


I. Gianelli et al.

Fig. 4. (a) Long-term variations in the abundance of the harvestable yellow clam stock (ind m−1) and fishery landings in the yellow clam fishery at La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy UFMEP, Uruguay. Resource status has been monitored seasonally through independent fishery surveys. The occurrence of mass mortality events, closed seasons, the implementation of high-level policy goals and EAF operationalization are highlighted. Note that the y-axes are in logarithmic scale. (b) Scatter diagram for the relation between unit price (US$ kg−1) and catch per unit of effort (CPUE; kg h−1 fisher−1) in the yellow clam fishery at La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy, Uruguay. Fishery regimes and years are highlighted.

included vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species (e.g. Sympterygia acuta, Mustelus schmitti, Rhinobatos horkelii: [41–43]). Maps of species richness and abundance provided inputs for spatial management. Previous studies highlighted a high proportion of incidental catch, including juveniles of commercially important and endangered species in Punta del Diablo shrimp fishery [41]. Thus, a bycatch reduction device (BRD) was adopted with the active participation of fishers during the design and device testing in small bottom trawl nets. The BRD reduced the amount of bycatch without increasing the time in onboard operations and post-harvest activities [44]. However, since the use of BRD is not mandatory, fishers discontinued its implementation.

4.4. Inclusion of ecosystem processes in SSFs planning The high-level policy goals defined during EAF pre-implementation (Fig. 1) related to the role of ecosystem processes and their inclusion in fisheries planning were partially included in all UFMEPs. In situ biodiversity assessments and the compilation of primary and secondary biodiversity information were gathered in each UFMEP (Table 2). Participatory mapping merging TEK and scientific information provided a spatially-explicit characterization of: (i) critical habitats for conservation; and (ii) traditional fishing grounds with different productivity. The layers generated through participatory maps were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) and provided the basis for a zoning scheme that was in line with the UFMEP model proposed to implement EAF. In La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy, participatory zoning determined five beach management units with well-defined boundaries: three areas were assigned for fishery activities and two areas were destined only for tourism and also served as buffering zones for ecosystem processes, since fishing is not permitted inside. In Rincón del Bonete, fishers were involved in mark-recapture experiments conducted to gather biological information on targeted species and in participatory biodiversity surveys, which set the basis for a fish guidebook inhabiting this UFMEP [40]. Participatory biodiversity assessments in Punta del Diablo showed high species richness that

4.5. Assessment of social-ecological enabling conditions Based on theoretical background proposed by Wade [45], Ostrom [46], Balland and Platteau [47], and Agrawal [48], who reviewed and evaluated specific conditions (i.e. enabling factors) for successful selfmanagement experiences, a questionnaire directed to assess enabling conditions that could facilitate or hinder EAF implementation in each pilot site was performed to a panel of local experts (n = 22). The questionnaire (Table S2) consisted in 24 items directed to capture the perception about: (i) resource units and resource system; (ii) users groups; (iii) institutional framework; and (iv) externalities faced by each fishery. 6


I. Gianelli et al.

implementation of EAF. Also, the relatively reduced number of fishers promoted faster communication and internal decision-making processes. In the particular case of the yellow clam fishery, the social–ecological memory of the local community, based on previous experiences of stock depletion and institutional rearrangements [39,52,53], enabled this fishing community to internalize EAF concepts more rapidly than other pilot sites. Another important issue was the solid longterm relationship between fishers, scientists and fishery managers. The asymmetric EAF development among pilot sites allowed identifying strengths and weaknesses in the implementation process, but also pathways to reduce the gap between high-level policy goals and operational measures at the local level. 5.1. Institutionalization of EAF into the new Fishery Law The results of these piloting experiences were used as learning platforms to strengthen and enhance the normative framework. Lessons learned were useful to both inform the national EAF strategy and replicate this initiative beyond piloting experiences. The translation of processes and results into the national long-term fishery policy allowed establishing a legal basis for further EAF development at a national level. The new Fishery Law enacted in 2013 (December 20th, 2013 Montevideo, Uruguay) explicitly promotes the creation of Zonal Fishery Councils (ZFCs) as a formal strategy to engage local communities in the co-governance of SSFs. In the context of the SSF-Guidelines, governments are encouraged to involve small-scale fishing communities in the design, planning and, as appropriate, implementation of management measures, and that “participatory management systems, such as comanagement, should be promoted in accordance with national legal frameworks” [54]. Thus, the formalization of community participation in Uruguayan SSFs implied an explicit definition of the operational form of the governance mode. ZFCs are constituted by legitimate elected fishery delegates, fishery managers from DINARA, local municipality officers and the Coast Guard of each site. The adopted comanagement type was consultative [36], and therefore, the ultimate responsibility in decision-making process is taken by the government through DINARA. LFCs, which have been served as precursors for future ZFCs, were explicitly supported by EAF implementation. Indeed, over the years these decision making bodies have scaled up rapidly in number at a national level. Currently, in addition to those settled during EAF operationalization, several coastal and inland SSFs have established their own LFC. Although demands for LFCs by fishing communities have risen through time (both in number and frequency meeting), DINARA lacks enough personal to attend all claims. This mismatch has led fishers to perceive signals of weak governance and has discouraged further organizational activities. Fishers complained that organization and participation costs outweigh the potential benefits derived from participatory meetings and processes, threatening the co-management scheme [36]. Due to the consultative nature of co-management, none of the resolutions or consensus achieved in these participatory instances represents binding decisions. Frequent omission of advice from these participatory bodies could pose another serious threat for the no-longer participation of fishing communities in co-management. Stakeholders involved in these collaborative initiatives must therefore ensure that ZFCs result in more than an own wish list of each stakeholder and agreements on vague and nonbinding declarations that greatly reinforce the current status quo [55]. Although the legal framework promotes ZFCs, some critical issues still need to be elucidated (e.g. meeting frequencies and the role to be played by each stakeholder in the decision making body). In addition, one of the most challenging issues to deal with is the heterogeneity of SSFs that could potentially be included in a same ZFC. The diverse social-ecological conditions and the different levels of organizational infrastructure among SSFs deserve further research and discussion [56,57]. In this vein, clustering different SSFs in a same ZFC (i.e. regional scale) should consider not only

Fig. 5. Mean score of the perception of a panel of local experts (n = 22) about multidimensional enabling conditions facilitating or hindering EAF implementation in the four pilot sites. Scores range from 0 (worst condition) to 3 (best condition). For methodological details about the perception gathering procedure and the construction of scores see Supplementary information.

The multidimensional analysis of socio-economic enabling conditions showed marked disparities across UFMEPs (Fig. 5). Small-sized UFMEPs with well-defined boundaries and relatively reduced mobility of resources (La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy and Rincón del Bonete), achieved a good score regarding the resource and resource system dimensions. By contrast, the size and openness of coastal zones of Punta del Diablo and Santa Lucía-Solís Grande, together with a high resource mobility, contributed to lower scores (Fig. S3). Experts concurred that fishing communities in these two UFMEPs are more unlikely to adopt desired EAF practices, given the high costs of monitoring and enforcement of regulations. Small user groups in La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy, Rincón del Bonete and Punta del Diablo, with presence of legitimate leaders and clear rules for access, led to a good score (Fig. S4). In addition, an overlap between the residential location of group members and the resource system promotes users cooperation in the context of EAF implementation. On the other hand, in Santa Lucía-Solís Grande, the user group is very numerous (ca. 900) and heterogeneous, leading to lack of social cohesion and a scarcity of legitimized local leaders. In regard to the institutional framework, better scores were achieved in those UFMEPs with a previous relation between the fishery management agency and fishing communities (e.g. past co-management experiences) and own designed rules according to local realities (Fig. S5). UFMEPs faced similar externality levels regarding exclusion of free riders, government support for locally designed rules and the support of fishing communities about penalties established by the government. La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy and Punta del Diablo showed an appropriate articulation with local markets, thus mitigating the role of middlemen to sell their landings (Fig. S6). 5. Discussion Results from EAF operationalization in Uruguayan SSFs showed dissimilar advances among pilot sites, being particularly successful in La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy and Rincón del Bonete. Several putative factors typical of SES theory could be invoked to explain this dissimilar success. Among ecological conditions, the clear definition of system boundaries (e.g. sandy beach and reservoir/ lake) and the sedentary nature of the resources harvested (i.e. yellow clam) promoted fishery sustainability [49–51]. Concerning social conditions, the presence of fishery leaders, social cohesion and fishery traditions catalyzed the 7


I. Gianelli et al.

communities, the management agency and the academy through clear signs of goodwill played a significant role for establishing partnerships during EAF implementation. This case study is an example of a top-down approach that fostered the development of high-level policy goals with a genuine participation of local fishing communities. Lessons learned from the long-term process from conceptualization to operationalization of EAF into SSFs of Uruguay could be used to promote a holistic framework implementation (i.e. co-management within an EAF) and to scale practices to SSF in developing countries.

the similarities in the SES (i.e. métiers), but also the connectivity between them (i.e. spatio-temporal distribution of users and resource units, market chain) and the different levels of organizational capacity among SSFs [55,58,59]. Lessons learned not only gave inputs for long-term legal mechanisms, but also were translated into specific decrees targeted to manage SSFs in the short-term. Several tools, including spatial and temporal closures, fishing gear regulation and tenure rights allocation to local community members, have been in place since EAF implementation (Table 2). The new Fishery Law explicitly includes ecosystem conservation issues as a fundamental step to achieve sustainable development. However, its operationalization is still elusive and a clear definition of the relevant scales should be relevant to delineate appropriate functional management units where ecosystems processes are clearly recognized and protected from fishing. Most Uruguayan SSFs still lack basic management plans and thus will not deliver full potential socioeconomic benefits until these SES are appropriately addressed.

Acknowledgements This paper is part of the M. Sc. thesis of Ignacio Gianelli. We would like to express our gratitude to all the people who participated in several stages of EAF operationalization process in Uruguayan SSFs, specially the local fishing communities. Financial support was provided by: 1) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the project GCP URU 030 GFF; 2) Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC Grupos ID 32); and 3) the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (grant CRN3070), which is supported by the US National Science Foundation (Grant GEO-1128040)

5.2. Remaining challenges: governance and long-term sustainability Lack of long-term political will or political instability could pose a critical threat for EAF consolidation in SSFs of Uruguay. Additionally, staff scarcity at the management agency precluded a smooth transition between project activities and the appropriation of them by the government. The scientific staff hired during EAF implementation, which had expertise in co-management experiences and EAF practices, was a main link between DINARA and the local communities, and provided critical advice at all instances of the EAF process. However, after project closure, the remaining scarce government staff was unable to continue the frequency and intensity of these practices, leading to a reduction or discontinuation of participatory activities at pilot sites. The lack of budget and human resources to carry on a full EAF implementation at the national level are jeopardizing the sustainability of the results achieved during EAF implementation. Lack of long-term sustainability is common in fishery development projects and also weakens co-management arrangements (see [60]). Thus, implementation projects should not only focus on fishing communities, but should also encourage government officials to get involved at local levels to secure their long-term sustainability. Capacity building in fisheries management agencies on developing countries is critical for a smooth transition between project activities and the appropriation of them by the government.

Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.020. References [1] FAO, The Ecosystem Approach To Fisheries, FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 4, 112, 2003. [2] G. Bianchi, The concept of the ecosystem approach to fisheries in FAO, in: G. Bianchi, H.R. Skjoldal (Eds.), The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, FAO-CABI, Rome, 2008, pp. 20–38. [3] S.M. Garcia, S.M. Cochrane, Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62 (2005) 311–318. [4] C. De Young, A. Charles, A. Hjort, Human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to fisheries: an overview of context, concepts, tools and methods, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No.489, FAO, Rome, 2008. [5] W.S. Patrick, J.S. Link, Myths that continue to impede progress in ecosystem- based fisheries management, Fisheries 40 (2015) 155–160. [6] W.J. Fletcher, G. Bianchi, The FAO-EAF toolbox: making the ecosystem approach accessible to all fisheries, Ocean Coast. Manag. 90 (2014) 20–26. [7] H. Eriksson, D.S. Adhuri, L. Adrianto, N.L. Andrew, T. Apriliani, T. Daw, L. Evans, L. Garces, E. Kamanyi, R. Mwaipopo, A.H. Purnomo, R.J. Sulu, D.J. Beare, An ecosystem approach to small-scale fisheries through participatory diagnosis in four tropical countries, Global Environ. Change 36 (2016) 56–66. [8] A.R. Marshak, J.S. Link, R. Shuford, M.E. Monaco, E. Johannesen, G. Bianchi, M.R. Anderson, E. Olsen, D.C. Smith, J.O. Schmidt, M. Dickey-Collas, International perceptions of an integrated, multi-sectoral, ecosystem approach to management, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74 (2016) 414–420. [9] J.S. Link, H.I. Browman, Operationalizing and implementing ecosystem-based management, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74 (2017) 379–381. [10] J.C. Castilla, O. Defeo, Paradigm shifts needed for world fisheries, Science 26 (2005) 1324–1325. [11] S. Jentoft, Walking the talk: implementing the international voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries, Marit. Stud. 13 (2014) 16. [12] S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragán-Paladines, N. Franz (Eds.), The smallscale fisheries guidelines: Global implementation, Springer International Publishing, Amsterdam, 2017. [13] S. Gelcich, O. Defeo, O. Iribarne, G. Del Carpio, R. DuBois, S. Horta, J.P. Isaach, N. Godoy, P.C. Peñaloza, J.C. Castilla, Marine ecosystem-based management in the Southern Cone of South America: stakeholder perceptions and lessons for implementation, Mar. Policy 33 (2009) 801–806. [14] O. Defeo, Enfoque ecosistémico pesquero: conceptos fundamentales y su aplicación en pesquerías de pequeña escala de América Latina, FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca y Acuicultura, FAO, Rome, 2015. [15] A.P. Guarderas, S.D. Hacker, J. Lubchenco, Current status of marine protected areas in Latin America and the Caribbean, Conserv. Biol. 22 (2008) 1630–1640. [16] S. Gelcich, T. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernández, S. Foale, L. Gunderson, C. Rodriguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, R. Steneck, J.C. Castilla, Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (2010) 16794–16799. [17] S. Gelcich, M. Fernández, N. Godoy, A. Cánepa, L. Prado, J.C. Castilla, Territorial

6. Conclusions SSFs in Uruguay began a slow transition process from a traditionally neglected sub-sector to more sustainable production systems, accounting for a significant amount of total landings. Progresses in EAF implementation at pilot sites have provided initial building blocks for scaling practices to other Uruguayan SSFs. However, long-term political will and full involvement of local communities as stewardships of their own activity are still needed to achieve long-term sustainability. The goals achieved in each UFMEP were closely related to intrinsic characteristics of each fishery system. Those systems with more favorable social-ecological enabling conditions, such as La Coronilla-Barra del Chuy and Rincón del Bonete, could serve as starting points for operationalizing an EAF strategy at a national level. The most challenging task relies on the transformation of SSFs with historical conflicts of use and a complex relationship with the fisheries management agency. Trust building was one of the main difficult and time demanding issues to achieve during EAF implementation. Deploying true transparency over the entire process, and the search for solutions of multi-scale societal and environmental dilemmas in attention to fishers’ claims, were critical. In this way, several efforts were focused on the continuous interchange of information through a social learning process [50]. Building bonds based on trust and reciprocity between local 8


I. Gianelli et al.

[18]

[19] [20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25] [26] [27]

[28]

[29] [30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36] [37]

user rights for fisheries as ancillary instruments for marine coastal conservation in Chile, Conserv. Biol. 26 (2012) 1005–1015. J.M. Orensanz, A. Cinti, A.M. Parma, L. Burotto, S. Espinosa-Guerrero, E. SosaCordero, C. Sepúlveda, V. Toral-Granda, Latin American rights-based fisheries targeting sedentary resources. in: J.M. Orensanz, J.C. Seijo (Eds.), Rights-Based Management in Latin American Fisheries, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 582. Roma, FAO, 2013, pp. 1–69. J.C. Castilla, O. Defeo, Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis on comanagement and experimental practices, Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 11 (2001) 1–30. O. Defeo, M. Castrejón, R. Pérez-Castañeda, J.C. Castilla, N.L. Gutiérrez, T.E. Essington, C. Folke, Co-management in Latin American small-scale shell-fisheries: assessment from long-term case studies, Fish. Fish. 17 (2016) 176–192. S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, J.C. Seijo, A. Charles, Challenges in the assessment and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Fish. Res. 87 (2007) 5–16. S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, J.C. Seijo, A. Charles (Eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 544. Roma, FAO, 2011. N.L. Andrew, C. Béné, S.J. Hall, E.H. Allison, S. Heck, B.D. Ratner, Diagnosis and management of small-scale fisheries in developing countries, Fish. Fish. 8 (2007) 227–240. S.J. Hall, Climate change and other external drivers in small-scale fisheries: practical steps for responding, in: R.S. Pomeroy, N. Andrew (Eds.), Small-scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World, CABI, London, 2011, pp. 132–159. H. Österblom, B.I. Crona, C. Folke, M. Nyström, M. Troell, Marine ecosystem science on an intertwined planet, Ecosystems 20 (2017) 54–61. I. Gianelli, O. Defeo, Uruguayan fisheries under an increasingly globalized scenario: long-term landings and bioeconomic trends, Fish. Res. 190 (2017) 53–60. O. Defeo, P. Puig, S. Horta, A. de Álava, Coastal fisheries of Uruguay, in: S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles, J.C. Seijo, (Eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 544, Rome, Italy, 2011, pp. 357–384. A. Ligrone, V. Franco-Trecu, C. Passadore, M.N. Szephegyi, A. Carranza, Fishing strategies and spatial dynamics of artisanal fisheries in the Uruguayan Atlantic coast, Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 42 (2014) 1126–1135. P. Puig, P. Grunwaldt, S. Gonzalez, Pesquería artesanal de corvina en Uruguay, Frente Marít. 21 (2010) 23–35. S. Horta, O. Defeo, The spatial dynamics of the whitemouth croaker artisanal fishery in Uruguay and interdependencies with the industrial fleet, Fish. Res. 125 (2012) 121–128. M. Crossa, S. Horta, D. Nuñez, J. Fischer, Piloting of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in a freshwater reservoir, Uruguay, in: J. Fischer, J. Jorgensen, H. Josupeit, D. Kalikoski, C.M. Lucas, (Eds.), Fishers’ Knowledge and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: Applications, Experiences and Lessons in Latin America. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 591. Rome, FAO, 2015. L. Bértola, L. Bermúdez, M. Camou, Pesca, Sinsabores y Esperanzas: síntesis de las acciones del CCU en el área de la pesca artesanal en los últimos 25 años, Ediciones del Centro Cooperativista Uruguayo, Montevideo, 1996. M. Zurba, M. Trimble, Youth as the inheritors of collaboration: crisis and factors that influence participation of the next generation in natural resource management, Environ. Sci. Policy 42 (2014) 78–87. J.M. Gutiérrez, S. Villar, A.A. Plavan, Micronucleus test in fishes as indicators of environmental quality in subestuaries of the Río de la Plata (Uruguay), Mar. Pollut. Bull. 91 (2015) 518–523. O. Defeo, S. Horta, A. Carranza, D. Lercari, A. De Álava, J. Gómez, G. Martínez, J.P. Lozoya, E. Celentano, Hacia un manejo ecosistémico de pesquerías. Áreas marinas protegidas en Uruguay. Facultad de Ciencias-DINARA, Montevideo. 122 pp, 2009. F. Berkes, R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. Pollnac, R.S. Pomeroy, Managing Small- scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods, IDRC, Canada, 2001. J. Fischer, J. Jorgensen, H. Josupeit, D. Kalikoski, C.M. Lucas, Fishers' knowledge and the ecosystem approach to fisheries: applications, experiences and lessons in Latin America, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 591. Rome, FAO, 2015.

[38] C.C. Hicks, A. Levine, A. Agrawal, X. Basurto, S.J. Breslow, C. Carothers, S. Charnley, S. Coulthard, N. Dolsak, J. Donatuto, C. Garcia-Quijano, M.B. Mascia, K. Norman, M.R. Poe, T. Satterfield, K. St. Martin, P.S. Levin, Engage key social concepts for sustainability, Science 352 (2016) 38–40. [39] I. Gianelli, G. Martínez, O. Defeo, An ecosystem approach to small-scale co-managed fisheries: the yellow clam fishery in Uruguay, Mar. Policy 62 (2015) 196–202. [40] S. Serra, J. Bessonart, F. Teixeira de Mello, A. Duarte, L. Malabarba, M. Loureiro, Peces del Río Negro, Montevideo, MGAP-DINARA, 2014. [41] A.M. Segura, E.A. Delgado, A. Carranza, La pesquería de langostino en Punta del Diablo (Uruguay): un primer acercamiento, Pan-Am, J. Aquat. Sci. 3 (2008) 232–236. [42] A.M. Segura, R. Trinchin, J. Rabellino, F. Scarabino, F. Teixeira-De Mello, A. Carranza, Length-weight relationships of 14 coastal fish species from Punta del Diablo (Rocha, Uruguay), J. Appl. Ichthyol. 1 (2012) 1–2. [43] A.M. Segura, A.C. Milessi, Biological and reproductive characteristics of the Patagonian smoothhound Mustelus schmitti (Chondrichthyes, Triakidae) as documented from an artisanal fishery in Uruguay, J. Appl. Ichthyol. 25 (2009) 78–82. [44] A.M. Segura, A. Carranza, Y. Marín, J.F. Chocca, B. González, G. Beathyate, F. Scarabino, Primera experiencia para la evaluación de un arte selectivo para la pesca artesanal del langostino (Pleoticus muelleri) en la costa atlántica uruguaya, Rev. De. Invest. Y. Desarro. Pesq. 25 (2014) 27–37. [45] R. Wade, Village Republics – Economic Conditions for Collective Action in South India, CA, ICS Press, San Francisco, 1988. [46] E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990. [47] J. Baland, J. Platteau, Halting Degradation of Natural Resources – Is There A Role for Rural Communities? Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1996. [48] A. Agrawal, Common pool resources and institutional sustainability, in: E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. Stern, S. Stonich, E.U. Weber (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 41–85. [49] E. Ostrom, A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems, Science 325 (2009) 419–422. [50] D.R. Armitage, R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R.I. Arthur, A.T. Charles, I.J. Davidson- Hunt, A.P. Diduck, N.C. Doubleday, D.C. Johnson, M. Marschke, P. McConney, E.W. Pinkerton, E.K. Wollenberg, Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity, Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009) 95–102. [51] N.L. Gutiérrez, R. Hilborn, O. Defeo, Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries, Nature 470 (2011) 386–389. [52] O. Defeo, I. Gianelli, G. Martínez, L. Ortega, E. Celentano, D. Lercari, de la Rosa, A, natural, social and governance responses of a small-scale fishery to mass mortalities, Glob. Change Mar. Syst. Soc. Gov. Responses (2018). [53] D. Lercari, O. Defeo, L. Ortega, L. Orlando, I. Gianelli, E. Celentano, Long-term structural and functional changes driven by climate variability and fishery regimes in a sandy beach ecosystem, Ecol. Model 368 (2018) 41–51. [54] FAO, Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, FAO, Rome, 2015. [55] Ö. Bodin, Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems, Science 357 (2017) 1114. [56] J. Liu, W.W. Taylor, Coupling landscape ecology with natural resource management: paradigm shifts and new approaches, in: J. Liu, W.W. Taylor (Eds.), Integrating Landscape Ecology Into Natural Resource Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002, pp. 3–19. [57] J.M. Fliervoet, G.W. Geerling, E. Mostert, A.J.M. Smits, Analyzing collaborative governance through social network analysis: a case study of river management along the Waal River in The Netherlands, Environ. Manag. 57 (2016) 355–367. [58] M.A. Janssen, Ö. Bodin, J.M. Anderies, T. Elmqvist, H. Ernstson, R.R.J. McAllister, P. Olsson, P. Ryan, Toward a network perspective on the resilience of social-ecological systems, Ecol. Soc. 11 (2006) 1 (15). [59] Ö. Bodin, M. Tengö, Disentangling intangible social–ecological systems, Glob. Environ. Chang. 22 (2012) 430–439. [60] N.T.T. Ho, H. Ross, J. Coutts, Can't three tango? The role of donor-funded projects in developing fisheries co-management in the Tam Giang Lagoon system, Vietnam, Ocean Coast. Manag. 121 (2016) 97–106.

9