Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and Future Directions

This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford]On: 02 January 2014, At: 08:39Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma 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 & AquaculturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs21

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges andFuture DirectionsVandick S. Batista a , Nidia N. Fabré a , Ana C. M. Malhado a & Richard J. Ladle a ba Institute of Biological and Health Sciences , Federal University of Alagoas , Maceió ,Alagoas , Brazilb School of Geography and the Environment , University of Oxford , Oxford , UKPublished online: 02 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Vandick S. Batista , Nidia N. Fabré , Ana C. M. Malhado & Richard J. Ladle (2014) Tropical ArtisanalCoastal 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”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs21

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2013.822463

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries:Challenges and Future Directions

VANDICK S. BATISTA,1 NIDIA N. FABRE,1 ANA C. M. MALHADO,1

and RICHARD J. LADLE1,2

1Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceio, Alagoas, Brazil2School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

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

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

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to discuss artisanal fisheries without first ad-dressing the issue of definitions and, more specifically, the per-ceived differences between “artisanal fishing” and “small-scalefishing.” Although these two terms are frequently used inter-changeably in the literature, there is a subtle difference of em-phasis: whereas artisanal fishing implies a degree of simplicityor tradition (artisanality) in the chosen fishing method (e.g., sim-ple traps, poisons, harpoons, lures and, at the most basic level,hand collection), the term small-scale fisheries typically impliesnothing about gear or methods, focusing almost exclusively onthe size of the fishing unit/operation—in practical terms, oftenoperationalized in terms of the size of the boat.

Many definitions combine both these elements (artisanalityand size of the fishing operation). For example, the FAO glos-

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

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

[T]raditional fisheries involving fishing households (as opposedto commercial companies), using relatively small amount of cap-ital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels (if any), makingshort fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption.In practice, definition varies between countries, e.g. from glean-ing or a one-man canoe in poor developing countries, to morethan 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 sometimesreferred to as small-scale fisheries.

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

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

2 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.

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

et al., 2008; Carvalho et al., 2011). Rather, different fishingpractices can be thought of as occupying points on a continuumof increasing scale and levels of artisanality (Figure 1). Even thisis an over-simplification, since many artisanal fishers are keento take advantage of the latest materials and are by no means ad-verse to incorporating modern technology (if it is inexpensive),such as mobile phones along with more traditional methodsto improve fishing performance (Salia et al., 2011; Sreekumar,2011). Likewise, larger crafts are not necessarily engaged inindustrial/large-scale fisheries (e.g., Chacko, 1998).

Due to the differences in fishing methods and the smallerscale of exploitation, the ecological characteristics of the fishspecies exploited by artisanal fishers are typically differentfrom those exploited by industrial/large-scale fishing. Specif-ically, species caught by tropical artisanal fishers tend to bemore sedentary and typically include a much higher diversity ofspecies, including many that attain small adult sizes. This pat-tern of exploitation reflects the biological characteristics of mosttropical coastal ecosystems, which are highly diverse in com-parison with highly productive off-shore temperate fisheries.For example, in tropical northeastern Brazil, artisanal fishersexploit up to 386 fish species (Haimovici and Klippel, 1999).The small-scale, spatially structured nature of artisanal fisherieswith its focus on sedentary stocks has led to them being referredto as “S-fisheries” by some authors (Orensanz et al., 2005).

Moreover, despite no precise delineation betweenartisanal/small-scale fishing and industrial/large-scale fishing,most authors agree that there exists a characteristic dualism inwhich most fishers or fishing operators fall into distinct groupson the basis of both the scale of the operation and the levelof technology utilized, employment generation, and degree of

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

investment (Carvalho et al., 2011). The close concordance in of-ficial definitions of artisanal/small-scale fisheries (Chuenpagdeeet al., 2006) also suggests that the commonalities are sufficientto make a synthetic review of artisanal fishing meaningful. Ulti-mately, and in the absence of constraints on economic develop-ment, the scale of the fisheries may be closely related to type offisheries resource being exploited. Thus, industrial/large-scalefisheries can only exist (in the long-term) where there is suf-ficient biomass of the target species and where the economicsof extraction are sufficiently favorable. Since yield is frequentlyinversely related to species diversity (Regier and Henderson,1973; Figure 2), industrial fishing tends to predominate in tem-perate latitudes and pelagic fisheries, while artisanal fisheriespredominate in the species-rich inshore waters of tropical coast-lines.

In summary, artisanal fishing is typically defined in relationto the focus of the fishing/economic units, type of fishing ac-tivity, level of use and cost of technology utilized, and eventualmarket or uses of the catch. It should be noted that there are manyrelated terms such as “subsistence” or “benefit-aimed” fisheries(Guillemot et al., 2009) that are often used interchangeablywith the more frequently used artisanal or small-scale fisheries.Nevertheless (and despite the fuzziness of existing definitions),the ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural consequences ofartisanal fishing (shaded area of Figure 1) have become a ma-jor focus of research over recent decades, resulting in a largeamount of literature scattered across a diverse array of disci-plines and sub-disciplines. This review aims to draw upon thesedisparate information sources to provide a synthetic review oftropical artisanal coastal fisheries, highlighting important his-torical trends and identifying key challenges to ensure futuresustainability.

Why Focus on Tropical Coastal Fisheries?

Artisanal fishing is practiced all over the world but is es-pecially 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

Vandick

Highlight

TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES 3

reliance of many communities on natural resources as a source ofincome and food. Here, Cheunpagdee et al. (2006) is followedin defining coastal fisheries as those that deploy gear from shoreout to either 50 km in distance or from shore to 200 m in depth.The simpler and cheaper technology typically employed by ar-tisanal fishers (see above) means that most fisheries of this typeare considerably closer to the shore and shallower than the upperlimits of this definition.

Precise information on the number and economic contribu-tion of artisanal fishing in the coastal tropics is very difficultto obtain (see Bene, 2006, for a discussion of the various es-timates). Most estimates are likely to undershoot due to thelarge number of seasonal or “occasional” fishers who do notshow up in official statistics (FAO, 2004). At the broadest scale,Chuenpagdee et al. (2006) estimated that there are at least 12million small-scale fishers worldwide (as compared to 500,000full-time crew on larger fishing vessels), most of whom residein the tropics. Using a broader definition, the FAO estimatedthat in 2002 about 135 million people are directly or indirectlyemployed in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture (marine andfreshwater) (FAO, 2004).

Small-scale artisanal fishing clearly plays an important rolein the economies of tropical coastal regions but is arguablyeven more important in the context of food security and health,as almost all small-scale fisheries catches are used for humanconsumption, as compared to only 57% of large-scale fishingcatches (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Due to the low costs of arti-sanal fishing, it is often one of the only ways that the rural poorcan gain access to high protein food (Kawarazuka and Bene,2011). Recent estimates suggest that 40–60% of marine fishproduction in Brazil comes from artisanal fisheries (Begossi,2006). The average level of health (e.g., fertility, child mortal-ity, adult mortality) of artisanal fishing communities in manydeveloping world countries is no better than equivalent agri-cultural communities and, in the case of women, may even beworse (Tietze et al., 2002).

Fishing also has strong cultural associations in many tropicalcoastal communities and is frequently an important part of cul-tural identity rather than an option of “last resort” for the coastalpoor. Thus, the behavior of artisanal fishers cannot be solelyinterpreted in terms of economic rationalism. Rather, decisionsabout when and where to fish and what species to fish are influ-enced by a complex interplay of socioeconomic, cultural, andhistorical influences (Bene and Tewfik, 2001). In some ways,this makes the management of artisanal fishing more problem-atic since policies and mechanisms to improve governance andmanagement of fisheries resources need to be particularly sen-sitive to local factors.

Another reason to be concerned about the future of trop-ical coastal artisanal fisheries is the increasing pressure oncoastal communities through population growth and demo-graphic shifts. Small and Nicholls (2003) estimated that 1.2 ×109 people live within 100 km of the coast at densities that arethree times higher than the average global density; in the major-

ity of the world’s countries, this represents 80–100% of the pop-ulation. Moreover, between 1992 and 2002, the global coastalpopulation rose by 56% due to both population growth andmigration. If current demographic trends continue—as seemslikely—the human pressure on coastal zones (and the naturalresources they provide) is predicted to increase dramaticallyover the coming decades (Martınez et al., 2007). Even so, it isimportant to distinguish between general trends in the demo-graphics of coastal populations and changes in artisanal fishingcommunities. Tietze et al. (2002) observed that the number ofcoastal fishers was actually declining or stagnating in four outof the six tropical developing countries they studied. Moreover,many fishers within these communities were turning, in part orin full, to other livelihood opportunities due to a combination ofdeclining resource quality, competition with industrial fishers,and changes in the governance of fish stocks.

Finally, coastal artisanal fishing merits academic attentionbecause of its potential influence on fish populations (see be-low). Although the conservation and sustainable exploitationliterature has, understandably, focused on industrial-scale fish-ing, it is becoming increasingly clear that artisanal fishing canalso have profound consequences on fish populations, biomass,and community structure (Coblentz, 1997; Ruttenberg, 2001;Espino-Barr et al., 2002; Hawkins and Roberts, 2004; Camp-bell and Pardede, 2006; Goetze et al., 2011). Such evidencegoes against the view of many fisheries and marine protectedarea (MPA) managers that artisanal fishing is somehow more“benign.” Indeed, artisanal fishing is often permitted within theboundaries of marine parks and other forms of MPAs (Grand-court et al., 1999; Hawkins et al., 1999; Granek and Brown,2005).

Even if the effect of artisanal fishing on fish population orcommunities is relatively minor within a given area, the com-bined effects of artisanal fishing activities in the tropics areenormous given the large proportion of the coastal populationinvolved in fishing (see above). Thus, it is in the context ofincreasing pressures on coastal tropical environments and fish-eries, demographic shifts in coastal populations, and the socialchallenges of poverty alleviation and health in the developedworld that the diverse and often scattered literature on artisanalfishing is reviewed, while acknowledging that one of the majorchallenges of assessing artisanal fisheries is the paucity and lowquality of much data due to the illegal/unregulated/unreportednature of some artisanal fisheries.

For the reasons given above, the present review is restrictedto tropical coastal fisheries, where fishing pressure is often mostintense and where enforcement of regulations is often weakest.First, a brief synopsis of the main characteristics of fishing andfishers in these regions is given, followed by a review of theevidence for the ecological and social consequences of artisanalfishing. Finally, the management options are assessed, high-lighting successful strategies and identifying major challengesand unifying themes for improving the governance of artisanaltropical fisheries.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


Characteristics of Artisanal Fishing in the Coastal Tropics

As outlined above, artisanal fishing is typically defined interms of both the scale of the operation and the “artisanality” ofthe fishing practices. In practice, there is a suite of common fish-ing methods (cf., Nedelec and Prado, 1990) that are practicedacross the coastal tropics to catch fish and invertebrates that arenormally defined as artisanal. At the most basic level, collectingby hand or by rudimentary spears and hooks is universal. Smallbeach seines and boat seines, and increasingly gill nets/tanglenets, are also widely used in artisanal fishing along with a widevariety of fish traps ranging from pots to barriers. Hook-and-line methods are also popular and vary immensely in level ofsophistication from the use of baited hand-lines on beaches tothe trolling of artificial lures from motorized boats. Jennings andKaiser (1998) made the distinction between “active” and “pas-sive” methods and commented that, while passive methods aremore common among tropical artisanal fishers, active methods,such as drive netting, spearing, and the use of chemicals and ex-plosives, are frequently used. Indeed, the use of explosives andpoisons by artisanal fishers, though illegal in most countries,has caused great damage to coral reefs throughout the worldand has been especially problematic in South East Asia (Foxet al., 2005), the Caribbean (Hawkins and Roberts, 2004), andEast Africa (Wells, 2009).

Despite considerable variation in methods, there is some gear(gillnets, trap fisheries, hand harvests) that is almost exclusivelyused by artisanal fishers (Crowder et al., 2008). Such methodstend to be less selective and consequently catch a high diversityof mainly small species. Moreover, very few species are dis-carded (e.g., Mangi and Roberts [2006] reported a 6.5% discardrate), and non-target species are therefore an important part ofthe catch.

The main target fish species of artisanal fishers are larger,commercially valuable species such as groupers (Serranidae),snappers (Lutjanidae), jacks (Carangidae), snooks (Centropo-midae), mullets (Mugilidae), and smaller species of the tunafamily (Scombridae). However, in marked contrast to industrialfisheries, artisanal fishers exploit a much higher diversity of fishspecies, many of them small and not always noted for their highculinary value. Thus, in addition to the above it is not uncommonfor artisanal fishers to target a wide variety of coral reef speciesand shallow water species, such as parrotfish (Scaridae), wrasse(Labridae), grunts (Haemulidae), drums (Sciaenidae), and seacatfish (Ariidae). Artisanal fishermen also harvest invertebratespecies, especially cephalopods and larger crustaceans. As withindustrial fishing, by-catch may also represent a high propor-tion of the catch (Rueda and Defeo, 2003) and often includeslarge 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 andcannot easily be labeled and grouped into convenient categories.Indeed, fishing may be a supplementary activity to provide extrafood or income and may be practiced seasonally or sporadicallydepending upon the prevailing socio-economic conditions or

cultural preferences within a community. Nevertheless, with therise of community-based natural resource management (CB-NRM) and similar governance frameworks centered on localgroups and communities, there has been a renewed interest inthe economic, social, and cultural dynamics of artisanal fish-ers (St. Martin, 2001; Kronen, 2004; Guillemot et al., 2009).Moreover, there has also been an acknowledgement of the im-portant role played by other actors (indigenous groups, NGOs,scientists, local and national government, consumers, etc.) in thegovernance of artisanal fisheries and the pressing need to buildmore sophisticated and socially realistic bottom-up manage-ment 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 Webof Science were analyzed on 26 February 2012 using the follow-ing search string: ((“artisanal fishing” OR “artisanal fisheries”)OR (“small-scale fishing” OR “small-scale fisheries”)). Fromthis list, conference reports, temperate studies and articles thatwere primarily concerned with freshwater fisheries were ex-cluded, leaving a total of 235 journal papers with a focus ontropical coastal artisanal fisheries. It should be noted that whilethis sample is not exhaustive and should not be considered as anestimate of the volume of research in this area, it should be rela-tively representative of research in this area. In this context, thepapers were categorized in order to identify broad geographicand thematic trends in the literature.

From each paper, the geographic location of the study wasrecorded (ranging from small reefs to archipelagos or groupof countries such as the Caribbean region). In total, 62.2% ofstudies used continental study areas and 37.8% were from is-lands. Perhaps surprisingly, given its traditionally low researchcapacity and infrastructure, Africa was the continent with themost published studies (32.6%), followed by Asia (23.9%) andSouth America (18.3%). Preliminary analysis suggests that thehigh frequency of studies in Africa may be a consequence ofthe large number of European and North American researcherscollecting data there. Likewise, tropical oceanic islands maybe particularly attractive research sites for scientists from thenorthern hemisphere. At the country level, Brazil, Philippines,Kenya, India, and Tanzania, respectively, were the most studiedcountries (Table 1). The majority of studies were broadly char-acterized as relating to coastal ecosystems (56.7%), while reefswere the focus of 21.7% of studies, and 11.1% of articles wereon artisanal fishing in pelagic ecosystems.

As anticipated the thematic focus of articles varied im-mensely, incorporating studies of ecology, social science, devel-opment, economics, history, and politics among others. Unsur-prisingly, fisheries assessment and management were the majorthematic areas (18.4% and 14.2%, respectively). Other themesthat were well represented (3–9% of articles in the sample) weresocio-economic analysis of artisanal fisheries, socio-ecological


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


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

Number of papers Proportion (%)

(a) Region of the worldAfrica 75 32.6Asia 55 23.9Central America 33 14.3North America 8 3.5Oceania 17 7.4South America 42 18.3

(b) CountriesBrazil 24 10.3Philippines 15 6.4Kenya 12 5.1India 10 4.3Tanzania 9 3.8Indonesia 8 3.4Ghana 7 3.0Mexico 7 3.0Nigeria 7 3.0Malaysia 6 2.6Peru 6 2.6

(c) EcosystemsCoastal 102 56.7Reefs 39 21.7Marine 20 11.1Estuary 5 2.8Lagoon 4 2.2Inland 3 1.7Others (e.g., mangroves, mud

flats, seagrass, etc.)7 3.9

studies of fishing communities, by-catch, livelihood impacts oncommunities, 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 fishpopulations are less prominent than in the commercial fishingresearch literature. This is mainly because artisanal fisheriesare frequently multi-gear with low rates of discard, leading tofishing pressure on a wide range of species and where stockapproaches are therefore inadequate or unviable. Indeed, thebreadth of species taken by artisanal fishers and their lack ofspecialization mean that they will frequently and rapidly shifttheir exploitation patterns in relation to changes in abundanceof fish species. Such “tracking” of local resources may providesome respite for low abundance species but may also impedepopulation recovery since even low abundance species are ex-ploited to a certain extent. Nevertheless, there is a broad con-sensus that artisanal fishing (combined with industrial fishing)has had serious consequences on the biomass and assemblagestructure of tropical marine ecosystems (Pauly, 1979); Blaber

(2009) estimated that fish biomass is now <10% of baselineestimates in tropical Asian countries.

Many target species are exploited by both artisanal and in-dustrial fleets, making it difficult to tease apart impacts. Forexample, artisanal fishers may reduce recruitment to the stocksof older fish exploited further offshore by industrial fishers,while offshore fishing may reduce the inshore stocks of (typi-cally) juvenile fish targeted by artisanal fishing (Pauly, 1979).As with assemblage structure (see below), the clearest evidencefor the negative effects of artisanal fishing on populations oftarget species comes from comparisons between areas wherefishing is restricted and unrestricted areas. For example, Watsonand Ormond (1994) observed significant decreases in popula-tion density of commercially important species of lethrinids,lutjanids, and serranids on Kenyan reefs where only artisanalfishing is permitted as compared to equivalent no-take areas.In the Caribbean, Stallings (2009) also observed the disappear-ance of several large-bodied fishes in highly exploited areas.Interestingly, they also recorded increases in smaller serranids,sea urchins and a butterfly fish, probably as a consequence ofa decrease in predation associated with the removal of largerspecies.

Other indicators of the impact of artisanal fishing on popu-lations are shifts in size and weight distributions. Specifically,since large individuals are frequently targeted and are moreheavily exploited, areas of high fishing pressure tend to containsmaller individuals, as has been observed in studies across arange of taxa (Diele et al., 2005; Gobert et al., 2005; Aswaniand Sabetian, 2010). For example, a recent study in the SolomonIslands demonstrated a clear trend of increasing abundance andaverage size of parrotfish in areas with stronger forms of custom-ary management (Aswani and Sabetian, 2010). More generally,areas with reduced size distributions and low catch per unit effortare, ipso facto, considered to be suffering from over-exploitation(Guard and Mgaya, 2002).

It is not only target species that are affected by artisanal fish-ing. The issue of by-catch has long been recognized as a problemfor commercial fisheries (Hall et al., 2000; Lewison et al., 2004)and has recently started to be assessed in the context of artisanalfisheries (Soykan et al., 2008). This historical lack of attention ispossibly because, of the four general categories of discard (mar-ketable species too small or otherwise prohibited, species forwhich no market exists, species-specific fleet sectors discard-ing another fisheries target species, and non-fishery by-catchspecies), only non-fishery by-catch, such as marine mammals,turtles, and birds, is strongly associated with artisanal fishingpractices. The development of effective solutions to the prob-lems of artisanal fisheries by-catch is currently being held backby a general lack of data. Moreover, the data that do exist paint aworrying picture; it was recently estimated that small-scale fish-eries in Peru accounted for the annual capture of 5,900 endan-gered South Pacific loggerhead turtles (Alfaro-Shigueto et al.,2011). Moreover, the problem may be widespread throughoutthe tropics. A recent questionnaire survey of >6,100 fishers in7 developing world countries suggests that by-catch of turtles,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


cetaceans, and sireneans may already be at unsustainable levels(Moore et al. 2010).

Unlike populations, the impacts of artisanal fishing on speciesassemblages are not always easy to detect. This is partly becausethe variability of fishers and fishing practices make data collec-tion and analysis difficult, but also because artisanal fisheriesfrequently overlap with other potentially damaging inshore ac-tivities, such as tourism, industrial and recreational fishing, ship-ping, and mining (Crowder et al., 2008). For example, Campbelland Pardede (2006) observed that gill-netting had particularlystrong effects on the biomass of seven families in a study fromIndonesia. Other studies have been unable to detect any influ-ence of artisanal fishing on the structure of the fish commu-nities, arguing that changes in catch composition are probablyattributable to natural environmental fluctuations (Espino-Barret al., 2002).

As with population level studies, the best evidence for theeffects of artisanal fishing on fish community structure are fromstudies comparing assemblages inside and outside protected ar-eas (Jennings and Polunin, 1997; Hawkins and Roberts, 2004;Miller et al., 2007). Among the most prominent effects docu-mented in these studies is a general decline in abundance andbiomass (Ruttenberg, 2001) and reduced numbers of certainfunctional groups, such as piscivorous fishes (de Boer et al.,2001; Miller et al., 2007), reef-associated demersal fishes (Tse-haye et al., 2007), and herbivorous fishes (Ruttenberg, 2001).The removal of key trophic groups can have profound effectson community structure and ecosystem dynamics. For example,Hawkins and Roberts (2004) described how the overfishing ofkey grazers in the Caribbean caused excessive algal growth. Thenet effect of these processes is typically simpler, lower diversityassemblages dominated by smaller fish species (Crowder et al.,2008).

SOCIO-ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, AND POLITICALASPECTS

Artisanal fisheries in the tropics are typically associated withhuman communities in rural areas but may also be practicedfishers from more urban settings (McGoodwin, 2001). Manyof these communities suffer from high levels of poverty, andconsequently, any attempt to manage artisanal fisheries faces afundamental dilemma: how to reduce over-exploitation of fishstocks and promote sustainability while at the same time ad-dressing basic human needs and providing livelihoods (Emmer-son, 1980). There are no simple solutions to this dilemma, andit is not uncommon for different actors to promote radically dif-ferent management strategies for artisanal fisheries dependingupon their social/environmental priorities. Moreover, the arti-sanal fishers themselves are by no means passive actors withinthis process, and there is a constant transfer of technologicaland ecological knowledge from older to younger fishermen inaddition to beliefs and taboos related to resource conservation

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

Fishing for Survival: Subsistence Fishing

The characteristics and definitions of subsistence fishing varyaccording to the motivations of the fishers and their relationshipwith surrounding markets (Schumann and Macinko, 2007). Thestandard definition is a local, non-commercial, primarily non-recreational activity focused on fishing for direct consumptionof the fishers and dependents (Berkes, 1990). It should be notedthat this definition does not specify the degree of dependencyon fishing yield. Thus, it includes both fishers for who are sup-plementing their diet and those with no access to other sourcesof protein. This is an important issue, since total dependenceon fishing for protein requirements can put huge pressure onfisheries. For example, annual per capita fish consumption forCaribbean 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 communitiesin Amazonia (Batista et al., 1998; Fabre and Gonzales, 1998).Thus, the social and health implications of limitations on catchesfor subsistence fishers without alternative sources of protein willbe far more severe than those with access to other food types oralternative livelihoods. Given the above constraints, the impo-sition of stricter fishing regulations or a decrease in yield due toother factors (collapse of stocks, increase in number of fishers,etc.) may result in emigration to urban centers, switching toother less regulated forms of fishing, or, at worst, a significantreduction in protein with the associated health consequences.

Another major barrier to developing and implementing pol-icy aimed at subsistence fishers is that this sector is poorlymonitored compared to more commercially orientated forms ofartisanal fishing (Zeller et al., 2006); even when it is mon-itored, under-reported landings are common (Jacquet et al.,2010). Thus, the true extent and impact of subsistence fishingis poorly known, compromising the development and imple-mentation of policies to help this most marginalized segment ofartisanal fishers. It is common to find a negative relationship be-tween human population size and fish abundance, as was foundin the Caribbean region (Stallings, 2009), but without includ-ing social or economic variables. Moreover, there is evidencethat subsistence fishers are least likely to stop fishing whenstocks begin to decline. A recent study in East Africa, whichhas a high proportion of subsistence fishing, demonstrated thatfishers were more likely to indicate that they would stop fishingunder falling yields if they were from wealthier families and hadalternative livelihood options (Cinner et al., 2009). Thus, manysubsistence fishers in the coastal tropics are caught in a “povertytrap,” unable to switch to alternative forms of subsistence orincome generation. Extending this logic, any approaches de-signed to reduce fishing pressure may need to first focus on


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


diversifying livelihood opportunities and generating alternativeforms of income generation.

Fishing for Income and Profit

Artisanal fishing is responsible for approximately 90% of allfishing jobs worldwide and provides critical income for millionsof families. However, as outlined above, there are no clear dis-tinctions between those who fish for subsistence and those whofish for income. Moreover, even where fishing is the main liveli-hood activity within the household, it rarely accounts for theentire cash income; Ninnes (2004) reported that only 40–55%of the income of coastal fishing households in Mozambique andTanzania was generated by fishing activities. Similarly, Wielguset al. (2010) estimated 49% of artisanal catches were used forsubsistence purposes in Colombia. Nevertheless, fishing has analmost unique status among income generating activities withintropical coastal communities because it is one of the few reli-able ways to “instantly” generate cash—a kind of “bank in thewater” (Bene, 2006).

The heavy reliance of many families on artisanal fishing togenerate income for buying food and essential services is animportant focus of contemporary debates and has prompted nu-merous calls for the rapid diversification of livelihoods withinartisanal fishing communities (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Perryand Sumaila, 2007). Not only does diversification provide anenhanced level of income (Degen et al., 2010), it consider-ably increases the resilience of communities to environmentalchange, reduces resource conflict, and takes some of the pres-sure off fish stocks (Fulanda et al., 2011). However, promotingdiversification is by no means simple, and opportunities to ex-ploit alternative income sources are both geographically andculturally variable (Kronen et al., 2010). Moreover, where fish-ing plays an important cultural role, there may be considerableresistance to the adoption of alternative livelihood activities.

MANAGEMENT

Sustainability Objectives

Sustainability of fish stocks is the general, if elusive, objec-tive of contemporary fisheries management (Pauly et al., 2002).The origin of the concept of sustainability, or sustainable de-velopment, is relatively new. Sustainable development was firstdescribed by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: as “develop-ment that meets the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WorldCommission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987,p. 43). Many alternative definitions have subsequently been pro-posed, most of which are based on the idea of the “triple bottomline” (TBL) concept—the splitting of sustainability into envi-ronmental, social, and economic factors. It should be noted thatthe TBL is also a simplification and that additional sustain-

ability components (e.g., cultural sustainability) are frequentlyincorporated into contemporary sustainability assessment (Popeet al., 2004).

The objectives and assessment of sustainability is somewhatdifferent as applied to temperate industrial fisheries and trop-ical artisanal fisheries. In the former, the traditional approachto sustainability has been to focus on environmental and, espe-cially, economic sustainability components. Commercial fish-eries managers and policy makers have typically focused on theaccurate determination of sustainable stock levels for a smallnumber of target species using concepts, such as maximum sus-tainable yield (MSY) or sometimes maximum economic yield(MEY; Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Murawski, 2000).

Approaches to sustainability in tropical artisanal fisherieshave been broader and less focused on target setting and as-sessment of population parameters (Hilborn and Walters, 1992;Berkes et al., 2001). Stock management of artisanal fisheries—ifit occurs—is typically subsumed within broader ecosystemmanagement approaches (Mathew, 2003; Crowder et al., 2008;McClanahan and Cinner, 2008). There are several reasons forthis. First, artisanal fishers typically capture a much wider di-versity of fish species, complicating stock assessment and targetsetting measures (Mathew, 2003). Second, there is an enormouslack of resources for fish population assessment and research inmany tropical areas, and historical records are frequently non-existent. Finally, fishing is frequently an integral and traditionalpart of the fabric of local communities, and fishers may make upa sizeable proportion of the population of tropical coastal com-munities (Crowder et al., 2008). Thus, sustainability approachesto fisheries that focus on environmental and economic compo-nents of sustainability need to be modified heavily to incorporatelivelihood issues and to acknowledge long-held cultural prac-tices 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 fish-ing practices. Objectives depend on the profile of users andmanagers of the fishery resources, their interests, expectations,and the characteristics of the fisheries culture of stakeholdersinvolved. In artisanal fisheries, sustainability objectives are typ-ically focused on food security issues (Bene et al., 2007), main-taining traditional ways of life (e.g., Berkes, 1990), and pro-tecting livelihoods (Pomeroy, 1994). However, the existenceof multiple and often poorly defined objectives, a lack of tar-get setting, and a focus on development objectives (as opposedto environmental sustainability) means that exploitation ratesin artisanal fisheries can vary enormously according to factorssuch as market demands (Caviglia-Harris et al., 2003), avail-ability of fishing power technologies (Defeo and Castilla, 1998;Bald et al., 2006), availability of alternative activities, incomesources, and local culture (McGoodwin, 2001; Kronen et al.,2010).

More generally, the lack of any sort of regulation or manage-ment in probably the majority of artisanal fisheries in the coastaltropics means that, initially, management objectives may need


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


to be stripped down to basic priorities. This is exactly what hasbeen recently suggested by Cochrane et al. (2011), who rec-ommended that artisanal fisheries management should be basedon precautionary principles in an attempt to prevent the fisherycrossing undesirable thresholds. Referred to as “primary fish-eries management,” the authors cautioned that this should beviewed as a first step to ensure sustainability for data-poor, cur-rently unregulated fisheries and that ultimately the aim shouldbe 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 undergonea paradigm shift over the last two decades toward greater pub-lic participation and stakeholder involvement in resource man-agement 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 (Christieand White, 1997)—are being increasingly challenged by notionsbased around ideas of engaging stakeholders, especially thosethat are involved in the day-to-day use of a resource, such asartisanal fishers and their families, in the management of natu-ral resource (White et al., 1994; Nielsen and Vedsmand, 1999).Top-down strategies are also losing favor because, in the wordsof one researcher, “it is almost socially immoral to try to imposefishing effort or catch restrictions on subsistence and artisanalfishers” (Russ, 2002, p. 421). Thus, traditional management ap-proaches are being replaced by those that more fully embracethe inherent uncertainty and complexity of both the fisheries andthe communities that exploit them. This has lead to the creationof numerous systems of participatory management and cross-scale governance: human-oriented approaches that also drawupon ideas of adaptive ecosystem-based fisheries management(Pikitch et al., 2004; Crowder et al., 2008), providing linkagesbetween social and natural systems (Berkes, 2003).

Despite the almost universal shift toward greater public par-ticipation in the management of coastal resources, effective co-management is by no means a panacea for the problems ofsustainability of artisanal fishing resources in the tropics, andthere are many potential barriers to the successful implemen-tation (reviewed in Wilson et al., 2003). First, conflicts overresource use—especially fishing rights—may prove to be in-tractable problems for which mutually satisfactory resolutionmay not be possible. In this context, participation of local stake-holders may merely give a platform for the legitimization ofvested interests in the guise of community aspirations (Cookeand Kothari, 2001). Second, existing or historic political, cul-tural, or administrative structures may not have the flexibility toenable effective local community involvement and may even re-sult in disempowerment through channeling local stakeholdersto interact within an intrinsically biased framework (Cooke andKothari, 2001). Third, there may be insufficient political will tofacilitate 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 localstakeholder community in the management of the resource tocreate strong and democratic local organizations (Brown, 2002).If the participatory process is externally imposed and local stake-holders do not fully “buy in” to the initiative, then the processmay break down when the initiative finishes or financial supportis withdrawn. Finally, insufficient time may be given for thecreation of local organizations and stakeholder groups and/orrefinement of the participatory process.

Nevertheless, co-management appears the most appropriateframework for managing artisanal fisheries in the tropics, andconsiderable progress has been made in identifying both localand universal factors that facilitate successful co-management.Among the most important of these factors is how the co-management process is initiated and who leads it. Implemen-tation is necessarily different in contrasting cultures and in-stitutional settings and success or failure of co-managementis therefore heavily context dependent (Hill and Hupe, 2002).Chuenpagdee and Jentoft (2007) clearly demonstrated the im-portance of understanding local context in their review of co-global management initiatives. They concluded that (1) the pre-implementation period is of critical importance and may lastseveral years; (2) practitioners must be aware of how the imple-mentation of co-management may interfere with “on-going so-cial system processes that need to be balanced and sustained” (p.667); and (3) the support of government agencies is often essen-tial for successful implementation. Indeed, there is often a “legalvacuum” that surrounds co-management initiatives—somethingthat only the state can fill.

The necessity for a clear legal framework within whichcommunity-based management initiatives can flourish demon-strates the continued importance of local or national governmentin the governance of artisanal fisheries. It also indicates the falsedichotomy between top-down and bottom-up management sys-tems. Of course, legal frameworks can also have a customarybasis, and traditional systems of marine tenure may also havean important role in the management of some artisanal fisheries(see discussion in Dahl, 1988).

Interventions

As indicated above, there are numerous approaches to themanagement of artisanal fisheries that incorporate elements ofboth top-down and bottom-up approaches to management. Per-haps the most emblematic intervention is the creation of ex-clusion and sustainable use zones, normally created within thecontext of an MPA (Roberts and Polunin, 1991). A good exam-ple is the development of marine extractive reserves (MERs) inBrazil, defined as “community-based, site-specific, multi-use,land and sea resource management approach based on claimsof culturally distinct groups with longstanding livelihood tiesto ‘artisan-scale’ production territories” (Cordell, 2003). Oneof the most innovative aspects of MERs is the requirement that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


local fishers formally ask for their establishment in additionto interdisciplinary studies that seek to incorporate traditionalknowledge and management practices into the MER design(Diegues, 2008). Moreover, the fishers take an active role indefining boundaries and establishing no-take areas within theMER.

The success of MERs in Brazil is difficult to assess, althoughinitial reports suggest that smaller reserves with homogenouscommunities of fishers have had fewer problems with enforce-ment and the establishment of co-management with governmentofficials (Diegues, 2008). In contrast, larger MERs that containseveral distinct communities have had problems with both en-forcement and managing the expectations of diverse user groups(e.g., urban fishers and tourism operators). Indeed, the MER casestudy is probably indicative of a more general scale dependencefor successful governance of artisanal fisheries.

An alternative or complementary approach to zoning and no-take areas is to place limitations on the type of fishing that is per-missible within a given area (e.g., Guzman and Jacome, 1998) oron the type and size of fish that are permissible. A common ap-proach is to formulate recommendations on the basis of studiesof selectivity of different fishing gear. McClanahan and Mangi(2004) identified the elimination or reduction of beach seinesand small traps as the most effective way to reduce the catchof small fish and reduce the overlap in selectivity among theexisting gears among coastal artisanal fishers in Kenya. Moregenerally, gear-based management alone is probably insuffi-cient to restore sustainability to artisanal fisheries, especiallyif implemented on an ad hoc basis; a study of the artisanal seacucumber fishery in the Solomon Islands observed that size lim-its, bag limits, gear restrictions, and seasonal closures generallyfailed, possibly due to limited human, financial, and technical re-sources (Ramofafia et al., 2004). However, gear-based manage-ment and other fishing regulations could still play an importantrole within an adaptive management framework that selectivelyimposes restrictions depending on perceived ecological trends(McClanahan and Cinner, 2008).

Another approach to the governance of artisanal fisheries isto focus on the consumers, using education or market-basedstrategies to influence what species are bought or eaten. How-ever, since a large proportion of artisanal fishing is for subsis-tence, these strategies are unlikely to have the impacts of similarschemes (e.g., eco-labeling, consumer guides, boycotts) aimedat commercial fisheries (Jacquet and Pauly, 2007); indeed, sus-tainable fisheries initiatives may even be creating barriers for thedevelopment of more sustainable small-scale fisheries (Jacquetand Pauly, 2008). One of the simplest strategies to influenceconsumption is through sales bans on certain species. How-ever, a recent study in Micronesia demonstrated that a seasonalban on the sale of reproductively active serranids had the un-intended consequence of increasing fishing pressure on otherequally threatened fish families (Rhodes and Tupper, 2007).

The success of any of these interventions, whether they areaimed at fishers or consumers, is ultimately dependent uponlevels of support and compliance. However, building sufficient

levels of community support is by no means easy, especially forunpopular restrictions on when, where, and how to fish imposedon 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 Caribbeanregion increased from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s as aconsequence of increased regulation but began to decline againwhen government controls were reduced (Troeng and Eddy,2005). Although there are no quick fixes, changing attitudes andbuilding support can be gradually achieved through targeted ed-ucation programs, increased professionalism, and broader shiftsin cultural attitudes in the wider community (McClanahan et al.,2009). A good example of the success of targeted education isthe widespread change in attitudes to turtle conservation amongartisanal fishing communities. In Brazil, Projeto Tamar hasachieved notable success in halting the harvesting of gravidfemale sea turtles and their eggs by focusing their efforts onlocal participation, even employing ex-egg poachers to patrolbeaches and protect nests (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999).

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

One of the greatest challenges in artisanal fisheries researchin the tropics is the enormous shortfalls in data, from basicinformation on fishing pressure and the demography of arti-sanal fishers (cf., Bene, 2006) to the detailed socio-demographicand cultural research (e.g., Parsram, 2010) that is required toplan genuinely sustainable co-management initiatives, includ-ing 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 ar-eas (e.g., Shivlani and Koeneke, 2011), although these may besomewhat mitigated by the use of indirect indicators such aspopulation size or coastline length (Stewart et al., 2010). Thelack of historical information is also a considerable challenge forfisheries managers in the tropics. Given that even low levels ofartisanal fishing can significantly affect slow-growing, late ma-turing fish species and that artisanal fishing has been practicedacross the coastal tropics for centuries or millennia, it is verydifficult to assess genuine baselines (Pinnegar and Engelhard,2008). This situation has been exacerbated in many areas thathave undergone a huge increase in fishing pressure over recentdecades, further shifting the baseline for stock assessment.

As a social group, artisanal fishers are relatively understudiedand, in the context of management, are often treated as more orless static elements within the system. In reality, artisanal fishersare highly heterogenous with diverse social and economic pri-orities driving complex behavioral dynamics in relation to thefisheries resource. Such dynamics largely dictate the flexibilityand responsiveness of fishing tactics and strategies in responseto changes in resource abundance, environmental conditions,and market or regulatory constraints (Salas and Gaertner, 2004).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


Understanding the behavior and decision-making processes ofartisanal fishers is therefore essential for the development ofmore sophisticated, realistic, and responsive management sys-tems. Closely related, and possibly of greater immediate im-portance, is collecting data on fishing effort (rather than simplyyield), as this provides critical information for assessing sustain-ability in the broader context and for assessing environmentalimpacts (Stewart et al., 2010).

Recent decades have seen clear shifts in governance philos-ophy in artisanal fisheries, from the ad hoc implementation of(often unenforceable) gear and catch regulations to approachesbased on co-management and adaptive ecosystem management.These approaches hold great promise, but need to be carefullyadjusted to the local context, which is a time-consuming and po-tentially expensive exercise that requires robust data on both thelocal fishing communities and ecological data on target speciesand ecosystems (Fabre et al., 2012). Moreover, effective co-management requires strong local institutions and decentralizedgovernment (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, aseach failed initiative makes it harder to establish the levels oftrust and cooperation that are essential ingredients of success-ful management systems (Brockington et al., 2008). This factalone suggests that the socioeconomic and cultural conditionsthat provide a back-drop for successful governance systemsneed to be in place before more traditional interventions areimplemented (Figure 3). Moreover, the consequences of anyinterventions (social or ecological) need to be carefully moni-

tored, and the governance structure should be sufficiently flex-ible to allow adaptive change and modifications to suit localconditions.

Developing management models that successfully negotiatesocial, cultural, economic, and environmental barriers is neithersimple nor rapid, and successful case studies in the tropics areat a premium. One promising candidate is the sustainable opensystem (SOS) approach (Figure 4) developed for rural Ama-zonian fishing communities (Ribeiro and Fabre, 2003; Fabreet al., 2012). The SOS approach has five overlapping and inte-grated phases: (1) the community self-identifies the geographicextent of the management; (2) long-term studies (several years)are conducted to identify the temporal and spatial dynamicsof extractive practices and norms of use; (3) territories, micro-habitats, frequencies of use, and other measures of exploitationare mapped in order to identify key areas and periods of resourceuse conflict; (4) observed norms of practice are reified and codi-fied into an legally binding “agreement of integrated use,” tightlylinking the inhabitants of management units into a partnershipwith governmental and non-governmental organizations; and (5)monitoring and evaluation based on both self-assessment andexternal assessment are performed. SOS appears to be workingand has the potential to be implemented in other artisanal fishingcommunities. However, SOS and similar models are no quickfix; researchers, governmental and non-governmental organiza-tions, and community groups needed eight years to implementthe full program (Fabre et al., 2012).

Ultimately, the greatest challenge for the creation of sociallyand environmentally sustainable artisanal fisheries in tropical

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


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


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

coastal areas is probably the lack of time. Fisheries researchersand managers were relatively slow to realize the importanceof artisanal fishing, both ecologically and socially. The result-ing data shortfalls limit the effectiveness of prioritization andmonitoring strategies. There is also a lack of cross-cultural andtransnational studies, analyzing how artisanal fisheries and theirgovernance differ geographically as a result of regional socio-cultural characteristics. In this context, it would be immenselyvaluable to create a global database of management actionstaken and their impacts on coastal fisheries, fishers, and commu-nity livelihoods; such an “evidence-based” approach has beenadopted with great success in the field of biodiversity conserva-tion (Sutherland et al., 2004).

Finally, the most effective potential solutions (e.g., co-management, diverse stakeholder involvement, adaptive ecosys-tem management) are time consuming and difficult to imple-ment; there are no short-cuts in the painstaking process ofcollecting data, constructing informal and formal organiza-tions, and building much needed trust among interested par-ties (Gruber, 2010). Successful, locally tailored governancemodels exist (see above), but it is doubtful if the politicalwill and resources exist to apply these where they are mostneeded.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the referees for their com-ments on the manuscript. This study was partially funded bythe Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq), the AlagoasResearch Foundation (FAPEAL), and the Coordination for En-hancement 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 managementof small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy, 25: 377–388 (2001).

Aswani, S., and A. Sabetian. Implications of Urbanization for ArtisanalParrotfish Fisheries in the Western Solomon Islands. Conserv. Biol.,24: 520–530 (2010).

Bald, J., A. Borja, and I. Muxika. A system dynamics model for themanagement of the gooseneck barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) in themarine reserve of Gaztelugatxe (Northern Spain). Ecol. Model., 194:306–315 (2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


Batista, V.S., A. J. I. Silva, C. E. C. Freitas, and D. Freire-Brasil.Characterization of the fishery in riverine communities in the Low-Solimoes/High-Amazon region. Fisher. Manag. Ecol., 5: 101–117(1998).

Begossi, A. Temporal stability in fishing spots: Conservation and co-management 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 thereasons for fish food taboos among Amazonian and Atlantic Forestfishers (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 foodsecurity in the Pacific. Mar. Policy., 33: 64–76 (2009).

Bene, C. Small-scale fisheries: Assesssing their contribution to rurallivlihoods in developing countries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1008.Rome: FAO (2006).

Bene, C., G. Macfadyen, and E. H. Allison. Increasing the contributionof small scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAOFisheries Technical Paper 481. Rome: FAO (2007).

Bene, C., and A. Tewfik. Fishing effort allocation and fishermen’s deci-sion making process in a multi-species small-scale fishery: Analysisof 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 studiesin Canada. Arctic, 43: 35–42 (1990).

Berkes, F. Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons fromsmall-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 (off-shore) fisheries, pp. 533–564. In: Ecological Connectivity amongTropical 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 cascadingeffects in response to artisanal fishing pressure. Fish. Res., 79: 75–83(2006).

Carvalho, N., G. Edwards-Jones, and E. Isidro. Defining scale in fish-eries: 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 policiesfor environmental protection and sustainable usage of renewableresources. Ecol. Econ., 45: 119–132 (2003).

Chacko, T. Artisanal Fishing along the Alleppey Coast, SouthwestIndia. Hum. Devel., 57: 60–62 (1998).

Christie, P., and A. T. White. Trends in development of coastal areamanagement in tropical countries: From central to community ori-entation. Coast. Manage., 25: 155–181 (1997).

Chuenpagdee, R., and S. Jentoft. Step zero for fisheries co-management: 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 approachfor global assessment of small-scale fisheries: Preliminary resultsand hypotheses, pp. 587–595. In: Reconciling Fisheries with Con-servation: Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress (Niel-son, J. Ed.), Vancouver, 3–6 May 2004. Bethesda, MD: AmericanFisheries Society (2008).

Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. Mcclanahan. Socioeconomic factorsthat affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery.Conserv. Biol., 23: 124–130 (2009).

Coblentz, B. E. Subsistence consumption of coral reef fish suggestsnon-sustainable extraction. Conserv. Biol., 11: 559–561 (1997).

Cochrane, K. L., N. L. Andrew, and A. M. Parma. Primary fisheriesmanagement: A minimum requirement for provision of sustainablehuman benefits in small-scale fisheries. Fish Fisher., 12: 275–288(2011).

Colding, J., and C. Folke. Social taboos: “invisible” systems of localresource 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) Initia-tive: Protected Area Management: Capacity Building, Social Pol-icy and Technical Assistance. Rio de Janeiro: The Ford Founda-tion/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 ecosystemsand 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 man-agement. 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 tropicalintertidal benthic fish community. Environ. Biol. Fish., 61: 213–229(2001).

Defeo, O., and J. C. Castilla. Harvesting and economic patterns in theartisanal Octopus mimus (Cephalopoda) fishery in a northern Chilecove. Fish. Res., 38: 121–130 (1998).

Degen, A. A., J. Hoorweg, and B. C. C. Wangila 2010. Fish traders inartisanal fisheries on the Kenyan coast. J. Enterpris. Commun., 4:296–311 (2010).

Diegues, A. C. Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries inBrazil. Chennai: I.C.S.F (2008).

Diele, K., V. Koch, and U. Saint-Paul 2005. Population structure, catchcomposition and CPUE of the artisanally harvested mangrove crabUcides cordatus (Ocypodidae) in the Caete 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 tropicalfish assemblages associated with small-scale fisheries: a case studyin the Pacific off central Mexico. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 12: 393–401(2002).

FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: United Na-tions Fisheries and Agriculture Organization (2004).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


FAO. Small-scale and artisanal fisheries. Available from http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14753/en (2012)

Fabre, N., V. Da Silva Batista, M. De Albuquerque Ribeiro, and R.Ladle 2012. A new framework for natural resource management inAmazonia. Ambio, 41: 302–308 (2012).

Fabre, N. N., and J. C. A. Gonzales. Recursos ıcticos no Alto Amazonase sua importancia para as populacoes ribeirinhas. Bol. Mus. ParaenseEmılio 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 blastfishing. 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 fisheryKenya. 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–grouperexploitation in the Caribbean (Bay Islands, Honduras). Fish. Res.,73: 159–169 (2005).

Goetze, J., T. Langlois, D. Egli, and E. Harvey. Evidence of artisanalfishing 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. An-drianarivo. Status and management of the marine protected areasin Madagascar. International Coral Reef Action Network EasternAfrican Component (ICRAN PROJECT) UNEP/FAO (1999).

Granek, E. F., and M. A. Brown. Co-management approach to ma-rine conservation in Moheli, Comoros Islands. Conserv. Biol., 19:1724–1732 (2005).

Gruber, J. S. Key principles of community-based natural resourcemanagement: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effectiveapproaches for managing the commons. Env. Manage., 45: 52–66(2010).

Guard, M., and Y. D. Mgaya. The artisanal fishery for Octopus cyaneagray in Tanzania. Ambio, 31: 528–536 (2002).

Guillemot, N., M. Leopold, M. Cuif, and P. Chabanet. Characteriza-tion and management of informal fisheries confronted with socio-economic changes in New Caledonia (South Pacific). Fish. Res., 98:51–61 (2009).

Guzman, H. M., and G. Jacome. Artisan fishery of Cayos CochinosBiological Reserve, Honduras. Rev. Biol. Trop., 46: 151–163 (1998).

Haimovici, M., and S. Klippel. Diagnostico da biodiversidade dospeixes teleosteos demersais marinhos e estuarinos do Brasil. RioGrande: Fundacao Universidade Federal de Rio Grande (1999).

Hall, M. A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals. By-catch: Problemsand solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 41: 204–219 (2000).

Hawkins, J. P., and C. M. Roberts. Effects of artisanal fishing onCaribbean 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 Caribbeancoral 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 The-ory and in Practice, Chapter 8. London: Sage Publications (2002).

Jacquet, J. L., and D. Pauly. The rise of seafood awareness campaignsin an era of collapsing fisheries. Mar. Policy., 31: 308–313 (2007).

Jacquet, J., and D. Pauly. Funding priorities: Big barriers to small-scalefisheries. Conserv. Biol., 22: 832–835 (2008).

Jacquet, J., H. Fox, H. Motta, A. Ngusaru, and D. Zeller. Few data butmany fish: Marine small scale fisheries catches for Mozambique andTanzania. Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 32: 197–206 (2010).

Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. The effects of fishing on marine ecosys-tems, 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 byfishing on the biomass and diversity of non-target reef fish commu-nities. Coral Reefs, 16: 71–82 (1997).

Kaplan, I. M., and B. J. Mccay. Cooperative research, co-managementand 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 speciesin improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries:Building evidence. Public Health Nutr., 14: 1927–1938 (2011).

Kronen, M. Fishing for fortunes?: A socio-economic assessment ofTonga’s artisanal fisheries. Fish. Res., 70: 121–134 (2004).

Kronen, M., A. Vunisea, F. Magron, and B. McArdle. Socio-economicdrivers and indicators for artisanal coastal fisheries in Pacific is-land countries and territories and their use for fisheries managementstrategies. Mar. Policy, 34: 1135–1143 (2010).

Lewison, R. L., L. B. Crowder, A. J. Read, and S. A. Freeman. Under-standing impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. TrendsEcol. Evol., 19: 598–604 (2004).

Mangel, J. C., J. Alfaro-Shigueto, K. Van Waerebeek, C. Caceres, S.Bearhop, M. J. Witt, and B. J. Godley. Small cetacean captures inPeruvian artisanal fisheries: High despite protective legislation. Biol.Conserv., 143: 136–143 (2010).

Mangi, S. C., and C. M. Roberts. Quantifying the environmental im-pacts of artisanal fishing gear on Kenya’s coral reef ecosystems.Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52: 1646–1660 (2006).

Marcovaldi, M. A., and G. G. Marcovaldi. Marine turtles of Brazil: Thehistory and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biol. Conserv.,91: 35–41 (1999).

Martınez, M. L., A. Intralawan, G. Vazquez, O. Perez-Maqueo, P.Sutton, and R. Landgrave. The coasts of our world: Ecologi-cal, economic and social importance. Ecol. Econ., 63: 254–272(2007).

Mathew, S. Small-scale fisheries perspectives on an ecosystem-basedapproach to fisheries management, pp. 47–464. In: Responsible Fish-eries in the Marine Ecosystem (Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson,Eds.). Rome: FAO (2003).

McClanahan, T., J. Castilla, A. White, and O. Defeo. Healing small-scale 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 gearand ecosystem-based management in the artisanal coral reef fisheryof Papua New Guinea. Aquat. Conserv., 18: 493–507 (2008).

McClanahan, T. R., and S. C. Mangi. Gear-based management of atropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capturesize. 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 FisheriesTechnical Paper 401. Rome: FAO (2001).

Miller, M. W., D. B. Mcclellan, J. W. Wiener, and B. Stoffle. Apparentrapid fisheries escalation at a remote Caribbean island. Environ.Conserv., 34: 92–94 (2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

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 andsea turtle captures in artisanal fisheries. Biol. Conserv., 143: 795–805(2010).

Murawski, S. A. Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspec-tive. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57: 649–658 (2000).

Nedelec, C., and J. Prado. Definition and classification of fishing gearcategories. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 222, Revision 1.Rome: FAO (1990).

Nielsen, J. R., and T. Vedsmand. User participation and institutionalchange in fisheries management: A viable alternative to the failuresof ‘top-down’ driven control? Ocean Coast. Manage., 42: 19–37(1999).

Ninnes, C. Improving the collection, analysis and dissemination of in-formation in small-scale fisheries. Bangkok: FAO, Advisory Com-mittee on Fisheries Research—Working Party on Small-Scale Fish-eries (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 inthe Eastern Caribbean. Proc. 62nd Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 62:128–136 (2010).

Pauly, D. Theory and Management of Tropical Multi-species Stocks: AReview, 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 worldfisheries. Nature, 418: 689–695 (2002).

Perry, R. I., and U. R. Sumaila. Marine ecosystem variability andhuman 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 ofcoastal fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, methods andexperiences—introduction, pp. 1–11. In: Community Managementand 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 governmentin fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy, 21: 465–480 (1997).

Pomeroy, R. S., P. Mcconney, and R. Mahon. Comparative analysisof coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean. Ocean Coast.Manage., 47: 429–447 (2004).

Pope, J., D. Annandale, and A. Morrison-Saunders. Conceptualisingsustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 24: 595–616(2004).

Quinn, N.J., and B.L. Kojis. Occupational hazards of artisanal fishersin the US Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Instit., 64:135–141 (2012).

Ramofafia, C., I. Lane, and C. Oengpepa. Customary marine tenurein Solomon islands: A shifting paradigm for management of seacucumbers in artisanal fisheries, pp. 259–260. In: Advances in SeaCucumber 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 inciden-tal mortality in artisanal fisheries in Anakao, Southwestern Regionof Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci., 7: 175–184(2008).

Regier, H. A., and H. F. Henderson. Towards a Broad Ecological Modelof Fish Communities and Fisheries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 102:56–72 (1973).

Rhodes, K., and M. Tupper. A preliminary market-based analysis of thePohnpei, Micronesia, grouper (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) fisheryreveals unsustainable fishing practices. Coral Reefs, 26: 335–344(2007).

Ribeiro, M. O. A., and N. N. Fabre. Sustainable Open Systems: Envi-ronmental Management Alternative in Amazonia. Manaus: EDUApublications (2003).

Roberts, C. M., and N. V. C. Polunin. Are marine reserves effectivein management of reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 1: 65–91(1991).

Rueda, M., and O. Defeo. Linking fishery management and conserva-tion in a tropical estuarine lagoon: Biological and physical effectsof an artisanal fishing gear. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 56: 935–942(2003).

Russ, G. R. Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fisherymanagement tools, pp. 421–433. In: Coral Reef Fishers: Dynamicsand 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 inthe Galapagos Islands. Conserv. Biol., 15: 1691–1699 (2001).

Salas, S., J. Euan-Avila, E. Coronado, L. Palomo-Cortes, and L. A.Munoz. Analisis sobre Riesgos y Accidentes en Pesquerıas Arte-sanales en el Sureste de Mexico. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst.,64: 294–301. (2012).

Salas, S., and D. Gaertner. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: Man-agement implications. Fish Fisher., 5: 153–167 (2004).

Salia, M., N. N. N. Nsowah-Nuamah, and W. F. Steel. Effects of mo-bile phone use on artisanal fishing market efficiency and liveli-hoods 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 artisanalfisheries in Puerto Rico: Geographic information systems (GIS) ap-proach for assessing the regional effort and landings. Proc. 63rdGulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 63: 60–66 (2011).

Small, C., and R. J. Nicholls. A global analysis of human settlement incoastal zones. J. Coast. Res., 19: 584–599 (2003).

Soykan, C. U., J. E. Moore, R. Zydelis, L. B. Crowder, C. Safina, andR. L. Lewison. Why study bycatch? An introduction to the ThemeSection on fisheries bycatch. Endang. Spec. Res., 5: 91–102 (2008).

Sreekumar, T. T. Mobile phones and the cultural ecology of fishing inKerala, India. Info. Soc., 27: 172–180 (2011).

St. Martin, K. Making space for community resource management infisheries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 91: 122–142 (2001).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14


Stallings C. D. Fishery-independent data reveal negative effect of hu-man 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 andspatial 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 incoastal fishing communities and its implications for the coastal en-vironment. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 403. Rome: FAO (2002).

Troeng, S., and E. Rankin. Long-term conservation efforts contributeto 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 incatch 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 thefish and urchin populations of a Kenyan coral reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog.Ser., 109: 115–129 (1994).

Wells, S. Dynamite fishing in northern Tanzania—pervasive, prob-lematic and yet preventable. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 58: 20–23(2009).

White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi. The need forcommunity-based coral reef management, pp. 1–18. In: Collabo-rative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessonsfrom 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. Estimationof fisheries removals and primary economic impact of the small-scale and industrial marine fisheries in Colombia. Mar. Policy, 34:506–513 (2010).

Wilson, D. C., J. R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol. The Fisheries Coman-agement Experience: Challenges and Prospects. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic 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 coralreef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950–2002. Coral Reefs,25: 144–152 (2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 08:

39 0

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and Future Directions

Documents

Transcript of Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and Future Directions