Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FAOFISHERIES ANDAQUACULTURETECHNICALPAPERISSN 2070-7010544Coastal fisheries ofLatin America andthe Caribbean

Cover photos and credits (from top left clockwise):Fishing boat with bottom nets for hoki in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina (courtesy of Miguel S. Isla); landing products inHolbox, Quintana Roo, Mexico (courtesy of Mizue Oe); artisanal boat operating in Santa Marta, Colombia (courtesyof Mario Rueda); artisanal fisher fishing octopus in Yucatán, Mexico (courtesy of Manuel Solis); lobster boat withtraps in Cuba (Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras de Cuba); artisanal boat operating in Santa Marta, Colombia(courtesy of Mario Rueda).

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product donot imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status ofany country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of itswhether or not these have been patterned, does not imply that these have been endorsed orrecommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.The word “countries” appearing in the text refers to countries, territories and areas withoutdistinction.The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do notThe designations employed and the presentation of material in the map(s) do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO concerning the legal orconstitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation offrontiers.ISBN 978-92-5-106722-2All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in thisinformation product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, uponrequest. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educationalpurposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAOcopyright materials, and all other queries concerning rights and licences, should beaddressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org or to the Chief, Publishing Policy andViale Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.© FAO 2011

DedicationThis document is dedicated to the memory of our colleague and friendBisessar Chakalall, former Fishery Officer in the Subregional Office forthe Caribbean (SLC) and Secretary to the Western Central Atlantic FisheryCommission (WECAFC). Bisessar was an extraordinary human being whogave testimony to the values he believed in. He was brilliant and humble;dynamic and parsimonious; structured and spontaneous. He was an honest,generous and committed person. He had profound interest in understandingothers, their culture and context, and a genuine interest in improving thewell-being of fishing communities. Bisessar knew when to listen and whento speak out with his ideas and suggestions. He conducted himself with thepassion and wisdom to intelligently explore life in all its dimensions. Bisessarwas an excellent and unique friend. His human legacy remains in our heartsand minds.

iiiPreparation of this documentThe idea of preparing a state-of-the-art document examining the assessmentand management of coastal fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbeangrew naturally out of the CoastFish conference of 2004 (see www.mda.cinvestav.mx/eventos/Coastfish/english/welcome). This interdisciplinaryconference, held in Mérida, Mexico, brought together individuals frommany different institutions and organizations across the region, covering awide range of perspectives, in order to contribute to a better understandingof coastal small-scale fisheries. The focus was on fishery assessment andmanagement, taking into account biological, socio-economic and policyissues, aiming to examine the extent of information available for differentcountries and to identify the gaps in knowledge and management. The goalultimately was to use this understanding to determine desirable directionsfor future fishery research, as well as governance and managementapproaches to moving towards sustainable fisheries in the region. This goalremains valid for this document as well.This document has been prepared as an initiative of the editors – S. Salas,R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo – in cooperation with a strongset of authors writing about coastal fisheries in twelve countries across LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. Writing and compilation of the document weresupported by the European Union through the project Integrating MultipleDemands on Coastal Zones with Emphasis on Aquatic Ecosystems andFisheries (INCOFISH). The Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) coordinated the final proofreading, publishing anddistribution. References in this document follow international bibliographicstandards rather than FAO house style.

ivAbstractThe importance of fisheries for coastal communities and livelihoods in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (LAC) is well documented. This is particularlythe case for ‘coastal fisheries’, including subsistence, traditional (artisanal) andadvanced artisanal (or semi-industrial) varieties. There are, however, major gapsin knowledge about these fisheries, and major challenges in their assessmentand management. Therein lies the key theme of this document, which seeks tocontribute to a better understanding of coastal fisheries in the LAC region, as wellas to generate discussion about ways to move towards sustainable fisheries. Thedocument includes three main components. First, an introductory chapter providesan overview of general trends in the fisheries of the LAC countries, as well assome of the key challenges they are facing in terms of sustainability. Second, a setof twelve chapters each reporting on the coastal fisheries of one country in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, collectively covering fisheries of each main subregion:the Caribbean islands (Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, PuertoRico, Trinidad and Tobago), North and Central America (Costa Rica, Mexico) andSouth America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay). All these country-specificchapters follow an integrated approach, to the extent possible, covering aspectsranging from the biological to the socio-economic. Third, the final component ofthe document contains a synthesis of information from the countries examined, ananalysis of the main issues and challenges faced by the various fisheries, an outlineof policy directions to improve fisheries management systems in the LAC region,identification of routes toward more integrated approaches for coastal fisheriesmanagement, and recommendations for ‘ways forward’ in dealing with fisheryassessment and governance issues in the region.Salas, S.; Chuenpagdee, R.; Charles, A.; Seijo, J.C. (eds).Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean.FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. 2011. 430p.

vContentsDedicationPreparation of this documentAbstractAcknowledgementsPrefaceiiiivviiviii1. Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean:issues and trends 1Silvia Salas, Ratana Chuenpagdee, Anthony Charles and Juan Carlos Seijo2. Coastal fisheries of Argentina 13Inés Elías, Claudia Carozza, Edgardo E. Di Giácomo, Miguel S. Isla,J.M. (Lobo) Orensanz, Ana María Parma, Raúl C. Pereiro,M. Raquel Perier, Ricardo G. Perrotta, María E. Ré and Claudio Ruarte3. Coastal fisheries of Barbados 49Patrick McConney4. Coastal fisheries of Brazil 73Marcelo Vasconcellos, Antonio Carlos Diegues andDaniela Coswig Kalikoski5. Coastal fisheries of Colombia 117Mario Rueda, Jacobo Blanco, Juan Carlos Narváez, Efraín Viloria andClaudia Stella Beltrán.6. Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 137Ángel Herrera-Ulloa, Luis Villalobos-Chacón, José Palacios-Villegas,Rigoberto Viquez-Portuguéz and Guillermo Oro-Marcos7. Coastal fisheries of Cuba 155Servando V. Valle, Mireya Sosa, Rafael Puga, Luis Font and Regla Duthit8. Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 175Alejandro Herrera, Liliana Betancourt, Miguel Silva, Patricia Lamelasand Alba Melo9. Coastal fisheries of Grenada 219Roland Baldeo10. Coastal fisheries of Mexico 231José Ignacio Fernández, Porfirio Álvarez-Torres, FranciscoArreguín-Sánchez, Luís G. López-Lemus, Germán Ponce, AntonioDíaz-de-León, Enrique Arcos-Huitrón and Pablo del Monte-Luna

vi11. Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 285Mónica Valle-Esquivel, Manoj Shivlani, Daniel Matos-Caraballo andDavid J. Die12. Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 315Elizabeth Mohammed, Lara Ferreira, Suzuette Soomai, Louanna Martinand Christine Chan A. Shing13. Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 357Omar Defeo, Pablo Puig, Sebastián Horta and Anita de Álava14. Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin Americaand the Caribbean: underlying patterns and trends 385Ratana Chuenpagdee, Silvia Salas, Anthony Charles andJuan Carlos Seijo15. Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin Americaand the Caribbean: effective governance and healthyecosystems 403Juan Carlos Seijo, Anthony Charles, Ratana Chuenpagdee and Silvia Salas16. Concluding thoughts: coastal fisheries of Latin America andthe Caribbean 423Anthony Charles, Silvia Salas, Juan Carlos Seijo and Ratana ChuenpagdeeList of contributors 427Editors’ profile 429

viiAcknowledgementsThis document is a product of collaboration among a wide range of scientists andresearchers in Latin America and the Caribbean, who share common interests andconcerns about coastal fisheries and the well-being of coastal communities in theregion. We want to thank first the authors of the country-specific chapters in thisdocument, who have continued to believe in the project of this document, andmade strong efforts to gather the available information about coastal fisheries intheir respective countries. Most of the contributors presented their initial resultsat the CoastFish conference. We are also grateful to conference participantswho contributed to the discussion on existing assessment tools and managementapproaches – highlights of this discussion are included in this volume.The document could have not been produced without funding from theEuropean Union through the project Integrating Multiple Demands on CoastalZones with Emphasis on Aquatic Ecosystems and Fisheries (INCOFISH) (ProjectNo. INCO 003739). We also thank the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) for support at the publication stage. We thank Drs RainerFroese and Silvia Opitz (INCOFISH), Dr Cornelia Naun (European Union), andDr Kevern Cochrane (FAO) for their strong support and encouragement.We are grateful to Kathryn Goetting, Carlos Zapata Araujo, Miguel A.Cabrera and Patricia González for their help with the translation, formatting andediting. Much appreciated as well are the patient efforts of Kevern Cochrane andJohanne Fischer at FAO in guiding the document through to publication, and ofMaria Giannini and Michèle S. Kautenberger-Longo, also at FAO, for excellentproofreading and formatting. Finally, Anthony Charles acknowledges financialsupport from a research grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada, and Ratana Chuenpagdee is grateful for financial support fromthe Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the CanadaResearch Chairs Program.

viiiPrefaceAlong the coasts of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), fisheries areinherently complex – notably as a result of the heterogeneity of gears, boats andspecies, as well as the diversity of geophysical, bio-ecological and socio-economiccharacteristics. Coastal fishers in the region are especially vulnerable to the impactsof fisheries declines, given their livelihood and income dependence on localresources. Meanwhile, only limited technical and financial support exists for theassessment and management of coastal fisheries.As a result, while the importance of coastal fisheries in the LAC region is clear,their assessment is highly challenging. Limitations in the knowledge base forcoastal fisheries have become more and more evident. Within the environments inwhich coastal small-scale fisheries operate, data are typically lacking or relativelyless available and, in particular, quantitative information is relatively sparse. Forinstance, while information about fisheries landings has regularly been gatheredat a national level and aggregated to regional and global levels by internationalorganizations like FAO, there is often no distinction made between landings fromsmall-scale fisheries and from larger-scale commercial ventures. There are alsogaps in knowledge about the various management methods used in the region.The shortfall between the information available and that needed for properunderstanding of coastal fisheries makes it difficult to determine managementschemes that can best fit the context of such fisheries.We hope that this document represents a significant contribution to filling someof the many information gaps on fishery assessment and management in LACcoastal fisheries. Over the years, there have been remarkably few examinationsof fisheries in the region, and certainly not many taking an integrated and broadbasedperspective. This document can be seen as complementing past publications,such as those of FAO and the World Bank, among others, while also providing anintegrated approach to examining fisheries of the region. We hope readers will findthe volume useful, and that it might contribute both to increasing the attentionpaid to coastal small-scale fisheries across Latin America and the Caribbean andto identifying the ingredients for their successful management and their long-termsustainability.The editors

11. Coastal fisheries of LatinAmerica and the Caribbeanregion: issues and trendsSilvia Salas,* Ratana Chuenpagdee, Anthony Charles and Juan Carlos SeijoSalas, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Charles, A. and Seijo, J.C. (eds). 2011. Coastal fisheries of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean region: issues and trends. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charlesand J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries andAquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 1–12.1. Introduction 12. Major trends in coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 33. Factors affecting sustainability of LAC coastal fisheries 63.1 Fisheries complexities 73.2 Growing demand for scarce resources 73.3 Different incentives 83.4 Stock fluctuations 83.5 Lack of governance structures 94. Concluding remarks 9References 101. INTRODUCTIONThe importance of fisheries for coastal communities in Latin America and theCaribbean (LAC) has been highlighted in many forums and reports, includingthose of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)and other development agencies such as the World Bank and the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Coastal and smallscalefishers often have considerable livelihood and income dependency on localresources – making them highly vulnerable to negative trends in the fisheries,such as declining catches and degrading habitats, and particularly to the risk ofdownturns and collapse (Staples et al., 2004; World Bank, 2004; Bené et al., 2007).* Contact information: Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados, Unidad Mérida. Mérida,Yucatán, Mexico. E-mail: ssalas@mda.cinvestav.mx

2Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThese realities reinforce the importance of understanding, assessing andeffectively managing coastal fisheries. This is the key theme of the document –to examine the various approaches and challenges arising in the assessment andmanagement of coastal fisheries within the LAC region. For the purpose of thisdocument, the term ‘coastal fisheries’ refers to three main types: subsistencefisheries, traditional fisheries (artisanal), and advanced artisanal (or semi-industrial)fisheries. The adaptability of fishers, which enables them to switch gears andtarget species, makes it difficult in some cases to differentiate among these threetypes, but broadly the main distinction made here is between coastal fisheries andindustrial or recreational fisheries. Coastal fisheries tend to share certain features,such as high mobility of fishers, transboundary issues related to shared resources,high competition among user groups, seasonal use of resources, and multiplelivelihoods (Beltran, 2005; Agüero and Claverí, 2007; Salas et al., 2007; Chakalallet al., 2007).This volume strives to contribute to a better understanding of coastal fisheriesin the region, in terms of their assessment and management, as well as to generatediscussion about ways to move towards sustainable fisheries in the region. Theheart of the document is a set of twelve chapters each reporting on the coastalfisheries of one country in the LAC region. Specifically, these ‘country chapters’include information on the fisheries of each of the main subregions of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean: the Caribbean islands (Barbados, Cuba, DominicanRepublic, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago), North and CentralAmerica (Costa Rica, Mexico) and South America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia,Uruguay).The twelve countries included in the document provide reasonable geographicalcoverage, but the information presented herein is certainly not exhaustive. Theheterogeneity and complexity of coastal fisheries in the LAC region is clear,given its large number of countries and their diverse geophysical, bio-ecologicaland socio-economic characteristics. Accordingly, this document reflects only asampling of the region’s fisheries – but it does highlight many issues and challengesshared by fisheries in the region, especially regarding assessment and management.It also provides an analytical discussion and directions for future fishery researchand management.The document is organized into three main sections. In this introductorychapter we provide an overview of the general trends in the fisheries of theLAC countries as well as some of the key challenges they are facing in terms ofsustainability.Following this is the set of 12 ‘country chapters’ described above, which presenta range of contexts, and discuss common problems as well as particularities thatillustrate the complexity of the fisheries in the region. All the country-specificchapters follow the same format, to the extent possible, in terms of content, rangingfrom biological to socio-economic information. The focus of each one varies,however, depending on key characteristics of the fisheries in the correspondingcountry, and the range of disciplines and specialization of the authors. Each also

4Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThe major contribution to the region’s total landings comes from pelagicspecies landed by industrial fisheries. For example, the fluctuations in landings,such as the sharp rises in 1970, 1994 and 2000 and the declines in 1972, 1983 and1994 were due largely to fluctuations on landings from purse seine fisheries inPeru and Chile. Also, high squid landings in these two countries in recent yearscontributed significantly to the total increase. Similar to Peru and Chile, catchesfrom Mexico come mainly from purse seines (about 42% in 2004). On the otherhand, in Argentina and Brazil, the majority of the landings come from trawling(about 72% and 50% of total country landings in 2004, respectively).If we focus on coastal landings, by excluding from the data catches from gearsoperating mostly in offshore areas (i.e. bottom trawls, midwater trawls and purseseines), the contributions from Peru and Chile are reduced from 84% to about44% of the total within our reference group of 14 countries. While this does notchange the top five countries in Table 1, in terms of total landings, the importanceof coastal fisheries becomes evident in countries like the Dominican Republic,Grenada, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad and Tobago, in each of which landings fromgears used mostly in coastal waters exceed 50% of the total landings for thatcountry (Table 1). Peru and Chile, on the other hand, provide far less of theircatches from coastal fisheries, with landings from this sector contributing onlyabout 2% and 9% respectively to the total for each country. Incidentally, theseproportions are the lowest among the LAC countries examined here.Mexico and most countries in Central America have fleets both on the Pacificand Caribbean coasts, and they are highly dependent on coastal fisheries, especiallyas a source of jobs and food. Reports by FAO (2000) for these countries indicatethat catches appear to be higher on the Pacific than on the Caribbean coasts in mostcases. In the latter, a lower volume seems to be compensated for by the capture ofprofitable species like conch, lobster and shrimp, among others, which contributesignificant foreign currency to these countries. Total export of catches in the LACregion (excluding aquaculture) by the year 2001 was close to US$7 million; fivecountries made up 73% of this contribution (Agüero and Claverí, 2007).Accurate figures on fishing effort in coastal fisheries of the LAC region aregenerally not available, and when they do exist there is typically a shortage ofconsistent information. Even though catch records began in the 1950s in somecountries, information on fishing effort started to be collected much later. Suchdata are important in the evaluation of fishing capacity and labour capacityrelative to catch trends. In general, the number of people involved in fishing andfish farming has more than doubled in the last three decades (FAO, 2006a; Salaset al., 2007), with many of these people entering the coastal fisheries industry. Incontrast to global trends (Figure 1), it is evident when evaluating landings onlyfrom coastal fisheries that between the early 1970s and the mid-1990s there wasan increasing trend in catches in South America, with a declining trend after thisperiod (Figure 2). In the Caribbean, the trend has been generally upward for threedecades, afterward a sharp decline has changed the general trend.

Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 5TABLE 1Catches for those countries included in this document plus Peru and Chile in 2004. Totallandings integrate catches from all gears 1 and landings from ‘coastal gears’ 2 include allgears except bottom trawl, mid-water trawl and purse seinesCountryTotal landingsfor all gears(‘000 tonnes)% of total landingsof all listedcountriesLandings from‘coastal gears’only (tonnes)% of coastallandings intotal for thecountryPeru 9 611.94 52.68 151.27 1.57Chile 5 317.31 29.14 492.18 9.26Mexico 1 286.57 7.06 134.60 10.46Argentina 945.94 5.18 187.36 19.81Brazil 746.21 4.09 130.66 17.51Colombia 124.95 0.68 13.82 11.06Uruguay 122.98 0.67 15.38 12.51Cuba 36.14 0.20 16.21 44.85Costa Rica 20.85 0.11 3.64 17.46Dominican Republic 14.22 0.08 7.28 51.20Trinidad and Tobago 1 10.03 0.06 5.10 50.84Puerto Rico 6.12 0.03 3.50 57.18Barbados 1 2.14 0.01 0.92 43.00Grenada 1 2.03 0.01 1.80 89.00Source: 1 FAO (2004: http://www.fao.org/fishery/geoinfo/en); 2 data from Sea Around Us, 2004 (www.Seaaroundus.org)adapting FAO data.As in other parts of the world, the expansion in catches in the LAC region hasbeen due to technological development and an increase in the size of the fleet,an expansion of the fishery workforce, exploration of new fishing grounds, andrelated impacts of government financial transfers (FAO, 2006a; OECD, 2006;Gréboval, 2007). In the last decade, in many of these countries the most importantresources are considered to be at their maximum level of exploitation (WorldBank, 2004; FAO, 2006b; Agüero and Claverí, 2007). Despite this situation, thestatus of many fisheries in the region is poorly known. Agüero (1992) states thatone of the problems these countries face has been the lack of consistency in theway catches have been recorded and fisheries analysed. Fisheries institutes inmany of these countries were created in the 1960s to conduct research, but theyhave not achieved sufficient technical capacity (human and logistic) due to limitedfinancial support (Agüero and Claverí, 2007).

6Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 2Landing trends of coastal fisheries by area from main countries that operate inLatin America and the CaribbeanSource: Sea Around Us project database (www.seaaroundus.org).3. FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY OF LAC COASTAL FISHERIESMany factors have contributed to the unsustainability of fisheries, and thesein turn have led to excess capacity (Gréboval, 2002; Swan and Gréboval, 2004;Gréboval, 2007). These factors include: (i) a lack of solid governance structures;(ii) fishery complexities, incomplete knowledge and the associated uncertainties;(iii) inadequate incentives and subsidies that stimulate overcapacity; (iv) stockfluctuations due to natural causes; (v) growing demand for limited fish resources;and (vi) poverty and a lack of alternatives for coastal development. These factorsare examined below as well as throughout the document.

Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 73.1 Fisheries complexitiesScientific literature and public media have extensively reported problems thatfisheries in many areas of the world are facing. While it is generally known thatoverexploitation, habitat degradation and unintended catches and discards arecommon causes of such crises, their effects on the ecosystem and the economy ofthe nations involved, especially in the context of coastal fisheries, are not alwaysproperly addressed. This is due mainly to the complexity of these fisheries, whichmakes assessment and management difficult (Cochrane, 1999; Mahon et al.,2008, 2009). For instance, many coastal fishers switch among alternative fisheryresources using various fishing gears throughout the year, making it difficult todetermine fishing effort. Some fishers engage in other occupations such as tourism,salt mining or aquaculture to supplement their fisheries income. As coastal areasaround the world continue to attract migrants, conflicts between various uses ofcoastal resources accelerate and consequently affect the livelihoods of the coastalcommunities. Balancing between uses and conservation in coastal areas has thusbecome more challenging, especially when information to foster comprehensiveunderstanding of those fisheries is insufficient.3.2 Growing demand for scarce resourcesIn the last few decades the increase in food consumption has been oriented toprotein intake in many countries, especially in Europe and Asia. This trend hasbeen favoured by an improvement in food technology which has provided addedvalue to diverse products including those coming from the sea. According to FAO,the per capita consumption of fish in the world has increased from 9 kg in 1961 to16.5 kg in 2003 (FAO, 2006b). Even though consumption in developing nations islower than that of developed nations, the market still offers incentives to enter thefishing industry. The increase in tourism in coastal areas also keeps up the demandfor marine products.An increase in coastal population has resulted in steeper competition fora reduced level of resources. At the same time, degradation of habitats fromthe expansion of different activities along the coast has had an impact on thecorresponding ecosystems, on their resources, and on the people depending onthem.The sharp rise in fisheries production outlined above has been caused bymany factors, including uncontrolled capacity in the industry, technologicalimprovements, an increase in demand for seafood, and a lack of governance. Ageneral pattern of overcapacity and resource degradation has been reported incountries from the LAC region (Ehrhardt, 2007; Ormaza, 2007; Salas et al., 2007;Vasconcellos et al., 2007; Wosnitza et al., 2007). It is important to note that whilesome general patterns can be observed in the whole LAC region, the situation ineach country is context specific, and an understanding of the issues and challengesfaced in each location, taking into account particular geopolitical conditions, couldprovide useful insights for the whole region (Agüero and Claverí, 2007; Chakalallet al., 2007). This, we hope, will be one key outcome of this document.

8Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean3.3 Different incentivesOne of the factors promoting growth of the fishing industry is the intervention ofgovernment through different types of financial transfers. Government financialtransfers (GFT) are defined by the OECD (2006) as “the monetary value ofgovernment interventions associated with fisheries policies” and include marketprice support, untaxed resource rent, negative subsidies, as well as infrastructureexpenditure. Unfortunately, limited information exists on financial transfersapplied in the LAC countries and their impacts; most of the interventions reportedin the country chapters of this document have to do with subsidies.Indeed, the issue of subsidies in coastal fisheries is discussed in seven ofthe fisheries chapters (Argentina, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica,Grenada, Brazil and Barbados). Among the subsidies reported are: (i) grants forthe construction of new vessels, traps, aggregating devices, etc.; (ii) grants for themodernization of the fleets; (iii) preferential credits; and (iv) reduced prices forpurchased inputs (e.g. fuel, bait and ice). The impact of subsidies on sustainabilitydepends on the dynamics of fleet capacity and effort of both small-scale as well asindustrial vessels. To the extent that subsidies reduce operating costs in fisheries,this tends to artificially generate profits that further stimulate fishing capacitygrowth, lower biomass levels and raise competition.3.4 Stock fluctuationsClearly, independent of fishing activity, stocks will fluctuate in the short andlong run due to natural causes. For pelagic resources, major stock fluctuationsoccurred even prior to human exploitation (Soutar and Isaacs, 1974). Thesefluctuations have been best documented in relation to the El Niño-SouthernOscillation (ENSO) climatic phenomenon, especially as it affects the productionof small pelagic fishes in the eastern Pacific (e.g. Lluch-Belda et al., 1989), butalso as it impacts other resources and other geographic areas. Similar climaticforcing factors have been affecting marine production systems on the globallevel (Kawasaki, 1992; Klyashtorin, 2001), and long-term fluctuations will bereinforced by climate change (Kelly, 1983). Thus, although ‘decadal’ periodicitiesare frequently mentioned in the fisheries literature (e.g. Zwanenberg et al., 2002),Klyashtorin (2001) suggests that natural cycles in productivity of around 50 to 60years duration are likely to be dominant.Coastal fishery resources are also vulnerable to other human activities that mayaffect critical habitats and/or biological and biophysical processes (e.g. Spaldingand Kramer, 2004). With respect to the latter, the long-term role of environmentalchange in fisheries has become easier to observe in recent years now that fisheriesdata series more commonly exceed a half century in duration. However, our abilityto discriminate between natural environmental changes, the effects of fishing, andthe impact of other human activities remains poor.

Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 93.5 Lack of governance structuresAccording to Kooiman et al. (2005), governance is beyond government and broaderthan management in that it involves problem solving, creation of opportunities,and interactions. Mahon et al. (2008) advocate an interactive fisheries governanceperspective, which involves a dynamic and complex fish chain, leading from theresource and its supporting ecosystem to the global marketplace and the localconsumer. The dynamics of this chain need to be balanced as the system respondsto a variety of stimuli.Interactions within complex fisheries systems in many cases have beenignored when fisheries resources are examined in an isolated manner and publicparticipation in problem solving and creating opportunities are discouraged(Castilla and Defeo, 2005; Charles, 2001; Garcia and Charles, 2008; Mahon et al.,2008). Given the current context and the high diversity that characterize coastalfisheries in LAC, alternative forms of governance are required, particularly todevelop local institutions that help increase social capital and develop strategiessuitable to the social, economic and political contexts faced by the correspondingfisher groups. For example, many chapters throughout the document place specialemphasis on the need for collective access rights for fishing communities in orderto promote co-management. This approach highlights resource use and accessamong the challenges fisheries face in the move towards good governance.4. CONCLUDING REMARKSAs fishing pressure has imposed significant problems on fisheries and theirmanagers across most LAC countries, various degrees of response, in terms offishery management and assessment, have been developed. However, many gapsstill exist in the understanding of the issues, as will be discussed in the differentcountry chapters. These gaps arise as a result of some key limitations.First, with regard to assessment, the limited qualitative and quantitativeinformation on coastal and small-scale fisheries is evident. In many countries,official statistics make no distinction between landings from small-scale fisheriesand from larger-scale commercial ventures. Although landings from these twosectors can be distinguished based on gear use in some cases (as attempted inTable 1), there is generally a lack of permanent programmes to monitor catchesfrom these fisheries. Problems associated with evaluation are also common,exacerbated by limited financial support for research.Second, the ‘management tool-kit’ appropriate for small-scale fisheries ismuch less developed than that for large-scale fisheries, and transferability ofmanagement approaches from the latter to the former is highly questionablegiven the major differences both in the characteristics of these fisheries and intheir importance to fishing households. Even if these tools were transferable, animportant management limitation – the lack of human and economic resources –remains a key challenge (FAO, 2000; Salas et al., 2007; Mahon et al., 2008).

10Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThese problems are discussed in a number of the chapters, and a summaryof trends in adoption and use of the various assessment and management toolsis presented in Chapter 14. This compilation of information serves three goals.First, an overview of the fisheries in terms of their biological, social and economicassessment provides insights for management purposes. Second, the documentaims to identify research gaps in coastal fisheries, to provide guidance on prioritiesfor research themes, approaches and tools. In this regard, it becomes clear thatto achieve a sufficient understanding of fishery complexities, an emphasis onmultidisciplinary research – incorporating the bio-ecological and socio-economicprocesses of fisheries – is critical. Third, we see from this analysis that from amanagement perspective, the complex characteristics of coastal fisheries demanda shift away from conventional approaches, towards a system that enables localorganizations to adapt to both the current context inside the LAC region and toglobal trends.REFERENCESAgüero M. 1992. La pesca artesanal en América Latina: una visión panorámica. InContribuciones para el estudio de la pesca artesanal en América Latina. Editedby M. Agüero. ICLARM Conference Proceedings Contribution No. 835, ManilaPhilippines. pp. 1–27.Agüero M. & Claverí M. 2007. Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en AméricaLatina: una síntesis de estudios de caso. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesqueroen América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca, 461.Roma. FAO. pp. 61–72.Beltran C. 2005. Evaluación de la pesca de pequeña escala y aspectos de ordenaciónen cinco países seleccionados de América Latina: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá,Colombia y Ecuador. Períodos, 1997–2005. FAO Circular de Pesca No 957/2, FAONaciones Unidas, Roma.Bené C., Macfayden G. & Allison E.H. 2007. Increasing the contribution of smallscalefisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper. No. 481. Rome, FAO.Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2005. Paradigm shifts needed for world fisheries. Science,309: 1324–1325.Chakalall B., Mahon R., McConney P., Nurse L. & Oderson D. 2007. Governanceof fisheries and other living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean. Fish. Res., 87:92–99.Charles A. 2001. Sustainable Fishery Systems. Oxford, UK. Blackwell Science.Cochrane K.L. 1999. Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasingcomplexity of fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56: 917–926.Ehrhardt N.M. 2007 Evaluación y administración de la capacidad de pesca deacuerdo a criterios de pesca sustentable aplicable a especies anuales: las pesqueríasde camarón en Guatemala y Nicaragua como un ejemplo. In Capacidad de pesca ymanejo pesquero en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc.Téc. Pesca, 461. Roma, FAO. pp. 117–150.

12Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSoutar A. & Isaacs J.D. 1974. Abundance of pelagic fish during the 19 th and 20 thcenturies as recorded in anaerobic sediment off the Californias. Fish. Bull. (US), 72:257–273.Spalding M. & Kramer P. 2004. The Caribbean. In Defying Ocean’s End. An agendafor action. Edited by L. Glover and S.A. Earle. Washington DC, USA, Island Press.pp. 7–42.Staples D., Satia B. & Gardiner P.R. 2004. A research agenda for small-scale fisheries.FAO/RAP Publication/FIPL/C10009. Rome, FAO.Swan J. & Gréboval D. 2004. Report and Documentation of the InternationalWorkshop on the Implementation of International Fisheries Instruments andFactors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries. Mauritius, 3–7February 2003. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 700, Rome, FAO.Vasconcellos M., Kolikoski D.C., Haimovici M. & Abdallah P.R. 2007. Capacidadexcesiva del esfuerzo pesquero en el sistema estuarino-costero del sur de Brasil:efectos y perspectivas para su gestión. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesqueroen América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca 461.Roma, FAO. pp. 275–308.World Bank. 2004. Saving fish and fishers. Toward sustainable and equitablegovernance of the global fishing sector. The World Bank. Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Department. Report No. 29090_GLB.Wosnitza-Mendo C., Mendo J. & Guevara-Carrasco R. 2007. Políticas de gestiónpara la reducción excesiva de esfuerzo pesquero en Peru: el caso de la pesquería dela merluza. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en América Latina y el Caribe.Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca 461. Roma, FAO. pp. 343–371.Zwanenberg K.C.T., Bowen D., Bundy A., Drinkwater K., Frank K., O’Boyle R.,Sameoto D. & Sinclair M. 2002. Decadal changes in the Scotian shelf largemarine ecosystem. In Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic. Edited byK. Sherman and H.R. Skjoldal. Elsevier Science, B.V. pp. 105–150.

132. Coastal fisheries of ArgentinaInés Elías * , Claudia Carozza, Edgardo E. Di Giácomo, Miguel S. Isla, J. M. (Lobo)Orensanz, Ana María Parma, Raúl C. Pereiro, M. Raquel Perier, RicardoG. Perrotta, María E. Ré and Claudio RuarteElías, I., Carozza, C., Di Giácomo, E.E., Isla, M.S., Orensanz, J.M. (Lobo), Parma, A.M.,Pereiro, R.C., Perier, M.R., Perrotta, R.G., Ré, M.E. and Ruarte, C. 2011. Coastal fisheriesof Argentina. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries ofLatin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544.Rome, FAO. pp. 13–48.1. Introduction 142. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 162.1 Coastal shellfish gathering 212.2 Beach seining 262.3 Gill and tangle nets deployed in the intertidal zone 262.4 Bottom tangle nets and tide-intersecting nets deployed from boats 272.5 Beam trawling 282.6 Commercial diving 292.7 Bottom longlining 302.8 The ‘lampara’ (hand-thrown seine) fishery 312.9 Trap fisheries 313. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 313.1 Description of fishers 313.2 Social and economical aspects 334. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 354.1 Community organization 354.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectors 364.3 Integrated management of the coastal zone and marine conservation 375. Assessment of fisheries 386. Fishery management and planning 397. Research and education 41Acknowledgements 42References 43* Contact information: Centro Nacional Patagónico (CENPAT-CONICET). Puerto Madryn,Chubut, Argentina. E-mail: elias@cenpat.edu.ar

14Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean1. INTRODUCTIONOver centuries the coasts of Argentina were inhabited by aboriginal peoples that,mostly towards the south, harvested marine resources. The archaeological recordshows evidence of consumption of mammals, amphibians, molluscs and fishesalong Patagonian shores. The gathering methods and knowledge of these earlyfishers were not, however, incorporated by the colonial society, contrary to whatwas the case in Peru and Chile, which became leading countries with regard toartisanal fishing activities. It is perhaps because of this, together with prevalentpolicies that prioritized agriculture and husbandry, that fishing and fishers areperceived as exotic (Mateo Oviedo, 2003).Over recent decades, because of the loss of employment opportunities intraditional sectors of the economy and in industrial fisheries, as well as populationgrowth in coastal areas, groups of artisanal fishers have sprouted in many areaswhere they did not operate before. Small-scale fishing is becoming a permanentway of life for many of these new fishers.The first difficulty encountered while trying to describe and analyse theartisanal sector is its definition. A comparative look at how ‘artisanal fisheries’ aredefined indicates that recurrent criteria are: size of the boats, gross tonnage, fishinggear and socio-economic considerations. Fishing operations that are considered‘artisanal’ in some countries do not qualify as such in others. The same happenseven within Argentina, a country with an extended coastline and divergentregional realities.An economical anthropology perspective singles out additional factors thathelp the characterization: property of the means of production, production ofmerchandise, management of economical activities, division of labour, degree ofassociation, etc. (García-Allut, 2002).As used in Argentina, the term ‘artisanal’ encompasses a wide spectrum, fromcoastal gathering to inshore fleets. This chapter deals with coastal gatherers,beach seiners and boats of variable dimensions ranging, according to García-Allut(2002), from ‘strictly artisanal’ to ‘semi-industrial’.Argentina, located at the southern end of the Americas, has one of the largestshelf areas in the world (about 1 million km 2 ) and an extended coastline (4 000 km).The eastern and western boundaries of the shelf are, respectively, the continentalslope and the coastline (Figure 1). The northern and southern boundaries arejurisdictional. Resources harvested by small-scale and artisanal fishers are sharedwith other jurisdictions: to the north with Uruguay in the Argentine-UruguayanCommon Fishing Zone between the two countries (ZCPAU), and to the southwith Chile.These settings imply that, geographically, Argentina is a maritime countryyet, because of the way its population is distributed, it is effectively a continentalcountry. Four provinces out of five with a maritime border (the exception beingBuenos Aires) conform the Patagonian region, where coastal urban settlements arefar apart from each other (Figure 1). This configuration highlights the significanceof gulfs, bays and estuaries in the development of coastal activities.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 15FIGURE 1The main fishing harbours on the continental coast of Argentina(indicated by black dots)Water masses above the continental shelf are characterized by the mixingbetween water of subantarctic origin, flowing in mostly between theFalkland Islands/Islas Malvinas and Tierra del Fuego, and waters diluted bycontinental runoff and originating in the Magellan Strait. These water masses ofmixed origin are altered by heat interchange with the atmosphere (Piola and Rivas,1997).Balech (1986) showed that by late September or October the water ofnorthern origin flows south, off Buenos Aires Province and westward of theFalkland Islands/Islas Malvinas Current, reaching as far south as Valdés Peninsula(42º south latitude) by mid- or late-December. This phenomenon is very importantbecause of its effect on coastal fisheries (Balech, 1986; Perrotta et al., 2001).In the Patagonian region, between 42º and 47º south latitude, a series offrontal systems of variable intensity develop towards late spring (late November)

16Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanand during the summer (December–February), favouring the establishment ofspawning grounds with good conditions for the development of the eggs andlarvae of several fish species (Sánchez and Ciechomski, 1995; Ehrlich et al., 2000).The northern end of Patagonia (41º to 43º south latitude) has three gulfs thatharbour fishing activities of regional significance: San Matías (shared by the RíoNegro and Chubut Provinces) and San José and Nuevo (Chubut Province). Thethree are shaped as extensive basins deeper than the adjacent shelf (Rivas and Beier,1990). Waters are more saline than in the adjacent shelf, and temperature variationis comparatively high. San José Gulf is the smallest of these three and its highproductivity was highlighted by Charpy-Roubaud et al. (1978).2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIESArgentina is, by its Constitution, a representative and federal republic formed by23 provinces and a federal district, all autonomous states endowed with politicaland administrative powers. The Argentina Constitution establishes executive,legislative and judiciary branches and does not contain specific language relative tofisheries or maritime jurisdictions, but assigns to the legislature and the executiveauthority regarding treaties, navigation, customs and ports.Several agencies in the federal administration have a say in fishing-relatedsubjects: the National Service of Agricultural Quality and Health (SENASA,within the Ministry of Economy and Production) certifies processing plants; theUndersecretary of Fisheries (within the Secretary of Agriculture, Husbandry andFishing) elaborates and coordinates the execution of policies for the promotion andregulation of fishing activities; and the Prefectura Naval (the coast guard) keepstrack of the vessel registry, cares for the security of navigation, grants credentialsto crews (deckhands, skippers, divers, etc.) and patrols the coastal zone.The Federal Fishing Act of 1998 (Ley Federal de Pesca, No. 24922) statesthat living aquatic resources from lakes and rivers, gulfs and inshore areas (fromthe coastline to 12 nautical miles offshore) are under provincial jurisdiction.Outside this boundary, waters within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and thecontinental shelf are in the federal domain (Article 4). The Act establishes thatthe application authority at the national level is the Undersecretary of Fisheries,and that a Federal Fisheries Council defines national fishing policy and researchpriorities. The Council is integrated by a representative from each maritimeprovince, the Undersecretary of Fisheries, and delegates from the Undersecretaryof Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, the Ministry of ForeignAffairs and the federal executive.In addition, Act 20645 of 1974 establishes a common fishing zone withUruguay. Regulations adopted for coastal resources and some pelagic resourceswithin this zone must be discussed in the ambit of two bi-national commissions,the Joint Technical Commission for the Maritime Front (CTMFM) and theManaging Commission for the La Plata River (CARP).

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 17At the regional level, coastal resources are managed by the provinces throughtheir respective agencies (secretaries, undersecretaries, etc.), which often haveoverlapping mandates, both with each other within provincial administrationsand with federal agencies. Governmental structures are usually organized onfunctional grounds with little horizontal linkage (e.g. between agencies dealingwith fisheries, the environment, health, etc.).The agency in charge of planning and execution of scientific and technicalprogrammes at the federal level is the National Institute for Fisheries Researchand Development (INIDEP), which depends on the Secretary of Agriculture,Husbandry, Fisheries and Food (Act 21673 of 1977). Its mission is to plan,execute and develop research projects, including surveys, assessments anddevelopment, aquaculture technology, fishing gear, technological processes andfisheries economics, according to guidelines and priorities defined by theapplication authority.Scientific and technical support for management at the regional level isprovided by other research centres, which interact to variable degrees withprovincial fisheries administrations and with INIDEP. Some examples are: theNational University of Mar del Plata in Buenos Aires Province; the Instituteof Marine and Fisheries Biology ‘Almirante Storni’ in Río Negro Province; theNational Patagonic Center (CENPAT), a regional branch of the National Councilfor Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) and the National University ofPatagonia in Chubut; a technical school for fishers (FOCAPEM) in Santa Cruz;and the Austral Center for Scientific Research (CADIC, as CENPAT, a branch ofCONICET) in Tierra del Fuego.Artisanal fishing units, as defined here, include coastal gatherers, commercialdivers, beach seiners and small boats (usually less than 10 m long) deployinga variety of gear types (gill and tangle nets, longlines, hook-and-line, traps).Inshore fleets include two other size-brackets of vessels, shorter and longer than18 m (Table 1). Small inshore vessels (10–18 m) are usually known as the rada/ría (roughly meaning coves and estuaries) fleet, which rarely operate beyond the50 m isobath. Most of these boats have wooden hulls, are relatively old (50 yearson average), and have minimal navigation and detection equipment. Holdingcapacity ranges from 4 to 14 tonnes and they have no cold-storage capacity. Crewscan be up to 10 fishers. This fleet operates from most Argentine fishing harbours,with its epicentre in Mar del Plata, both in terms of landings and number of boats(Lasta et al., 2001). It is busy all year round and is socially dynamic. Larger vessels(longer than 18 m) operate further offshore during the autumn, targeting hake.According to the typology proposed by García-Allut (2002), the rada/ría fleetfalls in the semi-industrial category, and is thus included in this overview. Largervessels operating in the inshore fishery are not. In addition, Table 2 summarizesthe fishing activities discussed in this section.

18Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 1Composition of the inshore fleet of Argentina, by harbourHarbour(from north tosouth) 1Number of registered boats in theinshore fleetAnnual catch(average) inrecent years(tonnes)ProvinceRada/RíaCoastal(semi-industrial) (industrial) 2General Lavalle Buenos Aires 19 3 4 147Mar del Plata Buenos Aires 68 48 81 852Quequén Buenos Aires 12 7 21 416Bahía Blanca Buenos Aires 10 5 19 000San Antonio Oeste Río Negro 4 6 10 610Puerto Madryn Chubut – 1 1 805Rawson Chubut 26 22 10 642Caleta Córdova Chubut 7 1 3 781Caleta Olivia Santa Cruz 16 4 8 279San Julián Santa Cruz – 5 28Ushuaia Tierra del Fuego 3 2 191Source: from Lasta et al., 2001.1See Figure 1.2This fleet is not included in our review.TABLE 2Summary of information on artisanal fisheries of ArgentinaType offisheriesTargetresourcesRegion/provinceGearBoatsNumberof fishingunitsCrewAnnuallandings 1CoastalshellfishgatheringBlue andribbedmussels,snails, clamsSan JoséGulfHand N/A Largestconcentrationin thecommunityof El Riacho,Chubut(25 permitholders)FamilygroupsNot recordedBlue mussels,clams,limpets,snailsBeagleChannelHand N/A Few, exactnumberunknownNot recordedCoastaloctopusgathering(pulpeo)TehuelcheoctopusRío NegroandChubutShort gaffs N/A Unknown Familygroups21 tonnesrecorded in RíoNegro in 2003.Not recorded inChubut; in 2002one processingplant (HarengusS.A) bought 17tonnesRed octopusChubut,north ofSanta CruzLong gaffs N/A 20–30 inthe mainproducingarea(Camarones)IndividualsNot recorded

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 19TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)Type offisheriesIntertidalgill andtangle netsBeachseiningTargetresourcesSilversides,Patagonianblenny,leatherjack,PatagoniancodSilversides,Patagonianblenny,floundersRegion/provinceCoves('rías') andbays, ofSanta Cruzand theAtlanticcoast ofTierra delFuegoSan Matíasand SanJosé Gulfs,Atlanticcoast ofTierra delFuegoGearGillnets andtangle netsBeach seinesBoatsN/A,occasionallyassisted byrowboats3–5 mrowboats(fibreglass,plastic orwood)Numberof fishingunitsCrewAnnuallandings 1Unknown 3 Not recorded4–5 in SanMatías. About50 permitholders in SanJosé/NuevoGulfs2–3 San Matías:24.6 tonnes ofsilversides and14.6 tonnesof Patagonianblenny wererecorded in 2003Chubut: oneprocessingplant (HarengusS.A.) boughtca. 180 tonnesof silversidesand 1 tonneof Patagonianblenny in 2003DemersalartisanalfisheryemployingpoweredboatsWhitecroaker,leatherjack,strippedweakfish,Braziliancodling,smoothhoundsharkHoki, kinclip,Patagoniancod, southernhakePartido deLa Costa(BuenosAiresProvince)BeagleChannel(Tierra delFuego)Bottom gilland tanglenetsBottomtangle nets(100–120mmstretchedmesh)Inflatableor semirigidboats withoutboardmotors,up to 7 mlongArtisanalboats, lessthan 10 mUnknown 1–2 Not recordedNumberof tanglenets variesannually from20 to 2001–2 Not recordedStiletto andArgentineshrimp, topeshark, whitecroaker,strippedwhitefishStiletto andArgentineshrimpBahíaBlanca,Ing. White,MonteHermoso(BuenosAiresProvince)Rawson(ChubutProvince)Passivebottom netsintersectingtidalcurrents,with 30 mmmesh in thecod-end;tangle nets,handlinesBeam trawl,4 m widebeamBoatswith innerengines (upto 16 m),boats withoutboardmotors (upto 7 m),rowboats(up to 6 m)Boats up to10 m, madeof wood,iron orfibreglassAbout 130boatsAbout 20boats1–3 45 tonnes ofArgentine shrimpand 40 tonnes ofstiletto shrimprecorded in 20023–4

20Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 2 (CONTINUED)Type offisheriesCommercialdivingArtisanallongliningSemiindustrialpelagicfisheryTrap fisheryutilizinginshorepoweredboatsTargetresourcesScallops, blueand ribbedmussels,clams, snailsBlue andribbedmussels,sea urchin,ascidiansHake, topeshark, cockfish, sevengilledshark,rays, rockfish,sandperchMackerel,anchovyRed porgy,sandperch,rockfish,wreckfishKinclip,southernhake,Patagoniancod, sharks,raysKing crab,false kingcrab, octopus(occasionalbycatch)Region/provinceSan Matíasand SanJosé GulfsBeagleChannelSan Matíasand NuevoGulfsMar delPlataMar delPlataQuequénCanalBeagleBeagleChannelBeagleChannelGearAircompressorsand hookahLonglines,2 000-3 000hooks each‘Lampara’,a handthrownpurse seineLarge baskettrapsIron-madetrapsTruncatedcone traps(1.2–1.5 mhigh, 1.6m basaldiameter)BoatsBoats upto 7 m(average),withoutboardmotors;some withechosounder,radio andminimalsafetydevicesSame asaboveBoats withoutboardmotors, lessthan 10 m‘Rada/ría’inshorefleet; boats10–18Mostlywoodenboats, 50years oldon average.Equippedwith rafts,radio, radarand echosounderSame asaboveBoats upto 15 m,with 205 hpenginesNumberof fishingunits8 boats in SanMatías; 20 inSan JoséCrewAnnuallandings 13–4 1 241 tonnesrecorded in SanMatías in 2001;700 tonnes(600 tonnesof scallops)recorded in SanJosé in 20035 boats 3–4 85 tonnes of seaurchin reportedin 1996 (usuallyless than 1tonne); 7 tonnesof musselsreported in 199922 boats inSan Matías; 5in Nuevo Gulfin 2002The ‘rada/ría’ inshorefleet has 166registeredboats3 1 032 tonnesrecorded in 2003in San MatíasGulf; 34 tonnesin Nuevo Gulf in2001 and 2002(experimentalfishery)Up to 107 boats 2–5 No data12 boats in1994–2000,down to 6 in2000–2004900 tonnes ofanchovy and100 tonnes ofmackerel landedin 20032 32 tonnes of kingcrab in 1994;392 tonnes offalse king crabin 19961In most cases landings are either not recorded or grossly under-reported. Some figures (whethertotal or partial) are presented, however, to give the reader a rough idea of the dimension of thefishery.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 212.1 Coastal shellfish gatheringCoastal gathering of shellfish along the seashores occurs at low tide, by handor with the help of handheld devices, with regional variations that are related tothe specific resources harvested. Species most commonly found in the catch ofcommercial fisheries are summarized in Table 3.TABLE 3Main species caught in the artisanal fisheries of ArgentinaScientific nameCommonSpanish nameCommonEnglish nameGear Province 1Bivalve molluscsAequipecten tehuelchus Vieira tehuelche Tehuelche scallop Commercial diving RN, ChAmeghinomya antigua Almeja rayada Etched clamAmiantis purpurata Almeja púrpura Purple clamAulacomya ater Cholga Ribbed musselCoastal gathering;commercial divingCoastal gathering;commercial divingCoastal gathering;commercial divingChRNRN, Ch, SC,TdFDonax hanleyanus Berberecho Beach clam Coastal gathering BAEurhomalea exalbida Almeja blanca White clam Coastal gathering TdFMesodesma mactroides Almeja amarilla Yellow clam Coastal gathering BAMulinia edulis Almeja marrón Brown clam Coastal gathering TdFMytilus edulis chilensis Mejillón Blue musselMytilus edulis platensis Mejillón Blue musselCoastal gathering;commercial divingCoastal gathering;commercial divingTdFRN, ChPanopea abbreviata Almeja panopea Geoduck Commercial diving RN, ChGastropod molluscsAdelomelon ancilla Piquilhue Piquilhue voluta Coastal gathering TdFBuccinanops globosum Caracolillo Beach snail Coastal gathering ChBuccinanops gradatum Caracol picante Hot snailFissurella oriens, Patinigeradeaurata, P. magellanicaCoastal gathering;commercial divingLapas Limpets Coastal gathering TdFOdontocymbiola magellanica Caracol rojo Red voluteCoastal gathering;commercial divingChZidona dufresnei Caracol tigre Tiger volute Commercial diving RNCephalopod molluscsChEnteroctopus megalocyathusPulpo Colorado odormilónRed octopusLoligo gahi, L. sanpaulensis Calamarete Longfin squidOctopus tehuelchusPulpitoTehuelcheoctopusCoastal gathering;commercial divingBeach seine(n.targ.) 2Coastal gatheringRN, Ch,SCChRN, Ch

22Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanScientific nameCrustaceansTABLE 3 (CONTINUED)CommonSpanish nameCommonEnglish nameArtemesia longinaris Camarón Stiletto shrimpLithodes santollaOvalipes trimaculatusCentollaCangrejonadador, pancoraSouthern kingcrabGear Province 1Tide-intersectingnets; beach seineTrapsBeach seine(n.targ.)BA, ChParalomis granulosa Centollón False king crab Traps TdFPlatyxanthus patagonicus Cangrejo buey Rock crabPleoticus muelleriEchinodermsLoxechinus albusTunicatesLangostinoErizoArgentineshrimpChilean seaurchinBeach seine(n.targ.)Tide-intersectingnetsCommercial divingPyura chilensis Piure Ascidian Commercial diving TdFChondrichthies 3Callorhinchus callorhynchus Gallo Cock fishLongline (n.targ.);beach seine(n.targ.)TdFChChBATdFRN, ChDasyatis sp., Myliobatis sp. Chuchos Sting rays Longline (n.targ.) RN, ChDipturus chilensis,Sympterygia bonapartiiGaleorhinus galeusMustelus schmittiRayasCazón, cazónvitamínicoGatuzoRaysTope sharkPatagoniansmoothhoundLongline (n.targ.);beach seine(discard)Tide-intersectingnets; longline;beach seine(n.targ.)Tangle nets; tideintersectingnetsRN, ChBA; ChBA, ChNotorhynchus cepedianus GatopardoSeven-gilledsharkLongline (n.targ.) RN, ChSqualus acanthias Espineto Spiny dogfish Longline (n.targ.) RNOsteichthiesAcanthistius brasilianus Mero RockfishCynoscion guatacupaEleginops maclovinusPescadilla de redRóbaloStrippedweakfishPatagonianblennyEngraulis anchoita Anchoíta AnchovyGenypterus blacodes Abadejo Pink cuskeelMacruronus magellanicus Merluza de cola HokiMerluccius australis Merluza austral Southern hakeTraps, longline(n.targ.)Tangle netsGill and tanglenets; beach seineLampara; beachseine (n.targ.)Longline (n.targ.),TrapsBeach seine;tangle netsGill and tanglenets; beach seineBA, RN,ChBARN, Ch,SC, TdFBA, ChRN,Ch,TdFTdFSC, TdF

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 23TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)Scientific nameCommonSpanish nameCommonEnglish nameGear Province 1Merluccius hubbsi Merluza Argentine hake Longline RN, ChMicropogonias furnieri Corvina rubia White croaker Tangle nets BAMugil platanus Lisa MulletNotothenia (s.l.) spp. Nototenias NototheniasBeach seine(n.targ.)Pre-hispanicbeach seine(discard)Odontesthes spp. (4 species) Pejerreyes Silversides Beach seineOdontesthes smittiManila, pejerreycola amarillaManila silversideOncopterus darwini Lenguado FlounderGill and tanglenetsBeach seine(discard)ChCh , TdFRN, Ch,SC, TdFRN, Ch,SC, TdFChOncorhynchus mykiss Trucha arco iris Steelhead Sport SCPagrus pagrus Besugo Red porgy Traps BAParalichthys spp. Lenguados FloundersParona signataPercophis brasiliensisPalometaPez paloParonaleatherjackBrazilianflatheadTide-intersectingnets; longline(n.targ.); beachseine (discard)Gill and tanglenets; beach seinesTide-intersectingnets; beach seine(n.targ.)BA, RN,ChSC, TdFBA, ChPolyprion americanus Chernia Wreckfish Traps BAPomatomus saltatriz Anchoa de banco Blue fishPseudopercis semifasciata Salmón de mar SandperchBeach seine(n.targ.)Traps; longline(n.targ.)ChBA, RN,ChSalilota Australis Bacalao criollo Patagonian codGill and tanglenetsSC, TdFSalmo trutta Trucha marrón Brown trout Sport SCScomber japonicus Caballa Chub mackerelSeriolella porosa Savorín Silver warehouStromateus brasiliensis Pampanito ButterfishLampara; beachseine (n.targ.)Beach seine(n.targ.)Beach seine(discard)BA, ChRN, ChRN, ChTrachurus lathami Jurel Horse mackerelBeach seine(n.targ.)ChUrophycis brasiliensis Brótola Brazilian codling Tangle nets BA1Provinces listed are those for which a fishery (large or small) has been reported. Many species occuralso in provinces for which a fishery has not been recorded. BA: Buenos Aires; RN: Río Negro;Ch: Chubut; SC: Santa Cruz; TdF: Tierra del Fuego.2Non-target (n.targ.) species are generally kept and marketed, and may fetch a high price (even higherthan target species).3Names of fishes follow Cousseau and Perrotta (2000).

24Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanBivalves and gastropods: In Buenos Aires Province, bivalves are shovelledalong exposed sandy beaches. Traditionally, this fishery targeted primarily theyellow clam * (almeja amarilla), but because the populations collapsed, the fisherynow targets beach clams (berberechos). However, the yellow clam sustained asignificant fishery that started in the 1940s, with landings reaching a maximumof 1 073 tonnes in 1953 (Dadón, 2001, 2002). When catches declined because ofa dramatic increase in effort, the fishery was closed in 1956. It reopened with a45-tonne quota in 1957, and closed again for ten years in 1958, and it has remainedclosed to a commercial fishery ever since. A daily bag limit (2 kg/person) has beenallowed for personal consumption, as clams are valued by tourists. Althoughrecreational gathering is the only harvesting that has been allowed for decades,the yellow clam populations have continued to decline. This is due to a varietyof reasons, including growing pressure from recreational harvesters and illegalcommercial fishing. In addition, the destruction of habitat caused by the extractionof sand for construction, circulation of vehicles along the beaches, and an everexpandingurban development has compounded the pressure on this species. Aftera mass mortality event decimated most populations in 1995, a complete closure wasput in place in 1996, including the bag limit for personal consumption. Althoughillegal, harvesting continues to be a common activity during the summers and themass mortality did not affect stocks of berberecho (Dadón, 1999), whose size evenincreased after 1998. As a result, it has been increasingly targeted recreationallybut also commercially. This fishery is not regulated and catch is not monitored.Although not illegal, most of the catch is marketed through informal conduits.The daily catch is frozen and sold in bulk.In Chubut Province, many families of coastal gatherers harvest molluscs inthe intertidal zone (Figure 2), mostly in San José Gulf. They target blue mussels(mejillón), etched clams (almeja rayada), ribbed mussels (cholga), volute (caracol),and beach and hot snails (caracoles). In the case of clams, harvesters can recognizethe holes left by the siphons at the surface, and use 2- or 3-prong forks; small snailsare concentrated using bait. The shellfish catch is collected in handheld mesh bags(chinguillos) with an approximate capacity of 40 kg. Once a team has filled 10 to20 chinguillos, these are transported ashore, 1 to 3 km across tidelands. The catchis transported by truck to processing plants, fish shops or restaurants in PuertoMadryn and Trelew. The activity is seasonal (autumn and winter), generallyconstrained by the onset of the red tide season (Santa Ana, 2004).Gastropods and bivalves are also gathered in scattered locations of Santa Cruzand Tierra del Fuego Provinces. In the latter there is a small catch of blue mussels,etched clams, white clams, brown clams, limpets (lapas) and voluta snails. Theactivity is seasonally constrained by the development of red tides, usually duringthe summer. The product is marketed locally, fresh and unprocessed.* Correspondence between scientific names and common Spanish and English names are summarizedin Table 3. English names are used throughout text; the first time that the name is used, the Spanishname is quoted in parentheses. Fish common names follow Cousseau and Perrotta (2000) in mostinstances.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 25FIGURE 2Artisanal gathering of intertidal mussels (Mytilus edulis platensis) in El Riacho,San José Gulf, Chubut Province(Photo by Javier Rodriguez)Small octopus: In Chubut and Río Negro Provinces, the intertidal gatheringof a small-sized octopus species (Tehuelche octopus or pulpito) is a popularrecreational activity. Octopus is also harvested commercially (pulpeo), being acomplement to gathering of bivalves and gastropods. In San Matías Gulf, pulpeohas been a traditional seasonal occupation for low-income labourers who establishcamps along the seashore during the summers. Pulperos (octopus harvesters)use a gaff built of a 6 mm iron rod, 30 to 40 cm long. The tip is sharpened andcurved with a precise angle. Octopus is removed from crevices and holes and thesuccess of the pulperos is strongly determined by experience. Traditional gatherersare very careful not to damage the substrate when extracting octopus, becausenewcomers will not establish themselves in damaged refuges. Commercial harvestis seasonal, extending from late spring (November–December) to early autumn(March–April), peaking by mid to late summer. In Río Negro Province, catchrecords go back to 1953 (Iribarne, 1990, 1991); the maximum recorded catch was307 tonnes in 1967. The annual catch has been 20 to 40 tonnes in recent years. Thefishery is not regulated or monitored in Chubut Province. One fisher (CándidaVargas * , personal communication) reported that she and her family collect up to15 tonnes in San José Gulf during a single season. Intermediaries (acopiadores oracarreadores) have played a significant role in this fishery and processing plantsalso buy octopus occasionally. Ré (1998a, 1998b) observed that fishing pressuregoes down when pulpeo ceases to be lucrative. When this occurs, immigration fromthe subtidal zone appears to replenish the intertidal segment of the population.* Mrs Cándida Vargas is the daughter of pulperos and a pulpera herself. She lives with her extendedfamily (husband, 10 children, and grandchildren) in Playa Larralde, San José Gulf.

26Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanRed octopus (dormilón): Red octopus is caught in San José Gulf, the Camaronesarea, Comodoro Rivadavia (all in Chubut Province), Caleta Olivia (Santa CruzProvince), and other scattered locations. As in the small octopus fishery, fishers(all male) use a gaff; however, this gaff is stronger (8 mm iron rod) and longer(1–1.2 m) (Ré, 1998b). In the Camarones area (the main producing zone), fishingtakes place during winter and spring tides. Landings from this area started to becommercialized in 1995–1997 due to the abundance and increased demand ofoctopus (Cinti and Soria, 2003). This is the most significant artisanal fishery inthe Camarones area in terms of people involved and catch landed. Although itappears to have great potential, the present catch is relatively small due to pooraccessibility. Cinti and Soria (2003) estimated a total catch of 9 tonnes for the 2002season; there are no official records and the fishery is unregulated. Red octopus issold gutted (fresh or frozen) in fish stores of provincial coastal cities.2.2 Beach seiningBeach seining is practiced in San Matías Gulf (Río Negro Province), alongthe coasts of Chubut Province, and on the Atlantic coast of Tierra del Fuego,always in a very narrow (30–50 m from the water edge) and shallow (up to4–10 m depth) area (Figure 3). Teams are formed by two to four fishers thatgenerally use a row boat and a 70 to 100 m long net that is folded on the sternand deployed forming a semi-circle, one end tied to land with a piece of rope.Seines are occasionally operated without the help of a boat, in which case the netis deployed perpendicular to the shoreline. Two fishers pull the net in parallel,one walking into the water and the other ashore. Fishing takes place all year long,although operations are constrained by meteorological conditions. Resourcestargeted are markedly seasonal, particularly silversides (pejerreyes), which aremigratory. Adults are caught mostly during the autumn and spring, when theyform reproductive aggregations and juveniles during spring and summer (Elíaset al., 1991; Ré and Berón, 1999). This is mostly a small-scale, artisanal commercialfishery, but there is also a small recreational component. Only four or five familiesare presently active in this traditional fishery in San Matías Gulf, where it peakedduring the 1950s. Maximum recorded catch of silversides was 376 tonnes in 1956(Perier, 1994). The catch is sold fresh in San Antonio Oeste, door-to-door or torestaurants, as is also the case in Tierra del Fuego. Fishers from Chubut Provincealso sell to plants that process silversides and Patagonian blennies (róbalos) in avariety of forms (fresh, frozen, smoked and canned). Catch records are fragmentedand the fishery is not regulated.2.3 Gill and tangle nets deployed in the intertidal zoneThis fishery operates inside estuaries and bays of Santa Cruz Province and theAtlantic coast of Tierra del Fuego. Most fishers operate directly from the beach,tracking the tides: the net is deployed during a low tide and the catch is retrievedduring the next low tide. The mesh used in Tierra del Fuego for large speciesis 100 to 120 mm (stretched) (Isla, 2001). This activity is generally seasonal,

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 27taking place between October and April. It can be categorized as a small-scale,artisanal, opportunistic, multispecies fishery. Species targeted include silversides,Patagonian blenny, parona leatherjack (palometa), southern hake (merluza austral)and Patagonian cod (bacalao criollo). Fish is generally sold fresh. Silversides arefilleted, and large Patagonian blennies are sold whole or gutted. In Santa Cruzthere are in situ inspections to control the gear utilized, and quality controls ofprocessing and marketing (Pereiro, 2001). Although there are no official records,landings and the length of the fishing season have declined in Tierra del Fuegoover recent years.FIGURE 3Beach seining used in Río Negro, Chubut and Tierra del Fuego Provinces(fishing gear in operation)2.4 Bottom tangle nets and tide-intersecting nets deployed from boatsA fishery operating along the northern maritime coast of Buenos AiresProvince (Partido de la Costa) employs inflatable or semi-rigid boats withoutboard motors (Figure 4). The gear consists of tangle nets deployed upto 1 to 2 miles (1.6–3.2 km) offshore. Species caught include white croaker(corvina), leatherjack and, to a lesser extent, stripped weakfish (pescadilla dered), Brazilian codling (brótola) and Patagonian smoothhound shark (gatuzo)(Lasta et al., 2001; Lagos, 2001). This fishery grew rapidly towards the end ofthe 1990s, providing significant labour opportunities in the region. Marketingtakes place mostly during the summer, coincidentally, with the peak of tourism(Lagos, 2001). There are no official catch records. Regulations include the useof two pieces of net, 50 m long each, 28 to 30 cm mesh size (stretched), andlegal size limits for most species.

28Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 4Boats and trailers (catres) in San Bernardo Beach, illustrative of the artisanal fleetfrom Partido de La Costa, Buenos Aires Province(Photo from Lagos, 2001)In the region of Bahía Blanca (Buenos Aires Province) operates a fishery witha relatively long tradition, going back to the 1940s. The main gear consists ofstationary nets that intercept tidal flows. The fleet is based in Ing. White, PuertoRosales and Monte Hermoso, all close to the city of Bahía Blanca. Hulls are madeof wood, plastic or fibreglass and are up to 16 m long. Approximately 40% haveinner engines; the rest are split between boats with outboard motors (up to 7.7 mlong) and rowboats (up to 6 m). Fishing trips do not last longer than 3 to 12 hours.The catch includes stiletto shrimp (camarón), Argentine shrimp (langostino),flounders (lenguados), Patagonian smoothhound, and Brazilian flathead (pezpalo). In addition, tope shark (cazón) is caught with tangle nets, and white croakerand stripped weakfish with handlines (Izzo et al., 1999). Annual landings arebelow 300 tonnes. Starting in 1999, fishers have been required to report catchesthrough a catch slip programme.In the Beagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego), small boats (10 m; Figure 5) are usedto catch hoki (merluza de cola) with stationary tide-intersecting nets. This fisheryis not regulated. Iron-made traps are used to catch small amounts of kinclip(abadejo), Patagonian cod, sharks and rays.2.5 Beam trawlingInitially, only one boat operated beam-trawled for stiletto shrimp in Rawson Harbor,Chubut Province. However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, more than25 artisanal boats (less than 10 m long as defined in provincial legislation) haverequested fishing permits (Soutric and Caille, 2005). Beam trawls with a 4 m longbeam (locally known as raño) were traditionally used in Mar del Plata, where theyhave been virtually abandoned (beam trawlers were 9–18 m long) (Lasta et al., 2001).The main targets of the beam trawl fishery are stiletto and Argentine shrimp.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 29FIGURE 5A 10-m-long boat fishing with bottom nets for hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) inthe Beagle Channel, Tierra del Fuego Province2.6 Commercial divingCommercial diving takes place in the San Matías and San José Gulfs and in theBeagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego). A typical commercial diving team operates aboat approximately 7 m long with an outboard motor (40 to 120 hp), equippedwith an air compressor and hookahs (Figure 6). Teams are composed of two orthree divers, a deckhand and a skipper. Divers search the sea bed for shellfish,usually bivalves, which are placed in handheld mesh bags known as salabardos.The catch is stockpiled on the deck in bags with a capacity of 40 kg or more(Ciocco, 1995).FIGURE 6Boat from the commercial diving fleet that operates in San José Gulf, ChubutProvince. Boats are pulled out of the water using tractors and trailers. Bags in thebackground are filled with scallops (Aequipecten tehuelchus)

30Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSan Matías and San José Gulfs: The activity is sporadic in San Matías Gulf (RíoNegro Province), depending on prices and availability of resources within therange of operation of the divers (down to 30 m). Target species are blue mussels,scallops (vieiras), ribbed mussels, voluta snails, purple clams and geoducks (almejapanopea). In the adjacent San José Gulf (Chubut Province), the main targets arescallops; mussels, clams and snails are of lesser significance. These are selectivefisheries, with virtually no bycatch. A total of 1 241 tonnes were recorded in SanMatías Gulf in 2001 and 600 tonnes of scallop in San José Gulf in 2003. Bivalvemeats are processed in plants located in San Antonio Oeste, Puerto Madryn andTrelew. In the case of scallops, only the adductor muscles are packed for export.Beagle Channel: In the Beagle Channel small volumes of sea urchin (erizo) andascidians (piure) are harvested in addition to blue and ribbed mussels. The annualsea urchin catch used to be less than 1 tonne, but in 1996 rose to 85.4 tonnes due toparticipation of Chilean divers. The shellfish catch is processed in plants certifiedby SENASA or sold fresh, locally. The fishery is regularly monitored for redtide toxins, and closed by the provincial health authority when a safety thresholdis surpassed. In 1990, there were 36 active fishers (annual catch was 31 tonnes),which dropped to 32 in 1992 (annual catch 1.7 tonnes) (Isla, 2001).2.7 Bottom longliningDuring the period 1994–1998 a team from CENPAT conducted a research anddevelopment project to explore the prospects of bottom longlining in ChubutProvince as an alternative to commercial diving for bivalves during the seasonalclosures of that fishery. Artisanal fishers contributed boats and crews. In 2000,some of the latter requested experimental permits to longline for tope shark.Nuevo Gulf tope shark fishery: This experimental fishery was monitored byCENPAT, operating only in Nuevo Gulf. Boats deployed approximately 2 000hooks baited with anchovy at depths ranging from 40 to 120 m, and had an actionradius of 24 km. A total of 34 tonnes (80% elasmobranches) were caught duringthe 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 seasons, with no bycatch discarded. Since then, thisfishery has been very irregular (Elías, 2002).San Matías Gulf hake fishery: In 1996 a longline fishery targeting hakeboomed in San Matías Gulf (Río Negro Province), triggered by demand in theSpanish market. In its initial phase the fleet was artisanal, composed of boats lessthan 10 m long powered by an outboard motor, with a 15 nautical mile radiusof operation. Anchovy (anchoita) was used as bait. The size of boats increasedin 1997 (12–25 m), using 6 000 to 10 000 hooks and there were two even largerboats (25 m), operating 10 000 to 15 000 hooks. The size of the fleet peaked in1998, when it reached 66 boats and the maximum annual catch was approximately3 900 tonnes. The fishery collapsed in 2001 due to a drop in price. Some boatswere converted for shell fishing. The fishery started to gradually recover in 2002,and in 2003 landings reached 1 032 tonnes. During the heyday of the fishery thecatch was exported by plane to Spain, fresh and gutted.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 31Besides tope shark and hake, species caught in the two regions include sevengilledshark (gatopardo), dogfish, rays (rayas), stingrays (chuchos), cockfish (gallo),rockfish (mero), sandperch (salmón de mar), kinclip and flounders.2.8 The ‘lampara’ (hand-thrown seine) fisheryThis net is used to fish for anchovy (September to November) and mackerel(caballa, October to January) in the Mar del Plata area, within the 50 m isobath.The net is thrown from the bow and maneuvered on the weather side. In the caseof mackerel, the lampara is thrown on a site that is baited with anchovy heads andother fish discards (Izzo and Boccanfuso, 1993). In 2003, anchovy and mackerellandings were, respectively, 900 tonnes and 100 tonnes. Anchovy is canned orsalted; mackerel is sold fresh, frozen or canned.2.9 Trap fisheriesRocky-reef finfish trap fishery: In the Mar del Plata area, traps (nasas) are usedto capture finfish species from rocky reefs, like red porgy (besugo), sandperch,rockfish and wreckfish (chernia).King crab fishery of Tierra del Fuego: A locally significant and traditionaltrap fishery targets southern king crab (centolla) in the Beagle Channel (Tierradel Fuego). Traps of conical design are deployed in lines of 10 units, using meatdiscards as bait. Traps are soaked for at least two to three days, then tended anddeployed again (Boschi et al., 1984). Another lithodid crab, the false king crab(centollón) is also caught, but its quality is comparatively lower. In spite of this,it has become a significant alternative, considering the sharp decline of king crabstocks and subsequent restrictive regulations. Catches of false king crab haveincreased in recent years, reaching a historical maximum of 362 tonnes in 1996.Octopus (occasionally sold) is caught as bycatch.The fishery is seasonal, operating between January and October. Artisanalfishers and their families process and sell the catch fresh in Ushuaia or Rio Grande,and eventually to processing plants. Presently, the plants also export king crab andfalse king crab. They own a fleet of larger and better equipped vessels, manned bycrews of two or three people that are employees of the plant. This ‘industrial’ fleetsoaks 800 traps, while the artisanal fleet soaks only 100 to 150 (Lovrich, 1997).Resources are shared with Chile, but no data are available for the Chileansector of the channel since 1983. There is no formal collaboration or exchange ofinformation between agencies from the two countries.3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS3.1 Description of fishersCoastal gatherers and beach seiners: In Río Negro Province gatherers are mostlypulperos that move to the coast during the summer months. Once the harvest(zafra) is over, most of them return to San Antonio where they work temporaryjobs (changas). In the past they used to build huts made out of brush branches,cardboard and other scrap materials (enramadas) in their temporary summer

32Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeancamps. Enramadas, used both for habitation and to hold the octopus catch, arenow being replaced by small cinder block houses. Intermediaries (acarreadoresor acopiadores) concentrate and market the catch in most cases, often paying thefishers in kind. As a result, pulperos survive the summer but end up penniless.Pulperos that live in urban areas (San Antonio Oeste, Puerto Madryn) sell thecatch directly to consumers and fish shops, fresh or pickled (escabeche). In ChubutProvince most families of gatherers live in El Riacho and Larralde, small ruralfishing villages where wood stoves are used for cooking and heating. Water is inshort supply everywhere along the coast.In Tierra del Fuego there are only a few coastal gatherers. They depend onwelfare or temporary jobs during the red tide season (Pascual et al., 2002). In 1994,Ré and Berón (1999) counted 69 beach seiners in Chubut Province; 61 of themwere owners of their fishing gear. Considering that teams are generally composedof two persons, the number of people involved directly in this fishery was at least120. Of these 54% were exclusively artisanal fishers and 8% alternated betweenbeach seining and jobs as deckhands in the industrial fleet.Gatherers and beach seiners constitute the lowest income group of fishers,often living in precarious conditions. The illiteracy rate is highest in Río NegroProvince. Flamanc (1999) pointed out that in Puerto Madryn there are twosubgroups: older fishers, which are more sedentary and often live near the coast,and younger, more mobile fishers that alternate with low paying jobs. There areno official figures of the number of fishers in this group, but it is estimated to beapproximately 440 in the whole country (100 in Río Negro, 200 in Chubut, 100 inSanta Cruz and 40 in Tierra del Fuego).Fishers that work from small (strictly artisanal) boats: This group is veryheterogeneous. In general, their income is higher than that of workers withtheir qualifications in other sectors of the economy. Included here are fishersthat operate in the north of Buenos Aires Province (Partido de la Costa) usinginflatable or semi-rigid boats, commercial divers from San Matías and San JoséGulfs, and some of the boats that operate from Rawson (Chubut Province) or inthe Beagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego Province).Fishers from Partido de la Costa are relatively young (36 years old on average)and not very experienced: only 25% come from fishing families. In general, theyalternate between fishing and other jobs.Flamanc (1999) found that in Puerto Madryn (Chubut Province) youngerfishers (28 years on average) are commercial divers. This is a mostly urban groupof fishers that go to the coast to fish but reside in the city (not all are homeowners),have a perception very different from that of coastal gatherers, and show concernfor the sustainability of the resources that they depend on. Santa Ana (2001)conducted an interview survey in the region of Puerto Madryn, identifying 98active fishers. This was a very dynamic group, with members alternating oftenbetween different occupations. A later interview of team leaders showed that 75%heads of household have an average time of 14 years in the fishery; fishing is thesole source of income for 63% and the main source for the remainder. Among

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 33boats in the fleet 68% showed signs of decay and 13% were definitely precarious(Elías et al., 2001). A few boat owners do not participate physically in the fishingoperations, which is inconsistent with recent provincial legislation (Law 4725of 2001), and are not considered here as artisanal fishers. Artisanal fishers fromPuerto Madryn do not have access to welfare or retirement programmes. Mostfishers have only an elementary school education level. The number of fishers inthis group is around 660 for the entire country (300 in Buenos Aires Province,200 in Río Negro, 130 in Chubut and 30 in Tierra del Fuego).Fishers that work in the rada/ría fleet: This group has the highest income level,although it is presently affected by a generalized crisis related to the decline orcollapse of many resources of the Argentine shelf. Fishers in this group can begenerally defined as middle class. Children have access to all educational levels.Hierarchies in the working place are minimal (Errazti and Bertolotti, 1998). In mostcases, the skipper works side by side with the deckhands. Education level is generallyat the elementary level for deckhands and tertiary for skippers and engineers. Thereare approximately 166 registered boats in this sector, with an average crew of 4,making the total number of active fishers between 600 and 700.3.2 Social and economical aspectsAccess to creditIn contrast with the industrial sector, which has been heavily subsidized, theartisanal sector has very limited access to credit and subsidies (Godelman et al.,1999). The situation is better in Río Negro and Tierra del Fuego Provinces,where provincial states have granted subsidies for the construction of municipalprocessing plants and the purchase of boats. This assistance, however, has not beenaccompanied by orientation or strengthening of fishers’ organizations, and so wasnot successful in reverting the vulnerability of this sector. It must be emphasizedthat artisanal fishing is not a subsistence activity in Argentina, where even thepoorest fishers are commercially-oriented. However, society perceives artisanalfishery as an activity with a low status.Women participating in artisanal fisheriesWomen’s presence is generally related to processing and marketing. Femaleparticipation in fishing activities is limited, being most significant among thecoastal gatherers of San Matías and San José Gulfs, where only a few have workedas deckhands. In the case of the inshore fleet, virtually no women go to sea. A fewwomen participate actively in the fishers’ association of Puerto Madryn. MartaPiñeiro, wife of an artisanal fisher (personal communication), noted that womenare marginalized twice: once for being women and again because of the occupationof their husbands.Pascual et al. (2002) conducted a socio-economic diagnostic survey ofwomen’s participation in fisheries of the Patagonian provinces. They interviewed251 women belonging to six groups: workers from processing plants (59%);fishers (5%, including aquaculturists); pulperas (8%); processers of artisanal

34Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanproducts (preserves and souvenirs, 12%), professionals (plant managers, healthrelatedcontrollers, administrators, engineers, scientists, 12%); and merchants(owners of fish stores or thematic restaurants, 4%). The average age of the womeninterviewed was 36 years old; age was highest among pulperas (47 years old)and plant workers (44 years old). Gatherers and pulperas stop working at age60, because “at an advanced age it is difficult to walk over the rocky intertidal”.Professionals are mostly young, as management agencies and research centres fromPatagonia are generally of recent creation, at least as compared to Buenos AiresProvince. The average age of recruitment for pulperas is 23, but some are recruitedas early as 5 years old. About 68% work full-time in fisheries-related jobs, 21%are temporary, 8% seasonal and 3% occasional. With regards to education, 3%are illiterate, 21% did not complete elementary education, 12% completed highschool, and 13% went through tertiary or college education. Pulperas are themost vulnerable sector: 20% have no education and 20% are illiterate. The surveyconcluded that the female segment of the fishing-related population is eager toreceive some form of education or training.Fisheries origins and traditionsFishing peoples using canoes inhabited the Magellanic region, including BeagleChannel. As indicated earlier, the fishing traditions of prehispanic peoples werelost during the colonial period. Archaeological research conducted around ValdésPeninsula (Chubut Province) shows that 3 200 years ago hunters-gatherers alreadyroamed the coast, occasionally moving inland in search for freshwater (Gómez-Otero, 1996). Shellfish gathering was likely conducted during the low tides, orfollowing storm-induced strandings of subtidal bivalves. The finding of a woodenfishing hook suggests that there was some finfishing in deep tidal pools (Gómez-Otero, 1996).Octopus gathering (pulpeo) had its origins on the west coast of San MatíasGulf (Río Negro Province) during the 1940s. Since then, knowledge has beentransferred from parents to children. The community of El Riacho (ChubutProvince) was started during the 1960s by pulperos from San Matías Gulf (SantaAna, 2004), and later joined during the 1990s by some families without previousexperience.Fishing traditions were brought to the country by European immigrantsaround the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century. Many of them settledin El Tigre and La Boca, on the shores of La Plata River near Buenos Aires. Mardel Plata gained gradually in relative importance with the advent of railroads(1886), largely as it became a major destination of tourists and vacationers duringthe summer season. The inshore fishery developed to supply fresh fish (silversides,white croaker, flounders) to this population. A similar pattern followed later inNecochea, San Antonio Oeste and Puerto Madryn.As late as the 1940s, fishing boats operated only within sight of the coast, neverventuring beyond. The catch was sufficient to satisfy the local demand. Startingin 1943, longlining for tope shark rapidly developed in the area of Mar del Plata,

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 35paving the way for a transformation of the fishing fleet, which started targetinganchovy and mackerel. When the tope shark fishery declined in Mar de Plata, thefleet gradually moved to other ports: Monte Hermoso, Puerto Madryn, Rawson,and Comodoro Rivadavia (Mateo Oviedo, 2003). Small groups of fishers settledin these communities, but many moved to other activities after the decline of thetope shark fishery.Commercial diving for shellfish originated in San José Gulf during the early1970s (Ciocco, 1995). A scallop dredge fishery had boomed and collapsed in theadjacent San Matías Gulf between 1968 and 1972, and there was concern about thesame happening here. Commercial diving was then envisioned as an environmentfriendlyalternative to dredging, and developed by a team of divers with experiencein diving for mussels in Uruguay (Santiago Picallo, personal communication).Commercial diving has operated continuously ever since, incorporating newdivers from other parts of the country and from Chile. Artisanal fishing wasstarted in Tierra del Fuego by immigrant skippers, many of Chilean origin.4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS4.1 Community organizationThe level of organization of the fishers increases with their socio-economic status.There were attempts to create cooperatives for low-income fishers in BuenosAires, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego Provinces, but these were short lived. InSan Antonio Oeste there is an association (APASAO) that groups commercialdivers and longliners. Artisanal fishers are best organized in the area of PuertoMadryn (Chubut Province), where the local association (APAPM) integratesfishers from all sectors. Marta Piñeiro, an active member of this organization,believes that the scarcity of organizations like APAPM makes it difficult forfishers along the extensive Argentine coastline to unite to improve their livingconditions. Increasingly, pressure from the markets fosters competition, givingsignificance to fishers’ qualifications in catching, processing and marketing.The first Gathering of Artisanal Fishers of Chubut took place in PuertoMadryn in 1999, bringing together 35 fishers (coastal gatherers, beach seiners andcommercial divers). This was the first formal event involving fishers and scientists(Elías and Pereiro, 1999). From these beginnings there have been consistent effortsfrom different sectors (municipal government, scientists, universities and nongovernmentalorganizations [NGOs]) to accompany the organization of fishersas a requisite for the sustainability of local artisanal fisheries. Interinstitutionalinteractions proved positive, bringing some successes. A facility close to the beachof Puerto Madryn served both as a restaurant that sold products prepared byfishers’ wives and to educate the general public. The association put together itsown web page (www.apamadryn.com) and an informative bulletin is publishedand distributed.Organizations from Buenos Aires Province include the Chamber of ArtisanalFishers of Monte Hermoso and Pehuencó, and the Chamber of Fishers fromPartido de La Costa. Rada/ría fishers are organized at the level of different

36Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanharbours, like the Society of Skippers of Mar del Plata, the Chamber of Fishers ofBahía Blanca, and the Chamber of Fishers of the Inshore Fleet of Rawson.The First National Gathering on Policies for Coastal Fisheries (artisanal andsmall scale) was held in Mar del Plata in 2000, and the second in Puerto Madrynin 2001. Both were attended by fishers from all over the country, as well asmembers of the coast guard, business owners and scientists. This was a forumfor the discussion of many important subjects: management, conservation ofcoastal environments, and socio-economic aspects of fisheries development. TheNational Federation of Artisanal Fishers was founded during the first gathering,with a commitment to gain areas of exclusive access for artisanal fishers and smallscalefleets, consolidate the social and juridical organization in every harbour,promote the creation of cooperatives, work towards the solution of well-beingand educational problems, and lobby for controls on the large industrial fleetsresponsible for the collapse of most major resources (Perrotta et al., 2000).The Federation was ratified during the second gathering, but never gained realmomentum. Both gatherings made it evident that there were significant differencesin the goals and priorities of artisanal and semi-industrial fishers, which made itdifficult to consolidate the organization.Participation of fishers’ organizations in monitoring and management areat best incipient in most fisheries, with the artisanal fishery of Puerto Madryn(Chubut Province) leading the way. Several NGOs in the country are involvedwith marine conservation (e.g. Fundación Vida Silvestre, Fundación PatagoniaNatural, Fauna Silvestre, etc.), but only one is exclusively related to fisheries: theCenter for the Development of National Fisheries (CeDePesca). Many of theseNGOs have helped with the organization of workshops and other events todiscuss problems related to artisanal fisheries, but have not been involved in thediscussion of management.4.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectorsMost of the Argentina coast is sparsely populated. The long coastal zone ofPatagonia (15° latitude) has only 21 human settlements and a total population of790 000; the number of artisanal or small-scale fishers is comparatively modest.Perhaps for this reason conflicts with other uses of the coastal zone, while existent,are not generally significant.Conflicts between industrial and small-scale fisheries: During recurrent crises inthe hake fishery, the industrial fleet based in Mar del Plata has redirected effort topelagic and demersal resources from the coastal zone, which has been a source ofconflict with small-scale fleets (Lasta et al., 2000; Garciarena et al., 2002).Conflicts between recreational and artisanal fishers: In the rías of Santa CruzProvince artisanal fishers occasionally compete with sport fishers targeting browntrout (Salmo trutta) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Conflict betweenartisanal and recreational gatherers of shellfish (mostly mussels) was frequent inthe zone of El Riacho. Artisanal fishers pay for a permit and are regulated, whilerecreational fishers are not. Artisanal fishers also complain because recreational

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 37fishers use destructive practices (shovels, unselective mussel gathering, overturningof rocks, etc.). This situation led to an experiment with territorial use communalrights (Santa Ana, 2004). In the Beagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego), recreationalboats occasionally accidentally cut off the buoys that mark trap lines.Conflicts with landowners: A common conflict along the coasts of Patagonia iscreated by landowners cutting the access to the seashore to artisanal fisheries thatpull their boats over land. The reason is recurrent complaints by landowners aboutfishers killing sheep for consumption.4.3 Integrated management of the coastal zone and marine conservationOnly recently has there been a concern about integrated coastal management,mostly through Global Environment Facility (GEF) projects funded by theWorld Bank through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (e.g.Integrated Management Plan for the Patagonian Coastal Zone, and EnvironmentalProtection of the La Plata River and its Maritime Front). The National Under-Secretary of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development is elaborating aNational Strategy for Biodiversity, according to the United Nations Conventionon Biodiversity (UNCED). To date, the protection of coastal habitats has reliedmostly on a number of protected areas that represent only 0.59% of the coastalzone. In most cases there is some level of economic activity, those related totourism/recreation being the most frequent. In many cases (San Antonio Bay,Valdés Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego) those coexist with other activities. Artisanalfishers operate within the boundaries of the following protected areas.Buenos Aires Province: Natural Integrated Reserves (RNIs; SamborombónBay, Mar Chiquita Lagoon) are established to protect nature as a whole, allowingonly scientific exploration in restricted sectors. Natural Reserves with a SpecificObjective (RNODs) are conceived to protect the soil, biota and natural features;human activity is allowed but regulated. Natural Multiple Use Reserves (NMUR;Bahía Blanca, Bahía Verde, Bahía Falsa) are oriented towards research and toexperiments on the rational and sustainable use of natural resources. Focus is onthe ecosystem rather than on individual species.Río Negro Province: The Natural Protected Area of San Antonio Bay includesthe open coastal zone adjacent to (and under the influence of) the bay. This areahas ecological, fishing, tourism and historical significance. To date there is nomanagement plan in place. Fishing and tourism, and to a lesser extent a deep waterharbour, are activities compatible with each other, sustaining the local economy.A plan for the production of sodium carbonate (Solvay method), soon to startoperating, brings into question the future sustainability of this ecosystem.Chubut Province: The Natural Protected Area of Valdés Peninsula was createdwith the objective of promoting sustainable activities compatible with conservation,like tourism, commercial diving, artisanal aquaculture and husbandry. Access tothe area is restricted and management plans are under development for severalactivities.

38Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSanta Cruz Province: The Bahía Laura Natural Reserve is a nominallyintangible reserve created to protect marine birds and mammals and subtidal kelpforests. There is, however, no control. Some beach seining for silversides takesplace within its boundaries. The National Park Monte León* and the Area forScientific Use of Deseada Island are under special protection because of large birdbreeding colonies. Some beach seiners and mussel gatherers operate within theirboundaries.Tierra del Fuego Province: The Reserve of the Atlantic Coast of Tierra del Fuegois part of a hemispheric network for the protection of coastal birds. It harboursmany colonies of marine birds and mammals, as well as populations of introducedbeavers. Economic activities within its boundaries include sheep ranching, oil/gas exploitation and sand/gravel mining. Artisanal fishers catch silversides andPatagonian blenny using beach seine. There are plans to extend the boundaries ofthe reserve to incorporate the adjacent sea. The National Park of Tierra del Fuegoincludes kelp forests and colonies of birds and mammals. Economic activitiesinclude tourism and the king crab fishery. The National Park Administrationis considering the extension of the park to incorporate the adjacent sea. Thereare projects for other protected areas that include the adjacent sea, including theProvincial Reserve of Isla de los Estados and a protected sector in the southeast ofthe Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Península Mitre).5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESQuantitative assessments have been conducted only for a handful of resources:Coastal demersal fishes, Buenos Aires Province: Biologically Acceptable Catches(BAC) of white croaker and stripped weakfish were determined by INIDEP usinga Schaefer’s dynamic biomass model (Ruarte and Aubone, 2003; Carozza et al.,2004). Reference points considered for the management of this fishery include:maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum biomass (B opt ) and replacement catch(C R ). An indicator of the state of the resource and the fishery is the proportion ofthe current biomass relative to carrying capacity (K) and to B opt . A risk analysis(Monte Carlo simulation) was conducted in the case of white croaker, consideringthe probability that next year biomass is above current biomass for different levelsof catch. For other species (flathead, flounders, rockfish, red porgy, sharks andrays), the analysis suggested precautionary harvest levels are based on the averagecatch over the preceding decade and/or direct biomass estimates (survey data),because there is not enough biological data to be used in assessment models.Pelagic fishes: Biomass of anchovy and mackerel has been assessed with hydroacousticsurveys conducted by INIDEP, and BACs have been determined withproduction models (Perrotta et al., 2003; Hansen and Garciarena, 2004a, 2004b).Hake, San Matías Gulf: Occasional snapshot assessments have been based onsurvey data (area swept). Thompson-Bell’s yield-per-recruit analysis was appliedusing bio-economic data (González and Morsán, 1998, 1999). Assessments areconducted by the provincial institute.* Created by National Law number 25.945 in 2004.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 39Yellow clam, Buenos Aires Province: Stocks of yellow clam from exposedsandy beaches of Buenos Aires Province were assessed during the 1960s throughextensive snapshot surveys and monthly sampling of a fix station (Olivier andPenchaszadeh, 1968a, 1968b). As described earlier, stocks are now collapsed.Purple clam, San Matías Gulf: The purple clam stock of San Matías Gulf, whichis found only in a 21-km 2 stretch of subtidal sandy bottom, has been composedalmost exclusively by 2-year classes (1979–1980) over the last 25 years. Abundancewas assessed for the first time in 1994 by means of a diving survey, following asystematic sampling design (quadrants dug on a fix grid), and using geo-statisticalmethods (Morsán, 2003); estimated biomass was around 53 000 tonnes. A recentsurvey showed no significant change, perhaps reflecting compensation betweengrowth rate and mortality (Morsán, personal communication).Scallops, San José Gulf: Tehuelche scallop stocks of San José Gulf were assessedin 1995–1996 and 2001–2005 by means of diving surveys (Ciocco et al., 1996, 2001a,2001b, 2002, 2003), conducted by scientists from CENPAT, with participation ofcommercial divers through the local association of artisanal fishers (APAPM).Scallops were counted by trained divers along transects perpendicular to the shore.The basic survey design was systematic and incorporated an adaptive component.The earlier surveys provided the evidence that substantiate claims of overfishingand a 3-year closure (Ciocco and Orensanz, 1997). Since 2000, sampling surveyshave provided the rationale for setting annual total allowable catches (TACs) bythe provincial fisheries agency (Cinti et al., 2003; Orensanz et al., 2006).Mussels, San José Gulf: Between 2001 and 2004, mussel beds of El Riachowere assessed twice a year (before and after the harvest season) with scientificsupervision from CENPAT (Santa Ana, 2004; Santa Ana et al., 2003a, 2003b).The field protocol was designed to be simple, so that it can be conducted with theassistance of coastal gatherers. The design consists of a regular grid, combiningquadrants and a photo survey. Results were used in a participatory context topropose management regulations.6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGBuenos Aires Province: Fisheries are open access, and in many cases there is noteven a fishing slip programme for monitoring. There is a nominal regulatoryframework (e.g. restrictions on effort, gear regulations, size limits).Río Negro Province: Fisheries are managed by the provincial fisheries agencywith technical support from the Institute of Marine Biology and Fisheries‘Almirante Storni’, located in San Antonio Oeste. Official catch statistics have beenrecorded since the 1960s, and were refined in 1979, when a fishing slip programme(filled by the skippers) was implemented. During the mid-1990s, when longliningwas introduced, the provincial fishing authority designed a programme forreconverting trawlers to longliners. Although the initiative was partially acceptedby some companies, trawling is still prevalent nowadays. Currently only the hakefishery is regulated and catch appears to be at a sustainable level. Other fisheries

40Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanare not managed. However, a new provincial fishing act is being considered, whichwould introduce an individual transferable quota (ITQ) system.Chubut Province: The provincial fisheries authority is based in Rawson,with delegations in Puerto Madryn and Comodoro Rivadavia. The regulatoryframework is prolific, but limited in the specifics by frequent changes in politicaldirection (Santa Ana, 2004). There are three types of individual permits: (i) coastalshellfish gathering and beach seining; (ii) motorized boats operating beam trawlsand longlines; and (iii) motorized boats authorized also for commercial diving.In 2001, a provincial artisanal fisheries act (No. 4725) defined four fishingzones: (i) Puerto Madryn, from 42º south latitude, northern provincial boundary,to Punta Ninfas (43º south latitude); (ii) Rawson, from Punta Ninfas to PuntaAtlas (44º 08' south latitude); (iii) Camarones, from Punta Atlas to Punta Esquerra(45º 04' south latitude); and (iv) Comodoro Rivadavia (from Punta Esquerra to46º south latitude, the southern provincial boundary). The law, which has notbeen fully implemented, also introduced a provincial registry of artisanal fishers.The provincial fisheries agency has the authority to establish temporal and spatialclosures, quotas, size limits, etc. It is also in charge of enforcement. Fisheriesare monitored through ‘transit slips’, which permit-holders must fill to reportcatch by species, fishing area and destination of the product. Monitoring andenforcement, however, have been and continue to be inefficient. The only artisanalfishery in the province that is regulated with a TAC is the scallop fishery of SanJosé Gulf, for which there is a long history of research and management (Ciocco,1995). Scientific support for management has been provided over the years byCENPAT. The provincial Ministry of Health monitors red tides produced byseasonal blooms of Alexandrium tamarense (Gayoso, 2001); mollusc fisheries areclosed (usually during the spring) when allowable thresholds are surpassed.Under open access the commercial diving fishery of San José Gulf grew tomore than 30 teams during the early 1990s (Parma et al., 2001). The scallopstock collapsed and the fishery was closed for three years (1996–1998) (Cioccoand Orensanz, 1997; Ciocco et al., 2005). In 2000, the industrial hake fishery(backbone of the Argentine industrial fishery) experienced a severe crisis. Requestsof artisanal fishing permits by displaced fishers increased. Faced with a complexsituation, the provincial fisheries agency formed a technical committee as an ambitto discuss the management of commercial diving, and eventually of other fisheries.Parties included technical staff from the agency, scientists from CENPAT, andleaders of organized artisanal fishers. In 2004, the committee incorporatedrepresentatives of the provincial tourism agency and the autonomous regulatoryboard of Valdés Peninsula, which has been designated as part of Humanity’sNatural Heritage by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO). The technical committee’s mission is to elaboratemanagement plans for the artisanal fisheries of the Puerto Madryn region. Thisis, effectively, the first effective co-management experiment in the context ofArgentine artisanal fisheries. So far, the committee has been instrumental inimplementing a limited entry programme for commercial diving and territorial

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 41use rights for the community of gatherers of El Riacho (Santa Ana, 2004). Thelatter became dysfunctional in 2005. The main reason is that the provincialadministration cannot legally delegate management authority, as required by theeffective implementation of a Territorial User Rights Fishery (TURF) system. Atthe same time, however, it has been incapable to exercise the authority retainedbecause of the weakness in its enforcement capability.Santa Cruz Province: Fisheries are regulated by a provincial agency withheadquarters in Río Gallegos and delegations in coastal towns. The legalframework for management is provided by a provincial act (No. 1464 of 1982).Artisanal fisheries are open access; fishers need only to register with the provincialadministration to get a permit. Regulations aim at a balance between artisanal(commercial) and incipient recreational fisheries, which are considered strategicfor the development of tourism and conservation. Artisanal fisheries may posesome risks for marine wildlife, including the Magellan penguin (Spheniscusmagellanicus) and Commerson’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus comersoni). Controlsconsist of in situ enforcement of fishing gear and quality controls over processingand marketing. Scientific/technical support is provided by an institute based in RíoGallegos. Stocks are not assessed. Pereiro (2001) made recommendations towardsa strategic management plan, including elementary assessments and enforcement.Tierra del Fuego Province: Artisanal fisheries are managed by a provincialagency, which grants fishing permits, under a legal framework that includesseveral provincial laws and written regulations. Fisheries are open access. In thecase of the lithodid crab fishery, there used to be an effort quota of 1 000 trapsfor Beagle Channel. This regulation needs to be reconsidered. There are noforms of traditional management, nor is there a strategic plan for development.Enforcement is conducted by inspectors of the provincial agency, eventually withthe collaboration of the coast guard (Prefectura Marítima) or the navy. Onlylithodid crab stocks are monitored by means of periodical surveys (conductedjointly with INIDEP), which provide the scientific support for regulations. Asan example, a TAC of 200 tonnes was introduced in 1999 (renewed in 2000) forfalse king crab in the most heavily fished sector of Beagle Channel. There is amonitoring programme for red tides, and mollusc fisheries are closed seasonallywhen safety threshold are surpassed.7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONMost artisanal fisheries are not monitored. Catch and effort are recorded in a fewcases, based on fishing slips. There are no observer programmes implementedfor artisanal or small-scale fisheries of the Patagonian provinces and there are nospecific training programmes oriented to small-scale or artisanal fishers.Buenos Aires Province: INIDEP uses three sources of data: (i) fishing slipsfor catch and effort data; (ii) biological port sampling of most important specieslanded in Mar del Plata; and (iii) surveys directed to the assessment of coastalresources (demersal and pelagic) and their environment. The observer programmeis limited to the industrial fleets, with the exception of anchovy and mackerel.

42Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSpecific studies have been conducted on the latter with participation of the rada/ría fleet since 1983. Both in INIDEP and the National University of Mar del Platathere are research teams studying a number of subjects pertaining to artisanal orcoastal fisheries (see list of references). CeDePesca has organized courses orientedto fishers with the collaboration of scientists and several institutions. Subjectsincluded biological sampling for recreational fishers, fish handling on board, andfisheries control and monitoring.Río Negro Province: Most of the scientific and technical support is providedby the Institute of Marine Biology and Fisheries ‘Almirante Storni’ (San AntonioOeste), which depends jointly from the provincial government and the NationalUniversity of the Comahue. The institute offers a three-year tertiary degreeprogramme for fishery technicians.Chubut Province: The commercial diving fishery of San José Gulf has a longtradition of associated research. In Chubut, there is also significant documentationof coastal gathering, beach seining and longlining (see references). Most of thescientific/technical support for management has been provided by CENPAT.Since 2000, management-oriented research and training (fishers, undergraduateand graduate students, enforcement personnel of the provincial agency) have beensubstantially supported by the Pew Fellows in Marine Conservation Programme.The AVINA Foundation (non-profit organization focused on sustainabledevelopment in Latin America) and a GEF project play a significant role inproviding support to an incipient co-management system. Many students from theNational University of Patagonia (with branches in Comodoro Rivadavia, Trelewand Puerto Madryn) do internships or complete their theses on subjects related toartisanal fisheries or aquaculture. In Puerto Madryn there are two fisheries-relatedtraining programmes, one at the high school (Municipal School of Fisheries),and the other at the tertiary level (Fisheries Engineering, National TechnologicalUniversity). A three-month participatory training project for fishers and membersof their families was conducted in Puerto Madryn in 2000. The subjects had beenrequested by fishers themselves during the first national gathering: biology offishery resources, and handling of fishery products on-board.Santa Cruz Province: The provincial fisheries agency monitors gear usedby artisanal and recreational fishers. Some studies have been conducted on thebiology of the most significant species, as well as cost-benefit analysis for presentand projected fisheries.Tierra del Fuego Province: CADIC has contributed significant scientificsupport for management, primarily in the case of lithodid crabs.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe appreciate the support from Néstor Eduardo Barrientos (President, Chamberof Aquaculturists and Artisanal Fishers of Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego), forcollaboration in the completion of this chapter. José Dadón (Nacional Universityof Buenos Aires), Graciela Sarsa (provincial fisheries agency of Chubut) andErnesto Godelman (CeDePesca) provided valuable information.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 43REFERENCESBalech E. 1986. De nuevo sobre la oceanografía frente a la Argentina. Servicio deHidrografía Naval (Buenos Aires), Publicación H-645.Bosch E.E., Bertuche D.A. & Wyngaard J.G. 1984. Estudio biológico pesquero dela centolla (Lithodes antarcticus) del canal de Beagle, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina.Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP), Mar delPlata, Contribución 441.Carozza C.R., Hernández D. & Perrotta R.G. 2004. Evaluación de corvina rubia(Micropogonias furnieri) en el área del Río de la Plata y zona común de pescaargentino-uruguaya, por medio de un modelo de dinámica de biomasa. Rev. Invest.Desarr. Pesq., 16: 77-90.Charpy-Roubaud C.J., Charpy L.J., Maestrini S.Y. & Pizarro M.J. 1978. Étude de laproduction primaire des eaux des golfes nord-patagoniques (Argentina). Estimationde la fertilité potentielle au moyen de tests biologiques. CR Acad. Scien. (Paris) (D),287: 1031-1034.Cinti A. & Soria G. 2003. Relevamiento del sector pesquero artesanal y deportivo enel área del Polo Pesquero Camarones, provincia del Chubut. Equipo Técnico Asesorpara el Manejo de la Pesca Artesanal (CENPAT, DGIMPyPC, APAPM), Provinciadel Chubut, Documento Técnico No. 8.Cinti A., Parma A.M. & Orensanz J.M. 2003. Seguimiento de la pesca de vieiras en elGolfo San José durante la temporada, 2002. Recomendaciones para el monitoreo ycontrol de la pesquería. Equipo Técnico Asesor para el Manejo de la Pesca Artesanal(CENPAT, DGIMPyPC, APAPM), Provincia del Chubut, Documento TécnicoNo. 7.Ciocco N.F. 1995. 1- Marisquería mediante buceo en el Golfo San José. 2- Primerasexperiencias privadas de cultivo de bivalvos en los Golfos San José y Nuevo. Plande Manejo Integrado de la Zona Costera Patagónica-Fundación Patagonia Natural,Informe Técnico No. 2.Ciocco N.F. & Orensanz J.M. 1997. Collapse of the Tehuelche scallop (Aequipectentehuelchus) fishery from San José Gulf (Argentina). 11 th International PectinidWorkshop, La Paz, Mexico (extended abstract).Ciocco N.F., Gosztonyi A.E., Galván D.A., Monsalve M.A., Díaz M.A., Vera R.,Ibáñez J.M., Ascorti J.L., Signorelli J.C. & Berón J.C. 1996. La vieira tehuelchedel Golfo San José: primeros resultados de la campaña de relevamiento SANJO/95.Convenio Provincia del Chubut-CENPAT-CONICET, LAPEMAR, InformeTécnico No. 1.Ciocco N., Elías I., Orensanz J.M., Parma A.M., Ciccarone P., Sarsa G., Serdá A.,Oroquieta P. & Piñeiro M. 2001a. Recomendaciones para la explotación de la vieiratehuelche (Aequipecten tehuelchus) en el Golfo San José, Temporada, 2001. EquipoTécnico Asesor para el Manejo de la Pesca Artesanal (CENPAT, DGIMPyPC,APAPM), Provincia del Chubut, Documento Técnico No. 2.

44Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanCiocco N.F., De Garín N., Díaz M.A., Vera R., Mazzanti R., Monsalve M.A.,Herrera G., Sollazo S., Serdá A., Díaz D., Signorelli C., López J., Ascorti J.,Díaz R., Bazterrica M.C., Escati G. & Real L. 2001b. Relevamiento de bancosde moluscos bivalvos de interés marisquero en el Golfo San José. Resultados dela campaña Sanjo/01. Convenio Provincia del Chubut-CENPAT-CONICET,LAPEMAR, Informe No 11.Ciocco N.F., De Garín N., Díaz M.A., Vera R., Serdá A., Sollazo S., Agüero-Brunt A.F., De Francesco L., Ascorti J., Bregonzi-Castillo D. & Real L. 2002.Relevamiento de bancos de moluscos bivalvos de interés marisquero en el GolfoSan José: resultados de la campaña Sanjo/02. Convenio Provincia del Chubut-CENPAT-CONICET, LAPEMAR, Informe No. 13.Ciocco N.F., De Garín N., Díaz M.A., Vera R., Ortiz N., Ascorti J., Real L., Loto L.& Bazterrica M.C. 2003. Relevamiento de bancos de moluscos bivalvos de interésmarisquero en el Golfo San José: resultados de la campaña Convenio Provincia delChubut- CENPAT, LAPEMAR, Informe No 15.Ciocco N.F., Lasta M.L., Narvarte M., Bremec C., Bogazzi E., Valero J. &Orensanz J.M. 2005. Argentina. In Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture,Second Edition. Edited by S. Shumway. Elsevier Publ. pp. 1251–1292.Cousseau M.B. & Perrotta R.G. 2000. Peces marinos de Argentina. Biología,distribución, pesca. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero(INIDEP), Mar del Plata, Argentina.Dadón J.R. 1999. Cambios poblacionales en la pesquería de berberecho (Donaxhanleyanus) en el noreste de la provincia de Buenos Aires (Argentina). XIVSimposio Científico-Tecnológico, Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente Marítimo,Montevideo (abstract).Dadón J.R. 2001. Long-term population changes of an endangered species: Theyellow clam (Mesodesma mactroides) in the northeastern marine sandy beachesof Argentina. International Workshop on Beaches–What Future? Florence, Italy(abstract).Dadón J.R. 2002. La situación actual de la almeja amarilla. Comunidad Pesquera,(CeDePesca, Mar del Plata, Argentina) Año II, No. 7.Ehrlich M.D., Martos P., Madirolas A. & Sánchez R.P. 2000. Causes of spawningvariability of anchovy and hake on the Patagonian shelf. ICES, CM, 2000/V: 6.Elías I. 2002. Sobre la sustentabilidad de la pesca artesanal en Puerto Madryn.Comunidad Pesquera (CeDePesca), Mar del Plata, Argentina. Año II, No. 7.Elías I. & Pereiro R.C. (eds). 1999. I Encuentro Provincial de Pescadores Artesanalesde Puerto Madryn. Conclusiones y Recomendaciones (Mimeo).Elías I., Ré M.E. & Gosztonyi A.E. 1991. Observaciones preliminares sobre elcrecimiento del pejerrey “manila” Odontesthes smitti en el Golfo Nuevo, Chubut,Argentina. Rev. Biol. Mar., (Valparaíso) 26: 49-60.Elías I., Biagetti D., Mota E. & Aquino W. 2001. Pesca artesanal y economía social demercado (Unpublished MS).Errazti E., & Bertolotti, M.I. 1998. Flota costera: descripción de las principalescaracterísticas en la región bonaerense. Frente Marítimo, 17: 63-70.

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 45Flamanc N. 1999. Un front pionner en Patagonie Argentine: Puerto Madryn. Tésis deMaitrise. Universite de Bretagne Occidentale, France.García-Allut A. 2002. Procesos de producción pesquera e incertidumbre:comercialización de los productos pesqueros de la pesca artesanal de Galicia(Spain). In La Comercialización del Pescado Fresco: alternativas de futuro. Editedby Universidad de Gerona, España. pp. 67-81.Garciarena A.D., Perrotta R.G. & López F. 2002. Informe sobre el muestreo dedesembarque de anchoíta (Engraulis anchoita) y caballa (Scomber japonicus) en elpuerto de Mar del Plata: período septiembre 1999-enero 2000. Instituto Nacional deInvestigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP), Mar del Plata, Argentina, InformeTécnico, 45.Gayoso A.M. 2001. Observations on Alexandrium tamarense (Lebour) Balech andother dinoflagellate populations in Golfo Nuevo, Patagonia (Argentina). J. PlanktonRes., 23: 463-468.Godelman E., Bruno C., Tamargo E., Pidal G. & González F. 1999. La política desubsidios pesqueros de la Unión Europea, el Acuerdo en Materia de Pesca Marítimaentre la U.E. y la República Argentina y sus consecuencias en la sustentabilidadde las pesquerías del Atlántico Sudoeste, particularmente en la merluza argentina(Merluccius hubbsi). Comunidad Pesquera (CeDePesca, Mar del Plata). Suppl. 2.Gómez-Otero J. 1996. Primera noticia sobre el hallazgo de un anzuelo de madera enPatagonia: sus implicancias en el contexto de la arqueología regional. In Arqueología:sólo Patagonia, Edited by J. Gómez-Otero. Centro Nacional Patagónico (PuertoMadryn). pp. 59–68.González R.A.C. & Morsán E. 1998. Recomendaciones preliminares para el manejoy explotación del efectivo pesquero de merluza común (Merluccius hubbsi) GolfoSan Matías, a partir de la aplicación del análisis de rendimiento por recluta. Institutode Biología Marina y Pesquera de San Antonio Oeste (Argentina), Informe TécnicoNo. 6.González R.A.C. & Morsán E. 1999. Recomendaciones para el manejo y explotacióndel efectivo pesquero de merluza común (Merluccius hubbsi) en el Golfo San Matías,durante el año, 1999. Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquera de San Antonio Oeste(Argentina), Informe Técnico No. 2.Hansen J.E. & Garciarena A.D. 2004a. Modelo de producción aplicado a la poblaciónde anchoíta al sur de los 41ºS, y estimación de capturas biológicamente aceptablesdurante el año 2004. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero(INIDEP, Mar del Plata), Informe Técnico Interno No. 01.Hansen J.E. & Garciarena A.D. 2004b. Diagnóstico de la población de anchoíta alnorte de los 41ºS y estimación de capturas biológicamente aceptables durante el año2004. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar delPlata), Informe Técnico Interno No. 15.Iribarne O.O. 1990. Use of shelter by the small Patagonian octopus Octopustehuelchus: availability, selection and effects on fecundity. Mar. Ecol. Prog., Ser. 66:251–258.

46Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanIribarne O.O. 1991. Intertidal harvest of the Patagonian octopus Octopus tehuelchus(D´Orbigny). Fish. Res., 12: 375–390.Isla M.S. 2001. Pesca marítima en Tierra del Fuego, con especial énfasis en la pesca costeray artesanal. Informe a la Subsecretaría de Planeamiento de la provincia de Tierra delFuego. (Unpublished Ms.).Izzo A. & Boccanfuso J. 1993. Características de la red de cerco “tipo lampara” yalgunos comentarios sobre la flota que la utiliza en la pesca de caballa. In Estudiobiológico y pesquero de la caballa (Scomber japonicus Houttuyn, 1782). Edited byR.G. Perrotta. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP,Mar del Plata). pp. 45–52.Izzo A., Bartozzetti J.D. & Salvini L.A. 1999. Relevamiento de la flota pesqueraartesanal de la ría de Bahía Blanca y Monte Hermoso. Instituto Nacional deInvestigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar del Plata), Informe TécnicoInterno No. 42.Lagos, N. 2001. Características de la pesca artesanal en el Partido de la Costa (Cabo SanAntonio) y perfil socieconómico de la actividad. Undergraduate Thesis. UniversidadNacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina.Lasta C., Carozza C. & Ruarte C. 2001. Flota costera argentina: antecedentes ysituación actual. In El Mar Argentino y sus recursos pesqueros, vol 3. Edited byM.I. Bertolotti, G. Verazay and R. Akselman. Publicaciones Especiales INIDEP,Mar del Plata. pp. 89–106.Lasta C., Carozza C., Suquelle P., Bremec C., Errazti E., Perrotta R., Bertelo C.& Bocanfusso J. 2000. Característica y dinámica de la explotación de corvina rubia(Micropogonias furnieri) durante la zafra invernal. Años, 1995 y, 1997. InstitutoNacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar del Plata), InformeTécnico No. 36.Lovrich G.A. 1997. La pesquería mixta de centollas Lithodes santolla y Paralomisgranulosa (Anomura: Lithodidae) en Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Inv. Mar.(Valparaíso), 25: 41–57.Mateo-Oviedo J.A. 2003. De espaldas al mar. La pesca en el Atlántico sur (siglosXIX and XX). Doctoral Thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institut Universitarid’Història Jaume Vicens i Vives, Barcelona (Spain).Morsán E.M. 2003. Spatial analysis and abundance estimation of the southernmostpopulation of purple clam, Amiantis purpurata in Patagonia (Argentina). J.Mar.Biol. Assoc. UK, 83: 1073-1082.Olivier S.R. & Penchaszadeh P.E. 1968a. Evaluación de los efectivos de almejaamarilla (Mesodesma mactroides Desh., 1854) en las costas de la provincia de BuenosAires. Proyecto Desarrollo Pesquero (FAO), Servicio de Información Técnica,Publicación No. 8.Olivier S.R. & Penchaszadeh P.E. 1968b. Efectivos de almeja amarilla (Mesodesmamactroides Desh., 1854) en las costas de la provincia de Buenos Aires- Pautas para suexplotación racional. Proyecto Desarrollo Pesquero (FAO), Servicio de InformaciónTécnica 8 (suppl.)

Coastal fisheries of Argentina 47Orensanz J.M., Parma A.M., Ciocco N.F. & Cinti A. 2006. Achievements and setbacksin the commercial diving fishery of San José Gulf, Argentine Patagonia. In FisheriesManagement: Progress towards Sustainability. Edited by T.R. McClanahan, Publ.pp. 68–87.Parma A., Orensanz J.M., Elías I. & Jerez G. 2001. Diving for shellfish and data:incentives for the participation of fishers in the monitoring and management ofartisanal fisheries around southern South America. In Towards Sustainability ofData-Limited MultiSector Fisheries. Edited by S.J. Newman, D.J. Gaughamn, G.Jackson, M.C. Mackie, B. Molony, J. St John and P. Kailola. Australian Society forFish Biology Workshop Proceeding. Fisheries Occasional Publications, 5: 8–29.Pascual M.S., Castaños C., Reussi A.M., Elvira M., Fernández-Cartes V. &Rodríguez V. 2002. Diagnóstico sobre la situación del trabajo femenino del sectorpesquero y acuícola argentino. I. Región Patagónica. Red Latinoamericana deMujeres del Sector Pesquero y Acuícola. FAO, Infopesca.Pereiro R. 2001. Desarrollo y optimización de técnicas de captura. Report prepared forthe fisheries administration of Santa Cruz Province. Consejo Federal de Inversiones(CFI, Buenos Aires).Perier M.R. 1994. La fauna íctica en el litoral de la Bahía San Antonio (Golfo SanMatías, provincia de Río Negro). Doctoral Thesis. Universidad Nacional de LaPlata, Argentina.Perrotta R.G., Abate P. & Bruno C. 2000. Primer Encuentro Nacional Sobre Políticaspara la Pesca Costera (artesanal y de pequeña escala), Final Report. Centro enDefensa de la Pesca Nacional (CeDePesca, Mar del Plata), special publication.Perrotta R.G., Viñas M.D., Hernández D.R. & Tringali L. 2001. Temperatureconditions in the argentine chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) fishing ground:implications for fishery management. Fish. Oceanogr., 10: 275–283.Perrotta R.G., Viñas M.D., Madirolas A., Reta R., Akselman R., Castro-Machado F.J., Garciarena A.D., Macchi G., Moriondo-Danovaro P., Llanos V. &Urteaga J.R. 2003. La caballa (Scomber japonicus) y las condiciones del ambienteen el área “El Rincón” (39° 40'–41°30' S) del Mar Argentino. Septiembre 2000.Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar del Plata),Informe Técnico No. 54.Piola A.R. & Rivas A.L. 1997. Corrientes en la plataforma continental. In El MarArgentino y sus recursos pesqueros, vol. 1. Edited by E.E. Boschi. PublicacionesEspeciales INIDEP, Mar del Plata. pp. 119–132.Ré M.E. 1998a. Pulpos octopódidos. In El Mar Argentino y sus recursos pesqueros,vol 2. Edited by E.E. Boschi. Publicaciones Especiales INIDEP, Mar del Plata.pp. 69–98.Ré M.E.,1998b. Pesquerías de pulpos. In El Mar Argentino y sus recursos pesqueros,vol 2. Edited by E.E. Boschi. Publicaciones Especiales INIDEP, Mar del Plata.pp. 99–114.Ré M.E. & Berón J.C. 1999. Relevamiento de la pesca artesanal con red de costa en laprovincia del Chubut, Patagonia Argentina. Naturalia Patagónica, Reporte TécnicoNo. 2.

48Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanRivas A.L. & Beier E.J. 1990. Temperature and salinity fields in the north patagonicgulfs. Oceanologica Acta, 13: 15–20.Ruarte C. & Aubone A. 2003. La pescadilla de red (Cynoscion guatucupa), análisisde su explotación y sugerencias de manejo para el año 2003. Instituto Nacional deInvestigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar del Plata), Informe TécnicoInterno No. 16/2003.Sánchez R.P. & Ciechomski J.D. 1995. Spawing and nursery grounds of pelagic fishspecies in the sea-shelf off Argentina and adjacent areas. Sci. Mar., 59: 455–478.Santa Ana C. 2001. Relevamiento del sector pesquero artesanal en los Golfos Nuevo,San José y sur del San Matías. Pew Fellows in Marine Conservation Programme/CENPAT (Puerto Madryn). ACCESS data base and associated documents.Santa Ana C. 2004. Los derechos de uso territorial (DUTs) como alternativa para elmanejo sustentable de recursos pesqueros: el caso de la comunidad de recolectores decosta de El Riacho (Golfo San José, Argentina). Undergraduate thesis, UniversidadNacional de la Patagonia, Puerto Madryn, Argentina.Santa Ana C., Orensanz J.M., Parma A.M. & Sarsa G. 2003a. Área de Evaluación deEl Riacho (Golfo San José): balance de un año de seguimiento (mayo 2002 - mayo2003). Equipo Técnico Asesor para el Manejo de la Pesca Artesanal (CENPAT,DGIMPyPC, APAPM), Provincia del Chubut, Documento Técnico No. 5.Santa Ana C., Parma A.M. & Orensanz J.M. 2003b. Evaluación de los bancos demejillón del Área de Evaluación de El Riacho 2002-2003. Equipo Técnico Asesorpara el Manejo de la Pesca Artesanal (CENPAT, DGIMPyPC, APAPM), Provinciadel Chubut, Documento Técnico No. 6.Soutric M. & Caille G. 2005. La pesquería artesanal de camarón de Bahía Engaño,Patagonia, Argentina. Consolidación e Implementación del Plan de ManejoIntegrado de la Zona Costera Patagónica-Fundación Patagonia Natural, InformeTécnico.

493. Coastal fisheries of BarbadosPatrick McConney*McConney, P. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Barbados. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charlesand J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries andAquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 49–71.1. Introduction 492. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 503. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 614. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 634.1 Community organizations 634.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectors 655. Assessment of fisheries 666. Fishery management and planning 677. Research and education 698. Issues and challenges 70Acknowledgements 71References 711. INTRODUCTIONBarbados is the most eastern of the Caribbean islands, entirely surrounded bythe Atlantic Ocean, and located at latitude 13°10' north by longitude 59°35' west.The mainly low relief and coralline island has a total land area of about 432 km 2encompassed by a coastline 95 km long. The island shelf is small, only 320 km 2 ,and deep water is found close to shore. The oceanic surface waters are relativelylow in nutrients, thermally stable and of low productivity. Surface currents offBarbados are complex but generally directed towards the northwest, sometimesbringing water lenses of lower salinity containing debris from the Amazon andOrinoco Rivers of South America. Closer to shore, systems of gyres and eddiestend to entrain and shed near-shore water for periods that vary according to anumber of factors (Figure 1).* Contact information: Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University ofthe West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados. E-mail: patrick.mcconney@cavehill.uwi.edu

50Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 1Location of Barbados and oceanographic featuresSource: Mahon, 1996.2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITYThere are four major coastal fisheries in Barbados: shallow-shelf reef fishery;deep-slope and bank reef fishery; coastal pelagic fishery; and sea egg fishery.The fisheries for conch and lobster are not included since these are minor, andthe sea turtle fishery is closed indefinitely. Also not included are the fisheries forflyingfish (mainly Hirundichthys affinis) and dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus).While these are classified as coastal in comparison to the oceanic pelagics (e.g.large tunas, swordfish and wahoo), they are mainly part of a multispecies offshorefishery. The four fisheries in this profile are coastal on the basis of their proximityto shore. They occur in a narrow band generally within 2 km from shore aroundthe entire island except for a small area of deep reef about 7 km offshore to thesouth. Figure 2 shows the main fish landing areas.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 51FIGURE 2Barbados fish landing sitesSource: Fisheries Division, 2001.Tables 1–4, extracted from the 2004–2006 fisheries management plan (FMP)for Barbados (Fisheries Division, 2004), provide detailed descriptions of eachfishery. Table 5 and Table 6 provide visions for the fisheries, barriers to sustainablemanagement, and strategies for overcoming the barriers. The FMP can bedescribed as management objective driven (MOD) rather than stock assessmentdriven (SAD) (Mahon, 1997; Berkes et al., 2001).

52Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 1The shallow-shelf reef fisheryLocationTarget speciesBycatchEcologyThis fishery occurs on near shore coral reefs.Hinds (Serranidae); Parrotfishes (Scaridae); Grunts (Haemulidae); Surgeonfishes(Acanthuridae); Triggerfishes (Balistidae).Squirrelfishes (Holocentridae) and other reef fish species; Lobsters (Palinuridae);Moray eels (Muraenidae).Distribution: seagrass beds (juveniles); coral reefs (adults).Growth: up to 50 cm (many species).Life span: 4-6 years (most species).Reproduction: varies by species, but most broadcast eggs into the plankton.FishingmethodsEconomicsResourcestatusVessel type: mainly small, open, outboard-powered boats (moses) are used.Fishing gear and methods: fishing is most intense during the period July–Octoberwhen pelagics are scarce, but reef fishes are captured year-round at some sites.Mainly fished using traps of various shapes (Z , A, S, and rectangular) and of varioussizes. S-traps and rectangular traps are not common. Z-traps are prevalent on thesouth coast, and A-traps on the west. Hexagonal wire mesh 1.25 inch (3.18 cm)is most commonly used to make traps, and the 1 inch (2.5 cm) mesh previouslyin limited use has been illegal since 1998. These mesh sizes retain juveniles ofseveral species. The traps are often baited with macerated fish or black sea urchins(Diadema antillarum) and hauled every 2–3 days. Reef fishes are also taken by trapsand handlines fished at various depths down to about 50 m.Economic importance: economic links to tourism are perhaps as important asdollar value of food fishery.Employment: important to part-time fishers year-round and full-time fishersupon conclusion of flyingfish season.Catch and effort trends: estimated annual landings of reef fish ranged from 14–60 metric tonnes for 1990–2003. Information on effort is available as numbers ofvessels and numbers of trap fisheries registered with the Fisheries Division.Areas of reef are believed to be overfished, particularly on the south and westcoasts, where fishers have reported reduced catch per unit effort and fish size.The potential yield is unknown due to lack of accurate local catch and effort dataover time, or reasonable estimates of production extrapolated from similarlyfished and ecologically comparable reef areas elsewhere.OpportunitiesPresence of large fish satisfies both fisheries for food, and non-food (recreationand tourism), developments.Aquarium fish export trade for particular (often non-food) species if populationsare carefully managed under the existing regulations.Marine reserves and protected areas serving recreational and tourism purposesmay act as population reservoirs for adjacent fished areas.ConstraintsIncreased exploitation is not recommended.Low fish populations due to habitat degradation and overfishing of diminishedstocks in some areas.User and use conflicts with tourism and coastal recreation.Approaches require difficult trade-offs (e.g. between food and non-food use).

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 53TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)Present datacollectionCurrentlegislationManagementunit(s)PossibleadditionalmanagementmeasuresCatch and effort statistics routinely collected at primary and secondary landingsites. Statistics only occasionally collected at tertiary landing sites. This is a majorproblem when assessing this fishery as a substantial portion of the catch is landedat tertiary sites.Fisheries Act:Use of dynamite, poisons and noxious substances is prohibited.Fisheries (Management) Regulations:Minimum mesh size 1.25 inches (3.18 cm) in traps.Trap fitted with escape panel of approved size and design to reduce ghostfishing.Trap marked for identification in an approved manner.Prohibition of trammel and any other entangling nets.Fishing is prohibited in no-take marine reserves.Island shelf for juveniles and adults; distribution may be wider for early life stagesdue to egg and larval drift in ocean and coastal currents.Increase minimum mesh sizes in traps.Implement a permit system for the use of spear guns.Prohibit SCUBA-assisted spearfishing, to reduce effort and depth range ofharvest.Co-management arrangements in the context of integrated coastal areamanagement. This requires an integrated, participatory approach to reef fishmanagement, involving all of the stakeholders and most of the managementapproaches above to deal with the complex issues surrounding this fishery.Essential for marine protected areas.For these approaches to succeed, habitat protection through the Coastal ZoneManagement Unit (CZMU) and associated agencies is essential.

54Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 2The deep-slope and bank reef fisheryTarget speciesBycatchSnappers (Lutjanidae), mainly queen snapper (Etelis oculatus), silk snapper (Lutjanusvivanus), and vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens).Unidentified groupers (Serranidae); large jacks (Carangidae) etc.Distribution: juveniles prefer shallow waters; adults deeper waters.EcologyGrowth: greater than 100 cm in length (most species); slow-growing.Life span: long-lived.Reproduction: groupers may form large spawning aggregations; several species arehermaphroditic; eggs presumed planktonic.Vessel type: dayboats (fishing launches) are used.Fishing methodsFishing gear and methods: mainly fished by handlines which target queen snapperand vermilion snapper. Traps target silk snapper and some vermilion snapper. Most ofthe catch is taken from July to October when the availability of large pelagics declines.Each vessel may have crews of several fishers each tending a line.Economic importance: unknown. Preliminary assessment of fishery shows potential forincreased investment in harvest.EconomicsResource statusOpportunitiesConstraintsPresent datacollectionCurrent legislationManagement unit(s)Possible additionalmanagementmeasuresEmployment: most significant during the period when pelagics are scarce (July–October).Catch and effort trends: annual estimated catches between 1990 and 1999 rangedfrom around 20 to 60 tonnes (Source: Fisheries Division). No clear trends. Noinformation is available on effort.The resource may be fully exploited in some areas, but not in others. Potential yieldestimates for the Barbados shelf range from 18 to 80 tonnes per year (Source: FAOFisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 313). A precautionary approach iswarranted since some species are extremely vulnerable to overexploitation due totheir life history and ecology. High demand local market exists for high-priced luxury product. Unfished and not fully exploited areas are believed to exist. Resource easily overfished, so management of capacity is essential. Present harvest methods are difficult and labour intensive. Requires investment in fishing equipment to increase yield.Catch and effort statistics routinely collected at primary and secondary landing sites.Statistics only occasionally collected at tertiary landing sites. This is a major problemwhen assessing this fishery as a substantial portion of the catch is landed at tertiarysites.Fisheries Act:Use of dynamite, poisons and noxious substances is prohibited.Fisheries (Management) Regulations:Minimum mesh size 1.25 inches (3.18 cm) in traps.Trap fitted with escape panel of approved size and design to reduce ghost fishing.Trap marked for identification in an approved manner.Prohibition of trammel and any other entangling nets.Declaring closed areas and seasons for species and fishing methods.Coastal Zone Management Act.Fishing is prohibited in no-take marine reserves.Separate stocks may exist on the Barbados shelf given its relative isolation from otherisland shelves.Same as for shallow-shelf reef fisheries.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 55TABLE 3The coastal pelagic fisheryTarget speciesBycatchEcologyFishing methodsEconomicsResource statusOpportunitiesConstraintsPresent datacollectionCurrent legislationManagement unit(s)Possible additionalmanagementmeasuresJacks (Carangidae); herrings (Clupeidae); silversides (Atherinidae);anchovies (Engraulidae); ballyhoo (Hemiramphus spp.) – 2 species; robinsor scads (Decapterus spp.); barracuda (Sphynaena spp.); garfish – 3 species;small tunas and the young of large tuna such as yellowfin, may also becaught.Juvenile shallow-shelf reef fish.Distribution: mainly fished within 2 km from shore.Growth: little information available. Varies with species.Life span: little information available. Varies with species.Reproduction: jacks probably spawn offshore throughout the year; mostspecies may have planktonic early life history stages.Vessel type: both 'moses' and dayboats are used.Fishing gear and methods: mainly caught by three different methods:boat seines, cast nets, and trolling. Fishing in the vicinity of reefs mayresult in undesirably high bycatches of juvenile reef fish which arediscarded.Economic importance: a considerable quantity is used as bait for otherfisheries although some are used as food.Employment: not yet quantified.Catch and effort trends: annual estimated catches of jacks and smalltunas from 1990–1999 ranged from about 8 to 40 tonnes (Source:Fisheries Division). No information is available on effort.Not yet assessed. Lack of information precludes the estimation ofpotential yield. Qualitative reports on abundance from fishers areinconclusive.Possible expansion of baitfish fishery.Harvest sector conflicts with other coastal users.Catch and effort statistics routinely collected at primary and secondarylanding sites. Statistics only occasionally collected at tertiary landingsites. This is a major problem when assessing this fishery as a substantialportion of the catch is landed at tertiary sites.Fisheries Act:Use of dynamite, poisons and noxious substances is prohibited.Fisheries (Management) Regulations: Minimum mesh size for seines 1.50 inches (3.81 cm). Prohibition of trammel and any other entangling nets. Declaring closed areas and seasons for species and fishing methods. Coastal Zone Management Act. Fishing will be prohibited in no-take marine reserves.Island shelf for juveniles and adults, but distribution may be wider forearly life stages due to egg and larval drift. Permit cast netting in the marine reserve, but improve monitoring andsurveillance to ensure other fishing is not also taking place. Prohibit seining and cast netting near reefs. Research and data collection, particularly through co-managementarrangements. Protect fish habitat through integrated coastal zone management. Given an overlap of issues, it may be prudent to incorporate this fisheryinto the integrated coastal area management approach suggested forthe shallow-shelf reef fishery.

56Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 4The sea egg fisheryTarget speciesBycatchEcologyFishing methodsEconomicsResource statusWhite sea urchin or sea egg (Tripneustes ventricosus).NoneDistribution: adults live on sea grass beds and coral rubble. Juveniles appearto settle in same areas as adults. The sea urchin is particularly vulnerableto overfishing because it occurs close to shore, is virtually immobile, and isharvested for its gonads. Natural or man-made changes in marine habitatsare concerns.Growth: varies according to environmental conditions. Gonads ripenseasonally.Life span: 2–3 years (maximum).Reproduction: sexually mature by one year; eggs and larvae are planktonicfor several weeks.Vessel type: when vessels are used, the launch is common, but the 'moses'is also used. The occasional ice-boat is observed. Alternatively, fishers whoswim out to the sea urchin ground will often carry a floating log from whichbags of harvested urchins will be suspended until returning to shore.Fishing gear and methods: sea urchins are harvested close to shore by skindivers using mask, snorkel and fins and by SCUBA divers. The sea urchinsare removed from the bottom by hand or metal scraper and are collectedin a net bag.Economic importance: revenue from the sea urchin fishery is an importantpart of some fisher’s income. Significant inter-annual variation in stock sizeoccurs such that catch size is limited mainly by stock size at low abundancesbut is effectively only limited by fishing effort at high stock abundances.While researchers differ on their estimates of the mean income per fisherfrom the sea egg harvest (largely due to differences in estimates of effort),there is little doubt that, when abundant, Barbadian sea eggs are the basisof a very valuable fishery.Employment: it is estimated that over 300 fisher-divers (part-time and fulltime)are involved in this fishery. In addition, many other people crack,clean and sell sea eggs.Catch and effort trends: no regularly recorded landings statistics areavailable. Catch and effort fluctuate with highly variable abundance. Noclear trends.High demand has led to overexploitation of the resource and the stock wasconsidered to be in a collapsed state for most of the period between themid-1980s to 2000. During this period two multiyear harvesting moratoria(1987–1989 and 1998–2001) were implemented to allow the depleted stocksto recover. Sea eggs returned in abundance in 2001 and stock levels hadremained relatively high in 2002 but with some decline in 2003.OpportunitiesMarket exists for high-priced luxury products, high demand.Low harvest and post-harvest investment required.ConstraintsSeasonal, unpredictable abundance.Low populations due to overfishing and possible habitat degradation.Absence of community organization to facilitate co-management by area.Failure at the attempt to sustain an island-wide fisherfolk divers association.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 57TABLE 4 (CONTINUED)Present datacollectionFishers, in collaboration with the Fisheries Division and BARNUFO, conductannual stock abundance surveys just prior to the commencement of thefishing season, and the results are used in part to determine the length andtiming of the fishing season.CurrentmanagementThe designation of annual fishing seasons has been used as a managementtool for the fishery since 1879.Moratorium from 1987 to 1989 when harvesting sea eggs was notallowed.Since 1989, closed season, from 1 January to 31 August. During the openseason from 1 September to 31 December it was against the law to:- Leave the shell or offal of sea eggs on any bank or in shallow water.- Wilfully or wantonly destroy or injure any sea egg.(However, due to inadequate enforcement and absence of social sanctions,illegal harvesting often started as early as July.)Fisheries (Management) Regulations:Provision for closed seasons and areas.Prohibition of harvest with the assistance of SCUBA.Illegal to have, sell, expose for sale or purchase sea eggs during the closedseason unless the sea eggs were obtained with the permission of the ChiefFisheries Officer.Cannot wantonly injure or destroy any sea eggs.Fisheries (Sea Eggs Closed Season) Notices:Closed season from 1 August 1998 to 31 July 2001.In 2001, the closed season was extended to 31 August and harvesting waspermitted from 1 October to 30 November.In 2002, harvesting was initially permitted from 1–31 September but theopen season later extended to 31 October.In 2003, harvesting was permitted from 15 September to 15 October.Managementunit(s)A discrete stock probably exists on the Barbados shelf given its relativeisolation from other island shelves.Possible additionalmanagementmeasuresCo-management measures to be subsequently considered include:Licensing harvesters.Closed seasons.Setting total allowable catches.Improved monitoring and management information systems involvingharvesters.

58Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 5Visions for coastal fisheriesVision 1: Coastal fish resources are sustainably utilized and managedBarrierDegradation and destructionof coastal habitatsStrategiesWork with CZMU and stakeholders to implement, enforce andmonitor coastal zone management legislation.Work with fishers and government agencies to develop strategiesto stop the use of dynamite and noxious substances in fishing.Monitor the use of spear guns and fishing gear and publicize theirdetrimental effects to the fishery.Discourage cast netting or seining on or near reefs.Research the need for seasonal closure of seine fishery.Strict control of fishing by permit in marine protected areas.Promote measures that will prevent pollution of the near shoremarine environments.Increase public information on coastal habitat conservation.Overfishing due to highmortality of juvenile andadult reef fish occursEncourage stakeholders and the public to get involved in marineenvironmental awareness and conservation activities (i.e. brochures,videos, TV programmes).Publicize the fishery regulations.Work with stakeholders to enforce existing gear regulations.Monitor compliance with regulations.Set up mechanisms for registering and marking fishing gear.Research feasibility of further gear and vessel restrictions.Inadequate fisheryinformation and statisticsare available for planningand managementAssess the need for additional management measures.Review and improve sampling scheme for catches and map theirlocations.Work with fishers to develop better means of measuring fishingeffort on reefs.Improve the collection of biological, economic and social data.Collaborate on data collection with fishers and students.The institutionalarrangements formanaging this fisheryhave not been fullydevelopedShortage of trained staffConduct stock assessments.Collate existing information and data, and use the results toinform further research and produce user-friendly material forstakeholders.Work closely with the UWI and fishers to collect necessary scientificinformation on all local fisheries.Explore possible institutional arrangements in collaboration withall stakeholders in data collection, implementation, management,monitoring, and decision-making.Implement the preferred arrangement(s) as pilot projects for trial,and evaluate to improve.Provide suitable training for staff where possible and continuelobbying for additional appropriately trained staff.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 59TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)Vision 2: Coastal conflicts that impair fisheries management are reducedor absentBarrierConflicts amongstakeholders in the coastalzoneNot enough attention ispaid to development ofsustainable solutions toconflictsEconomic linkages withtourism are not optimizedfor fishersStrategiesFormally integrate fishing into coastal zone planning andmanagement.Establish and maintain means for fishers and other coastal zoneusers to meaningfully participate in planning and management.Conduct more research on stakeholder analysis and solutions toconflicts.Use GIS and facilitation to help identify and develop solutions.Research and develop linkages that provide more economicopportunities for fishers in tourism-related activities on theinshore reefs.TABLE 6Vision of the sea egg fisheryVision 3: Optimum annual harvests that earn maximum economicbenefits while conserving the resourceBarrierStocks usually low, highlyvariable, and extremelyvulnerable to overfishingStrategiesMaintain stocks at a level which can sustain fishing.Improve co-management for monitoring and harvest.Eliminate illegal fishing during the closed season/moratorium.Poor track recordof compliance withand enforcement ofconservation regulationsInadequate fisheryinformation and statisticsfor planning andmanagementFind more innovative ways to enforce fishery regulations.Public education on sea egg conservation and management.Implement a 'coast watch' type of public surveillance system.Improve estimation of catch and effort.Collect more biological, economic, and social data.Improve collaboration on data collection and monitoring withfishers.Conduct more stock assessments in collaboration with university.Possible habitatdegradation anddestruction and waterpollutionThe institutionalarrangements formanaging this fisheryhave not been fullydevelopedCZMU to implement legislation for coastal zone management.Collaborate closely with CZMU and environmental agencies onhabitat surveys, pollution, etc.Explore possible institutional arrangements in collaboration withall stakeholders. The formation of a sea egg management councilcomprising representatives of the sea egg fishing communities,government, and scientists is recommended.Implement the preferred arrangement(s) as pilot projects for trial,and evaluate to improve.

60Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFor ease of reference, each subplan follows the same format. The location,target species or species group, and bycatch are described before the ecology,fishing methods and economics of the fisheries. A general statement on resourcestatus is given in the absence of quantitative reference points. Likewise, theopportunities and constraints appear as qualitative observations. Data collectionand current legislation are described, as well as the resource management units (i.e.scale of management) and possible additional management measures. The FMPsare primarily means of communicating key concepts and information to diversefisheries stakeholders and are, therefore, written mainly in non-technical language.A brief general description of all the fisheries is made below.All four fisheries are small-scale commercial fisheries, but some fish are retainedfor home consumption and distribution to personal networks (from observation,not >10% of total catch). Some of the shallow and deep reef fishing is recreational,including a limited amount of tournament fishing. The sea egg fishery is highlyseasonal by management regulations, although much illegal fishing takes place inall months once the resource is relatively abundant. The other fisheries tend to bemore active from around June to October, which is the low season for the mainoffshore pelagic fisheries. Catches from all of the fisheries are primarily marketedfresh (the fish usually whole or only gutted; the urchins as roe), but smallportions are processed mainly to be sold frozen in local supermarkets. Estimatedannual fish landings from the coastal fisheries (Table 7) contain larger amounts ofunknown errors and uncertainties than found in statistics for the pelagic fisheries.Fish species or species groupTABLE 7Provisional estimated fish landings (2001–2004)Provisional annual total estimated landings(tonnes)2001 2002 2003 2004Flyingfish 1 673.1 1 590.4 1 912.3 1 185.6Dolphinfish 574.4 552.8 458.1 454.7Large tunas 150.7 114.0 162.0 191.8Billfish 70.7 43.9 68.2 61.8Kingfish (wahoo) 23.6 40.6 31.9 42.3Shark 9.5 9.1 8.1 8.4Swordfish 14.3 7.8 16.1 19.0Snappers* 20.0 12.4 15.4 5.8Carangids* 11.2 9.6 25.6 32.0Small tunas* 1.2 2.4 1.6 1.3Unspecified * 109.0 89.3 96.2 130.6Total 2 657.7 2 472.3 2 795.5 2 133.2*Includes catches from coastal fisheries (Source: Fisheries Division of the Barbados Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment).

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 61The fishing activity in each fishery is described in Tables 1–4, including vessels,gear and methods. In general, these fisheries tend to involve the smaller categoriesof vessel in the fishing fleet, particularly outboard powered ‘moses’ (dinghies)and dayboats (half-decked launches) (Figures 3a and 3b). A Fisheries Divisionpublication (Willoughby and Leslie, 2000) provides detailed descriptions offishing methods and fishing gear specifications.FIGURE 3a“Moses” open inshore fishing vessel(Photo: Fisheries Division)FIGURE 3bDayboat midrange vessel(Photo: Fisheries Division)3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSThe fishing industry labour force is described in the 2004–2006 fisheriesmanagement plan (Fisheries Division, 2004). There are about 2 200 peopleinvolved in fish harvest (80% full-time) and up to an additional 3 800 in fisheriesrelatedactivities. This is based on fisher registration and rough estimation, and

62Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanconstitutes about 2% of the total population. The primary stakeholders of theharvest sector are fishers and boat owners. Fishers comprise 63% and boatowners account for 37%. About 40% of boat owners are also active fishers. Thecoastal fisheries are particularly fluid in terms of labour entry and exit, with alarge number of opportunistic and occasional fishers who are normally engagedin other occupations, including construction, tourism, the civil service and lawenforcement. Defining the labour force in these fisheries is difficult.As noted above, women do not participate much in harvesting; however,women are in the majority in the post-harvest sector. They account for 63% ofthe post-harvest primary stakeholders. The majority of fish vendors (60%), fishboners (77%) and fish scalers (70%) are female. Although males account for only37% of the post-harvest primary stakeholders, they are in the majority amongthe processors (100%), exporters (100%), hawkers (62%), and skinners (51%).Of the four coastal fisheries, the work of women is most obvious in the sea eggindustry of urchins, where women participate in groups by processing the producton beaches and selling it directly to consumers. In the other fisheries women arefound mainly as vendors, but reef and small pelagic fishes are often sold directlyby fishers to consumers.Coastal fishers are usually Barbadians, and only Barbadian citizens orfirms can legally own local commercial fishing vessels under the Fisheries Act.Fishers are mobile within the coastal waters, and fishing areas are not closelylinked to particular adjacent communities except for limitations in the rangeof vessels or preference to have fishing gear close by, especially in the trapfisheries. There is relatively little territoriality, especially when resources suchas sea urchins are abundant. The sea egg fishery has been documented andregulated for over 100 years. All of the fisheries have strong traditions andhave been relatively slow to modernize. For example, traps and deep handlinesare still mainly hauled without mechanical assistance.Social and economic data disaggregated by fishery are scarce. The FisheriesDivision recently undertook a drive to have all fishers registered, and this shouldimprove the quantity and quality of information available. Some data alreadyappear in the current fisheries management plan.Overall, across all fisheries, males account for 99% of the fishers and 91% ofthe boat owners. Males in the age group 45–49 years are in the majority amongboth harvesters and boat owners. Stakeholders in the age group 50–59 years are inthe majority among post-harvest stakeholders. Most males are 40–44 years of agewhile most females are between 45 and 49 years old. Men tend to enter the fishingindustry between the ages of 15 and 19 years, while women enter later, between20 and 24 years of age.The most comprehensive socio-economic descriptions are of the sea urchinfishery, most recently summarized in Mahon et al. (2003) and McConney et al.(2003a). Historically, the annual sea egg fishing season is timely for fishers as itcomes when the season for flyingfish and the other large pelagics, such as dolphin,is over. In addition, the beginning of the season also coincides with the last weeks

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 63of the school summer holidays. Hundreds of Barbadians, including women andchildren, become involved in some aspect of the sea egg fishery. In 1948 theindustry was described as employing “almost every available fisherman and theirfamilies”. Estimates of the numbers of people seasonally involved have rangedfrom nearly 1 000 in the mid-1950s to just over 200 at present. No other fisheryin Barbados so thoroughly engages people of all ages, both sexes and of severalother occupations as fully and intensely as the sea urchin fishery. The traditionalroles for the women and children are the processing and sale of the sea eggs onshore. Persons are described by the tasks to which they are assigned (i.e. ‘divers’,‘breakers’ and ‘vendors’). There used to be sharper distinctions between thesecategories of workers in the fishery than there are today. It is said that diving forsea eggs often introduces boys to fishing, so the fishery may play an importantrole in the supply of new labour into the industry.The sea urchin fishery is the most lucrative of the four in this profile, especiallydue to the high earning rate within the short open season. This is estimated atUS$2 000 to US$5 000 per harvester, earned over approximately two months(McConney et al., 2003a). The trap fisheries have a longer season of about sevenmonths that is not regulated by law, but by fishing preferences. Incomes of upto US$7 500 have been estimated as being possible from the deep reef fishery(Prescod, 1991), but will be less on average for the inshore reefs. There have beenno earnings studies for the coastal pelagic fishery.4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS4.1 Community organizationsFisherfolk organizations generally include fishers and boat owners, while a fewalso include fish vendors in their membership, but not fish processors. About fiveregistered groups are currently active, meaning that they have constitutionallyelected executives and some regular activities for the benefit of their members(Table 8).The secondary producer organization, the Barbados National Union ofFisherfolk Organizations (BARNUFO), was instrumental in facilitating theparticipation of a wide cross-section of the fishing industry in the formulation ofthe 2001–2003 Fisheries Management Plan, and represented the industry to a lesserextent in formulating the 2004–2006 plan. The latter was done mainly throughmembership on the government’s Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) that isestablished under the Fisheries Act to advise the minister responsible for fisherieson a broad range of topics.Among the primary fisherfolk groups, the Oistins Fisherfolk Organizationhas been attempting to introduce local area management adjacent to their landingsite on the south coast (Hoggarth, 2005). The Weston Fisherfolk Organizationsought to ensure that legal fish traps were not tampered with by others on thewest coast. The Barbados Fisherfolk Divers Association was established toparticipate mainly in the management of the sea urchin fishery but was shortlived(Mahon et al., 2003).

64Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 8Fishing industry organizations in BarbadosFishing industry organizationRegistration dateBarbados Fishing Cooperative Society Limited* 18 Feb. 1986Oistins Fisherfolk Association* 4 Nov. 1997Weston Fisherfolk Association* 29 Jan. 1998Sand Pit Fisherfolk Association* 6 Feb. 1998Northern Fisherfolk Association 20 Mar. 1998Paynes Bay Fisherfolk Association 4 May 1998Speightstown Fisherfolk Association 20 May 1998Tent Bay Fisherfolk Association 12 Jun. 1998Pelican Fisherfolk Association 24 Jul. 1998Pile Bay Fisherfolk Association 18 Nov., 1998Conset Bay Seamoss Group 17 Dec. 1998Barbados Fisherfolk Divers Association 5 Mar. 1999Barbados National Union of Fisherfolk Organizations* 26 Mar. 1999Mount Standfast Marine Preservation Association 12 May 1999* Fisherfolk organizations currently active (adapted from Fisheries Division, 2001).Due to the ribbon pattern of coastal settlement, and absence of deep embaymentsor other defining coastal features, there are few easily recognizable spatial fishingcommunities in Barbados. There is no system of local government (i.e. at thecommunity level), and therefore the primary organizations described above alsocome closest to the means of providing community representation in management.In the context of communities of interest, the FAC has members including a fisher,boat owner, fish vendor and fish processor. However, these people are appointedfor their individual expertise and do not provide representation except in caseswhere their views are consistent with the majority of others in the same fisheryoccupation.At present, the main non-governmental organization with an interest in fisheriesis the Barbados Marine Trust. Formed in May 2000, the Trust is interested inall aspects of marine management and conservation, particularly in coastal andnearshore areas. The Barbados Game Fishing Association (BGFA) is the sole bodycomprising recreational fishers, and tournament anglers in particular, but most of itsattention is on pelagic fishing. Although perhaps not your typical non-governmentalorganization, the University of the West Indies (UWI) has had a long history ofinvolvement in researching and facilitating the community aspects of participationin fisheries management. To a lesser extent, the Caribbean Conservation Association(CCA), a regional non-governmental organization (NGO), has also contributed inrecent times, particularly to the sea urchin fishery.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 654.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectorsThe 2001–2003 Fisheries Management Plan (Fisheries Division, 2001) sets outgeneral examples of positive and negative intersectoral interactions with fisheries(Figure 4).FIGURE 4Positive and negative intersectoral interactionsAdapted from Fisheries Division, 2001.Documented conflicts in coastal fisheries have mainly been between trapfishers and other users of inshore reefs, particularly recreational divers andwatersports operators. In broad context, this is over the consumptive versus nonconsumptiveuse of reef fish. Conflicts also occur between coastal fishing vesselsin the approaches to the harbour and large vessels entering or leaving port. Coastalland is highly sought after and valuable, especially for tourism. There has beenshrinkage of the unused coastal areas that are suitable for boatyards, causing someconflict over boatyard space and with the occupants of adjacent properties.Implementation plans for coastal fisheries management (Fisheries Division,2004) point to the need to strengthen or establish institutions for conflictmanagement since tension is expected to increase as coastal development(particularly for tourism) proceeds. It has been suggested to use a geographicinformation system (GIS) as a tool in conflict management, but this has not yetbeen implemented.Barbados has a very progressive Coastal Zone Management Act (1998) andplanning system which states that specific fisheries management plans have

66Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanprecedence and seeks to incorporate fisheries into coastal management as setout in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Based on detaileddiagnostic assessments, the coastal zone management plans outline desirable usesand management of defined segments of the coast. Implementation of these plansis still in the early stages and public participation is currently being sought.5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESThere have been varying levels of assessment in the four coastal fisheries. The mostcomprehensive are for the sea urchin fishery, followed by the reef fisheries, and withrelatively little assessment of the coastal pelagic fishery. Most of the assessmentshave been focused on ecology and stock assessment. The sea urchin fishery hasincluded social, economic, institutional and uncertainty aspects. All of the numericalestimates and indices produced for the fisheries are perceived as being approximateand, as shown in Tables 1–4, none of them are used explicitly for management, suchas in setting target or reference points (Caddy and Mahon, 1995).Only in the sea urchin fishery has there been much attention to traditional andlocal knowledge, including harvesting practices that are relevant to conservationand community-based management. A fair amount has been written on the latter,partly in the vein of how it may not be appropriate for Barbados due to settlementpattern and cultural norms about property rights (Mahon et al., 2003; McConneyet al., 2003a). Figures 5 and 6 were produced by the Fisheries Division throughcollaborative surveys with fishers.FIGURE 5Distribution of sea urchin harvestersFIGURE 6Distribution of sea urchin resourcesSource: Fisheries Division.Source: Fisheries Division.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 676. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGTables 1–4 describe the management of each coastal fishery under the jurisdictionof the Fisheries Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,via the Fisheries Act. The fisheries management plans use the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries for guiding principles. Other relevant fisheriesconventions, with the dates on which Barbados became party to them, include: United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (22 September 2000); FAO Compliance Agreement (26 October 2000); The Tuna Convention establishing the International Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) (13 December 2000).Barbados is also party to the following international instruments that are relevantto fisheries: The Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States (the Barbados or SIDS POA); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol of the CartagenaConvention; International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships(MARPOL).None of the formal or informal management measures used in Barbadosare rights-based. Formal measures are given in Tables 1–4. Informal traditionalmeasures to reduce the harvest of sea urchins that are not in prime condition havebeen documented (Mahon et al., 2003), but the positive impacts of these practicesare more than compensated for by significant illegal fishing (i.e. out of seasonharvest and use of prohibited gear).Marine protected areas (MPAs) are under the jurisdiction of the CoastalZone Management Unit through the Coastal Zone Management Act. However,the only MPA currently established, Folkestone Marine Park, was not designedprimarily as a fishery management tool, but for scientific research and tourismwatersports. The coastal authorities have plans for more MPAs. These are focusedon conserving biodiversity.The government, through the Fisheries Division, offers as incentives thefollowing direct subsidies and subsidized services: Tax and duty subsidies on marine fuel, boats, engines and spare parts, fishinggear, fish handling equipment and other related supplies. Maintenance and upgrade subsidy of up to US$2 000 per boat per year. Administrative subsidy of free registration, licensing, inspection and otherservices for meeting statutory requirements. Utilities subsidy by payment for water and electricity at boatyards andlanding sites. Subsidized, non-commercial fees for the tractor service used in small vesselhaul-out. Development funds for technical assistance and loan financing.

68Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean Grants to fishing industry organizations for approved projects. Free accommodation for umbrella fisherfolk organization.These are relatively small subsidies that benefit mainly the harvest sector, andparticularly the more capital intensive offshore fisheries through the duty and taxconcessions. There had been a rebate on gasoline fuel used to power the outboardengines used by much of the coastal fleet. However, this subsidy was removedas a cost-saving measure, and to reduce financial abuse, rather than for fisheriesconservation reasons.Although the fisheries management plans are in place for three years beforereviewing and updating, the sections on vision are expected to be enduring andstrategic, with a time horizon of around 10 years. Each fishery or fishery grouphas a vision as shown in Tables 5 and 6. There are also vision components for theharvest and post-harvest sectors (Fisheries Division, 2004):Vision of the harvest sector: Trained and well-informed fishers and fisherfolk organizations playing anactive and vital role in the sustainable management of the fisheries resourcesand in quality assurance of seafood. Well-maintained and designed vessels complying with national legislationand standards for design, construction, safety at sea, and hygienic storageand handling of fish. Fishers using responsible fishing practices and not engaged in activitiesthat undermine the effectiveness of any accepted national, regional orinternational fisheries management measures. Modern and appropriate infrastructure that supports the loading of supplies,sanitary offloading of catch, and construction or repair of vessels. Fishers supporting and benefiting from social services which contribute totheir well-being in times of need. Local and regional fisheries stakeholders working together to managenational and shared fisheries resources.Vision of the post-harvest sector: Trained fishers, informed fisherfolk organizations and other stakeholdersplaying an active role in fish quality assurance, food safety and smallbusiness enterprises. Adequate national seafood legislation and standards with systems andprocedures in place to ensure compliance. Individuals and agencies producing and marketing quality value-addedseafood products.Fisheries enforcement and voluntary compliance are weak in almost allrespects. The four coastal fisheries are difficult to monitor. The data collectionsystem, and most monitoring, is concentrated at the fish markets and main landingsites that serve the offshore pelagic fisheries. While there is some monitoringat other beaches and minor landing sites, accurate information on catches andeffort are scarce. The regulations on gear specifications and fishing seasons are

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 69not enforced; neither the fisheries authority nor the marine enforcement agencieshave adequate capacity, and fishing violations are not priority for attention.Coast Guard operations annually yield only a handful of arrests and even fewersuccessful prosecutions. Most of this enforcement activity concerns harvesting seaeggs out of season (McConney and Pena, 2004).Although there has not yet been a formal and structured or quantitativeevaluation of fisheries management in Barbados, and particularly an evaluation ofthe performance of the plans and their implementation, there have been informalreviews. These have occurred mainly at the Fisheries Advisory Committee, whichis mandated under the Fisheries Act to advise the minister responsible for fisherieson a wide range of management and development issues (McConney et al., 2003b).In summary, fisheries management has only been partially successful. There hasbeen some success at creating policy and laws that reflect the intention of ensuringresponsible fisheries, such as with Barbados becoming party to the internationalinstruments identified earlier. Less progress has been made in implementingoperational aspects of the management plans. This includes the poor enforcementof fisheries management regulations.7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONData and statistics on all four fisheries are collected by the Fisheries Division. Atthe fish markets, or primary landing sites, officers of the Markets Division arethe daily data collectors. There is daily data collection by employees of theFisheries Division stationed at the secondary landing sites and sampling byroving collectors at the tertiary sites. The data collected are catch and effort.Recent recorded landings of snappers and reef fish are provided in Figure 7.FIGURE 7Recorded landings of snappers and reef fish in Barbados

70Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMost of the coastal fishery research has taken place in the sea urchin fishery,followed by the two reef fisheries, with the least on the coastal pelagics. This orderreflects their social and economic importance. For all except the coastal pelagicsthere has been biological, ecological, social and economic research, but the volumeof work on the sea urchin fishery far outweighs the others. Key references arelisted at the end of this paper.Limited quantities of conservation brochures have been produced by theFisheries Division based on the fisheries management regulations. For thesea urchin fishery there are also television spots that urge conservation andcompliance. There are no educational or vocational programmes aimed atpromoting alternative occupations in the fishing industry or aimed at facilitatingexit from fishing by training for occupational mobility.8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESDue to the dominance of the offshore pelagic fisheries, economically, socially,politically and otherwise, the coastal fisheries of Barbados have been relativelyneglected, except for sea urchins and the interest of mainly academic researchersin shallow shelf reef fish. The quantity and quality of information on thesefisheries is generally poor and inadequate for management except in the mostprecautionary sense. However, there has been recent renewed interest in thesefour coastal fisheries. The fisheries management authority is aware of the need todemonstrate effective management at the national scale while tackling the regionalmanagement required for the offshore pelagic fisheries.Taking into account its limited organizational capacity, the Fisheries Divisionis considering contracting studies on aspects of fisheries, many of which can bedone as graduate student projects or short-term consultancies. The seine fisheryis expected to be documented. There is interest in the oral histories of fishers whoharvested deep snapper banks that seem to have been depleted or are perhapsnot known by younger fishers. The management plans call for increasing theminimum mesh size in fish traps, especially to rehabilitate the shallow shelf reeffishery. The fisheries management regulations were recently reviewed and notfound to be either enforced or complied with. The fisheries authority and fisherorganizations are to collaborate in promoting the existing regulations.Due to organizational capacity constraints and other factors, it is not expectedthat these fisheries will receive much attention in terms of formal stock assessment.However, the authority is aware of alternative directions for small-scale fisheries(Berkes et al., 2001). These fisheries have been identified as potential candidatesfor co-management arrangements, and it is anticipated that fisher groups will beinterested in management objective driven (MOD) approaches. In this way, it ishoped that communication, compliance and capacity may improve.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 71ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe accuracy of information provided and the opinions expressed are theresponsibility of the author alone, who thanks the Fisheries Division for accessto its records.REFERENCESBerkes F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R. & Pomeroy R. 2001. Managing SmallscaleFisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. International DevelopmentResearch Centre, Canada.Caddy J.F. & Mahon R. 1995. Reference points for fisheries management. FAOFisheries Technical Paper. No. 347. FAO, Rome.Fisheries Division. 2001. Barbados fisheries management plan 2001-2003. Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development.Fisheries Division. 2004. Barbados fisheries management plan 2004-2006. Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development.Hoggarth D.D. 2005. Lessons from a shaky start for the Oistins FisheriesCo-Management Pilot Project (OFCoMP) in Barbados. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.Inst., 56: 1–16.Mahon R. 1996. Fisheries of small island states and their oceanographic research andinformation needs. In Small islands: Marine science and sustainable development.Edited by G. Maul. Coastal and Estuarine Studies, 51: 298–322.Mahon R. 1997. Does fisheries science serve the needs of managers of small stocks indeveloping countries? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 54: 2207–2213.Mahon R., Almerigi S., McConney P., Parker C. & Brewster L. 2003. Participatorymethodology used for sea urchin co-management in Barbados. Ocean Coast.Manag., 46: 1–25.McConney P., Mahon R. & Parker C. 2003a. Barbados case study: the sea egg fishery.Caribbean Coastal Co-management Guidelines Project. Caribbean ConservationAssociation, Barbados.McConney P., Mahon R. & Oxenford H. 2003b. Barbados case study: the FisheriesAdvisory Committee. Caribbean Coastal Co-management Guidelines Project.Caribbean Conservation Association, Barbados.Prescod S. 1991. The snapper fishery of Barbados: present status and a preliminaryassessment of the potential for expansion. CERMES ES500 Project Report No. 29.UWI, Barbados.Willoughby S. & Leslie D. 2000. Fishing gear of Barbados. Fisheries Division,Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

734. Coastal fisheries of BrazilMARCELO VASCONCELLOS * , ANTONIO CARLOS DIEGUES AND DANIELA COSWIG KALIKOSKIVasconcellos, M., Diegues, A.C. and Kalikoski, D.C. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Brazil. In S.Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and theCaribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 73–116.1. Introduction 742. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 763. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 813.1 Characteristics of fishers 813.2 Social and economic aspects 843.3 Education level of fishers 863.4 Fish marketing and processing 874. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 874.1 Community organization 874.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectors 885. Assessment of fisheries 925.1 North 925.2 Northeast 945.3 Southeast 965.4 South 965.5 Other considerations: assessment of ecosystem processes,bio-economic analysis and uncertainties 996. Fishery management and planning 996.1 Fisheries management 996.2 Coastal management 1077. Research and education 1108. Issues and challenges 112Acknowledgements 113References 113* Contact information: Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG).E-mail: marcelovasconcellos@furg.br

74Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean1. INTRODUCTIONCoastal fisheries have been receiving an increasing level of attention fromgovernmental and academic institutions in Brazil in recent years. The reasons forthis are many, but the most important are: the general failure of governmentalpolicies for the development of the fisheries sector, which have been focused almostexclusively on industrial fisheries; the growing recognition of the importance ofartisanal fishers who, without support from the government, continue to supplylocal and regional markets; the innumerable pressures that artisanal fishingcommunities have been suffering, owing to the expansion of the interests of thereal-estate and tourism sectors and environmental degradation – factors that oftenforce the fishers to move to cities, having lost their land; the coverage given tothese conflicts by the press; the recent political liberalization in Brazil after themilitary regime (1964 to 1984), which allowed the marginalized and forgottengroups of society to express themselves more freely, especially in defence of theirrights and aspirations in the Constituent National Assembly; the work carried outby non-governmental organizations, in particular, the Catholic Church, throughthe activities of the Fisheries’ Pastoral mainly in the north and northeastern states;and the birth of the National Movement of Fishers (MONAPE) in 1989.The development of artisanal fisheries faces many challenges due to the lack ofpolicies, strategies and concrete experiences that can support sustainable fisheriesproduction, better organization and improvement of the livelihood of fishingcommunities. There has been a continuous worsening of the problems affectingthe production of artisanal fisheries owing to the depletion of fisheries resources,environmental degradation of coastal areas, and ultimately to the ineffectivenessof governmental strategies in overcoming the obstacles that impede the sustaineddevelopment of the artisanal fishing communities along the Brazilian coast. Theoverall lack of information about these fisheries is a subsidiary problem that giveslow political visibility to the sector and thus helps perpetuate its status. This chapteraims to provide a broad perspective of the status of artisanal coastal fisheries inBrazil, and to put forward some alternative strategies for the development of thesector. In describing these types of fisheries, we opted to concentrate as much aspossible on general regional characteristics, but also highlight special features ofrelevance to particular fisheries when necessary.Artisanal fishers are organized into a number of fishing communities settledalong the coast and in small coastal towns in Brazil. Artisanal fishing is conducted ina variety of coastal ecosystems. The characteristics of habitats, fauna, productivityand oceanography of these ecosystems greatly influence the way fishing activitiesare developed. On a broad scale, the Brazilian coastline can be divided into fivelarge ecosystems with distinct environmental characteristics of importance tocapture fisheries (Matssura, 1995; Figure 1).

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 75FIGURE 1Major marine coastal ecosystems of BrazilBiological production is high in the north, as a result of the continental runofffrom the Amazon River (Teixeira and Tundisi, 1967). The wide continental shelfand the rich benthic community favoured the development of industrial trawlingactivities in this region, mostly for shrimps and large catfishes. The northeast andeast regions present oligotrophic conditions due to the influence of tropical watersfrom the Brazil Current. Rocky bottoms and a mostly narrow continental shelfinduced the development of hook-and-line and longline fisheries for rockfishes,sharks and tunas. In the southeast, primary production is mainly driven by seasonalupwelling of nutrient-rich, cold subtropical waters pumped by alongshore windsand by cyclonic vortexes originating from the Brazil Current (Bakun and Parrish,1990; Matsuura, 1995). The southern part of the Brazilian coast is under the influenceof the Subtropical Convergence between the southward and northward Brazil andFalkland Islands/Islas Malvinas currents. The confluence of water masses and thehigh volume of continental runoff provide physical and chemical conditions for highbiological production on the shelf (Seeliger et al., 1997). Trawling is the main type

76Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanof fishing activity in the southeastern and southern regions, although the presenceof highly abundant pelagic stocks, mainly sardine, in the southeast has also led tothe development of an important purse seine fishery since 1950.Within each of these major ecosystems, there is a variety of inshore and coastalecosystems where diverse communities of artisanal fishers live and work. Coralreefs, mangroves, estuaries and coastal lagoons are particularly important coastalecosystems. Coral reefs occur along 3 000 km of the northeast and east coastsand off oceanic islands. Mangroves extend almost along the entire coast of Brazil,from Oiapoque (Amapá) to Laguna (Santa Catarina), occupying an area of about25 000 km 2 . The most extensive areas of mangrove are associated with the mouthof the Amazon River in the north of Brazil. Coastal lagoons are found in thesouthern, southeastern and northeastern regions, and are especially important inthe states of Alagoas, Rio de Janeiro, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. ThePatos lagoon, located in Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil, is recognized as oneof the most important centres for artisanal fisheries in Brazil.2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIESTwo main fish production systems co-exist in Brazil: industrial and artisanalfisheries. Industrial fisheries are defined as fish harvesting undertaken by largeboats that belong to a fishing company. Social and technical division of labour ishigh, and production is sold to processing companies and large markets. Industrialfisheries concentrate their harvesting on high market value species such as lobster,shrimp and tuna, or highly abundant stocks such as sardine.There is a continuing debate on the definition of the term ‘artisanal fisheries’.The Superintendence for the Development of Fisheries (SUDEPE, which was thegovernmental agency for fisheries development from 1967 to 1988) defined theartisanal fishery as the fishery carried out by boats with less than 20 tonnes ofcapacity. This definition is clearly unsatisfactory considering that some industrialfishing boats also fall into this category. As a result, statistics on the production ofartisanal fisheries are not accurate.In this study coastal artisanal fishers are defined as independent fish harvesterswhose livelihood is based on fishing, on a part or full-time basis, using labour andknowledge-intensive fishing techniques, and employing family or communitylabour, often on a sharing basis, for harvesting in coastal habitats. The fish caughtare normally sold in the local market, usually through middlemen, although someis for home consumption. The artisanal fisheries sector has a longstanding traditionin Brazil. Before the governmental incentives to develop industrial fisheries in1967, artisanal fisheries accounted for more than 80% of the fish production inthe country. Today it is responsible for approximately 54% of the total marinelandings of about 516 000 tonnes (Figure 2).

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 77FIGURE 2Landings by main types of marine fisheriesSource: IBGE, IBAMA, CEPENE, Freire, 2003.The available information on the artisanal coastal fisheries operating in eachregion along the coast is summarized in Table 1. Fishing activities in the north,northeast and east coasts of Brazil are predominantly small-scale – the sectoraccounts for more than 90% of total landings in these regions. Industrial fisheriesaccount for most of the fisheries production, with artisanal fisheries representing34% and 8% of the total landings in the southeast and south, respectively, inrecent years.In the north, artisanal fisheries are concentrated in the estuary of the AmazonRiver, other smaller estuaries, bays and shallow coastal waters and in the extensivemangrove areas that cover the coast. Coastal fishers use small- (

78Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanleast 16 types of gear used by small-scale fishers in Pernambuco, one of the statesof the northeast region. In general, gillnets, longlines and hook-and-line are usedin coastal and offshore waters to catch snappers, groupers, mackerel, sardines,pompanos, tunas and dolphinfish. Lobsters are captured mostly with gillnets(caçoeiras) and by diving. Shrimp trawling is conducted in certain areas close tothe mouth of estuaries. Gillnets, trammel nets, cast nets, manual trawling and trapsare employed closer to shore and inside estuaries and coastal lagoons to captureanchovies, mullets, needle-fish, and shrimps, among other species. The manualcollection of crabs and molluscs in mangrove areas is particularly importantthroughout the region.On the east coast, particularly in the state of Espirito Santo, Martins andDoxsey (2006) identified the following types of fisheries of small- and mediumsizescale: an offshore hook-and-line and longline fishery, based on boats of 8 to15 m long with engines, targeting reef associated and pelagic species; a hook-andlinefishery, based on boats of 6 to 8 m long with engines, targeting specifically thetriggerfish (Balistes capriscus); a coastal fishery with hook-and-line and gillnets,based on small boats with oars, catching mostly Sciaenidae fish; a fishery targetingtunas and other large pelagics around oil drilling platforms based on wellequipped,medium-sized boats; shrimp fisheries based on trawling boats of 7 to10 m long; and lobster fisheries based on small boats, using oars or small engines,and employing gillnets and diving. Mangrove areas in estuaries are also importantfor the manual collection of crabs.In the state of Rio de Janeiro, on the southeast coast, the most importantartisanal fisheries utilize gear such as hook-and-line, gillnet, beach seine, shrimptrawls and manual collection of shell/crab. One of the most traditional activities isthe beach seine fishery based on large canoes and seine nets to encircle migratingschools of bluefish, mullets and bonitos (Silva, 2002). Shrimp are caught in thecoastal lagoons using fixed nets, manual trawling and cast nets. Small purse seinersalso participate in the sardine fishery in coastal waters. In the state of São Paulo,one of the most important and traditional fisheries is the engraulid Anchoviellalepidendostole fishery. This fishery occurs mainly in estuaries and is carried outwith wooden canoes, 4 to 5 m long, using oars or small engines, and employstrawling nets and other types of gear (Gasalla and Tomas, 1998). In the stateof Paraná, fishing activities are predominantly small-scale (Andriguetto-Filhoet al., 2006). Important fishing activities in the region are the trawl fishery formarine shrimp along the coast and in estuaries, the gillnet fishery for sharks anddemersal fishes (mostly Sciaenidae), and the estuarine fisheries for juvenile shrimp,engraulids and mullets. The manual collection of crabs and molluscs is alsosignificant. Further south, in the state of Santa Catarina, beach seining for coastalfishes, estuarine fisheries for shrimps with fixed nets and trawling, gillnet fisheriesfor croaker, weakfish and flatfish, and jigging (zangarilho) for squid are importantartisanal fishing activities (Sunye and Morison, 2006).

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 79TABLE 1Characteristics of artisanal fishing activities in BrazilGear type Type and size of boatsNumberof boatsAveragecrew sizeMain targeted speciesNorthManual collection;Gillnet; Fish weirs;Hook-and-line; Longline;TrawlingWooden canoes and boats,

80Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 1 (CONTINED)Gear type Type and size of boatsNumberof boatsAveragecrew sizeMain targeted speciesSoutheastTrawling nets Wooden canoes, 4 to 5 m,using oars or small enginesno data no data Anchovy (Anchoviella lepindostole).Beach seining Large wooden canoes 65 2–3 c Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix); mullets (Mugil spp.); bonitos, (Acantocybium spp.).Gillnet; Trawling; Fixednets; Beach seining;Hook-and-line; Jigging;Manual collectionWooden boats, 6 to 14 m,using oars or enginesno data no data Shrimps (Penaeidae); juvenile anchovies (Engraulididae); croaker (Micropogoniasfurnieiri); weakfish (Cynoscion spp.); squids (Loligo spp.); flatfish (Paralichthysspp.); mullets (Mugil spp.); crabs and molluscs.SouthGillnet; Fixed nets;Trawling; ManualtrawlingWooden boats, < 10 m,using enginesno data 2–3 Croaker (Micropogonias furnieri); mullets (Mugil spp.); sharks; flatfish(Paralichthys spp.); shrimps (Penaeidae).Gillnet; Hook-and-line Wooden boats, 12 to 15 m,using enginesno data 6–8 Demersal fishes (Sciaenidae); bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).Sources: Reis et al., 1994; Gasalla & Tomás, 1998; CEPENE, 2007; BDT, 2002; Pinto da Silva, 2004; Almeida et al., 2006; Isaac et al., 2006a.aBased on data for the states of Para (4 475 boats) and Maranhão (5 790 boats).bBased on data for the states of Para (1 502 boats) and Maranhão (1 856 boats).cAccording to Pinto da Silva (2004) there are 150 fishers in the beach seine fishery of Arraial do Cabo; crew size was derived from this number and number of canoes.

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 81Finally, in southern Brazil, artisanal fisheries operate mostly in coastal lagoons,estuaries and shallow coastal waters using wooden boats, most of them less than10 m long and under 20 gross tonnes. The main artisanal fishing activities are thegillnet fisheries for croaker, mullets and flatfish, and the fishery for shrimps withfixed nets and trawling (D’Incao, 1991; Reis et al., 1994; Kalikoski et al., 2002). Amedium-scale commercial fishery operates in coastal waters (Reis et al., 1994). Thefleet is composed of wooden boats, 12 to 15 m long, with more powerful engines,and targets demersal fishes (mostly Sciaenidae) and also pelagic species such as thebluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) using gillnets and hook-and-line.3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS3.1 Characteristics of fishersFishing and mollusc harvesting were important activities for indigenous peoplebefore the arrival of the Portuguese colonisers in the sixteenth century. Inseveral areas of the coast there are shell middens (sambaquis), demonstrating thatindigenous people fed on molluscs and fish for several centuries. Jean de Léry, aFrench Calvinist who visited Brazil in early 1500, described fishing techniquesused by coastal Indians, such as bone hooks and small nets made of fibres foundin the forests as well as canoes and rafts (jangadas) made of floating logs. Fishingwas also important along the Amazonian rivers and Indians used fish as their basicsource of protein.Until the end of slavery in 1888, fishing activities in the northeast wereundertaken mainly by African slaves. Small farmers also used part of their timefor fishing along the coast. Coastal fish species, such as mullet, were the basis forprotein consumption in coastal farms, towns and villages. The social upper classes,however, imported salted cod from Portugal (Silva, 1997a).A variety of human cultures based on fisheries are found along the coast. In thesouth region, between Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, live the descendantsof the Azoreans and Portuguese that settled in the region in the seventeenthcentury. The first European generations were both peasants and fishers, but sincethe late 1940s they have concentrated mainly on fishing. The caiçaras, who livebetween Paraná and the state of Rio de Janeiro, are descendants of the Indians,Portuguese colonizers and African slaves. They practice small-scale agricultureassociated with artisanal fishing. The jangadeiros (raft-fishers) live in the northeastcoast, from Bahia to Fortaleza, and they depend almost exclusively on artisanalfishing, using the jangada (a raft with sails) that is very suitable for the type of sea,wind and sandy coast of the area.The cultural background and the environmental setting favoured thedevelopment of different relationships with the sea. Small farmer-fishers combinedfishing with agricultural activities in the provinces of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.In the northeast region, coastal communities have developed a long tradition ofcoastal fishing, separated from agriculture. Cultural factors, as well as the shapeof the continental shelf, could be responsible for the different relationshipsbetween agricultural and fishing activities. The continental shelf is narrower in the

82Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeannortheast than in the southeast, and thus most of the fish species in the northeastlive in rocky habitats further from the coast. These factors require fishers withgood navigational skills and fishing knowledge. The sandy coast in the northeastalso inhibited intensive agricultural activities and therefore the artisanal fishers inthis area have a strong tradition of dealing with the open sea. Most of the fishingactivity in this area was carried out within a system involving a petty mode ofproduction, where some of the harvested fish was used for subsistence and someas a commodity.Coastal legislation has contributed to (but also interfered negatively with)the development of traditional sea tenure. Since the middle of the last century astretch of 33 m of land measured from the 1833 highest tide belongs to the State(called Terras de Marinha). This area cannot be privately owned and no permanentconstruction can be made in this area without State permission. Small-scale fishers,although they have no legal entitlement, occupy these areas. They have customaryrights of occupancy (posse) to live in those areas, where they build their thatchedroof houses. The same right (posse) is transferred to the nearby coastal waterswhen they occupy a place in the estuaries and lagoons to build their fish weirs(cercos).The State, through the Navy, also tried to control artisanal fishers throughforced services. As a result, rebellions occurred in 1903 in Rio de Janeiro andCeará. To control these rebellions, in 1921 the Brazilian Navy created the firstfishers guilds (Colônias de Pescadores). According to the guild regulations, allfishers should be registered in order to receive permission to fish. In practice, eachcoastal municipality had its own guild that regulated the lives of fishers. However,with the promulgation of the new Brazilian Constitution in 1988, fishers weregiven rights to organize their own free associations.Commercial fishing began to develop more intensively beginning in thetwentieth century, particularly in the southern states, where the Portuguese andSpanish migrants started to use larger boats for fishing sardine, which was alsoused for canning. Industrial fishing further developed after the 1960s with thesupport of a large fisheries development programme undertaken by SUDEPE.Before then, most of the fishing was done by artisanal fishers along the coast andrivers.It is extremely difficult to calculate the number of artisanal fishers, consideringthat the ‘official’ criteria based on boat size is not accurate. According to datafrom the 2000 census, there are about 248 000 fishers on the coast organizedinto fishers’ guilds. The northeast has approximately 62% of the total number ofguilds, followed by the southeast with 16%, south with 12% and the north with10% (data provided by the Confederation of Fishers, 1986). Also, according tothe Confederation there are approximately 288 500 fishers who are not affiliatedwith the guilds. Thus, there are approximately 536 000 artisanal coastal fishers inBrazil.Data obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)in the 1970s indicated that around 70% of artisanal fishers lived in coastal/rural

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 83areas and 30% resided in urban areas. In the north and in the northeast, fisherslived mainly in rural communities, while in the southeastern and southern regionsthey were mainly urban dwellers. Considering that since the 1970s, rural-urbanemigration (which in Brazil is also synonymous with emigration from the interiorto the coast) has been a widespread phenomenon, one can acknowledge that thedegree of urbanization of artisanal fishers is much higher now.In different regions of Brazil, mainly in the northeast and the north,women have traditionally participated in fishing activities by harvesting shellfish(marisqueiras), or fishing along the seashore (pescadeiras). Women also have beenthe main labour force in the processing of fish in artisanal and industrial fisheries.Until the 1988 Constitution, women were not legally permitted to work infisheries, which were considered a male activity. SUDEPE only allowed women towork as harvesters of shellfish or algae. It was only in 1988 that a presidential actabolished the prohibition on female labour in fisheries. In spite of the legalizationcontrolling their role, women rarely participate in deep-sea fishing, since fishersconsider that their presence on board a boat will bring bad luck (panema). Thissituation is slowly changing and in some states of the north and the northeastregions some women work with their families in small-scale fishing. There are alsocases of widows who work alone in artisanal fishing boats. Some of these womenare now even presidents of fishers’ guilds; however, these are still isolated cases.The majority of women work as shellfish harvesters, selling the yield toincrease the domestic income. In some states of the northeast region, such asBahia, approximately 20 000 marisqueiras participate actively in earning domesticincome. In states such as Maranhão, northern Brazil, women participate in fishing‘on foot’ with small shrimp nets. The shrimp is brined, dried and sold by thewomen. This activity is also common in other states of Brazil. The activity ofwomen is also important in some fishing communities where they weave anddarn the fishing nets. In many other communities, women work in small-scaleagriculture, producing yucca flour, which is the basic diet of coastal populations inmany areas. Urban industrial employment is another field where women are activeparticipants, working in the fish processing industry. In many cases the workforceis almost entirely female.The role of women in fishing activities has decreased in some cases due totechnological changes and overexploitation of coastal resources. Women whotake an active part in fishing still maintain their traditional status – their activitiesare viewed as ‘support’ in running the household. The majority of the fishers’guilds maintain the traditional gender division of labour. The ‘double-workday’of women continues to be thought of as ‘part-time activity’. A woman involved inthe administration of the colônias is still considered a little ‘out of place’.There are recent trends in the role of women in fisheries, which are worthmentioning. During the past five years, in the state of Pará, women have attainedmore than 10% of the registered members of the guilds. They are also seekingalternatives to traditional set-ups like the colônias. Several women’s associationshave flourished, providing women the possibility of holding positions of higher

84Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanpolitical/administrative importance. There have been several factors motivatingwomen to unite and form associations, including the need to generate incomeand explore alternative avenues to do so. Government programmes and theinitiatives of non-governmental bodies working with small producer groupshave also influenced these women’s organizations. Groups that already existed inthe community (mostly linked to the Catholic Church, such as Mothers’ Clubs,Grassroot Ecclesiastical Communities) are enthusiastically supporting these newassociations.In the colônias where women are admitted, integration occurred naturally. Oncegroups are formed, the exchange of ideas and access to new social spaces induceda reconsideration of traditional roles. These groups tend to follow examples setby other organizations that have been successful in welcoming women. Duringthe 1990s, other various organizations supported and strengthened the role ofwomen in fishing, such as the Fisher’s Pastoral, the National Movement of Fishers(MONAPE) and several NGOs (i.e. Terramar, supported by the InternationalCollective in Support of Fishworkers) (Maneschy, 1999).3.2 Social and economic aspectsSocio-economic data on artisanal coastal fisheries are generally scarce. Thesituation deteriorated even more after the termination of SUDEPE in 1989. Thereare several reasons for the scarcity of socio-economic information. One cause isthe dispersion of fishing communities along the coast, which makes the task ofcollecting information extremely difficult. Another factor that has hampered thedevelopment of programmes to evaluate the socio-economic status of artisanalfisheries is governmental priority in the industrial sector. This support toindustrial fisheries has been a detriment to the artisanal sector. Among the maindata deficiencies are those concerning economic aspects of the fishery, such asemployment and income level, types of technologies employed, and organizationalaspects of fishing communities. Some small improvements in data availability havebeen observed in recent years when governmental welfare programmes began tocollect and disseminate information on the fishers who applied for benefits, suchas the unemployment benefit received by fishers during fishing closures.In terms of fishers’ productivity, the available data from SUDEPE, FishersConfederation and IBGE indicate that productivity increased from 1.49 tonnesper fisher in 1967 to 1.81 tonnes per fisher in 1986 and decreased to 1.12 tonnes perfisher in 2000. The decrease in the last 15 years could be caused by the depletionof coastal resources, as well as other factors, such as the increase in the numberof people participating in the fishery (including, in recent years, non-fishersthat fish as an alternative source of income) and the consequent reduction in theproductivity per individual fisher.The infrastructure for landing, storage and commercialization of fish is veryprecarious. In general, the large ports have no infrastructure to accommodatelandings from artisanal fisheries. In many fishing communities, especially inthe northeast, fish is landed on the beach and from there it enters a long chain

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 85of dealers until it gets to local/regional markets. The situation seems to be evenworse in fishing communities close to urban centres, because they lack adequatestructures to land and process fish in urban conditions. Past experiences inthe northeast in the construction of fisheries production facilities for landingand cold-storage associated with cooperatives (funded during the 1980s by theInter-American Development Bank [IDB]) did not work satisfactorily. The vastmajority of these facilities ended up in the hands of middlemen. At the sametime, many cooperatives failed because they were formed in a rush, without theproper evaluation of the administrative capacity of fishing communities and ofmarket demands. More recent experiences in the northeast with the ‘Pro-Renda’(a governmental programme that aims to increase the income level of poorercommunities) seem to be more successful than the previous experiences withcooperatives. The programme is based on strengthening the existing fishers’guilds, improving techniques to maintain the quality of fish on board usingfreezers, and developing new markets for artisanal fisheries production. Fishmarketing, improvement of the quality of fisheries products, and the processesof intermediation within the market chain continue to be the critical points forthe development of artisanal fisheries and increasing the income levels of artisanalfishers.Fishing livelihoods are not homogeneous along the coast. Along the northerncoast, many fishers combine fishing with agriculture. In the northeast, most fishersdepend exclusively on fisheries. Their livelihoods are under threat from the rapidexpansion of shrimp aquaculture, tourism and urban development, as well as fromoverfishing of important stocks. Along the southern and southeastern coast, thereare clear signs of depletion of most stocks, as well as environmental degradationwhich requires mechanisms of control and regulation. In the past, many fisherswho lived in coastal villages also maintained other activities such as small-scaleagriculture, forestry and handcrafting. With the increasing level of conflict withindustrial fisheries, along with the expansion of urbanization and tourism, manyartisanal fishers have turned to aquaculture or to working in general services incities.The urbanization of artisanal fishers (i.e. the move of fishers from rural to urbanareas) is a phenomenon evident in many states, particularly in the southeastern andsouthern regions. Even in the 1970s, approximately 70% of fishers in these regionslived in or around urban centres. In contrast, in the northern and northeasternstates, most fishers lived in coastal villages while only 44% lived in urbancentres. Although there is a general lack of information, it is probably correct toassume that today most coastal artisanal fishers live in or close to urban areas,with the exception of fishing communities in northern Brazil and in the statesof Maranhão and Piaui. According to data available in the IBGE database for1991, the level of urbanization reaches 22% in certain areas of Maranhão, 48.5%in Ceará, 62.5% in Paraíba, 70% in Rio de Janeiro, 83.5% in Santa Catarina and98% in São Paulo. The increasing level of urbanization of artisanal fishers hasmany drivers, including mounting economic pressure from the tourism industry

86Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanthat led to the appropriation of coastal areas from fishing communities; the shiftfrom agriculture and other extractive activities; the lack of basic infrastructure tosupport fishing activities (e.g. supply of ice and diesel) and the lack of access tobasic social services (e.g. health and education) in coastal villages compared withurban centres; the proximity to markets in the cities; and the implementation ofenvironmental conservation units along the coast that expelled many fishers fromtheir traditional fishing areas. Fishers that have moved to cities are often involvedin urban activities (construction, general services, tourism, etc.) to complementtheir earnings during fishing closures.Fishers’ access to infrastructure and to social services is normally precarious incoastal communities as well as in urban zones. Table 2 compares some statisticsthat characterize the living conditions in certain artisanal fishing communities ofselected coastal states.TABLE 2Percentage of households with access to basic services in fishing communitiesin selected areas of coastal statesTownAccess to treatedwaterSewage systemRegular collectionof domestic wasteMaranhão

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 873.4 Fish marketing and processingMost of the frozen fish traded in large cities in supermarkets is imported oris supplied by commercial fishing industries. Artisanal fisheries production isgenerally traded in coastal towns and regional centres. Most of the crabs, mussels,oysters and other shellfish originate from artisanal fisheries, and marketing issometimes done through cooperatives. In Santa Catarina (in southern Brazil),many small-scale fishers are becoming oyster cultivators, partly due to thedecrease in fish stocks. Mussels are also being cultivated by small-scale fishersalong the northern coast of São Paulo.The network of fish trade in artisanal fishing villages is complex, often involvingmiddlemen on several levels, from the beach to the neighbouring cities and thecentral markets in state capitals. In the Amazonian region, for instance, artisanalfishers (especially those who live far from the cities) are totally dependent on themiddlemen. In Pará the fish bought by the geleiro is resold to the ‘weigher’, who inturn sells it to the ‘retailer’ and from there it is sold in the ‘retail market’. Since the1970s, due to the roadways network development, the traders in the cities, as wellas the fishing companies, send their trucks to the beaches to purchase fish fromartisanal fishers. The fishing companies pay for the fuel of the motorized artisanalboats in exchange for the exclusive rights to purchase the catch.4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS4.1 Community organizationArtisanal fishers are organized into fishing guilds (colônias de pesca), similarto the Iberian guilds, created originally by the Brazilian Navy. The objectivefor the creation of these guilds was to organize the fishing communities spreadout along the coast into reserves for the Navy. The directors of the colônias areelected by fishers, who are legal members of the colônias, and the directors in turnelect the president of the Provincial Federation. The president of the NationalConfederation was personally nominated by the agriculture minister, to which thefishing sector was institutionally attached until 1989.Before the 1988 Constitution, a majority of the directors of the colônias wererepresentatives of other social and professional sectors, such as fish traders andlawyers, who utilized the fishers’ organizations for political purposes. In 1973, anew statute was established for the colônias, but no substantial changes occurredas this new law was promulgated during the military regime and there was noconsultation whatsoever with the fishers. In the beginning of the 1980s, for thefirst time artisanal fishers of Pernambuco (northeast) organized mass meetingsagainst the environmental degradation of the rivers and estuaries caused by thelarge sugar-cane mills. The movement to redemocratize the country towardsthe end of the military dictatorial regime had an important influence on thedemocratization of the overall electoral process. This process was stronger in thenortheast, where the Pastoral dos Pescadores (Fishers’ Pastoral) created by theNational Conference of Bishops of Brazil played an important role. After 1986,the artisanal fishers created the Movimento pela Constituinte da Pesca, which

88Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanenabled artisanal fishers to express their demands in the National Congress for thefirst time: free and democratic association, end to fiscal incentives for industrialfishing, labour rights, recognition of women’s work, development programmes,and control of environmental degradation, among other demands.In 1989, with the declaration of the Constitution, the movement phased out,but MONAPE became operational. The main challenge for MONAPE is thestimulation of an independent and democratic organization of artisanal fishers,seeking to maintain the rights earned by the 1988 Constitution and to fight for newsocial and labour rights. The MONAPE has organized various national meetingsof its members, also inviting representatives from organizations of fish workersfrom neighbouring countries like the Confederación Nacional de PescadoresArtesanales de Chile (CONAPACH). MONAPE is active only in the northernregions where it is based, as well as in some states of the northeast. Unfortunately,MONAPE has not succeeded in establishing itself as a national movement capableof offering alternatives to the existing institutional framework that is markedby protectionism and the lack of clear and effective policies favouring artisanalfishing, as mentioned before.Before the Constitution of 1988, fishers were only allowed to organizethemselves into traditional colônias whose role was mainly related to socialservices. The new Constitution allowed fishers to create their own trade unions;however, few of these unions were established effectively. In the 1980s the Pastoralda Pesca, which is linked to the Catholic Church, began working to secure therights of other workers (i.e. retirement benefits) to artisanal fishers. Today, fishershave the right to inscribe themselves as autonomous workers in the NationalInstitute of Social Security, and pay a contribution until retirement (60 years formen and 55 years for women). According to the Organic Law of Social Security,they can apply for retirement on grounds of health problems, health benefitsand maternity allowances. In the regions in which fishing closures are used asmanagement strategies, fishers that are associated to the colônias and have a licencefrom the Ministry of Agriculture receive an allowance (unemployment benefit) tocompensate for the period without fishing.4.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectorsWhile the traditional use of the coastal ecosystems by artisanal fisheries has hadlittle impact on coastal resources, the latest utilization of coastal ecosystems byurban-industrial activities has intensified the degradation of these environmentsconsiderably. The degradation and contamination of coastal areas has causedsignificant negative consequences to the productivity of the sector and the qualityof life in fishing communities.The most important ecosystem along the coast is the Atlantic Forest thatcovered around 1 million km 2 at the beginning of the Portuguese settlement. Thisforest reaches the coastline in many parts of the country; thus mangroves can beconsidered part of this large forest. The Atlantic Forest has a biological diversity ashigh as the Amazon Forest, with a large number of endemic species. The forest has

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 89been destroyed even more intensively since the increase of the urban-industrialdevelopment in the 1960s. Only around 5 to 10% of this large, forested biome stillexists today, and it is mainly located along the coasts of southern Rio de Janeiro,São Paulo and Paraná States. The Atlantic Forest is also home to different humancultures, such as Indians and their descendants, the caiçaras and jangadeiros, thathave developed a deep knowledge of, and traditional management system for, theforest and their adjacent coastal ecosystems.During the colonial period, the coastal zones were used as trade centres andas the gateway to enter the hinterland, where mineral and agricultural resourceswere abundant. Major cities were usually located on the coast, thus ensuringcommunication with the colonial power overseas as well as the hinterland.Marine resources, with the exception of whale hunting, were also exploited ata subsistence level. During that period, boat construction was one of the fewimportant industries on shore and was responsible for intensive woodcutting insome northeastern provinces. After independence, and particularly during thesecond half of the nineteenth century, most of the important economic activities,such as coffee, rubber and sugar-cane plantations, shifted from the coastal zone tothe hinterland. At the beginning of the twentieth century, industrialization led toa shift from producing goods for the internal market to importing and exportingproducts. Small industrial plants for processing cotton and food products wereconcentrated both in the hinterland and on the coast.After the 1950s, Brazil pursued an industrial economic model oriented towardsexport. Most of the large heavy industries (chemical, petrochemical, fertilizer)were and still are located in estuaries and bays, as well as next to other fragilecoastal ecosystems: in São Luís Island (for aluminium processing) in the northernState of Maranhão; in the coastal lagoons of Maceió, (Alagoas), in Salvador Bay,in the Vitória Island (for iron export), Rio de Janeiro bay, Santos-Cubatão, in SãoPaulo, and in the Patos lagoon in Rio Grande do Sul. Huge harbours for export ofmining production were established in São Luís (Maranhão) and Vitória (EspíritoSanto). Examples of these large industries settled on the coast are: chemicalindustries in Arraial do Cabo (Rio de Janeiro) in Aratu and Camaçari in Salvador(Bahia); oil and chemical industries in Cubatão (São Paulo); Dow Chemical,Petrobrás and Petroflex in Rio de Janeiro; Salgema in Maceió (Alagoas); fertilizerproduction in many cities around the coast; coal mining near the coast of SantaCatarina and Rio Grande do Sul; and iron production in Cubatão (São Paulo)and in Vitória (Espírito Santo). Paper pulp production, involving large areas ofeucalyptus plantations, is important along the coast of Espírito Santo and southernBahia. Many alcohol distilleries have been established along the coast, particularlyin the northeast. As a result, pollution has been heavily concentrated in this zoneand coastal degradation has been extensive (Figure 3).Increasing urbanization has a major impact on coastal areas, since five of thenine metropolitan areas in Brazil are located on the coast. In 1990, Rio de Janeirohad 9.6 million inhabitants; Recife 2.5 million; Salvador 2.4 million; Fortaleza2.2 million; and Santos 1.3 million inhabitants. In addition, many State capitals

90Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanare also on the coast: São Luís (655 000); Natal (606 000); Maceió (626 000);Vitória (523 000); João Pessoa (695 000); and Florianópolis (254 000). Many ofthese coastal cities have a high demographic growth, attracting migrants from thehinterland and a high percentage of these migrants live in favelas (slum areas inSalvador, Fortaleza and Rio de Janeiro).FIGURE 3Levels of degradation of estuarine ecosystems in BrazilSource: Diegues, 1999.Coastal cities are expanding as poor people migrate from the countryside, wherethe modernization of Brazilian agriculture has led to an increasing concentrationof productive land in the hands of a small number of landowners and groups, bothnational and multinational. With the expulsion of small landowners and peasantsfrom the countryside, slum areas have been established in large coastal cities. Mostsewage systems are inadequate, resulting in increasing pollution of coastal rivers,estuaries, lagoons and bays.As road transportation has the highest priority in Brazil’s transportationsystem, many highways have been constructed along the coast. One clear exampleis the BR-101 built in the 1970s, which links many coastal capitals. During theconstruction process, many beaches and mangrove areas were damaged as the road

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 91was built along the coast between Santos and Rio de Janeiro. These coastal roadshave also encouraged the construction of villas by tourists, and have displacedmany small-scale fishing villages to inland and to the mangrove areas, resulting inthe destruction of the Atlantic Forest.Oil exploration and production is an important economic activity along theBrazilian coast, which started in 1973. The main oil drilling areas along the coastare in Campos (Rio de Janeiro), Sergipe, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte, Amazonbasin and Recôncavo Baiano. Over 56% of the oil produced in Brazil comes frommarine basins. There are important harbours where oil is brought ashore, themost important of which is situated in São Sebastião (São Paulo), where tourism,fisheries, mangroves and other coastal habitats suffer from frequent oil spills in thearea. Coal is also produced in the coastal area of Santa Catarina and Rio Grandedo Sul. Reefs are also exploited for construction, mainly along the northeasterncoast.Tourism and recreation have become among the most important factorsinfluencing the use of coastal areas and resources. Around 1.6 million foreigntourists visit the country annually, in particular the coastal tourist resorts,generating US$1.55 billion and roughly 1.4 million jobs. In 1992, the BrazilianAgency for Tourism (EMBRATUR) established a National Plan for Tourism thatcreated several tourism development centres in coastal areas. In 1991, SUDENEand EMBRATUR created the Programme for the Development of Tourism(PRODETUR) and requested a US$1.6 billion loan from the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank. This large programme is directed along the northeasterncoast, involving the construction of large hotels, roads, improvement of airportsand urban infrastructure, such as water and sewage. This programme followsthe intensive use of the coastline, which exists today in Cancún, Mexico. Theecological and social impacts of this programme have not yet been properlyassessed, but social and ecological groups in the area are reacting against it, sincelocal communities and the environment suffer the most.In addition to the increasing degradation of inshore and coastal environments,overfishing is affecting the large stocks of shrimps, lobsters, catfish and sardinesthat are shared between artisanal and industrial fisheries. A recent analysis ofthe status of fisheries resources targeted by artisanal fisheries revealed that thepercentage of collapsed stocks increases from north to south, and are in the orderof 3% in the north, 12% in the northeast, 29% in the southeast and 32% in thesouth.Aquaculture is a fast growing activity along the north and northeasterncoast affecting several inshore ecosystems such as mangroves, sand barriers andlagoons. The highest impact comes from shrimp cultivation, which is starting tobe implemented in the states of Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba, Maranhãoand Pernambuco, resulting in massive destruction of mangroves and associatedecosystems. Large-scale shrimp cultivation is also affecting the livelihood ofartisanal fishers as they are losing their traditional fishing areas.

92Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESFisheries assessment research has gone through distinct phases over the years(Castello and Haimovici, 1991). The first strategy for assessing fish stocks wasimplemented in the late 1950s with the establishment of a national system offisheries statistics and assessment of industrial fishing fleets. The next stage,initiated during the 1970s, aimed at surveying and assessing the productivepotential of fish stocks along the coast (Neiva and Moura, 1977). During the1980s and 1990s, the Environmental Agency (IBAMA) established a system oftechnical working groups, Grupos Permanentes de Estudo (GPE), for each of themain fisheries resources (i.e. shrimps, demersal fishes, sardine, lobsters, snappersand tunas). The objective of the GPEs was to provide recommendations for bothmanagement and research based on the analysis of biological, technological andsocio-economic information of these major resources. Thus, for most of thesestocks there are estimates of biomass, optimal exploitation rates, and maximumsustainable yield obtained through the application of assessment models that rangefrom simple production models to Virtual Population Analysis.Not much has been done to assess in a systematic and continuous way the statusof the less abundant and diverse fish stocks targeted by artisanal fisheries, in partbecause of the lack of data, but also because of a lack of attention from governmentagencies. However, some localized research initiatives have been carried out byuniversities and research institutes. Tables 3 to 6 and Figure 4 summarize theavailable information on the status of stocks targeted by artisanal fisheries in eachof the coastal regions (Vasconcellos et al., 2007); this information is discussed inthe text sections below. The results are based on published assessments of thestatus of marine fisheries stocks, analysis of time-series of landings of artisanalfisheries compiled by Freire (2003) and Vasconcellos et al. (2007) for the period1980 to 2002, and the list of species that are threatened by extinction, overfishedand threatened by overexploitation included in Annexes I and II of Norm No. 5,21 May 2004, Ministry of Environment.5.1 NorthInformation on the status of stocks of importance for small-scale (or artisanal)fisheries in north Brazil is scarce. Most of the information available refers to stocksthat are also important to industrial fisheries, such as shrimp, lobster, catfish,and the southern red snapper (Table 3). The pink shrimp is under intense fishingpressure, and is probably exploited at its maximum biologically sustainable level,whereas the stocks of the seabob shrimp could possibly sustain higher catches.Recent reported landings of lobsters are very close to the predicted maximumsustainable yield, which indicates that the stock is probably fully exploited. Thestock of catfish shows signs of recovery after being overfished for many years. Thestock of southern red snapper has also recovered from a state of overfishing, butis now considered under high risk of becoming overfished again. The status of thestock(s) of the mangrove crab is unknown. Landing statistics indicate a decrease ofabout 50% in production since the early 1980s, although it is difficult to ascertain

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 93if the decrease is due to overfishing, or to the deterioration of the data collectionsystem for fisheries statistics. All of the above species are listed in Annex II of theIN No. 5/2004, and are either overexploited or threatened by overexploitation.The total reported landings of these species for 2002 represents approximately13% of the small-scale fisheries production in northern Brazil. The exploitationstatus of the remaining stocks is unknown. Through the analysis of trends infisheries landings by species, Vasconcellos et al. (2007) concluded that there isa total of 74 small-scale fisheries stocks in the northern region, and that 27%of these stocks are in a developing stage, 24% are in a mature stage, 41% are insenescent stage, 4% in recovery and 3% collapsed (Figure 4). Approximately 56%of the total stocks could possibly sustain higher catches if managed sustainablyin the future, while the remaining 44% (composed of stocks in a senescent orcollapsed stage) are probably overfished.TABLE 3Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previously assessedmarine stocks in north Brazil. The relative importance of a species is expressed in tonnesand as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scale fisheries landings in theregion. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, ‘I’ being species threatened byextinction and ‘II’ being species that are overexploited or threatened by overexploitationStockExploitation statusClassification INNo. 5/2004Small-scalefisheries landings(2002)Tonnes %Pink shrimp(Farfantepenaeus spp.)Intensively exploited;decreasing productionII 1 240 0.9Seabob shrimp(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri)Catfish(Brachyplatystoma vaillantii)Underexploited II 1 235 0.9Recovering II 1 923 1.4Lobster (Panulirus spp.) Fully exploited II 1 460 1.1Southern red snapper(Lutjanus purpureus)Risk of overfishing II 4 363 3.2Mangrove crab(Ucides cordatus)Unknown; decreasingproductionII 7 507 5.5Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.

94Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 4Development stage of small-scale fisheries stocks in north, northeast, southeast andsouth Brazil according to the analysis of trends in reported fisheries landingsNorthNortheastcollapsedrecoveringsenescentmaturedevelopingcollapsedrecoveringsenescentmaturedeveloping0 10 20 30 40 50South% stocks0 10 20 30 40 50Southeast% stockscollapsedrecoveringsenescentmaturedevelopingcollapsedrecoveringsenescentmaturedeveloping0 10 20 30 40 50% stocks0 10 20 30 40 50% stocksSource: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.5.2 NortheastVery few stocks have been assessed in northeast Brazil (as defined in Vasconcelloset al., 2007). The northeast region encompasses the northeast and part of theeast biophysical regions in Figure 2. The available information is summarized inTable 4. Stocks of lobsters are being overfished and show a decreasing trend inlandings since the 1990s. Stocks of the two main Lutjanidae species, the yellowtailsnapper and the vermilion snapper, are either intensively exploited or overfished.The other important Lutjanidae, Lutjanus jocu and L. vivanus, are consideredfully exploited, whereas L. analis and L. syanagris are moderately overfished.Landings of groupers show a decreasing trend over time with long-lived speciesbeing overfished, resulting in the targeting of smaller and shorter-lived groupers.The stocks of mackerel are under moderate levels of exploitation. There areno assessments of the status of the stock(s) of mangrove crabs. The decrease inlandings of mangrove crabs in most northeastern states is understood as a signof overfishing. Likewise, there are no assessments of the status of seabob shrimpstocks in the northeast, although the trend in landings indicates that the stock(s)are still moderately exploited with potential for supporting higher yields. Amongthe above-mentioned resources there are species considered in threat of extinction,such as the mutton snapper (L. analis) and the grouper (Mycteroperca tigris),and species considered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation. Theseresources account for about 24% of the total small-scale fisheries landings in 2002.

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 95The status of the resources accounting for the remaining 76% of the landings isunknown. An evaluation of the development stage of 253 small-scale fisheriesstocks in the northeast concluded that 16% are in a development stage, 25% canbe considered mature, 40% are in a senescent stage, 6% in recovery and 13%collapsed (Vasconcellos et al., 2007; Figure 4). Thus, about 47% of stocks couldpossibly sustain higher yields while 53% are probably overexploited and requiremore restrictive management measures if they are to be fished sustainably.TABLE 4Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previously assessedmarine stocks in northeast Brazil. The relative importance of a species is expressed in tonnesand as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scale fisheries landings in theregion. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, ‘I’ being species threatened byextinction and ‘II’ being species that are overexploited or threatened by overexploitationStockExploitationstatusClassification INNo. 5/2004Small-scale fisherieslandings (2002)Tonnes %Lobsters (Panulirus spp.)Yellowtail snapper(Ocyurus chrysurus)Vermilion snapper(Rhomboplites aurorubens)Overexploited;decreasingproductionOverexploitedII 4 604 4.7II2 619 2.7II??Dog snapper(Lutjanus jocu)Silk snapper (L. vivanus)Mutton snapper(Lutjanus analis)Lane snapper (L. synagris)Fully exploited – 799 a 0.8Overexploited I e 1 183 b 1.2Groupers (Serranidae) Overexploited I c , II 1 686 c 1.7Mackerels(Scomberomorus spp.)Mangrove crab(Ucides cordatus)Seabob shrimp(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri)ModeratelyexploitedProbablyoverexploited,decreasingproductionModeratelyexploited– 3 806 d 3.9II 2 987 3.1II 5 547 5.7Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.aOnly L. jocu.bOnly L. synagris.cOnly Mycteroperca spp., M. bonaci, Epinephelus spp. and E. itajara. M. tigris is considered threatenedby extinction in some states of the northeast. E. itajara, E. marginatus, E. morio, E. niveatus andM. bonaci are considered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation.dTotal landings of Scombridae; no specific data.eLutjanus analis is considered threatened by extinction in some states of northeast, southeast andsouth Brazil.

96Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean5.3 SoutheastTable 5 summarizes the available information about the status of small-scalefisheries resources exploited in southeast Brazil. As defined in Vasconcellos et al.(2007), the southeast encompasses the southeast and part of east biophysicalregions defined in Figure 2. Sardine does not show signs of recovery since thecollapse of the stock in the early 1990s. The stock of the broadband anchovy(Anchoviella lepindentostole) is under intense fishing pressure and the currentlevel of exploitation is considered unsustainable. The stock of seabob shrimppresents clear signs of overexploitation with a continuous decrease in landingssince the late 1980s. The three main demersal fish stocks, the white croaker, royalweakfish and weakfish, are either fully exploited or overexploited. The statusof the grey triggerfish is unknown, but the recent increasing trend in landingsand catch per unit effort (CPUE) indicates that the stock is probably not yetoverfished. The anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) is a potential resource in the region,which is not commercially exploited yet. With the exception of the anchovies andthe weakfish, all other species are listed in Annex II of IN No. 5/2004, and areconsidered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation. The species listedabove account for 53% of the reported small-scale fisheries landings in 2002, withthe grey triggerfish composing 36.1% of this total. The status of the remainingstocks responsible for 47% of small-scale fisheries production is unknown.The analysis of the development stage of 191 small-scale fisheries stocks in thesoutheast indicated that: 12% are in a development stage, 21% mature, 30% ina senescent stage, 7% recovering and 29% collapsed (Vasconcellos et al., 2007;Figure 4). Thus, approximately 60% of the stocks are probably overfished andunable to support higher yields in the future unless measures to reduce fishingpressure are applied.5.4 SouthTable 6 synthesizes the available information about the status of small-scalefisheries resources exploited in south Brazil. Fishing intensity directed to thestock of white croaker is considered unsustainable. Stock abundance has beencontinually decreasing and catches are expected to decrease in the near future.The stock of the longspine drum is also intensively exploited. The royal weakfishis overexploited and the current yield is about half of the estimated maximumsustainable yield. The pink shrimp was intensively exploited for many years byindustrial and artisanal fisheries and shows signs of overexploitation; despite thehigh variability in catches, average landings have been decreasing since the 1980s.Similarly, the stock of seabob shrimp shows a decreasing trend in landings due tooverexploitation. The status of the mullet stocks is unknown, but the decreasingtrend in landings also suggests the species is at biologically unsustainable levels ofexploitation. Stocks of long-lived species of importance to small-scale fisheries,such as the marine catfish, the black drum and the guitarfish, have collapsed. Thecurrent yield of these species is much lower than the historical peak in landings. Theguitarfish is considered threatened by extinction (IN No. 5/2004) while practically

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 97all other species are considered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation.The anchovy appears as a potential stock not presently commercially harvestedin south Brazil. South Brazil provides a better situation with respect to dataavailability; however, approximately half of the small-scale fisheries productioncomes from stocks with unknown status. An assessment of the development stageof 142 small-scale fisheries stocks exploited in the region indicated that: 22% arein a developing stage, 12% mature, 25% in a senescent stage, 8% recovering and32% collapsed (Vasconcellos et al., 2007). That is, 58% of the stocks harvestedby small-scale fisheries are probably being exploited at unsustainable levels, withmore than half of them currently in a stage of collapse.TABLE 5Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previouslyassessed marine stocks in southeast Brazil. The relative importance of a species isexpressed in tonnes and as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scalefisheries landings in the region. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, 'I'being species threatened by extinction and 'II' being species that are overexploited orthreatened by overexploitationStockExploitationstatusClassification INNo. 5/2004Small-scale fisherieslandings (2002)Tonnes %Sardine(Sardinella brasiliensis)Broadband anchovy(Anchoviella lepindentostole)Collapsed II 507ª 1.5Overexploited − 1 692 b 5.1White croaker(Micropogonias furnieri)Royal weakfish(Macrodon ancylodon)Weakfish(Cynoscion jamaicensis)Grey triggerfish(Balistes capriscus)Fully exploited oroverexploitedFully exploited oroverexploitedFully exploited oroverexploitedModeratelyexploited or fullyexploitedII 1 062 3.2II 601 1.8− 359 1.1II 12 046 36.1Anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) Unexploited − − −Seabob shrimp(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri)Overexploited II 1 405 4.2Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.aTotal landings of Clupeidae.bTotal landings of Engraulididae.

98Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 6Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previouslyassessed marine stocks in south Brazil. The relative importance of a species isexpressed in tonnes and as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scalefisheries landings in the region. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, ‘I’being species threatened by extinction and ‘II’ being species that are overexploited orthreatened by overexploitationStockExploitationstatusClassification in No.5/2004Small-scale fisherieslandings (2002)Tonnes %White croaker(Micropogonias furnieri)Longspine drum(Umbrina canosai)Fully exploitedor overexploitedFully exploitedor overexploitedII 3 324 23.6II 472 3.4Royal weakfish(Macrodon ancylodon)Mullets(Mugil spp.)Catfish(Genidens barbus)Black drum(Pogonias cromis)Guitarfish(Rhinobatus horkelii)Anchovy(Engraulis anchoita)Pink shrimp(Farfantepenaeus paulensis)Seabob shrimp(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri)Overexploited II 437 3.1Fully exploited II 441 3.1Collapsed II 300 b 2.1Collapsed − − −Collapsed I a 9

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 99(for both artisanal and industrial fisheries that share the resources), or through thedevelopment of fisheries directed to resources not yet commercially exploited,such as the anchovy.5.5 Other considerations: assessment of ecosystem processes, bio-economicanalysis and uncertaintiesEcosystem models have been developed for the Abrolhos Bank (northeast),southeastern Brazilian Bight (southeast) and southern Brazil shelf ecosystem.These models are basically used as research tools and at this time have not beenused as tools for supporting decision-making in fisheries management. Bioeconomicmodels have been applied to industrial sardine and trawling fisheries inthe southeastern Brazilian Bight and probably to other large stocks and fisheries(e.g. shrimps and lobsters). In general terms, it is not a common practice in fisheriesmanagement in Brazil to take into account uncertainties or to conduct any formof formal risk assessment when making decisions regarding fisheries regulation.Contents of regulations are the result of a number of influences, economic,political and scientific, but very often, and particularly with the phasing-out ofGPEs, these influences are not transparent.6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING6.1 Fisheries managementThe management of fisheries in Brazil is mainly the responsibility of the federalgovernment, which is responsible for assessing the status of the stocks and for settingand enforcing regulations on the use of aquatic living resources. Governmentalinstitutional arrangements for regulating fisheries activities have been changingover the years. The role of the federal government in marine fisheries managementbecame particularly influential in the mid-1960s with the creation of SUDEPE, anagency of the Ministry of Agriculture with sole responsibility for the developmentand management of fisheries. Later in 1989, fisheries became one of the agendas ofIBAMA (Brazilian Institute of the Environment), a subsidiary of the Ministry ofEnvironment. The shift of management responsibilities from SUDEPE to IBAMAwas not favourable to artisanal fisheries. As IBAMA focuses its attention mostlyon environmental issues, environmental legislation and law enforcement, therehas been little attention given to the sustained development of artisanal fishingcommunities. In 1998, the government shifted a large part of the responsibilitiesof the fisheries sector from IBAMA to the Ministry of Agriculture, constitutingthe Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DPA). The main responsibilityof DPA was to promote and execute programmes and projects to support thedevelopment of the industrial fisheries (its main objective was to promote thedevelopment of the sector and to manage unexploited fisheries resources). Onthe other hand, IBAMA was responsible for executing the national policies forthe environment, and particularly for managing endangered and overexploitedspecies, and encouraging the sharing and decentralization of decisions throughco-management and community-based management initiatives. The development

100Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanpolicies put forth by these two agencies were not only diverse but opposite andconflictive in their approach to resource management. According to Dias-Neto(1999) such a change represented “one of the most anarchical moments in fisheriesmanagement in Brazilian history”. Dias-Neto and Marrul-Filho (2003) highlightedthe three main institutional conflicts created with the division of responsibilitiesbetween IBAMA and DPA. The first one was of a legal nature, related to thedivision of competencies in fisheries management, and in the organization andmaintenance of the national system of control and licensing of fishing activities.The second one was conceptual, since stocks are intrinsically linked in themarine environment through ecological and/or technological interactions, and inmultispecific fisheries the same fishing activity often targets stocks with differentexploitation levels. Besides, a stock that is considered unexploited at a givenmoment could eventually be overfished and, hence, the same species could beunder the responsibility of two different agencies at different moments in time. Asstated by the authors “IBAMA and DPA were trying to divide the indivisible”.The third conflict was related to the transfer of responsibility from IBAMA toDPA for the management and control of foreign fleets fishing under joint-venturearrangement, and the consequent changes in the rules and norms.In 2003, the fisheries agency was created at ministerial level: the NationalSecretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries (SEAP). SEAP has a broader authoritythan the previous agencies. Its priority is the development of the aquaculturesector, particularly of shrimp cultivation for export, freshwater aquaculture andindustrial fisheries. In spite of official speeches, the artisanal sector is not a toppriority for this new agency.With the enactment of the Law 11.958 of June 2009, SEAP was transformedinto the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA). The same law put an endto the division of responsibilities in the management of fish stocks stated abovemaking mandatory the joint work of MPA and IBAMA/Ministry of Environmentin the design of rules and the governance for sustainable use of resources. Thiswork is to be carried out under the general coordination of MPA. However thisnew institutional arrangement has not yet contributed to the implementation ofpolicies and measures to revert the critical situation of the main fish stocks.In terms of property rights, according to the Brazilian Constitution, thefisheries resources in the coastal zone and in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)are considered common resources under a State property regime (MMA, 2002;Dias-Neto and Marrul-Filho, 2003). The Constitution also asserts that State andsociety should construct the means to collaborate and participate in the processof decision-making for the sustainable use of environmental resources and in theformulation of norms and rules to that effect (Dias-Neto and Marrul-Filho, 2003),which leaves ample scope for the sharing of responsibilities between governmentand society in the management of fisheries.The weakening role of the State in fostering the development of artisanalfisheries during the last two decades, mainly after the termination of SUDEPE,contributed to the general lack of organization of the sector. On the otherhand, the institutional void favoured action to social movements and NGOs in

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 101developing projects and management initiatives for the sustainable management offisheries. Many of these initiatives were born out of a crisis that required solutionsand from a process of increasing participation of fishers as new protagonists indecision-making. The initiatives were developed around five main processes thatare currently legitimized, some of which are promoted by the government (all ofthem could be placed within a spectrum of co-management):1. Within the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC), regulated byLaw 9985/2000.(a) Areas of Permanent Preservation (APA): defined as “large areas witha certain degree of human occupation and characterized by physical,biological, aesthetical or cultural elements of crucial importance for thequality of life and well-being of human populations, having as main goals toprotect the biological diversity, to regulate the process of human occupationand to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources”. APAs are managedby a council constituted by representatives of governmental bodies, NGOs,community organizations, and the local population through specificmanagement plans. Example in fisheries: ‘APA dos Corais’, Pernambuco,northeastern Brazil.(b) Marine Extractive Reserve (MER): defined as “an area used by traditionalextractive activity populations, whose livelihood is based on extractiveactivities but also complemented by subsistence agriculture and animalproduction, having as main goals to protect the livelihoods and culture ofthese populations and to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources”.MERs are managed by a deliberative council of organizations andcommunity representatives through a specific management plan. At thetime of writing this paper there were 13 MERs implemented or in processof implementation along the Brazilian coast (see section on Coastal MarineProtected Areas).(c) Sustainable Development Reserves (SDR): defined as “areas used bytraditional populations, whose existence is based on systems of sustainableexploitation of natural resources, developed through generations andadapted to the local ecological conditions, and that have played a key rolein nature conservation and in the maintenance of biological diversity”.The objectives of the SDRs are “to preserve nature and at the same time toensure the necessary conditions and means to sustain and improve the livingconditions and the use of natural resources by traditional populations, as wellas to appreciate and conserve the traditional knowledge-practice systems ofenvironmental management of these populations”. SDRs are also managedby a deliberative council of organizations and communities representativeswhich is responsible for developing and implementing a management planthat defines, inter alia, no-take protected areas, buffer zones and corridors,and areas for sustainable use. The first and most well-known example is theMamiraua SDR in the Amazon region.

102Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean2. Other processes(a) Fishing accords: regulated by Norm No. 29/03 of IBAMA, this instrumentaims to define and legitimize access rules and norms elaborated by thefishing community to regulate the use of fisheries resources in a givenregion. This type of instrument does not involve the expropriation of land(like the conservation units above) but only some aspects regulating theexploitation of resources. There are examples of fishing accords in fisheriesin the Amazon floodplain.(b) Fishing forums: this is an instrument that is not regulated by the governmentbut created as a result of communities’ initiatives to organize themselves,and to discuss their problems and seek solutions in partnership withgovernmental and non-governmental organizations. Since it is not regulated,this instrument can be developed in different ways, with various types ofarrangements involving individual stakeholders and institutions. Someexamples are the Forum of Patos Lagoon in southern Brazil, the ForumAgenda 21 in Ibiraquera, Santa Catarina, and the Forum Terramar in Ceará,among others.Coastal marine protected areasThe establishment of protected areas – of the various forms noted above – is oneof the main government policies concerning coastal ecosystem conservation. Thecreation of protected areas is under the responsibility of Chico Mendes Institutefor Biodiversity Conservation and the State’s Secretaries for the Environment.Presently, there are 28 protected areas, covering several coastal and marineecosystems, such as coastal and oceanic islands/archipelagos, dunes, mangroves,lagoons and salt marsh habitats. The management of protected areas has been,in general, unsuccessful because of the lack of management plans, enforcement,and technical and financial means and research. The main reason, however, lies inthe way these protected areas were established – without previous consultationwith user groups, particularly traditional populations. According to existinglegislation, these groups must be transferred from the places where protected areasare established. It is known, however, that in many areas, traditional communitieshave used these ecosystems with a low level of environmental impact, and theydeserve to be important allies in the conservation process. Another reason forthe failure of the protected areas management is that they were created mainly byfederal and state agencies. Since local municipalities are excluded from the decisionprocess, they provide very little support to these important conservation areas.The Marine Extractive Reserve (MER), described earlier, is a relatively recentcategory of protected areas that reflects a new approach. Through MERs, marineareas are assigned to the exclusive use of a certain number of small-scale fishers.A management plan is agreed upon by a grassroots institution that assembles thefishers in the area of the reserve. Some six MERs have been officially establishedby the National Council of Traditional Populations (CNPT-IBAMA) and severalothers are in the process of being created, particularly in the north and northeastregions (Figure 5).

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 103FIGURE 5Location of marine extractive reserves in BrazilSource: CNPT/IBAMA.MERs offer a way to control the highly destructive, still basically unmanaged,development of the coastal zone, while at the same time reinforcing the resourceuserights and territorial claims of local communities to the micro-environments ofsmall-scale fishing. MERs are essentially an effort to modify and extend the conceptof ‘extractive reserves’ – a conservation and sustainable development frameworksuccessfully instituted in western Amazonian forest economies (primarily rubbertapper)to coastal aquatic and marine domains of traditional fishing communities(CNPT * ; Cunha, 1992; Diegues, 1999, 2001). By taking into account how bothenvironment and society benefit from helping coastal communities secure* Centro Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentado das Populações Tradicionais; http://www.ibama.gov.br/resex/cnpt.htm

104Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeancontinuing access to their traditional sea territories and livelihood resources,the MER is a radical departure from conventional approaches to setting up andmanaging marine protected areas. In the past, most marine protected areas (MPAs)were established opportunistically or, more recently, almost solely on the basis ofbiodiversity criteria.The MER initiative is exceptionally promising; it has the potential to unify andreconcile elements that all too often are seen as incompatible: traditional cultureheritage and cultural resource preservation needs, sustainable local fisheries,and conservation of marine biological diversity. Various provisions of nationalenvironmental legislation (namely Law No. 9.985 instituting SNUC; DecreeIBAMA No. 22 / 2-10-92), civil codes, and international treaties to which Brazilis a signatory (e.g. Articles 8j, 10c, 10d of the Convention on Biological Diversity)endorse the principles on which collectively held marine extractive reserves arebased. However, it remains to be seen whether protected areas can be implementedand effectively managed on a scale broad enough to have biologically significantimpacts, as well as questions concerning their social feasibility and economicviability.To successfully institute a network of MER sites, CNPT also faces a majorchallenge in dealing with federal, state and municipal jurisdictional conflicts,inconsistent policies and legislation across sectors, and the need for greaterinstitutional coordination and cooperation in managing marine and aquaticresources within the environment sector as a whole (Cordell, 2002).Local experiences in community managementIn some areas, fishers and coastal communities are doing their own communitybasedmanagement. In Ceará, for instance, local communities are suffering fromthe invasion of their beaches by land speculation, tourism and from overfishing oflobster, mainly by the industrial fleet and by divers coming from a neighbouringstate. Assisted by local NGOs and research institutions, they have proposed aCoastal Forum, where the various problems are discussed by representativesof local communities, the tourism sector, the industrial fisheries sector and thefederal, state and municipal governments. Within this forum they have proposeda management plan for lobster fishing, also in coordination with the industrialfisheries sector. When IBAMA announced that no funds and boats were availablefor surveillance of lobster fishing, the fishers equipped one of their boats in orderto ensure compliance with the rules that regulate that fishery. The fishers whodisobey the regulations are first reprimanded and when they violate the agreedlegislation again, they are taken to a court. In some beaches, the selling of a plot ofland to tourists must be approved by the community council.In other coastal communities, such as Pirajubaé in Santa Catarina, Mandira-Cananéia in São Paulo, and Arraial do Cabo in Rio de Janeiro, MERs are beingbuilt in order to ensure access to fisheries resources for the members, and limitthe access to outsiders, mainly to sport fishermen. In most of these initiatives,there is a strong resource conservation component, and as result they frequently

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 105succeed in getting the support of government and non-government environmentalorganizations. Further south, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, 21 institutionshave created a co-management arrangement (Forum of Patos Lagoon) to seeklocal solutions to the main conflicts faced by artisanal fishers, such as the impactof industrial fisheries, the control of access to outsiders, and the minimization ofconflicts with industrial and port activities on the coast.Traditional knowledge and traditional fisheries managementThe different coastal cultures in Brazil each have a set of knowledge andmanagement practices associated with the sea and fishing activities. In recentyears, researchers have emphasised the importance of the knowledge producedand orally transmitted by traditional fishers and the potential role traditionalfishing and related environmental knowledge can play for the development andimplementation of fisheries management in the modern world (Ruddle, 2000;Cordell, 2000a, 2000b). As Ruddle (2000) points out, traditional knowledgecontinues to guide and sustain the management of many traditional, communitybasedfishing systems, as well as governing fishing decisions and fishingstrategies.Various maritime anthropology and ethno-ichthyology studies illustrate therichness and resilience of artisanal fishing knowledge in Brazil. Silva (1997b)records the analytical categories of the fishers of Piratininga (Rio de Janeiro)and Begossi (1997) documents the species nomenclature and criteria for fishclassification system used by fishers on Búzios Island (São Paulo). Cunha (1992)has described how fishing knowledge operates among artisanal communities anddepicted the know-how of fishers in Paraná and along the Paraíba Coast. Diegues(2000) explains how traditional knowledge functions in the rocky fishing groundsof Rio Grande do Norte and Espírito Santo states. Kalikoski and Vasconcellos(2007) highlight the importance of fishers’ ecological knowledge in the definitionof management rules in the co-management of artisanal fisheries in the PatosLagoon, Rio Grande do Sul. Forman (1970), Cordell (1983), Mourão (1971) andMarques, (2001) have made important contributions to the study of traditionalknowledge in Brazil.Knowledge of the marine physical environment is extremely important for safenavigation, for the use of appropriate gear, and for the identification of certainfish species. This traditional knowledge is not evenly distributed among artisanalfishers but tends to be concentrated in the hands of boat captains and skippers andit is transmitted through different ways (Marques, 2001).The numerous advantageous uses of artisanal sea-tenure systems do not implythat they present a panacea for overcoming all fisheries management problems.Fishing may become highly competitive and confrontational in the work setting.It seems to have an inherent tendency to generate conflict. The act of appropriatingand controlling access to local sea space and resources by no means renders workenvironments free of conflicts.

106Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTraditional sea tenure and fisheries management are only now receivingsignificant attention from scholars, scientists and fisheries managers in Brazil. Onereason for this lack of interest is that vast areas of the country, such as the Amazonand the sea, were treated by powerful industrial and urban elites as ‘empty spaces’.Traditional populations of the Amazon, particularly the Indians and the riversidepopulations, were ‘invisible’ until recently. This ‘invisibility’ served the ideologicalpurpose of the elites wishing to exploit the Amazon, as only ‘uncivilized people’were living there. The same biased view was applied to artisanal fishers andtheir communities. When the Indians and the artisanal fishers started to react tooutsider intrusion, often by force, they became ‘visible’, as did their rich cultureand knowledge of ecosystems and management techniques.In many cases, traditional sea tenure and traditional management strategies havebeen negatively affected and even abandoned as a result of increasing disruption offishing communities and impacts of various activities.First, artisanal fisheries face today strong competition from industrial fisheriesand from the destructive exploitation of the coast. Local fisheries are beingflooded with large industrial boats using inappropriate gear. Social, spatial andtechnological competition is ongoing between locals and outsiders. Since 1967,industrial fishing has been established using tax incentives and suspension of importfees on fishery technology. These incentives have benefited mainly industrialgroups. The result of this ‘fishery modernization’ has been widespread destructionof fish habitats, overfishing and marginalization of artisanal fishers. At the sametime, uncontrolled use of land and sea resources reached a critical intensity. Largechemical and petrochemical plants, nuclear power stations, dredging of harbours,oil exploitation, coastal mining and tourism have threatened extensive areas alongthe Brazilian coast. Urban expansion and tourism have targeted biologically richhabitats such as mangroves, sand barriers and islands. One of the most affectedecosystems are the mangroves, from which an estimated two thirds of the fishcaught in Brazil feed or breed during their life cycles.In addition to these impacts on artisanal fisheries, there has been a dramaticincrease in the demand for fish in the growing urban centres. Some valuablefish species, such as shrimp and lobsters, are more intensively exploited. Whenprofitability decreased, most industrial fishing crews started exploiting fishresources with no respect for existing traditional regulations. In some cases,artisanal fishers started using the same forbidden fishing gear in order to survive.Third, traditional sea tenure is threatened as well by erroneous environmentaland aquaculture plans that should benefit artisanal fishers in principle. Governmentinstitutions are encouraging aquaculture; however, traditional extensive aquaculturesystems already used by artisanal fishers are very often not considered. As a result,in some cases capital owners and outsiders are the only ones who benefit fromthese initiatives. The government also promoted the cultivation of species alreadymanaged by artisanal fishers. The adoption of these techniques does not necessarilylead to an improvement in the well-being of local communities. For instance, thegovernment planned to introduce mullet cultivation through floating nets (cercos

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 107flutuantes) instead of supporting the existing technique of the traditional cercomade of bamboo poles. In fact, floating nets are more capital intensive, less labourintensive and would disrupt the existing social organization. In the end, the newtechnique was eventually rejected by artisanal fishers.Environmentally protected areas in regions traditionally used by artisanal fishersare often perceived by them as threats. The well-conserved areas of the AtlanticForest and associated coastal system have been used by traditional communitiesfor centuries. Due to their isolation, as well as to the existing social structure ofthese communities, those areas have remained well conserved. However, due toexisting legislation, traditional populations cannot live in the regions that becameprotected and have to be transferred to other areas. Highly conflictive situationsare being created in almost all protected areas and local communities resist evictionfrom their traditional land. This is the case in the Ecological Station of Juréia,the Biological Reserve of Guaraqueçaba, the National Park of Lagoa do Peixe,and other areas. When eviction of traditional people occurs, environmentallyprotected areas are more easily invaded by commercial fishing and logging, andthe overall situation becomes even worse.Instead of using traditional knowledge, some environmental agencies are infact destroying a suitable basis for environmental and social planning. The presentsituation is gradually changing in favour of traditional communities, particularlydue to the fierce resistance of the traditional people of the Amazon. Rubbertappersand Indians succeeded in convincing the federal government to createextractive reserves through which the traditional use of forest products is ensured.Other traditional populations of the coastal areas are now requesting the sametreatment granted to the rubber-tappers. Now the concept of extractive reserveis by law applicable to other ecosystems where local populations live out ofextractive activities, such as oyster and mussel extraction (see section on CoastalMarine Protected Areas).6.2 Coastal managementThe institution with the highest authority for coastal zone management in Brazilis the National Programme for Coastal Management (GERCO), which isadministered by the Ministry of the Environment. The conditions set forth in theprogramme have to be implemented by each coastal state and municipality. Theprogramme defines the legal aspects for the management of the Brazilian coastalzone, and establishes the basis for the development of regional and local policies,programmes and management plans. Although fisheries are important coastalresources, GERCO has no mandate over them.Social movements and institutional arrangements for coastal managementSince the middle of the 1970s, public concern for coastal conservation has gatheredmomentum in Brazil. Some of the factors that explain this rising concern are:(a) The growing awareness of Brazilian society about the ecological importanceof the coastal area and the increasing degradation of coastal ecosystems. The

108Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanearlier positions of the Brazilian Government, which led to the country’smoniker: ‘Brazil welcomes polluting industries’, has changed since theStockholm Conference in 1972. This is due to pressure from non-governmentalorganizations, international institutions and mainly because of the growingawareness of the population concerning environmental issues. In the1970s, despite the presence of an authoritarian military regime favouringindustrialization at any social or ecological cost, many environmental groupswere created. In the final years of the military regime (until 1984), nationalcampaigns were organized by environmental movements on issues such asthe destruction of the Amazon and Atlantic Forests, the Pantanal wetlands,pollution in urban centres (such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro), andthe establishment of nuclear plants along the coast. Hundreds of smallgroups blossomed to oppose whale hunting, tree cutting in urban areas anddestruction of national parks. Although many of these groups were formed bythe middle class and were urban biased, they were instrumental in raising thelevel of environmental awareness in the country. They succeeded in electinga few representatives in the state legislatures of the more urbanized statessuch as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul. In 1986, somecandidates with strong environmental concern were elected to the NationalCongress, which developed the 1988 Constitution. For the first time specificconsiderations of the conservation of coastal ecosystems were included in theConstitution.The “Cadastro Nacional de Instituições Ambientalistas – Ecolista”, aroster published by the Worldwide Fund for Nature/Mater Natura, indicatedthat there were 1 400 Environmental NGOs registered in 2000, from which296 were created in 1991–1992. Around 60 of them (14.7%) deal exclusivelywith coastal/marine ecosystems. If the 504 environmental NGOs dealingwith the Atlantic Forest are added, one could say that roughly 61% ofBrazilian environmental NGOs are, in one way or another, concerned withthe conservation of the various coastal ecosystems. A large proportion ofthe environmental NGOs are located in the northeast (30%). Within theenvironmental NGOs dealing exclusively with coastal/marine ecosystems,there are some which address species or ecosystems conservation, such asSOS Mata Atlântica, Tamar (sea turtles), Peixe-Boi (manatee), Baleia Jubarte(humpback whales), and the Clube de Observadores de Aves (seabirds in RioGrande do Norte). There are also socially oriented environmental NGOs,which deal specifically with traditional populations and their environments,such as Terramar, Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, Sociedade Civil São SebastiãoTem Alma, and Fundação Josué de Castro.At the societal level, socially oriented environmentalism gained importancevis-a-vis the traditional environmentalism which was focused mainly onprotection of species. This new environmentalism was able to establishalliances with other social movements, political parties and local movements.

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 109(b) The increasing number of public institutions dealing with environmentconservation. By the end of the military regime, there was space for publicdiscussion and movements concerning environmental issues. Secretariats forEnvironment were established in many Brazilian states. At the federal level,the National Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA) created in 1973 and theMinistry of the Environment (created in 1992) have been designated as coreagencies for environmental protection.(c) The importance of the environment was also highlighted by a growingnumber of universities and government research centres dealing with coastalzones and marine ecosystems. Well-known oceanographic institutions,such as the Oceanographic Institute at the University of São Paulo, theOceanography Department at the Federal University of Rio Grande in RioGrande do Sul, Labomar in Ceará, Labohidro in Maranhão, and the Schools ofFisheries Engineering in Pernambuco and Ceará have contributed to increasedknowledge of coastal/marine ecosystems in the northeast. Some other researchinstitutions linked to universities, such as Nupaub-Research Center on HumanPopulations and Wetlands at the University of São Paulo, have also contributedto increasing the knowledge about the relationship between local communitiesand coastal ecosystems.The role of the State, of non-governmental organizations, and local institutions incoastal managementCoastal conservation and management became an important issue in Brazil in thelate 1970s and in the 1980s when the impacts of industrialization and urbanizationresulted in a rapid degradation of the coastal environment.Artisanal fishers started a movement in the northeast against the pollution ofestuaries and rivers caused by the acidic waste of the alcohol-producing distilleries.It was the starting point for a stronger organization of small-scale fishers,supported by the Catholic Church and some non-governmental organizations.This social process indicated the emergence of new identities and social awarenessamong coastal communities and artisanal fishing communities. These identitybuildingprocesses often occurred during conflicts that saw these communitiesopposed to urban expansion that often resulted in the eviction of artisanal fishersfrom their beaches and adjacent coastal waters. In tropical countries, where warm,sandy, sunny beaches became valuable assets to national and international tourism,artisanal fishers and their activities are seen as obstacles to a free development ofmarket forces. Artisanal fishers and local dwellers are resettled into the cornerof their own beaches, which are transformed into tourist resorts. In some othercases, the establishment of large industrialization projects resulted in high levelsof marine pollution, destruction of valuable habitats, such as mangroves, andultimately led to the social disruption of artisanal fishing communities. In manycases, the social reaction against these processes led to the establishment of newand politically orientated social movements, such as the National Movement ofFishers (MONAPE).

110Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanIn the late 1970s, government institutions were created at the federal, stateand municipal level to deal with environmental conservation. The first federalinstitution was SEMA, created in 1973 and incorporated by the Ministry ofthe Environment, and Legal Amazon, created in 1992. In 1989, IBAMA wascreated and incorporated into the Ministry of Environment. In 1981, the firstcomprehensive national law on the environment was promulgated. The NationalCouncil on the Environment (CONAMA), which is responsible for the mainpolicies concerning the environment, was created with the participation ofgovernmental agencies and NGOs. In 1986, CONAMA approved the firstlegislation requiring environmental impact analysis for large projects. In 1988,the Brazilian Constitution declared the Atlantic Forest and its coastal zone asone of five crucial areas for management and sustainable development. Braziliangovernmental and non-governmental organizations have actively participatedin the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development–1992(UNCED) during the various discussions about coastal/marine environmentalissues that produced Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Also, environmental NGOs suchas the National Forum and MONAPE have participated in drawing up a FisheriesTreaty, signed by non-governmental organizations during UNCED 1992. Brazilsigned the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) inNovember 1982 and ratified it in December 1988. In January 1993, the BrazilianCongress decreed Law 8.617, on which Brazil defines the 12-mile territorialsea and the 200-mile economic exclusive zone (EEZ). Among other importantinternational guidelines, agreements and treaties ratified by Brazil that deal withcoastal/marine conservation and fisheries are the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries.7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONInformation on artisanal fisheries is generally scarce, and the fisheries productionstatistics present many limitations. The institution with legal responsibility tocollect and disseminate fisheries statistics is IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geographyand Statistics), but in 1990 IBGE’s system of collection was interrupted. Since1995, IBAMA started compiling and disseminating the data collected by differentinstitutions in different states. Some projects include: ESTATPESCA developedby IBAMA’s Center of Fisheries Research and Management for the NortheastCoast (CEPENE) for the northeastern states and by IBAMA’s Center of FisheriesResearch and Management for the North Coast (CEPENOR) for Pará; the systemof control of landings developed by São Paulo’s Instituto de Pesca, Univali,IBAMA’s Center of Fisheries Research and Management for the South Coast(CEPSUL); and IBAMA’s Center of Fisheries Research and Management ofEstuarine and Lagoon Fisheries (CEPERG) in southeastern and southern Brazil.However, the lack of a standardization of methodologies used in the collectionof statistics is a factor that precludes the comparative assessment of fisheriesproduction among states. One particular problem with the landings statistics

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 111in some states is the lack of a more precise classification of fisheries productionby artisanal fishery types, with a tendency to aggregate all artisanal fisheriesproduction in a single category of boats with less than 20 tonnes of gross tonnage.One exception is the system of data collection of the project ESTATPESCA,which provides more detailed information about artisanal fishery productionin the northeastern states. Another important limitation of landings statistics isthe large volume of catches that are not precisely identified. Landed fish is oftenclassified according to the commercial or common names, which do not allow theprecise identification of the species. This problem occurs due to a combination offactors: the difficulty in monitoring of fishing in areas of high biodiversity and thepreferential allocation of human and financial resources to the monitoring of largestocks targeted by industrial fisheries, among other causes. Illegal, unregulatedand unreported fishing is also recognized as a problem that erodes the quality offisheries catch statistics and leads to an underestimation of fisheries production(Isaac et al., 2006b; Peres et al., in press; Vasconcellos et al., in press).Information on biological and ecological aspects of coastal fisheries resourcesis not routinely collected by official agencies. Instead, it is produced by researchprojects conducted by universities and research institutes. The same also appliesto socio-economic data. Among the research institutions that routinely carry outstudies about fisheries in coastal areas are: the Oceanographic Institute of theUniversity of São Paulo, Oceanography Department of the Federal University ofRio Grande, Univali in Santa Catarina, the Federal Universities of Paraná, EspíritoSanto, Bahia, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte and Pará, the Fisheries Instituteof São Paulo, Labomar in Ceará, Labohidro in Maranhão, and the Schools ofFisheries Engineering in Pernambuco and Ceará. Some other research institutionslinked to universities, such as NUPAUB-Research Center on Human Populationsand Wetlands of the University of São Paulo, and Nepan-Research Center onEnvironmental Research of the University of Campinas, have also cooperated inincreasing the knowledge about the relationships between local communities andcoastal ecosystems. There are also some research network initiatives in the countrythat aim to improve the knowledge of coastal processes, fisheries and managementthrough collaboration among research institutes. It is worth mentioning theprogramme Renewable Resources of the EEZ (REVIZEE) conducted by aconsortium of universities and research agencies to improve knowledge about theoceanography and ecology of fisheries resources in the Brazilian EEZ. The CoastalResources of the Millennium Institute (a consortium of universities funded by theMinistry of Science and Technology) is collecting ecological and socio-economicdata on coastal fisheries of seven states.In order to coordinate the various governmental research projects on marineresources, the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources (CIRM) wascreated in 1974. CIRM’s main responsibilities are the promotion of researchand the rational management of marine resources. The Commission was formedby representatives of eight ministries (Navy, Foreign Relations, Agriculture,Transport, Education, Industry and Commerce, Mines and Energy, and Interior)

112Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanand the Planning Office and the National Council for Scientific and TechnologicalDevelopment. In 1979, a Secretariat was established (SECIRM) and was chairedby the Navy. Since 1988, CIRM has implemented various research projectsconcerning the marine environment, including the Project Leplac, which aimed tocollect geophysical data to define the limits of the Brazilian EEZ and the REVIZEEprogramme, an effort to assess the potential of marine resources according to theframework established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). In this process, CIRM has established research agreements with themain oceanographic institutes to collect and evaluate the information.During most of the 1990s, IBAMA maintained technical working groups onthe main industrial fishery resources (lobsters, shrimps, demersal fish, sardine,snappers, tunas and catfish). In general, there is more information for theseresources and fisheries than for any other coastal fishery in the country.8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESHistorically, artisanal fishers in Brazil have been labelled as inefficient andunproductive and, consequently, considered as objects of social welfareprogrammes. The available information about the sector demystifies this approachby showing, for instance, that the artisanal fishery is as productive as the industrialfishery in terms of total landings’ volume. Therefore, the artisanal fishery deservesat least the same level of attention for development policies as received by theindustrial fishery sector. In fact, it has been argued that the artisanal fishery is moreeconomically viable and more socially desirable, especially for the exploitation ofcoastal ecosystems. This is justified by a number of factors, such as the nature ofthe fishery resources available in coastal tropical areas (multispecies and smallstocksizes), the spatial dispersion of fishing communities, the ample utilization ofmaterials locally available, the direct supply of fish to local/regional markets, andthe reduced use of fossil fuels.With a few exceptions, the development of fisheries in Brazil has followed anunsustainable path for resource exploitation in the different coastal regions. Thecauses behind the failures in maintaining resources at biologically sustainablelevels must be properly identified to support the development of policies forthe sector. In this sense, particular attention must be given to the analysis of theinteractions and interferences among the artisanal and industrial sectors. It isnot by coincidence that the situation of stocks is more critical in the areas whereresources are shared between industrial and artisanal fisheries. For instance, in thesouth and southeast, the industrial trawling fishery has been pointed out as oneof the main culprits of the overfishing of traditional demersal stocks, because ofintense direct harvest of the stocks, and also due to the bycatch and discards ofjuveniles. Similarly, the rapid development of the industrial purse seine fishery forsardine in the southeast was one of the main reasons behind the collapse of thestock. Nonetheless, there should also be analysis of the artisanal fishery factorsthat contributed to each of the fishery collapses.

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 113As artisanal fisheries have been decreasing in importance in the south andsoutheast and maintaining their predominance in the north and northeast, it isclear that the strategies for development, management and assessment of fisheriesmust be different among these regions. Although conservation policies areimportant for all regions, they are particularly required in the south-southeast, dueto the depletion of traditional resources and the decrease in resource availabilityto artisanal fishers. Strategies of resource conservation and rebuilding (decreasein effort, protected areas, etc.) must be balanced by incentives and strategies toincrease fishery profits through the exploitation of alternative resources, thedevelopment of alternative economic livelihoods and other strategies. In fact, theparticipation of fishers in small-scale, family-based aquaculture has been increasingin recent years in these regions. The feasibility and potential of aquaculture as analternative to a fishing livelihood is case-specific and needs to be further explored.In the north and northeast, where the abundance of resources is not yet alimiting factor for the maintenance of the artisanal fishery, management actionsmust also deal with the recovery of stocks that are in trouble, but should aimparticularly to: establish institutional arrangements and strategies to preventthe increase in fishing capacity to a level beyond the productive capacity of thecoastal resources and ecosystems; minimize and mitigate impacts of other coastalactivities on fisheries; and provide secure access rights to small-scale fishers thathave been threatened or displaced by unplanned coastal development.There is not only a great diversity of habitats and species used by artisanalcoastal fisheries, but also a variety of cultures of which fishers are part, withdistinct livelihoods and knowledge of resources, the environment, and traditionalforms of resource use accumulated through generations along the Brazilian coast.This paper is an attempt to illustrate this diversity and hence to serve as a referenceon the bio-physical, socio-economic and cultural context in which fishers areplaced in each region.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors thank the organizers of the CoastFish2004 conference and theanonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions to improvethis chapter. Marcelo Vasconcellos thanks FAO for supporting the preparation ofthis document and his participation in the conference.REFERENCESAlmeida Z.S., Castro A.C.L., Barbosa N., Dias T.R. & Ribeiro D. 2006. Diagnósticoda pesca no litoral do estado do Maranhão. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici& J.M. Andrigueto-Filho (Org.) A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no iníciodo século XXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais.Editora Universitária UFPA, Belém, Brasil. pp. 41–66.

114Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAndriguetto-Filho J.M., Chaves P.T., Santos C. & Liberati S.A. 2006. Diagnósticoda pesca no estado do Paraná. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici & J.M.Andrigueto-Filho (Org.) A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do séculoXXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. EditoraUniversitária UFPA, Belém, Brasil. pp. 117–139.Bakun A. & Parrish R.H. 1990. Comparative studies of coastal pelagic fishreproductive habitats: the Brazilian sardine (Sardinella aurita). J. Cons. Int. Explor.Mer., 46: 269-283.BDT (Banco de Dados Tropical). 2002. Avaliação e ações prioritárias para aconservação da biodiversidade da zona costeira e marinha. (Available at: http://www. bdt. fat. org. br).Begossi A. 1997. Language, knowledge and social change: some ecological aspects. InA. Diegues (Org.). Tradition and social change in the coastal communities of Brazil.Nupaub, São Paulo.Castello J.P. & Haimovici M. 1991. Simpósio da Furg Sobre Pesquisa Pesqueira:Comentários e Recomendações. Revista Atlântica, Rio Grande, 13(1): 5–9.CEPENE. 2002. Boletim estatístico da pesca marítima e estuarina do Nordeste doBrasil. Tamandaré, PE.Cordell J.C. 1983. Locally managed sea territories in Brazilian coastal fishing. Paperprepared for FAO Conference on Coastal Lagoon Fisheries. Rome.Cordell J.C. 2000a. Marginalidade social e apropriação territorial marítima na Bahia.In Diegue, A. & A. Moreira (org). Espaços e recursos naturais de uso comum,Nupaub.Cordell J.C. 2000b. Remaking the waters: the significance of sea tenure-basedprotected areas. Third conference on property rights, economics and environment.International Center for Research on Environmental Issues, Aix-en-Provence,France.Cordell J.C. 2002. A project to assist Brazilian agencies, researchers and communitiesin developing a system of extractive marine reserves. Nupaub, São Paulo.Costa A.A. 2004. Em busca de uma estratégia de transição para a sustentabilidade nosistema ambiental da pesca artesanal no município do Rio Grande/RS – estuário daLagoa dos Patos. Tese de Mestrado. Fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande.Cunha L. 1992. Reserva extrativista para recifes de mangue: uma proposta preliminarpara o etuário de Mamanguape-Paraíba. São Paulo, Nupaub-USP.Dias-Neto J. 1999. A pesca marinha no Brasil, IBAMA, Brasília.Dias Neto J. & Marrul-Filho, S. 2003. Síntese da situação da pesca extrativa marinhano Brasil. IBAMA/DIFAP/CGREP, Brasília.Diegues A. 1999. Human populations and coastal wetlands: conservation andmanagement in Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag., 42(2–4): 187-210.Diegues A. 2000. Navegando pelas montanhas: pesca de marcação e mestrança emGalinhos, Rio Grande do Norte (Brasil). In Diegues, A. (org.) A Imagem das Águas,Hucitec/Nupaub-USP, São Paulo.Diegues A. 2001. Traditional fisheries knowledge and social appropriation of marineresources in Brazil. Paper presented at Mare Conference, Amsterdam.

Coastal fisheries of Brazil 115D’Incao F. 1991. Pesca e biologia de Penaeus paulensis na Lagoa dos Patos, RS.Atlântica (Rio Grande), 13(1): 159–169.Forman S. 1970. The raft fishermen: tradition and change in the Brazilian peasanteconomy. Indiana, Indiana University Press., USA.Freire, K.M.F. 2003. A database of landings data on Brazilian marine fisheries, 1980–2000. Fisheries Centre Research Report, 11(6): 181–190.Gasalla M.A. & Tomás A.R.G. 1998. Evaluation of the status of fisheries datacollection and stock assessment problems in São Paulo, southeastern Brazil. FisheryStock Assessment Models. Alaska Sea Grant College Programme, AK-SG-98-01,pp. 41–60.Isaac V.J., Espírito Santo R.V., Bentes B., Castro E. & Sena A.L. 2006a. Diagnósticoda pesca no litoral do estado do Pará. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici& J.M. Andrigueto-Filho (Org.) A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no iníciodo século XXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais.Editora Universitária UFPA, Belém, Brasil. p. 11–40.Isaac V.J., Martins A.S., Haimovici M. & Andrigueto-Filho J.M. (Org.). 2006b. Apesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: recursos, tecnologias,aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. Editora Universitária UFPA, Belém,Brasil.Kalikoski D.C., Vasconcellos M. & Lavkulich M.L. 2002. Fitting institutions andecosystems: the case of artisanal fisheries management in the Patos Lagoon. Mar.Pol., 26(03): 179–196.Kalikoski D.C. & Vasconcellos M. 2007. The role of fishers’ knowledge in theco-management of small-scale fisheries in the estuary of Patos Lagoon, SouthernBrazil. In Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Management. Edited byN. Haggan, B. Neis & I.G. Baird. UNESCO Publishing, Paris. pp. 289–312.Lessa R., Vieira A., Bezerra S., Santos J., Lima M., Oliveira B., Cunha E. & Carlos J.2004. Diagnóstico e caracterização do setor pesqueiro artesanal de Pernambuco.Publicação Especial do Programme Instituo do Milênio, MCT, Projeto RECOS,Modelo Gerencial da Pesca. Revista Atlântica, Rio Grande, no prelo.Maneschy C. 1999. Trabalho feminino no setor pesqueiro industrial no Estado doPará: características e tendências recentes, UFPA.Marques J.G. 2001 Pescando Pescadores, Nupaub-USP.Martins A. & Doxsey J.R. 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado do EspíritoSanto. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici & J.M. Andrigueto-Filho (Org.) Apesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: recursos, tecnologias,aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. Editora Universitária UFPA, Belém,Brasil. pp. 93–116.Matsuura Y. 1995. Os ecossistemas brasileiros e os principais macrovetores dedesenvolvimento. Subsídio ao Planejamento da Gestão Ambiental. Projeto Cenáriospara o Planejamento da Gestão Ambiental (MMA/PNMA), Brasília, DF. pp. 39–104.MMA. 2002. Avaliação e identificação de áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação,utilização sustentável e repartição dos benefícios da biodiversidade nos biomasbrasileiros. Brasília, MMA/SBF.

116Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMourão F. 1971. Pescadores do Litoral Sul do Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo. Tese(Doutoramento), USP.Neiva G.S. & Moura S.J.C. 1977. Sumário sobre a exploração de recursos marinhosdo litoral brasileiro: situação atual e perspectivas. Programa de Pesquisa eDesenvolvimento Pesqueiro do Brasil. Série Documentos Ocasionais. Rio deJaneiro - RJ. 27: 1–48.Peres M.B., Klippel S., Olavo G., Costa P.A.S. & Martins A.S. [In press.] Estimativasde desembarque da pesca de linha na costa central do Brasil (estados do EspíritoSanto e Bahia) para um ano padrão (1997–2000). Séries Livros do Museu Nacional,Rio de Janeiro.Pinto da Silva P. 2004. From common property to co-management: lessons fromBrazil’s first maritime extractive reserve. Mar. Pol., 28: 419–428.Reis E.G., Vieira P.C. & Duarte V.S. 1994. Pesca artesanal de teleosteos no estuario daLagoa dos Patos e costa do Rio Grande do Sul. Atlantica, Rio Grande 16: 69–86.Ruddle K. 2000. Systems of knowledge: dialogue, relationships and process. InEnvironment, development and sustainability. Edited by A. Begossi and Hens.Kluwer Acad. Publishers, 2(3–4): 277–304.Seeliger U., Odebrecht C. & Castello J.P. (eds). 1997. Subtropical convergenceenvironments. The coast and sea in the southwestern Atlantic. Berlin. Springer,Vol. 308. p. 197–204.Silva L.G. 1997a. Social mobilization of fishermen in northern and northeasternBrazil: tradition and change. In A. Diegues (Org.). Tradition and social change inthe coastal communities of Brazil, São Paulo, NUPAUB-USP.Silva L.G. 1997b. The classification of living beings among fishermen of Piratininga,Rio de Janeiro. In A. Diegues (Org.). Tradition and social change in the coastalcommunities of Brazil, NUPAUB, São Paulo.Silva P.S.V.P. 2002. Common property to co-management: social change andparticipation in Brazil’s first maritime extractive reserve. Doctoral thesis. LondonSchool of Economics.Sunye P.S. & Morisson T.C. 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado deSanta Catarina. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici & J.M. Andrigueto-Filho(Org.).A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: recursos,tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. Editora UniversitáriaUFPA, Belém, Brasil. pp. 141–156.Teixeira C. & Tundisi J. 1967. Primary production and phytoplankton in equatorialwaters. Bull. Mar. Sci., 17(4): 884–891.Vasconcellos M., Diegues A.C. & Salles R.R. 2007. Limites e possibilidades na gestãoda pesca artesanal costeira. In A.L. Costa (ed.). Nas redes da Pesca Artesanal.Brasilia: PNUD/IBAMA: 15–83.Vasconcellos M., Kalikoski D., Haimovici M. & Pitcher T. [In press]. Estimatingunreported catches of the main demersal species from fisheries discards in southernBrazil. Fisheries Centre Research Report.

1175. Coastal fisheries of ColombiaMario Rueda * , Jacobo Blanco, Juan Carlos Narváez, Efraín Viloria and ClaudiaStella BeltránRueda, M., Blanco, J., Narváez, J.C., Viloria, E. and Beltrán, C.S. 2011. Coastal fisheries ofColombia. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome,FAO. pp. 117–136.1. Introduction 1172. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 1182.1 Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM) 1212.2 Technical aspects of the fishing activity in CGSM 1223. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 1253.1 Social and economic aspects of the fishing activity in CGSM 1254. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 1265. Assessment of fisheries 1276. Fishery management and planning 1297. Research and education 131References 1331. INTRODUCTIONFisheries in Colombia are mainly marine based (80%) including different speciesof fishes, molluscs and crustaceans. In 2005, the fisheries and aquaculture sectorscontributed 0.54% to the national gross domestic product (GDP) and 3.86% tothe agricultural sector (FAO, 2005). The value of fishing production during thelast seven years has been around US$143 million per year. Most fishing productionis for human consumption (85%), with 14.5% allocated to process concentratedfoods and 0.5% based on ornamental fish and seed for aquaculture. Directemployment in the industrial fisheries, artisanal fisheries and aquaculture provided88 000 jobs (FAO, 2003).Colombia borders Panama and the Caribbean Sea to the north, the PacificOcean to the west, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Brazil to theeast, and Ecuador and Peru to the south (Figure 1). The country has various* Contact information: Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras, INVEMAR, Colombia.E-mail: mrueda@invemar.org.co

118Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanmicro-climates according to altitude, and it is divided into 32 departments.It has 1 141 748 km 2 of surface area, of which 880 376 km 2 are exclusiveeconomic zone with 2 308 km of coastline (1 760 km in the Caribbeanand 1 480 in the Pacific). Colombia is the only country in South Americathat has access to the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, with a marine area of988 000 km2. In addition, the country accounts for 238 000 hectares ofpermanent waterbodies, such as lagoons (FAO, 2005).FIGURE 1Colombia’s geographical limits and the exclusive economic zone2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIESMarine fisheries in the Pacific and Caribbean are industrial and artisanal (or smallscale). By 2005, marine fisheries production was reported at 160 000 tonnes,with industrial fisheries contributing the most (55%), and the rest coming fromartisanal fisheries (25%) and aquaculture (20%) (FAO, 2005). Fisheries in thePacific Ocean make the main contribution to fisheries production (Figure 2), whilein the Caribbean region production is characterized by a high number of speciesbut small quantities of each. However, the main resources are of high commercialvalue (tuna, shrimp, lobster, snail, snappers, groupers and small pelagics).

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 119FIGURE 2Colombian industrial and artisanal marine landings for the period 1990–2002140Caribbean SeaPacific OceanLandings Landings (thousand (thousand tonnes) tonnes)1201008060402001990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002YearSource: INCODER, 2003.Marine fisheries are mainly conducted by industrial fleets which represent89% of the total fleet, while artisanal fleets represent 11%. The artisanal fleets arecomprised of small boats with limited range (3–5 miles from shore), employedby groups of fishers of low socio-economic status distributed along the coast,targeting mainly shrimp in shallow waters, finfish and small pelagics (FAO,2005).Shrimp targeted in shallow waters support an important fishery, althoughoverexploitation has been reported since the 1980s. In the Pacific, the shrimpfishery in deep waters is still considered sustainable. The small-scale fishingof shrimp represents 70% of captures in the Pacific and 5% in the Caribbean(INCODER, 2003).Small pelagics like herrings (Ophistonema sp.) are used to produce flour andfish oil and are also considered sustainable. Finfish fisheries (named locally asPesca blanca) include demersal species (snappers and groupers), crevalle jacks andsharks. The latter already show signs of overexploitation.The marine small-scale fisheries are operated by fishers from small coastalcommunities of the Pacific and Caribbean. These fleets are composed of fibreglassand wooden boats with outboard engines (15, 40 and 75 hp) or manual propulsion,depending on the economic capacity and target species of the fishers. The mostimportant small-scale marine fisheries are: shrimp of shallow waters (Penaeus sp.),black skipjack (Euthynnus lineatus), snappers (Lutjanus sp.), weakfish (Cynoscionsp.), dolphinfish (Coryphaena sp.), Pacific sierra (Scomberomorus sp.), barracuda(Sphyraena sp.), shark (Carcharinus sp.), shells (Anadara sp.), clam (Chione sp.),lobster (Panulirus sp.) and snail (Strombus sp.).The majority of small-scale marine fishing units are composed of two orthree fishers who undertake daily trips from the shore up to five nautical miles.

120Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanHowever, those who own boats with a greater range and who have incorporatednavigation systems like GPS and sonar are able to go fishing for one or two weekswith a crew of 10 or 15 people. This advanced fishing provides high landings ofhigh value that are frequently sold to the processing plants.Nets are the most frequent gears used for shrimp and finfish. They includechinchorros (beachnets), trasmallos (gillnets) and atarrayas (cast nets), as well aslonglines and shortlines (these last two exclusively used for finfish). Traps andsome nets are used to catch lobster (free skin diving is practiced as well), snail, andsome other fishes and crustaceans.The inland artisanal fishing is developed in the rivers of the Magdalena, Orinocoand Amazon basins. Fishers alternate their activity with agriculture, small tradeand construction. Household economies are typically diversified because formalpossibilities of employment are scarce.Until the mid-1980s inland fisheries were important sources of revenues, foodsecurity and local development for rural communities. Since then, the collapse ofthe main fisheries due to water contamination and deforestation became evident,mainly throughout the Magdalena River, located in the Andean region of thecountry. Freshwater fisheries continue to fall in spite of the management measuresimplemented 20 years ago. This is due to weaknesses in the fisheries institutionalframework that prevent the advancement of inspections and surveillance duties.As with marine small-scale fisheries, the system of prices between fishersand consumers is affected by the intermediary chain. This is primarily due tothe fact that marketing and service centres are away from fisheries locations andcommunities, particularly in the Orinoquía and Amazonia regions.Sport fishing is still not a primary contributor to the economy and fisheriessystems. Thereby, there are no statistical records or management plans for sportfishing. In Colombia, the annual tournaments of international marine sport fishingtake place in the ports of Bahía Solano (in the Pacific coast) and Cartagena (inthe Caribbean). Regarding inland waters, two competitions in the Meta River(basin of the Orinoco) and five in the Magdalena and Cauca rivers (basins of theMagdalena) are organized annually.During the last 40 years Colombia has had four fishing authorities, all of themwith national jurisdiction, as follows: Instituto Nacional de los Recursos NaturalesRenovables (INDERENA) from 1968 to 1990, National Institute of Fishing andAquaculture (INPA) from 1992 to 2003, Colombian Institute of Rural Development(INCODER) from 2003 to 2007 and Colombian Institute of Agriculture (ICA)since 2008 until present. All of these have carried out detailed and general analysesof diverse locations and communities of marine and inland small-scale fishing, aswell as several international cooperation programmes executed during more than30 years by organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), European Union (EU), Japan International CooperationAgency (JICA), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC), among others. The last changes in the fishing authority(from INPA and INCODER to ICA) emphasize one of the biggest problems in

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 121the Colombian fishing industry: the changing institutional framework. As a resultof these changes, there has been a 70% decline in technical positions over time,which has constrained the fishery and aquaculture research necessary to supportvalid management strategies. Currently, the functions of research and managementof fisheries are carried out by the Submanager of Fishing and Aquaculture underICA.Biological, technical, socio-economic and political aspects are common acrossthe various marine and inland small-scale fisheries of Colombia. In this document,such aspects are illustrated through a particular case study of a fishing communityfrom Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM), a brackish waterbody of highimportance in northern Colombia.2.1 Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM)The CGSM is an estuarine lagoon located on the Caribbean coast of Colombia.The ‘Pajarales complex’ (mangrove swamps) forms one of the largest coastallagoon systems of the country (Figure 3). This ecosystem constitutes an importanthabitat for a wide diversity of fish fauna relevant to small-scale fishing, where therewere around 3 500 artisanal fishers, 2 300 canoes and a catch of 7 700 tonnes of fishresources in 2000, contributing 35% to the small-scale catches of the Caribbeanfor that year (INVEMAR, 2003a).FIGURE 3Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta and surrounding area

122Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThe small-scale fleets of the CGSM’s communities consist of boats withoutboard engines, and sail and row canoes ranging from 3 to 9 m in length, usingsix types of fishing gears. In the past, the aborigines used spears and bows andarrows to fish. In modern times, cast nets and handlines were the first gears used.Other more advanced methods have been used since the 1960s with a clear increasein their fishing power (Restrepo, 1968).The catch is characterized by a high number of species, particularly gerreids,ariids and mugilids, but also including clupeoids, sciaenids, carangids, centropomids,oysters, crabs and snails (Santos-Martínez et al., 1998). Because of its ecologicaland social value (as a source of both food and income for rural communities in thisarea), the area was declared a Natural Park and Fauna and Flora Sanctuary in 1969,a Ramsar Wetland in 1998, and a World Biosphere Reserve by the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2000.During the last five decades, the ecosystem has been progressively deteriorateddue to anthropogenic activities (e.g. road and channel constructions, pollution andincreased fishing pressure). This situation, combined with the poor implementationof management and conservation schemes, led to a marked decrease in availabilityof fishing resources. During the 1990s, the project Proyecto de Rehabilitación dela Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (PRO-CIÉNAGA) aimed at rehabilitating thesystem, giving special emphasis to water quality, mangroves and fishery resourcesmonitoring (Botero and Salzwedel, 1999). However, recent research results showthe high dependence of the system’s hydrology on global climate variations(INVEMAR, 2002, 2003a), with an ultimate influence on fisheries composition,distribution and abundance.2.2 Technical aspects of the fishing activity in CGSMThe CGSM region is a multispecies and multigear fishery, where gear dimensionsdepend on the targeted resources, as indicated in Table 1.The resources targeted in CGSM include: parassi mullet (Mugil incilis); niletilapia (Oreochromis niloticus); striped mojarra (Eugerres plumieri); chivo mapalé(Cathorops sp.); tarpon (Tarpon atlanticus); sea catfish (Ariopsis sp.); ladyfish(Elops saurus); striped mullet (M. liza); whitemouth croaker (Micropogoniasfurnieri); yellowfin mojarra (Caquetaia kraussi); moncholo (Hoplias malabaricus);ground croaker (Bairdiella rhonchus); bocachico (Prochilodus magdalenae); snook(Centropomus undecimalis, C. ensiferus); blue and red crab (Callinectes sapidus;C. bocourti); shrimp (Lithopenaeus schmitti, Farfantepenaeus notialis, F. subtilis,Xiphopenaeus kroyeri); oyster (Crassostrea rhizophorae); and snail (Melongenamelongena). These two last shellfish species, which were representative until 1996,are now nearly extinct and are absent from current commercial catches.

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 123TABLE 1Fleet characteristics and fishing gears employed by fisheries in CGSMSpeciesMulletSnookTarponSea catfishLadyfishTilapiaMojarra spp.BocachicoStriped catfishCrabsTypeCast netsGillnetsEncircling gillnetsCast netsGillnetsCast netsGillnetsLonglineCast netsEncircling gillnetsGillnetsCast netsTrawlnetCast netsGillnetsEncircling gillnetsGillnetsCast netsGillnetsCast netsGillnetsCast netsPotsGearMode size;range (m)Size ofcanoes (m)2.5; 2–3 a3–7283; 40–1 600 b 4–9270; 250–320 b 4–92.5; 2–3 a3–7283; 40–1 600 b 4–92.5; 2–3 a3–7283; 40–1 600 b 4–912; 8–12 c3–72.5; 2–3 a 3–74–94–9270; 250–320 b2.5; 2–3 a 3–7283; 40–1 600 b 4–9180; 135–220 b283; 40–1 600 b 4–92.5; 2–3 a3–74–9270; 250–320 b2.5; 2–3 a 3–7283; 40–1 600 b 4–9283; 40–1 600 b 4–92.5; 2–3 a 3–7Number ofcanoes2871486528714828714851287651482871128714865148287148251Averagecrew size283; 40–1 600 b 4–914822. ; 2–3 a 3–728720.1 x 0.08 x0.03 d 3–7 109 222322222232242232222Shrimps Fyke net 1.5; 1–2 b 3–7 515 1aSize in depth; b size in length; c hook number; d size in length x width x depth.Source: Santos-Martínez et al., 1998; INVEMAR, 2003a.Traditional fisheries in CGSM include around 70 species, although all ofthem are not target resources (Table 1). The most important are: Mojarrablanca (Diapterus rhombeus, Gerres cynereus, Eucinostomus sp.); striped catfish(Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum); arenca (Triportheus magdalenae); whisker catfish(Pimelodus clarias, Rhamdia sebae); boconas (Anchovia clupeoides, Cetengraulisedentulus); and freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium sp.). These non-target speciescontribute 2 to 8% to the total catch and they are not discarded, but sold orkept for fishers’ consumption. Nevertheless, those proportions vary as thefishing resource’ assemblages change. In addition, environmental perturbationslinked to global climate variability have also affected resource abundance inrecent years (INVEMAR, 2002, 2004). According to information from 2003

124Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean(INVEMAR, 2004), the quantity of active fishers in the area is: 502 fishers withcast nets; 270 fishers using gillnets; 144 fishers with encircling gillnets; 33 fisherswith trawlnets; 6 fishers with handlines; 90 fishers with longlines; 428 fisherswith pots; and 372 fishers with fyke nets. Figure 4 depicts some examples.FIGURE 4Gears for small-scale fisheries in CGSMFishing is carried out the whole year. However, certain species like mullets arecaught in higher abundance at the end of the year when they start their spawningmigrations due to the dynamics of the fishery and the high demands of the market.Besides, freshwater fishes like bocachico, striped catfish and Nile tilapia amongothers, are caught during the rainy months when movements from the river to thelagoon system take place near the end of the year. Most of the fish products aresold fresh (80%), with the remaining being processed (10%) or consumed by ruralcommunities (10%), usually as minced, dried and salted fishing products.

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 1253. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS3.1 Social and economic aspects of the fishing activity in CGSMFishing is carried out by men from the local communities of the CGSM system,with approximately 70% of the total male population involved in the activity;however, when there is abundance in catches some fishers come temporarily fromother areas, mainly from towns located about 50 km away from the CGSM.Men are in charge of fishing, sales of fishing products, maintenance to outboardmotors, and manufacture and repair of fishing gears and wooden boats. Women arenot directly involved in fisheries, but around 183 of them participate in processingand marketing of dry and salted fish as well as the meat of crab. Basically, womenare in charge of the household, taking care of the children and carrying out someactivities that contribute to the family’s economy. The number of family members,for an average fishing household, ranges from 4 to 7. Sometimes the house hasonly two rooms and one of them is the living room.Fishers attempt to diversify their economy in a variety of ways. Nearly600 people work in other occupations, such as the processing and marketingof fishing products, sales in small stores, agriculture, transportation, livestockfarms, aquaculture and salt extraction. Although artisanal fishers of other marineand inland areas of Colombia have diversified their activities, the communitiesof CGSM have more alternatives than others.Contrary to most Colombian fishing communities where a high proportionof the population is illiterate, 82% of the CGSM’s population has some level ofeducation. However, in most poor rural communities throughout the country,education levels are lower than in the CGSM, with 16% completing basiceducation, 5% finishing high school, and a much lower percentage continuing onto higher levels of education. Likewise, more children and teenagers go to schoolthan did their parents 15 or 20 years ago.Although younger men learn how to fish from their fathers, now most of themprefer to develop more profitable and less demanding activities that generate amore permanent income. It is important to highlight that the average income forsmall-scale fisheries in CGSM is around US$1 600 family/year, which is below thepoverty line.Quality of life in fishing communities depends largely on the location. Thus,towns located nearest to tourist and/or industrial cities have better services andfacilities coverage than the distant palafitte (stilt) villages (Figure 5). This is thecase in CGSM, where rural communities near and over the road between the citiesof Barranquilla and Ciénaga have better conditions than those located within thelagoon.Infrastructure conditions in CGSM vary according to the town and service.Aqueduct facilities are found in 37% of the villages, but only Ciénaga city hassewer facilities for a portion of the population. Electricity is present in 83% ofthe towns, including in the stilt villages through submerged cables. In 33% of thevillages traditional means of communications and/or cellular phones exist. Accessto road transportation occurs in 50% of the cases and the whole population

126Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanhas aquatic transport. While houses in villages near the road could eventuallybe threatened by flooding, those in palafitte towns are built on poles and stayabove the water level most of the year. People in these communities use canoes astransportation throughout waterways.Regarding social services, rural schools depend on the government but they areinsufficient and badly maintained. There are some high schools in Ciénaga city,10 km from the nearest fishing town. Only a few students can go to university andwhen they conclude their education they prefer to stay in the cities than returnto their towns. Health facilities are scarce and people depend on the care servicesthey can get from hospitals in locations like Ciénaga and Barranquilla cities.Family planning advice, usually from NGOs, was more frequent a decade agothan now due to diminishing assistance.FIGURE 5Palafitte (stilt) town in the CGSM4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORSAs outcomes of the PRO-CIÉNAGA project, two large associations were created:Association of the Community Organizations of the CGSM (ASOCOCIÉNAGA)and the Association of Artisanal Fishers Pro-defense of the CGSM (GRANPES).These organizations have about 1 500 members, with the mission of contributingto the conservation and environmental restoration of the CGSM in order toimprove the life quality of its inhabitants.

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 127Although these associations have presented their initiatives at the FishingCommunity Assembly for the Fishing Ordinance in the CGSM, their proposalshave not yet been implemented, a primary source of discouragement for members. Ingeneral, although the participation of communities is important during the analysisof management measures for fisheries or particular areas, this is not a requirementfor the governmental agencies to advance in the management process.Private organizations, such as ‘Social Foundation’ and ‘Restrepo BarcoFoundation’, have participated in the consolidation of communities in CGSM,the granting of small credits and project formulation in order to diversify theeconomy with other productive activities. Nevertheless, the results obtained arenot good enough to improve family economies.Because most fishing areas lie within the reach of any fisher with a boat, oneof the conflicts among fishers is between the cast-net fishers and those using moreeffective gears, such as gillnets and surrounding nets with small mesh sizes calledboliche (Rueda and Mancera, 1995). Conflicts also arise regarding fishing practicesthat may be considered harmful due to sediment disturbance or the burning ofmangroves (the zangarreo fishing gear). In addition, unsafe operations in distantwaters cause disputes between fishers and authorities.More often, conflicts between fishers and other coastal activities are linked tothe use of waterbodies. In most cases they are related to small-, medium-, andlarge-scale livestock farmers and agricultural producers. Agrochemical pollutionfrom plantations near CGSM often leads to confrontation between farmers andfishers. Road construction poses another conflict as it disturbs the natural waterexchange with the adjacent sea and the communication within the lagoon systemand also adversely affects the movements, distribution and abundance of the watersupply.No integrated coastal management effort has ever succeeded, even thoughthe Environmental Management Plan produced by PRO-CIÉNAGA in 1994constitutes a solid basis to design and implement an integrated managementapproach for the CGSM, considering the numerous economic activities sharingthe resources in the region. However, such a management plan requires theagreement of the participating actors, and because of political, as well as complexsocio-economic reasons, this has never been accomplished.5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESTaking into account the lack of long time series on catch and effort data, much ofthe population assessments of the main commercial organisms have been based ondirect methods (i.e. population size estimation) and the only attempt took place inthe middle of the 1990s. However, severe perturbations suffered by the ecosystemand its resources in the late 1990s rendered those results out-of-date and seldomuseful for future stock or biomass projections. The utilization of indirect methods,starting with size frequency, has focused on the estimation of exploitation ratesbased on growth and mortality parameters. Beverton and Holt yield models andbiomass per recruit have been applied, aiming to bring fishing mortality and mean

128Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeancatch size to optimal levels (Mancera and Mendo, 1995; Rueda and Urban, 1998;Sánchez et al., 1998; Tíjaro et al., 1998; Rueda and Santos-Martínez, 1999). Inaddition, gillnet selectivity experiments were implemented to regulate mesh sizefor 10 fish species (Rueda and Santos-Martínez, 1999; Rueda et al., 1997; Ruedaand Defeo, 2003c). Recent selectivity assessments were performed for cast nets andsmall trawlnets as a means to detect impacts of fishing on fish stocks during themonitoring (INVEMAR, 2001; Rueda, 2007).Yield estimations in the last 10 years have been obtained for about 50 speciesof fishes, crustaceans and molluscs, along with related fishery information derivedfrom monitoring (INVEMAR, 2003a). Both recruitment patterns and values wereestimated for at least five species supporting this fishery (Mancera and Mendo,1995; Rueda and Urban, 1998; Sánchez et al., 1998; Tíjaro et al., 1998; Rueda andSantos-Martínez, 1999). Key species biomass and distribution were estimated inseasonal fishing surveys performed once in the mid-1990s (Rueda, 2001; Ruedaand Defeo, 2001) during high-salinity perturbations in the CGSM and then justbefore restoration processes started. However, there have been no updates of thosebiomass estimates, which are urgent since the conditions are now quite differentregarding resource populations and the CGSM environment.Since it has been determined that there is a need for an ecosystem model inorder to have a conceptual picture of the processes taking place in the CGSMand their effects on resource populations and the fishery, some isolated attemptshave been made to assess fishing impact using an ecosystem approach (Ruedaand Defeo, 2003c) and to model climatic and hydrologic effects on resources(Blanco et al., 2006; Blanco et al., 2008). However, the complexity of the relationsoccurring in a variable environment such as this one have precluded so far thedesign of an actual integrated model useful to give management recommendations,either for environmental or for fishery purposes.The fishery has been evaluated using bio-economic indicators (i.e. thresholdprofits for the boliche, including variable costs and size-at-price data), analyzingtheoretical management scenarios based on direct biomass estimation and fishlengthcompositions (Rueda and Defeo, 2003b). More recent estimates, derivedfrom monitoring data, include variations in fish prices, investment, variable costsper fishing gear type, income per day, monthly income of fishers, number of jobsand marketing of fish products (INVEMAR, 2003b). The Fishing InformationSystem (SIPEIN) software has been re-engineered to allow updated simple bioeconomicalanalyses in agreement with the present context of the fishery on amonthly basis (Narváez et al., 2005).Some works have been conducted on fishery financial analysis and marketingchannels (INVEMAR, 2001). As noted before, the required input exists to analyseperiodically how the cost-benefit balance changes in the fishery. In addition, thespatial and temporal distribution of some stocks in the CGSM and its influence onthe fishers’ behaviour has been determined (INVEMAR, 2003b; Rueda and Defeo,2003b). Since certain species depend highly on the hydrological conditions in thesystem (i.e. tilapia), forecasting their spatial abundance and distribution demands acloser analysis.

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 129Risk and uncertainty analysis of several fishing indicators (i.e. harvestableand spawning biomass, mean catch size, threshold profit) has been performed,applying the precautionary approach in order to determine the status of thefishery and to formulate risk-averse management strategies (Rueda and Defeo,2001, 2003b; INVEMAR, 2003b).An example of a fisheries assessment was as a result of the reopening ofthe channels connecting the Magdalena River with the CGSM in 1996–1998.To evaluate the impact of this, abundance data (catch-per-unit effort), speciesrichness, and economic revenues were compared for the years before and afterthe channels were implemented (INVEMAR, 2003b). The high environmentalperturbation caused by El Niño conditions in 1992–1995 and 1997, and later byLa Niña (lowering salinity) in 1999–2000, produced not just a variation in theoverall community but also a change in the fish assemblage, where freshwaterspecies, once assumed as a sign of ecosystem recovery, were really anotherelement of perturbation caused by prolonged flooding conditions in those years(INVEMAR, 2002; Leal-Flórez et al., 2008). After 2001, CGSM environmentaland fishery conditions returned to those that they experienced before the openingof the channels. Successive changes are indicative of the climatic and environmentalvariability experienced in CGSM and ultimately its fisheries.There was also an examination of the reopening of the channels, since this workgenerated high expectations. The resulting impact on the fishery has been assessedin terms of income per fisher and number of jobs generated by fishing (INVEMAR,2003b). Reference information to characterize the fishery and the resident fisherscommunity demographics in the CGSM was acquired by means of a census carriedout by PRO-CIÉNAGA in the early 1990s (Campo and Barroso, 1993).It is not as simple as just comparing the scenarios before and after the channelswere built, because four scenarios can be discerned, complicating the assessment.Unfortunately, there are also unavoidable uncertainties caused by political andsocial unrest, due to actions of illegal armed groups in the area, disturbing theextractive activity and the free access to certain fishing zones and leading to forceddisplacement and migration of fishers, mostly in 2000–2001 (INVEMAR, 2001).In recent years, law enforcement conditions have improved, but have not yetnormalized.6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGAt the national level, the fisheries management system is regulated by Law 13,1990. The measures are supported by scientific and technological research, aswell as the precautionary principle. However, there are weaknesses inside theinstitutional framework to execute surveillance and control in many regions.Particularly in CGSM, some management actions based on enforcement offish catch sizes and banning of particular fishing gears have been implemented,although these regulations have not been consistent through time.Although fisheries legislation does not establish mechanisms to implement globalmandates and initiatives, those accepted by Colombia are adopted by administrative

130Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanacts of ICA, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, or of the Ministryof Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, as appropriate.In the particular case of CGSM, the environmental authorities presented inthe area (National Parks Office [UAESPNN]; Magdalena Regional Corporation[CORPAMAG]) have taken control and surveillance of the water conditionsand biological resources within the framework of international agreements asthe Biodiversity Convention. These efforts are clearly not enough, in spite of theinternational recognition of the CGSM as a World Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO,2000) and Ramsar wetland. Although it is important to implement environmentalmandates, those agreements aimed at fisheries need to be implemented in CGSM,especially the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.At the national level, regulatory and non-regulatory measures are establishedfor management. The former are associated with the norms (laws, agreements andresolutions) established to control access to fisheries resources; the latter aim totrain and raise awareness among the users about the need for responsible fishingand compliance with fisheries regulations (FAO, 2003).Regulatory measures issued by ICA pertain to fishing fleet control (vesselnumber, size and type, and duration of affiliation or lease contracts of foreignflagged vessels to national companies with fishing permits); allocation of fishingquotas to permit holders, and a resource fee for artisanal fishers; closures overthe resources and fishing grounds; reserve areas and areas exclusively for artisanalfisheries; minimum catch sizes; regulation of artisanal fishing gear and methods;authorization to fish (authorizations, permits, patents, licences, safe-conducts andconcessions); inspection visits to capture, marketing and mobilization sites; andestablishing sanctions and fines for infractions to fisheries regulations. It is importantto highlight that Law 13, 1990 allows open access to subsistence fishers, althoughthere is not a real differentiation between subsistence and small-scale fishers.Frequently-used non-regulatory measures include: awareness-raising campaignsand distribution of information materials about the legislation and regulatorymeasures issued periodically; formation of strategic alliances and discussionmeetings with the users, civil and military authorities to design and implementmanagement activities as well as to issue the respective norms; training courseson sustainable use and responsible fishing; technical assistance and technologytransfer; and evaluation of national and international conventions, agreements andnorms related to the activity (FAO, 2003).Because the CGSM is an area for subsistence and small-scale fisheries, its fishersoperate under the regime of open access and the management measures haveserious gaps that allow environmental degradation and resource overexploitation.Formal management systems have not been implemented even though the ideas,requirements and traditional knowledge of fishers, as well as scientific andmanagement knowledge, were combined for several years within an agreementcalled ‘Asamblea de Comunidades pesqueras para el Ordenamiento Pesquero de laCGSM’ (Fishing Communities Assembly for Fishing Management in the CGSM).However, these have not yet been supported by ICA.

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 131Even though one of the outcomes of the PRO-CIÉNAGA project was anEnvironmental Management Plan for the CGSM (PRO-CIÉNAGA, 1994)aimed toward management and conservation strategies for fish resources inthe medium term, which could be implemented by ICA, this initiative hasbeen fruitless so far. There is still no current control or surveillance system forfishing in the CGSM. There is only monitoring of the fishing activities carriedout during the last 12 years by Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras(INVEMAR). This monitoring becomes a tool for the periodic assessment ofthe fishery and to give management guidelines. Nevertheless, in the absence offishing management, there is no related performance evaluation whatsoever.7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONDaily catch, effort and size data – by species, fishing gear and zone – have beenrecorded for 12 years already in every landing site in the CGSM. In addition,information about fishing power, prices and variable costs of fishing effort werecollected. This information is based on a random sampling design, with samplesizes higher than 30% of all active fishing units per gear. Field data are recordedby native fishers, trained and supervised by INVEMAR, which is currentlythe institution gathering, storing and analyzing fishing information at CGSMusing the database SIPEIN (Narváez et al., 2005). Field information about waterconditions and hydrological variations is recorded simultaneously in the lagoonsystem, as a means to analyse and interpret resource-environment relationships(INVEMAR, 2003a).Research dealing with biology and ecology of the main commercial speciesof fish, crustaceans and molluscs has been conducted in the CGSM. From thebiological point of view, reproductive cycles, spawning periods, condition factors,and mean sizes of sexual maturity have been studied in no less than 20 fish,crustacean and mollusc species, characterizing this multispecies fishery (Santos-Martínez and Acero, 1991; Mancera and Mendo, 1995; Bateman, 1998; Rueda andSantos-Martínez, 1999; Sánchez and Rueda, 1999; Rueda and Defeo, 2003a). Manycases have shown that environmental variables (e.g. salinity, currents and tides)affect the reproductive strategy of the species.Concerning ecological aspects, research has been focused on trophic chains(Santos-Martínez and Acero, 1991; INVEMAR, 2001), showing that the mostabundant species are those feeding on lower trophic levels, but the fish predatorspecies are the largest biomass portion (54%).There are also several papers about community structure (Álvarez and Blanco,1985; Santos-Martínez and Acero, 1991; Sánchez, 1996; Bateman, 1998; Sánchezand Rueda, 1999; Rueda and Defeo, 2003a), allowing spatial and temporalcomparisons that show how the structure of fish assemblages shifts seasonally.Other work addresses the population dynamics of several species (Mancera andMendo, 1995; Rueda and Urban, 1998; Sánchez et al., 1998; Tíjaro et al., 1998;Rueda and Santos-Martínez, 1999; Rueda, 2001). The majority of this researchcorresponds to estimation of growth parameters, mortality rates and recruitmentpatterns of the resources.

132Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMore scarce are studies of the effects of environmental change on fisheryresources and their habitat preferences (INVEMAR, 2001, 2002; Rueda, 2001).Nevertheless, recent studies point out the links between those aspects, neglectedin the past, when analysis relied just on fish catch data.Studies have been carried out on demography and community needs, culture,lifestyle and organization of fishers in the CGSM (Abello, 1978; Campo and Barroso,1993; Moscarella and Barragán, 1994; Pinilla, 1999). These communities lack publicfacilities such as sewer systems and garbage disposal services. There is researchdealing with the inventories and ownership of boats and fishing gears, as well asstudies of the economically active population (Jiménez, 1983; Santos-Martínezet al., 1998; INVEMAR, 2001). Others studies have evaluated fishery productionin different times (Restrepo, 1968; Santos-Martínez et al., 1998; INVEMAR, 2000,2001, 2002, 2003b). This information has been periodically reviewed and updatedby INVEMAR.Fish catches and incomes have varied markedly during the last decade in theCGSM. Both variables diminished before 1996, as a result of environmental changesin the lagoon system and strong increases in both salinity values and fishing effort.Resources like oysters and snails disappeared in 1996. From 1999 to 2000, the CGSMunderwent another fluctuation, and freshwater fish species catches rose up to levelslike those in 1994. However, they dropped again after 2001, when salinity rose oncemore, and catch levels remained at nearly one half of those in 1999–2000 (Figure 6).Nevertheless, even though catches rose between 1999 and 2000, the fishers’ incomesdid not, due to the lower price of freshwater species compared with marine orestuarine species, and to the fact that large amounts of freshwater fish in the marketkept prices down in those years. There is an apparent recovery of shellfish catchesafter 2002, but this corresponds to clam harvests in neighbouring Isla de Salamanca,and not to the recuperation of the oyster and snail resources.Shellfish landings (tonnes)Shellfish landings (tonnes)5 0004 5004 0003 5003 0002 5002 0001 5001 0005000FIGURE 6Fish and shellfish landings in CGSM (1994–2004)CrustaceansMolluscs MolluscsFishCrustaceans Molluscs Fishes1994 1995 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Year9 0008 0007 0006 0005 0004 0003 0002 0001 0000Fishes landings ( tonnes)Fish landings (tonnes)

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 133Other surveys describe the structure of the commercial channels, study the fishmarket prices to evaluate the participation of fishers, and examine the revenuesof the fishing activity for the community (Restrepo, 1968; Charris et al., 1994;INVEMAR, 2001, 2002). Bio-economic aspects of the fishery have recently beenexamined using risk and uncertainty analyses of fishing indicators to assess thestatus of the fishery (Rueda and Defeo, 2003b).Currently, there are no educational programmes for fishers in the CGSM.Nevertheless, it is important to mention the efforts conducted in the 1990s forthe ‘Rehabilitation Project for CGSM-PRO-CIÉNAGA’ (PRO-CIÉNAGA,1994). Those educational endeavors were not directly aimed to local fishers, but tobuild up public awareness of the environmental issues in the CGSM, and how thelocal communities could contribute to alleviate these issues through supportiveactions and attitudes. As in other fishing communities of the country, there are nolocal vocational schools. However, some NGOs include in their projects trainingactivities to diversify the occupations and economy of fishing communities, suchas honey production in CGSM. Some initiatives have been focused on providingpractical education to women in order to foster their productive role within thecommunities.REFERENCESAbello C. 1978. Los asentamientos de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. InformeFinal Departamento de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad del Magdalena,Santa Marta.Álvarez R. & Blanco J. 1985. Composición de las comunidades ictiofaunísticas delos complejos lagunares y estuarinos de Bahía de Cartagena, Ciénaga de Tesca yCiénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. In Fish Community Ecologyin Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: Towards an ecosystem integration. Edited by A.Yáñez-Arancibia. UNAM Press, Mexico.Bateman N. 1998. Estructura de la comunidad íctica de las lagunas del delta exteriordel río Magdalena, en relación con la reapertura del canal Clarín. BSc Thesis,Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá.Blanco J.A., Viloria E.A. & Narváez J.C. 2006. ENSO and salinity changes in theCiénaga Grande de Santa Marta coastal lagoon system, Colombian Caribbean.Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 66: 157–167.Blanco J.A., Narváez B.J.C. & Viloria E.A. 2008. ENSO and the rise and fall of atilapia fishery in northern Colombia. Fish. Res., 88: 100–108.Botero L. & Salzwedel H. 1999. Rehabilitation of the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta,a mangrove-estuarine system in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Ocean Coast.Manag., 42: 243–256.Campo N. & Barroso C.J. 1993. Descripción de la situación actual de los pueblospalafíticos. Informe Final, PRO-CIÉNAGA-CORPAMAG, Santa Marta.Charris A., Peña A. & TorresY. 1994. Comercialización del producto pesquero en laCiénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Professional thesis, Universidad del Magdalena,Santa Marta.

134Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFAO. 2003. Resumen informativo sobre la pesca por países – Colombia. (Disponibleen: www.fao.org). Rome.FAO. 2005. Evolución de la pesca en pequeña escala y aspectos de ordenación en cincopaíses seleccionados de América Latina: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá, Colombiay Ecuador. Período, 1997–2005. Rome.INCODER. 2003. Boletín de estadísticas pesqueras de Colombia. (Disponible en:http://www.incoder.gov.co).INVEMAR. 2000. Monitoreo de las condiciones ambientales y los cambiosestructurales y funcionales de las comunidades vegetales y de los recursos pesquerosdurante la rehabilitación de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta: un enfoque demanejo adaptativo. Informe final, INVEMAR-BID-MinAmbiente-CORPAMAG-GTZ- Universidad Nacional-COLCIENCIAS-CIOH-University of Louisiana atLafayette. Santa Marta.INVEMAR. 2001. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros enColombia: año 2000. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 6. INVEMAR. SantaMarta.INVEMAR. 2002. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros enColombia: año 2001. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 7. INVEMAR. SantaMarta.INVEMAR. 2003a. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros enColombia: año 2002. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 8. INVEMAR. SantaMarta.INVEMAR. 2003b. Monitoreo de las condiciones ambientales y los cambiosestructurales y funcionales de las comunidades vegetales y de los recursos pesquerosdurante la rehabilitación de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta: un enfoque demanejo adaptativo. Informe final 1999-2002, INVEMAR-BID-MinAmbiente-CORPAMAG-UAESPNN-COLCIENCIAS-CIOH-GTZ-UniversidadNacional. Santa Marta.INVEMAR. 2004. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros enColombia: año 2003. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 9. INVEMAR. SantaMarta.Jiménez J. 1983. Centro de acopio de productos pesqueros. Informe final, Gobernacióndel Magdalena, Santa Marta.Leal-Flórez J., Rueda M. & Wolf M. 2008. Role of the fish Oreochromis niloticusin the long-term variations of abundance and species composition of the nativeichthyofauna in a Caribean estuary. Bull. Mar. Sci., 82(3): 1–15.Mancera J.E. & Mendo J. 1995. Population dynamics of the oyster Crassostrearhizophorae from the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Fish. Res., 26(1–2): 139–148.Moscarella V. & Barragán J.J. 1994. Hacia una historia ambiental de la CiénagaGrande de Santa Marta. Informe final, PRO-CIÉNAGA-CORPAMAG, SantaMarta.

Coastal fisheries of Colombia 135Narváez J.C., Rueda M., Vitoria E.A., Blanco J., Romero J.A. & Newmark F.2005. Manual del Sistema de Información Pesquera del INVEMAR (SIPEIN V.3.0): Una herramienta para el diseño de sistemas de manejo pesquero. Instituto deInvestigaciones Marinas y Costeras – INVEMAR. Santa Marta, Colombia. (Serie dedocumentos generales del INVEMAR No. 18.Pinilla G. C.A. 1999. Cultura, medio ambiente y desarrollo insostenible. Estudio decaso en la ecorregión Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. M.Sc tesis, Universidad delNorte, Barranquilla.PROCIENAGA. 1994. Estudio de impacto ambiental del proyecto de reapertura decanales en el Delta Exterior Derecho del río Magdalena. Informe final, BID-GTZ-CORPAMAG, INVEMAR, Santa Marta.Restrepo M.A. 1968. La pesca en la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. InvestigacionesPesqueras. Barranquilla.Rueda M. 2001. Spatial distribution of fish species in a tropical estuarine lagoon: ageostatistical appraisal. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 222: 217–226.Rueda M. 2007. Evaluating the selective performance of the encircling gillnet used intropical estuarine fisheries from Colombia. Fish. Res., 87(1): 28–34.Rueda M. & Defeo, O. 2001. Survey abundance indices in a tropical estuarine lagoonand their management implications: a spatially-explicit approach. ICES J. Mar. Sci.,58: 1219–1231.Rueda M. & Defeo O. 2003a. Spatial structure of fish assemblages in a tropicalestuarine lagoon: combining multivariate and geostatistics techniques. J. Exp. Mar.Biol. Ecol., 296: 93–112.Rueda M. & Defeo O. 2003b. A bio-economic multispecific analysis of an estuarinesmall-scale fishery: spatial structure of biovalue. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 60(4): 721–732.Rueda M. & Defeo O. 2003c. Linking fishery management and conservation in atropical estuarine lagoon: biological and physical effects on artisanal fishing gear.Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 56: 935–942.Rueda M. & Mancera E. 1995. Alteraciones fisicoquímicas de la columna de agua,generadas por el uso del boliche (método de pesca artesanal) en la Ciénaga Grandede Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. Anal. Inst. Invest. Mar. de Punta Betín, 24.Rueda M., Mancera E. & Mendo J. 1997. Estimación del factor de retención de la redbolichera empleada en la pesquería de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribecolombiano. Rev. Acad. Col. Cienc. Exac. Fís. Nat., 81: 487–495.Rueda M. & Santos-Martínez A. 1999. Evaluación de la eficiencia y selectividadde la red bolichera en la pesquería de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribecolombiano. Bol. Invest. Mar. Cost., 26: 17–34.Rueda M. & Urban J. 1998. Population dynamics and fishery of the fresh-waterclam Polymesoda solida (Corbiculidae) in Ciénaga Poza Verde, Salamanca Island,Colombian Caribbean. Fish. Res., 39: 75–86.Sánchez C. 1996. Variación espacial y temporal de la comunidad íctica de CiénagaGrande de Santa Marta, Complejo de Pajarales y ciénagas del costado occidental dela Isla de Salamanca, Caribe colombiano. Professional thesis, Universidad Nacional,Bogotá.

136Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSánchez C. & Rueda M. 1999. Variación de la diversidad y abundancia de especiesícticas dominantes en el delta del río Magdalena, Colombia. Rev. Biol. Trop., 47:1067–1079.Sánchez C., Rueda M. & Santos A. 1998. Dinámica poblacional y pesquería de la lisaMugil incilis, en la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. Rev. Acad.Col. Cienc. Exac. Fís. Nat., 85: 507–517.Santos-Martínez A. & Acero A. 1991. Fish community of the Ciénaga Grandede Santa Marta (Colombia). Composition and zoogeography. Ichthyol. Explor.Freshw., 2(3): 24–263.Santos A., Vitoria E., Sánchez C., Madera R., Rueda M., Tíjaro R. & Narváez J.1998. Evaluación de los principales recursos pesqueros de la Ciénaga Grande deSanta Marta, Costa Caribe colombiana. Informe final Proyecto COLCIENCIAS/BPIN/INVEMAR. Santa Marta.Tíjaro R., Rueda M. & Santos A. 1998. Dinámica poblacional del chivo mapaléCathorops spixi de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. Bol.Invest. Mar., 27: 87–102.UNESCO. 2000. Biosphere reserves: The Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. www.unesco.org/mab/br/brdir/latin-am/col4.htm

1376. Coastal fisheries of Costa RicaÁngel Herrera-Ulloa * , Luis Villalobos-Chacón, José Palacios-Villegas,Rigoberto Viquez-Portuguéz and Guillermo Oro-MarcosHerrera-Ulloa, A., Villalobos-Chacón, L., Palacios-Villegas, J., Viquez-Portuguéz, R. andOro-Marcos, G. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charlesand J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries andAquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 137-153.1. Introduction 1372. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 1392.1 Description of fisheries 1392.2 Fishing activity 1422.3 Target species and fishing gears 1423. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 1474. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 1505. Fishery management and planning 1516. Issues and challenges 151References 1521. INTRODUCTIONCosta Rica is a small country, with a territory of 51 000 km 2 (Figure 1). Due tothe small and open economy, export of products is a major component in manyindustries, including fisheries. Joaquín and Windevoxhel (1998) indicate that bythe 1990s, most marine landings of the Central America region were contributedby Costa Rica (179 000 tonnes), accounting for US$616 million, close to thosereported by Panama. The Central Valley, in the central region of the country,comprises 60% of Costa Rica’s population. It is in this area where major cities arelocated and thus where most of the jobs are generated.Table 1 shows Costa Rica’s sea limits; the coastal zone holds only7% of the population. It represents one of the less developed areas,encompassing many socio-economic problems, and includes four citieswith fewer than 100 000 inhabitants. On the Pacific coast, the three mainareas are: Puntarenas (95 000 inhabitants), Golfito (30 000 inhabitants) andQuepos (20 000 inhabitants). Limón (70 000 inhabitants) is located on theCaribbean coast.* Contact information: Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Costa Rica. E-mail: fherrera@una.ac.cr

138Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 1Map of Costa Rica showing the Pacific and Caribbean regionsTABLE 1Main characteristics of the Caribbean and Pacific coasts in Costa RicaCaribbeanPacificCoastline (Villalobos, 1982) 212 km, rectilinear coastline 1 016 km, three gulfs and several baysPercentage of areas protected(PRADEPESCA, 1995)Slightly higher than 40% ofthe coastlineLess than 30% of the coastlineExclusive economic zone(Palacios, 2007)Continental platform(MINAE and PNUD, 2002)24 000 km 2 589 682.9 km 22 400 km 2 15 600 km 2Wind patternsClimateSmall islandsFisheries stocksStrong influence ofnortheast winds, hurricaneseason influenceHumid tropical, high raininfluenceTwo islandsMainly migratory lobster,mackerel, sharksScattered storms, wind directionchanges according to the seasonDry tropical in the north, humidtropical in the southMany islands close to the coast andCoco Island about 644 km southeastPelagic fishes, sharks, demersal fishes,crustaceans

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 139Protection of wild areas comprises 12.5% of the national territory. Theseprotected areas include: 9 national parks, 3 biological reserves, 2 no-take naturalreserves, and 16 wildlife refuges and wetlands. They cover a higher percentagein the Caribbean (50%) than in the Pacific area (21%). Protection is one of themain strategies within the country, since it has been estimated that the world hasbetween 13 and 14 million species, from which Costa Rica accounts for about 4%of them (500 000 species). However, only 17% (almost 90 000 species) of thesespecies have been identified (i.e. it represents about 5% of the currently knownspecies in the world, which is about 1 700 000 species) (Ministerio de Ambiente yEnergía y PNUD, 2002).2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY2.1 Description of fisheriesIn Costa Rica, between 75% and 80% of the landings come from the artisanalfleet. From those, about 95% of the fleet operates in the Pacific Ocean, which hasa larger exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Table 1). This area can be divided intofour zones: north or Guanacaste region (divided into three zones, neighbouringwith Nicaragua); Gulf of Nicoya region; Central Pacific region (divided into threezones); and south Pacific region (neighbouring with Panama, divided into twozones) (Palacios, 2007).From the Pacific area, the Gulf of Nicoya concentrates the principal fleetand the highest landings; this is one of the largest and most exploited estuariesin Central America (Palacios, 2007; Palacios and Villalobos, 2007). This area hasimportant mangrove coverage which, in spite of comprising only 1% of the areaand accounting for 1% of the primary productivity, represents 76% of the systembiomass (Wolf et al., 1998).One of the characteristics of the Caribbean coast is the presence of coastallagoons, where important recreational fisheries occur. In this region, severalimportant protected areas have been established limiting commercial fisheriesmainly to small-scale fleets. In contrast to the Pacific region, where several zonesare used for landing, in the Caribbean region only one area (Limón) concentratesthe fishing activity, which includes several landing sites: Barra del Colorado,Puerto Limón and small landing sites on the southern coasts, including Cahuitaand Puerto Viejo. Catches in this region are much lower than on the Pacific coast,despite the reduction in catches in the latter (Figure 2).The volume of species caught by the small-scale fishing fleet on the Pacific coastbegan to decrease by the beginning of the 1980s, affecting exports. The market wassupported by species such as snapper and groupers and new technologies allowedan increase in shrimp landings. Since 1986, a decrease in fish catches was observedand it was attributed to overexploitation of benthic resources on the marineplatform in Costa Rica, although there is not scientific support on this matter.Given this situation, boat owners, aided by government export incentives, startedto built bigger boats and began to sail longer distances.

140Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 2Catch landed trends in the Pacific and Caribbean coastsby artisanal fleets operating in Costa RicaSource: Incopesca, 2006.Fishing fleets in Costa Rica have been classified into five categories whichtarget demersal and pelagic species (Table 2). Most boats are small-scale artisanaland they concentrate on high-value species such as lobster, shrimp and molluscs.Industrial fleets concentrate on sardine and there is a shrimp fishery that has beenclassified independently (Palacios, 2007). Over time, recreational fisheries havebecome more important for the economy of the country.The diversity in the characteristics of the artisanal fleet is wide in Costa Rica.It includes artisanal fleets which operate small boats without motors mainly inthe mangrove area where people collect molluscs; boats that use outboard enginesoperate about 3 miles from the coast on day trips. Other boats have navigationsystems and can sail about 40 miles from the coast (Chacon et al., 2007). A higherproportion of an artisanal fleet operates in the Pacific and land in Puntarenas(Sancho, 2000) with about 200 boats (Table 2). However, there are significant fleetsin Quepos, Playa del Coco and Golfito (Li, 2002). In these fleets, 55% of the boatsare wooden, 30% are fibreglass and 15% are steel. Interviews indicated that mostof the boats’ lengths vary between 9 and 12 m. However, in the advanced scaleartisanal fishery, boats can reach up to 30 m. They all have internal engines withan average power of 450 hp, although it is possible to find boats with only 70 hp,or more than 600 hp. Average product storage capacity is 3 000 kg; however, thereare boats with up to 1 tonne storage capacity, or even 60 tonnes in the case ofadvanced artisanal fishery boats.

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 141TABLE 2Characteristics and targeted species for various Costa Rican fishing fleet categoriesCategorySubcategoryMaincoverageCoastNumberof boatsin 2000Main target speciesArtisanal Small scale Coast Pacific andCaribbeanArtisanal Mid-scale Demersal Pacific 30–50milesArtisanal Advanced Pelagic Pacific,EEZ andinternationalwaters3 110 Croaker (Cynocsion sp.)Swordspine snook(Centropomus sp.)Snapper (Lutjanus sp.)Shrimp (Lytopenaeus sp.)Molluscs (several genera)Lobster (Panulirus sp.)519 Snapper (Lutjanus sp.)Grouper (Epinephelus sp.)Mahi-mahi (Coryphaenahippurus)Sharks (several genera)143 Mahi-mahi (Coryphaenahippurus)Swordfish (several genera)Tuna (several genera)Sharks (several genera)Industrial Coast Pacific 73 Shrimp (Lytopenaeus sp.)Industrial Semi-pelagic Pacific 2 Sardine (Opisthonema sp.)The advanced artisanal fleet has a wide range of operation. According tofishers, fishing days per boat are between 10 and 20 days, depending on the fishingproductivity of the zone. Boats fishing independently, such as the advanced liners,have fishing trips that last approximately one and a half months. The normal areaof fishing extends from Central America to Colombia. In the case of the advancedartisanal fishery, the area of fishing extends from southern Peru (10°S) to Mexico(30°N).The product cooling methods have evolved along with the fishery, boatsand techniques. Ice blocks were used years ago, changing in the mid-1980s toice flakes. In the last couple of years, new boats with cooling systems on boardwere incorporated for the pelagic fishery, allowing greater independence. Inthe beginning, the cooling system presented problems for both national andinternational markets. Exports were rejected, or accepted at low price, sincethe quality was not the same as the product preserved in ice, due to fleshcharacteristics. The producers were changing and adapting techniques in order toachieve the standards demanded by the market. Currently, the product is storedand packed in better conditions, improving the dock price.There is an international artisanal fleet, which is mainly operated by TaiwanProvince of China, with flags of convenience from countries such as Panama andBelize. This is not a regular year-round fleet and is estimated at 50 boats. Themain reason for allowing these boats into Costa Rica is economics. There is noregulation on the landings of these boats. There are some enterprises that unite thebusiness people from Taiwan Province of China who live in the country and theCosta Rican people.

142Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanIn the case of trawlers, there are licences for 69 boats; however, only between40 and 50 are in operation, due to the economic fisheries crisis caused byoverexploitation. The industrial fleet is mainly composed of small sardine boats,with limited contribution, since it has traditionally been developed in the externalareas of the Gulf of Nicoya. Nevertheless, for about 10 years, some companieshave tried to obtain more licences. However this has not been possible given thestatus of the sardine populations in the Gulf of Nicoya, which feeds humpbackwhales. This factor, in addition to fishing pressure, has not allowed the recoveryof the stock. Nonetheless, there is still pressure to open the fishery, especially inthe south (Golfo Dulce).One problem reported in Costa Rica is associated with the shark fin fishery,which is mainly carried out by the pelagic fishery. A few years ago, due tolobbying, a control process was developed to prevent the disposal of sharkcarcasses offshore. However, statistics are not accurate and it is hard to followtrends and regulate this activity because this measure does not prevent the fishingpressure and the risk of overfishing as the boat owners find multiple ways to avoidrestrictions.2.2 Fishing activityMultiple species are targeted by fishers in the area. The small-scale fishery is basedon coastal species, where white shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris or L. occidentalis)are the most sought. This activity is generally carried out with drift nets orgillnets in shallow waters, and in boats with outboard engines of 25 hp. The mostvalued species by fishers are presented in Table 3. Local and scientific names ofcommercial species are provided.In this document, we will refer primarily to the fishing activity in the smallscaleartisanal fishing coastal area located in the Gulf of Nicoya.2.3 Target species and fishing gearsAs outlined above, different fleets operate in Costa Rican waters. Table 4 comparesthe production in percentage of the fleets, showing an increase of landings for themedium-scale fleet and a reduction for the small-scale fleet in the analysed period.From 2000 on, international advanced fleets started moving out of Costa Rica,mainly because of legal restrictions against shark finning, giving more potential tothe medium-scale fleet.Depending on the time of the year, the moon phase, currents or area, the samefishers may seek different fish species. Sciaenidae are the most valued; however,Lutjanidae, Serranidae and Scombridae are also fished. Generally, fishing is carriedout in boats with 25 hp outboard engines. Wooden boats, generally with on-boardengines and four crew members, fish mahi-mahi in waters less than 80 km from thecoast. Along the coast, fishing occurs in shallow waters for species like snapperswhich reside in rocky areas.

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 143TABLE 3Main species targeted by fishing gear, boats and number of boats andcrew that fish in the Costa Rica EEZSpeciesShrimps (Litopenaeusstylirostris orL. occidentalis)Type and size offishing gearGillnet, larger than0.7 m, from 300 to400 mType and size ofboatSmall scale,less than 6 mNumberof boats inthe fisheryAveragenumberof crewmembersApprox. 850 2Croacker (Cynocsion sp.)Snook (Centropomus sp.)Snapper (Lutjanus sp.)Midwaterlongline/200 hooksGillnet of 0.7 to0.9 mSmall scale,7 to 9 mApprox. 1002Black tuna (Euthynnuslineatus), mackerel(Scombridae)Drift gillnet of0.1 m of 600 mMid-scale,7.5 m to 9 mApprox. 200 3Mahi-mahi (Coryphaenahippurus), sharks(Carcharhinidae,Sphyrnidae, Lamnidae)and swordfish(Istiophorus platypterus,Makaira mazara,Makaira indica andTetrapturus audax)30 km maximumSurface longline/36-40 hooks/mileAmerican typeMid-scaleMaximum 14 mApprox. 530 5Snapper (Lutjanus sp.)and grouper (Serranidae)Tunas (Thunnusalbacares and Thunnusobesus), swordfish(Xiphias gladius),sharks (Carcharhinidae,Sphyrnidae)Tunas (Thunnusalbacares and Thunnusobesus), swordfish(Xiphias gladius),sharks (Carcharhinidae,Sphyrnidae)6.5 km maximumBottom longline97 km maximumlongline, 36 to 40hooks/mile235 km maximumlongline, 36 to 40hooks/mileMid-scaleMaximum 10 mMid-scale, pelagic.Maximum 17 to18 m (fleet fromCosta Rica)Between 800 to1 000 milesMid-scale, pelagic.Maximum30 to 37 m.Internationalfleet, mainlyTaiwaneseApprox. 600 4Approx. 100 7–8Approx.50, mainlyChinese13–15TABLE 4Percentage comparison of artisanal fish fleet landings from 1996 to 2002Fishing fleet 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Handline 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Small scale 19 17 22 19 1 10 12Medium scale 35 33 25 29 43 51 49Advanced scale 43 46 47 49 43 38 39Not available 3 4 5 3 1 1 1Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Source: INCOPESCA, 2006.

144Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThe pelagic mid-scale fleet focuses on export species such as mahi-mahi,swordfish and sharks. The foreign fleet, as well as the local fleet, fish on the samespecies; however, the foreign fleet has a larger autonomous capacity, and in thecase of sharks this fleet has shown clear interest in the fins rather than the flesh.In terms of pelagic species, most of the information is provided by theInternational Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), andstudies focus primarily on tuna (Hinton and Bayliff, 2002).The shrimp fishery is carried out by 55 trawlers (INCOPESCA, 2006); theseboats operate along the Pacific coast where several species are targeted. Wildshrimp populations are the most studied species, specifically Gulf of Nicoyashrimp which is monitored to assess the implementation of annual closures.Shrimp fisheryThe artisanal shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Nicoya started around 1924 (Campos,1984). Between 1950 and 1960, the number of boats fluctuated between three andsix, but by 1970 there were 60 artisanal boats catching shrimp in the area. Accordingto González et al. (1993), the use of trawlnets in the shrimp fishery by the semiindustrialfleet from 1945 to 1975 caused severe damage to the internal area of thegulf. Even in the 1960s, the artisanal fishery was very small and small boats werelaunched from the beach. The main development of this fishery occurred around1986, when the use of monofilament net increased (Araya, 1995).The target species of this fishery are white shrimp (Litopenaeus occidentalis,Litopenaeus stylirostris, Litopenaeus vannamei), and Titi shrimp (Xiphopenaeusriverti and Trachipenaeus byrdi), both caught between 5 and 50 m depth. Pingshrimp (Farfantepenaeus brevirostris) and Kolibri shrimp (Solenocera agassizii,S. foca) are caught between 40 and 100 m, and Camello shrimp (Heterocarpusvicarius, H. affinis) are caught between 180 and 500 m. Table 5 shows the periodswith the highest landings for a variety of shrimp species. The 1960s were the mostimportant decade for white shrimp and the 1970s saw the highest Titi shrimplandings. Kolibri shrimp maximum landings occurred in the 1980s, whereas theearly 1990s saw highest landings for Pink and Camello shrimp.The shrimp fishery is a good example of the typical evolution process offisheries from the development to the declining phase. The shrimp fisheriesstarted in the 1950s, and the four different stages are shown in Figure 3. Asteady phase was observed between 1952 and 1957, an increase of catches marksthe development stage from 1958 to 1978, a peak phase from 1979 to 1986, anddeclines began in 1985.Finfish fisheriesSeveral studies have been undertaken to evaluate the conditions of fisheries in thearea (Palacios, 2007; Palacios and Villalobos, 2007), but an integrated analysis isstill lacking. A summary of catch trend analysis is presented here.

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 145TABLE 5Shrimp fishery by group of species between 1952 and 2004Shrimp groupScientific nameLanding2004(tonnes)Maximumaverage landingin last five years(tonnes)Maximumlanding(year)White shrimpTiti shrimpLitopenaeus occidentalis,L. stylirostris, L. vannameiXiphopenaeus riverti,Trachypenaeus bydi196 368 1963–196754 934 1971–1975Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus brevirostris 29 545 1988–1992Kolibri shrimp Selenocera agassizii, S. foca 399 1 366 1984–1988Camello shrimp Heterocarpus vicarius, H. affinis 70 619 1987–1991Total 748 3 832FIGURE 3Shrimp fishery evolution in Costa Rica from 1952 to 200230 000Phase 4Landings in tonnes25 00020 00015 00010 0005 000019521954Phase 1195619581960196219641966Phase 2196819701972197419761978YearPhase 31980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004Catch trend analysis of finfish (including all species) was undertaken to identifytrends and maximum catches (using a five-year average to smooth the data). Whenthe average value of the catch series is compared with catches in 2004, a 41%decrease in landings is evident (Table 6). Given the limitation of information byspecies, comparisons were based on groups of species (Palacios, 2007). Except inthe case of sardine, most fisheries resources reached the highest catches betweenthe 1980s and 1990s. Sharks and swordfish reached the highest values by 2004, andsardine and the mix of low-quality species showed the lower values regarding longtermaverage catches.

146Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 6Evaluation of catch trends of finfish species landed in Costa Rican fisheriesin the Pacific areaCommonnameFirst quality(corvina andsnook)> 2.5 kgScientific nameCatchin 2004(tonnes)Maximumaveragecatch in5-year period(tonnes)Period ofmaximumcatches2004proportionofmaximumcatchCynoscion albusCentropomus viridisCentropomus nigrescens 135.6 382 1980–1984 0.35First quality(corvina andcroaker)< 2.5 kgSpotted rosesnapperPacific redsnapperLower quality(44 species of17 families)Sardine(jack, gruntand mullet)Cynoscion squamipinnisCynoscion stolzmanniCynoscion phoxocephalusCynoscion reticulatusNebris occidentalisLutjanus guttatusLutjanus peruCaranx hipposOligoplites mundosParalunchurus dumerilliMugil curemaAnisotremus doviiOther speciesOpisthonema libertate (65%)Opisthonema bulleri (35%)Opisthonema medirastre (5%)992.9 1 634 1995–1999 0.61158.3 330 1993–1997 0.48219 605 1984–1988 0.36943 2 085 1986–1990 0.14975 6 554 1970–1974 0.15Barracuda Sphyraena ensis 7.14 14.3 1991–1995 0.50Corvina Micropogonias altipinnis 271 695 1979–1983 0.39CongerGrouper andbassDolphinfishSharksWhite marlinOphisoma prorigerumOphisoma macrurumRhynchoconger nitensAriosoma gilbertoChiloconger labiatusParaconger similisEpinephelus spp.Paralabrax humeralisParalabrax loroParalabrax nebuliferAlphestes multigutatsCoryphaena hippurusMustelus lunatusCarcharhinus leucasSphyrna lewiniTetrapterus angustirostris78.5 165 1993–1997 0.47144.3 871 1984–1988 0.162321 7 059 1997–2001 0.332025 3 979 1996–2000 0.51416.5 690 1997–2001 0.60Striped marlin Tetrapterus audax234 316 1994–1998 0.74Sailfish Isitophorus platypterus 1 244 1 235 1996–2000 1SwordfishXiphias gladius178 1 798 1995–1999 0.09Total 11 534 28 412.3 0.41

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 1473. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSTourism is the main economic activity in the country. Since the late 1980s, theexport trend has caused a change in the Costa Rican production structure, frommainly agriculture to electronic and tourism-based by the end of the 1990s. Since1995, tourism activity reached an annual growth of 11%, accounting for 28.2% inthe total dollar export (Joaquín and Windevoxhel, 1998; Instituto Costarricensede Turismo, 2002).In 1999, the coastal zone comprised 58% of the country’s hotel accommodationswith 26 500 hotel rooms; these facilities are projected to reach 31 200 rooms by2010 (Agencia de Cooperación del Japón e Instituto Costarricense de Turismo,2001). On the other hand, according to Li (2002), the percentage of internationaltourists interested in aquatic activities that visited Costa Rica is above 25%, whichrepresented by that time 33% of the total income coming from tourism.Agriculture is the second most important economic activity in the country. Itprovided about 14.9% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2004 (MAG, 2005).About 20% of the land is suitable for agriculture (Joaquín and Windevoxhel, 1998).In both coastal areas, even though the land is not well suited for agriculture, it isstill the main source of jobs, especially in plantations of banana, coconut, cocoa,rice and sugar. Another relevant component is extensive livestock farming.The fishing industry had no significant relevance before the 1970s. Thecatalyst for economic development in fisheries is the industry sector, such as thedevelopment of a fleet directed to catch shrimp, sardine and tuna (Blondin, 1992).According to Breton et al. (1991), by the 1990s export from fishing represented0.4% of the GDP, giving the artisanal fisheries little relevance in the occupationalstructure of Costa Rica. This condition has not changed much into the twentyfirstcentury.Demographic statistics on the population employed in fisheries are limited.Surveys carried out by Programa para el Desarrollo Pesquero en Centroamérica(PRADEPESCA, 1995) showed that the Pacific coast had 8 395 fishers, and theCaribbean coast had 800 fishers (9 195 fishers in total).Although the above data, both in economic and demographic terms, seemto indicate that fisheries have little relevance, the truth is that the Costa Ricanfisheries play particularly important roles in the generation of labour in coastalareas, not only as alternative primary work for marginal sectors, but also becausesmall-scale artisanal fisheries are the main source of marine products for domesticconsumption. Other fleets, particularly artisanal medium scale, advanced scale andindustrial, focus their production on the export market, with species such as mahimahi,marlin and sharks, while the coastal fishery provides species such as croaker,catfish, small sharks and low-value fish. The latter offer a relatively low price andare the only option for the consumer population in Costa Rica. The strategicimportance of fisheries resources should be viewed in terms of social value, sinceunder economic criteria it holds little relevance.

148Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMost people who are employed in fisheries have an elementary education witha low level of illiterate persons, and only a small proportion of people have a highlevel of education (Table 7).TABLE 7Fishers´ educational levels to 1995Educational level Percentage (%)No studies 4Primary educational level incomplete 30Primary educational level complete 40Secondary educational level incomplete 21Secondary educational level complete 3University educational level incomplete 1University educational level complete 1Fishing tradition is stronger in the small fishing communities located alongboth coastlines; however, it is more significant on the Pacific coast than on theCaribbean coast. Most fishers are men; however, there are also women, especiallyin activities related to mollusc extraction. The canning industry hires manywomen (about 1 200), mainly for cleaning tuna. There are urban fishers, locatedprincipally in Puntarenas city (Pacific coast) and Limón (Caribbean coast); the restcan be considered rural fishers. Puntarenas city is where most of the medium- andadvanced-scale fleets land.Moreover, although there are no up-to-date precise figures or studies on thematter, it is important to mention the contribution fishing has on the householdeconomy through child labour. This is mostly from the extraction of species andby-products of mangroves, as well as children’s participation in the cleaning ofthe products landed by small-scale fishers. In most cases, children do not receivesalaries, but they occasionally receive some lower-value fish which they can sell oruse for direct consumption.The Gulf of Nicoya is the area where most of the small-scale fishers are located.This is also where most scientific and social studies have taken place. Since 1829,Puntarenas has been the first port and commercial centre in the country on thePacific coast (Blondin, 1992). Most fishers live in the area of the Gran Chacarita,with very limited local power at the political and economic levels, which diminishesthe possibilities of local development. There is also a high rate of unemployment;it is difficult to estimate, though it is presumed to be about 35%.

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 149Studies on the Pacific coast include those of Charles and Herrera (1992) whogathered information from the Cooperativa de Pescadores de Puerto Thiel/PortThiel Fishers Cooperative (COOPETHIEL) to evaluate the monthly income offishers. They found a range between US$88 and US$176 for the period from 1988to 1991, showing that although this income is not high, it does not fall within thecategory of extreme poverty. More recent studies conducted by the Instituto Mixtode Ayuda Social (Social Aid Institute), a governmental institution responsible forworking with poverty groups, obtained similar results, leading to the conclusionthat most fishers fall at the poverty level and not into the extreme poverty level.Herrera and Charles (1994) compared the situation of COOPETHIEL (asan example of an artisanal fishery) on the Costa Rica Pacific coast with artisanalfisheries on the Caribbean coast. They found similar levels of income earned byfishers but with different cultural patterns. For instance, the population along theCaribbean coast experiences a strong influence from international tourism, speaksCaribbean English and is predominantly black.Villalobos and Hernández (1998) undertook a study on the social conditionsof the Gulf of Nicoya using an ecosystem-based approach. They established aprocess of differentiation of the artisanal fishing fleet by specific socio-economic,technological, environmental and production factors. They argue that thesedifferences should be considered in the implementation of fisheries managementprotocols in the area, based on technical criteria and results derived from socialstudies.The tourism industry is changing the process of artisanal fisheries in manyregions of the country. The increase of tourism development on a large scalehas sometimes led to an increase in demand for fish products to supply localtourism demand. In this sense, Gónzalez and Villalobos (1999) and Villalobosand Gónzalez (2000) analysed the processes of interaction between traditionalfishing and tourism in the northern Caribbean. They also looked at the effectsof technological development on the fishing environment in the Caribbean.Their results showed that tourist activity was becoming increasingly relevant asa strategy for coastal development. In addition, tourism is changing the coastalmarine environment, as well as the social and cultural patterns of the artisanalfishing communities.In other cases artisanal fishing communities have substantially transformedtheir traditional ways of operation and have opted for new forms of employmentrelated to recreational fishing, tourism and ecotourism. Examples are found alongthe Pacific coast in Tambor, Puerto Níspero, Puerto Moreno and Moreno, andalong the Caribbean coast, such as Manzanillo. All of these towns were dedicatedto traditional commercial fishing by the mid-1990s, but currently remnants offisher activities are virtually imperceptible. There is a tendency that seems to beincreasing in some parts of the country, such as Quepos, Osa Peninsula and theGolfo Dulce, where more and more fishers are incorporated into activities directlylinked to tourism.

150Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORSThe history of the Costa Rican fishing industry shows various organizationalexperiences different in nature from the late 1970s and early 1980s. The fishingcooperative organizational model was the most practiced until the end of the 1980s.The model incorporated nearly 18% of the fishing population (about 20 fishingcooperatives). However, by 2000, almost 50% of cooperatives had disappeared.Although no comprehensive studies have been conducted to analyse fully thisdecrease in organizations, one clear factor has been a perceived inconsistencybetween the cooperative model used and the nature of traditional fishing activity.Other organizational forms have been used at different times and from differentinstitutional perspectives for the local fishers’ committees (COLOPES) from 1987to 1995. These had considerable success and acceptance among fishers, althoughthey disappeared due to political decisions.It is estimated that there are 50 organizations actually linked directly orindirectly to the fishing industry in Costa Rica for the Central Pacific area,although only 37 of these were formally incorporated and duly registered.Included in this category are two cooperatives, fishing associations, chambers,trade unions and some COLOPES (Araya, 2006). Table 8 shows main activities orduties undertaken by fishing organizations along the Central Pacific coast.TABLE 8Fishing organization activities in the Central Pacific region in 2006FishingassociationsFishers'committees(COLOPES)FishcooperativesLabourunionsFishers'chambersTotalFuel subsidy 3 – 1 – 1 4Marketing 2 – 1 1 – 3Legal services 12 7 – 1 – 20Productive projects 1 – – – – 1Other activities 5 2 – 1 – 8Total 23 9 1 3 1 37Source: Departamento de Extensión y Capacitación, INCOPESCA.Other organizational efforts have developed in some fishing communities,especially in the Gulf of Nicoya region. These efforts have been promoted by theUniversidad Nacional (National University) and other support institutions, whichseek to incorporate productive alternatives in these communities, articulating themain activity with ecotourism and mariculture to benefit marginal sectors, mainlysmall-scale fishers, women and youth.

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 1515. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGBy law, fishery planning and management is the responsibility of the InstitutoCostarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA, Costa Rica Fishery andAquaculture Institute). The Universidad Nacional (National University), theUniversidad de Costa Rica (Costa Rica University), the Ministerio de Ambientey Energía (Ministry of Environment and Energy), as well as various otherfoundations and non-governmental organizations, participate in marine activities,such as the World Wildlife Fund, Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (BiodiversityNational Institute) and Fundación Costa Rica – USA (CRUSA).In Costa Rica there is abundant legislation on environmental matters in the formof specific laws, regulations and decrees, but legislation is fragmented and noncohesive.INCOPESCA coordinates the fishery and aquaculture sectors, promotesand organizes fishery development, marine hunting, aquaculture and research, andencourages conservation and sustainable use of aquaculture and marine biologicalresources based on technical and scientific criteria. INCOPESCA is responsible forissuing hunting, marine fishery and boat-building permits, as well as the licences andconcessions for aquaculture production (Cajiao-Jiménez, 2003).The Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE – Ministry of Environmentand Energy) is the institution responsible for marine protected areas, which includemangroves. Sea turtle capture is prohibited (Red Regional para la Conservación delas Tortugas Marinas en Centroamérica, 2001) and INCOPESCA is responsible forprotecting and conserving sea turtles in the jurisdictional waters of Costa Rica.Fishery laws date back to 1948, but were challenged in the mid-1990s throughunconstitutional measures. Because of this, the laws remained for more thanfive years in the National Congress, causing serious problems for resourcemanagement. The most recent revisions were done before 2005, but there are stillshortcomings that limit the application of laws by INCOPESCA, which leads tohigh rates of non-compliance in the fishery sector.6. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESCurrent fishery policies are not applied with an integral vision of resourcemanagement or integrated resource management. There are no clear policiesregarding the use of international tendencies, such as the FAO Code of Conductfor Responsible Fisheries or the Precautionary Approach. Moreover, there are noclear policies in terms of resource allocation; basically, licences provide the right tofish any resource fishers want to exploit. Efforts to avoid overfishing are limited toclosed areas, but are difficult to enforce due to the lack of resources.Despite being the most developed country in Central America, Costa Rica stillneeds to improve its conditions to compete with other countries in Latin America.Given the reduction in catches of important resources, attention is needed tocontrol the fishing effort and, in some cases, to reduce the size of the fleet as wellas upgrade it. However, subsidies on fuel increase the existing pressure on marineresources and, in the case of closures, the government provides little monetarysupport. INCOPESCA has been inefficient during its 14 years of existence due

152Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanto the problems noted above in regard to the application of law, low budget, andthe shortage of qualified professional personnel. On the other hand, an increasein added value has been considered, but this will require improvement in fisheriesinfrastructure and sanitary control.REFERENCESAgencia de Cooperación del Japón e Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. 2001.Estudio para el plan de uso de la tierra en las zonas costeras de las unidadesde planeamiento en la República de Costa Rica. Reporte Final. Vol. 2. PacificConsultants Internacional y Yachiyo Engineering Co. Ltd.Araya H. 1995. La pesca artesanal sobre peneidos juveniles en el Nicoya Gulf, CR. InActas del Simposium ecosistema de manglares en el pacífico centroamericano y surecurso de post-larvas de camarones peneidos. El Salvador, 8 al 11 de noviembre de,1995. Edited by Javier Zamarro. pp. 310–320.Araya I. 2006. El sector artesanal organizativo pesquero del Pacífico Central.INCOPESCA. Internal Report. Puntarenas, Costa Rica.Blondin D. 1992. Economía y sociedad en el Pacífico costarricense: Pescadoresartesanales en un medio urbano (Chacarita). Département dánthropologie. UniversitéLaval. Québec, Canada.Breton Y., Roy D., Benazera C. & Chávez M. 1991. Dinámica social y comunidadespesqueras en el Pacífico Costarricense: Pescadores y turistas a Sámara y el Coco¿Un amor de temporada? Département dánthropologie. Université Laval. Québec,Canada.Cajiao-Jiménez V. (ed). 2003. Régimen legal de los recursos marinos y costeros enCosta Rica. Editorial IPECA. San José Costa Rica.Campos J. 1984. Estudio sobre la biología pesquera en el pacífico de Costa Rica:aplicación al manejo del recurso. 1ª edición, Heredia, CR: Editorial de la UNA.Chacón A., Araya H., Váquez R., Brenes R.A., Marín B.E., Palacios J.A., Soto R.,Mejía-Arana F., Shimazu Y. & Hiramatsu K. 2007. Estadísticas pesqueras delGolfo de Nicoya, Costa Rica, 1994-2005. INCOPESCA-UNA-JICA. Costa Rica.Charles A. & Herrera A. 1992. Development and diversification: sustainabilitystrategies for a Costa Rican fishing cooperative. VI th International Institute of FisheriesEconomist and Trades (IIFET) Conference. Paris, France.González L., Herrera A., Villalobos L., Breton Y., López E., Breton E., Houde E.,Roy D. & Benazera C. 1993. Comunidades pesquero artesanales en Costa Rica.Editorial de la Universidad Nacional.González L. & Villalobos L. 1999. La función social de la pesca de la pesca artesanalcostera: el caso de Barra del Colorado. Limón Costa Rica. Rev. Perspectivas Rurales.UNA, 2: 94–106.Herrera A. & Charles A.T. 1994. Costa Rican Coastlines: mangroves, reefs, fisheriesand people. In Coastal zone Canada 94, Cooperation in The Coastal Zone:Conference Proceedings. 20–23 September 1994. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.pp. 12–624.

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 153Hinton M. & Bayliff W. 2002. Status of striped marlin in the Eastern Pacific Oceanin 2001 and outlook for 2002. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, SCTB15Working Paper. BBRG-1.Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuacultura (INCOPESCA). 2006. EstadísticaPesquera. Departamento de Estadística, INCOPESCA.Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. 2002. Plan general de desarrollo turísticosostenible 2002-2012. San José. Costa Rica.Joaquín J. & Windevoxhel N. 1998. Análisis regional de la situación de la zonamarina costera centroamericana. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. ENV-121,Washington.Li J. 2002. Descripción del sector náutico pesquero y acuícola de Costa Rica 2002.Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje, Informe, Costa Rica.MAG. 2005. Ministerios de Agricultura y Ganadería. Memoria 2005. (Disponible en:http://www.mag.go.cr/bibliotecavirtual/memoria-2005.pdf).Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y Programa de las Naciones Unidas para elMedio Ambiente. 2002. GEO Costa Rica: una perspectiva sobre el medio ambiente.San José, Costa Rica.Palacios J.A. 2007 El estado de explotación de las pesquerías de escama en el Pacíficode Costa Rica. Universidad Nacional, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas.Palacios J.A. & Villalobos L. 2007. La historia de la pesca en el Golfo de Nicoya,Costa Rica (1950–2005). Universidad Nacional, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas.PRADEPESCA. 1995. Encuesta de las actividades pesqueras con énfasis en la pescaartesanal. Enfoque Regional. Panamá.Red regional para la conservación de las tortugas marinas en Centroamérica. 2001.Diagnóstico regional y planeamiento estratégico para la conservación de las tortugasmarinas en el istmo centroamericano. San José, Costa Rica.Sancho W. 2000. Caracterización integral de la captura del dorado Coryphaenahippurus dentro del sistema de pesca artesanal semi-avanzada en el litoral Pacíficocentral, de la región de Puntarenas. Tesis de Licenciatura. Escuela de CienciasBiológicas. Universidad Nacional.Villalobos C. 1982. Animales y plantas comunes de las costas de Costa Rica. EUNED.Costa Rica.Villalobos L. & Hernández C. 1998. Estudio del desarrollo pesquero en el NicoyaGulf, Costa Rica: Un enfoque sistémico. Tesis de Maestría. Maestría en DesarrolloRural. Universidad Nacional. Costa Rica.Villalobos L. & González L. 2000. Algunas implicaciones de la tecnología pesquera enel medio natural de Barra del Colorado, Limón, Costa Rica. Rev. Ciencias Sociales.Universidad de Costa Rica, 88: 145–155.Wolf M., Koch V., Chavarría J. & Vargas J. 1998. A trophic flow model of the NicoyaGulf, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop., 46 (Supl. 6): 63–79.

1557. Coastal fisheries of CubaSERVANDO V. VALLE * , MIREYA SOSA, RAFAEL PUGA, LUIS FONT AND REGLA DUTHITValle, S.V., Sosa, M., Puga, R., Font, L. and Duthit, R. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Cuba. In S. Salas,R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and theCaribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 155–174.1. Introduction 1552. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 1562.1 The lobster fishery 1582.2 Finfish fisheries 1613. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 1634. Assessment of fisheries 1644.1 Lobster fishery 1644.2 Finfish fishery 1655. Fishery management and planning 1665.1 Lobster fishery management 1675.2 Finfish fishery management 1686. Research and education 1686.1 Lobster fishery research 1696.2 Finfish fishery research 1697. Issues and challenges 170References 1701. INTRODUCTIONWithin Cuba’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the fisheries went through agrowth phase from 1955 up to the end of the 1970s (Baisre, 1985a, 1993). From1962 to 1965, motorboats replaced sailboats, fisheries cooperatives were created,prices of the species harvested increased, and more efficient fishing gears wereintroduced. Landings coming from the EEZ expanded considerably, reaching upto 79 000 tonnes by the mid-1980s; afterwards, a 20-year period of annual catchesshow values lower than 10 000 tonnes (Baisre, 2000).The high economic value of many fisheries resources off the Cuban shelf and thefishing capacity created after 1959 (i.e. increase on fishing effort) have contributed* Contact information: Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras, La Habana, Cuba. E-mail: servando@cip.telemar.cu.

156Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanto high fishing pressure on many fishery resources, so that many of them are fullyexploited and, in some cases, overexploited. Various studies concluded that manyof the fisheries resources were exploited at their maximum sustainable yield (MSY)(Baisre, 1981, 1985a, 1985b, 1993; Baisre and Páez, 1981). In 1981, regulatory effortsaimed to protect overfished species and fishing effort was redirected to underutilizedspecies such as rays, blue crabs and clams.According to Baisre (2000), by 1995 approximately 39% of the resources wereshowing a negative trend in catches, 49% were in a mature phase with a highlevel of exploitation, and only 12% were in the development phase with somepossibility for future increases. This means that 88% of the fishery resourceswere in a critical situation from a fisheries management perspective by the end ofthe 1990s, and consequently required urgent measures to reduce fishing pressure.The case of Nassau grouper and mullets, with a decrease of 95% and 88%,respectively, are among the most dramatic. Baisre (2000) has completed the mostrecent evaluation of catch trends, so the current situation for Cuban fisheries isdifficult to assess. In addition, despite the management strategies implemented toreduce pressure on fisheries resources, changes in the ecosystems in the region areirreversible, making it difficult for catches to recover to previous levels (Baisre,2000). Furthermore, there are no perspectives on the economics of fishing indistant waters given the fuel costs, and aquaculture appears as the most viable wayto obtain fish products (FAO, 2008).2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITYMarine fisheries are an important source of foreign currency, animal protein andgeneration of jobs for about 17 000 people in Cuba, including fishers, workers,administrative personnel and other people involved in economic entities directlyrelated to fisheries (FAO, 2008). A number of species are exploited in Cuba, usingdiverse fishing gears that are mainly artisanal, with boats less than 23 m in length.These smaller vessels limit the distance the fishers can go in search of fish (Baisre,1985a).The Cuban Archipelago has an extension of 110 922 km 2 and is located in thetropical western region of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea, as wellas the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent waters of the Atlantic Ocean in theBahamas and the Great Antillean Archipelago. The more detailed oceanographiccharacteristic of the region is a continuous current of water (Antillean Current)that, due to the action of trade winds, moves along Florida and the east coast ofthe United States to form the Gulf Stream (Figure 1).According to Claro and Parenti (2001), around 140 fish species have somecommercial value and many of them are exploited by a multispecies fleet. Fishersuse diverse types of fishing gears and methods to target a mix of the resources,although specialization by area or species in some cases occurs.

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 157FIGURE 1Cuba and oceanographic features observed in the regionSource: Adapted from Siem (1988) and Garcia et al. (1991).The Cuban fleet comprises three types of boats according to the area wherethey operate: the coastal fleet, the Gulf fleet and the continental waters fleet.The second one operates on the Yucatán Peninsula within the EEZ of Mexicounder agreement. This fleet targets mainly groupers and snappers using 16 boatsof 23 m length that operate like a mothership of smaller boats (6 m length). Thecoastal fleet includes 990 boats (10–23 m length) made of fibreglass, iron andferrocement; all of them are equipped with motors and a GPS system. This fleetbelongs to 14 State enterprises that land their catches in the main ports of thecountry (FAO, 2008).The distinction between artisanal fisheries and small-scale fisheries variesbetween countries. For example, a one-person canoe may be considered artisanalin a developing country, while 20 m trawlers, seiners or longliners are categorizedas artisanal in developed countries. Hence, according to the concepts defined byCopemed (2004) and Johnson (2000), which take into account boat length, grosstonnage of the boat, fishing gears, target species and technology efficiency, mostfisheries operating on the Cuban shelf, with the exception of shrimp fisheries,could be considered as artisanal/small-scale fisheries. Despite the diversity ofspecies available, the topographic characteristics of the bottoms and the presenceof many rocky zones and reef areas prevent the use of trawl fisheries and determinethe artisanal nature of most of these fisheries.Although commercial, sport and recreational fisheries harvest several species ofcrustaceans, molluscs, sponges and fishes, many of these species are not recordedseparately in the statistical system. The same applies for some minor fisheries suchas blue crab, sea cucumber and conch. On the other side, some resources, suchas lobster, tunas, oysters, crabs, sponges and turtles, have developed specialized

158Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanfisheries. All these facts contribute to the complexity of the Cuban fisheries,making it difficult to assess them in one dimension or to define viable managementprogrammes for sustainable fisheries.Catches are used for human consumption, with 29% of the local marketproducts allocated to institutional consumption, such as schools, daycares andhospitals. The rest is sold to the local populations in State stores. Lobster andshrimp provide 23% of the seafood export and the main fisheries concentrateon lobster, finfishes and shrimp. This chapter concentrates only on the first twofisheries, as the shrimp fishery is the more industrialized of these fisheries; shrimpsare frozen on-board and taken in a transportation vessel to the processing plant.Catches from the lobster are kept fresh and processed by the industry and theyare all exported, while finfish catches generally are marketed fresh and are soldlocally; small portions of the catches are processed to be sold in supermarkets orto export.2.1 The lobster fisherySpiny lobster of the Caribbean (Panulirus argus) is the most important commercialfishery in Cuba given its high economic value. This species inhabits all watersof the marine shelf and depends primarily on availability of shelters and therate of production and renovation of food resources. The geology of the area,meteorological conditions and marine climate (tides, wave action, currents andturbidity) have favoured the presence of lobster habitats (mangroves, seaweeds,coral reefs). The fleet that targets lobster operates in practically all shallow watersof the Cuban shelf, characterized by the presence of sandy bottoms with dispersedrocks and corals which provide shelter for the lobsters.The fishery is performed by 9 companies with boats coming from 15 ports.They land their catches in 12 ports, 5 by the north coast and 7 at the south coast(Figure 2). In the last five years, the fishery has generated a net income of aroundUS$70 million per year, and has provided direct employment to 1 110 fishers andindirect employment to approximately 7 800 people (Puga et al., 2006).The principal fishing grounds for the lobster fishery are located by the Gulfof Batabanó, at the southwestern region of Cuba. This area is also known as‘Lobster Triangle’ and, at some point, sustained catches of around 7 000 tonnesannually. At present, this zone produces 66% of national lobster landings, withthe rest distributed among the southeast (17%), northeast (14%) and northwest(3%) (Puga et al., 2006). There are nine processing plants that produce precookedentire lobster and packs of lobster tails, which are the principal products exportedto Europe, Japan and Canada (Puga and de León, 2003).

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 159FIGURE 2Location of landing ports and plants that process lobster along the coast of CubaDuring the last ten years, catches have decreased from between 9 000 and10 000 tonnes to an average value of 6 600 tonnes (Figure 3). Despite a reductionon fishing effort since 1999 and an increase in the length of the closed season (from90 to 120 days), no signs of recovery have been observed. Puga et al. (2005, 2006)state that one of the main reasons for the reduction of catches is the decrease onrecruits and population abundance since 1989, caused by the combined effect offishing pressure and habitat damage. The latter has been due to hurricanes andanthropogenic activities in coastal areas, such as river damming and reductions innutrient input (Baisre, 2006; Baisre and Arboleya, 2006; Piñeiro et al., 2006).FIGURE 3Lobster annual landings and fishing effort trends between 1955 and 2007Landings (thousand tonnes)16141210864201955195819611964196719701973197619791982YearLandingsFishing effort1985198819911994199720002003200660 00050 00040 00030 00020 00010 000Effort (fishing days)

160Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThere are 200 fishing boats, 250 000 fishing gears and about 1 110 fishersdirectly involved in the Cuban lobster fishery. The crew of the lobster boat iscomposed of four to six people (e.g. skipper, cook, engine operator and sailors).The boats operate in four large management zones or subareas (Figure 2), whichare also partitioned into ten smaller divisions within each enterprise. The fishingboats are linked to 28 holding centres, located at sea, where lobsters are kept aliveuntil they are shipped to the eight processing plants.The lobster fleet includes boats made of different materials and sizes, rangingfrom 10 to 18 m in length. Although there are still some boats made of ferrocement,most of the lobster boats are fibreglass boats (Figure 4). One special feature ofthe lobster boats is a fish-well constructed in the hull of the boat which allowswater circulation through holes and keeps lobsters alive for transportation to thegathering centre where it is landed daily. At the gathering centre the lobsters arekept in cages in the water before being transported to the processing plant.FIGURE 4Fibreglass boats used in the lobster fisheryThe fishing gears include the artificial habitat pesquero (also called casitacubana in other parts of the Caribbean), jaulon and traps. Pesquero is an artificialhabitat for lobster and it is used by fishers mainly between May and September(e.g. during the open season). To remove the lobsters a net is placed around theartificial reef. Then the lobsters are scared out by shaking the pesquero, trappingthe lobsters in the net. This operation is carried out by two men on a small boat.Other techniques used include the bully net or free diving for lobsters. Morerecently, a new type of pesquero has been built, which can be lifted from the vesselwith a winch and then the lobsters can be extracted. In the southeast region, oldcar tyres are also used as artificial reefs.Jaulon is a 5-cm chicken-wire mesh or large plastic trap used during the lobsterwinter migration, between October and February. The mesh has two 40-m longwings beside the entrance, which can be adjusted to increase or decrease theeffective fishing area.The traps used are 5-cm chicken-wire mesh traps set during the whole fishingseason. These are common in the northeast region.

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 1612.2 Finfish fisheriesIn Cuba, approximately 150 different species of finfish are harvested. FollowingBaisre (1985a), the principal species can be grouped as follows:DemersalEstuarine:Mugilidae (mullets)Gerridae (mojarras)Other species (snooks, croakers)Grass meadows and reef zones:Lutjanidae (snappers)Serranidae (groupers)Haemulidae (grunts)Other species (numerous)PelagicLittoral:Clupeidae (sardines and Atlantic thread herring)Engraulidae (anchovies)CoastalCarangidae (jacks)Scomberomorus (mackerels)Inshore sharks (numerous species)OceanicOceanic sharks (various species)Tunas (skipjack, blackfin and yellowfin)Billfishes (marlins and swordfish)Pelagic species represent 37.6% of the fish captured. Between the inshoregroups there are some representatives of clupeids (sardines, Atlantic threadherring). Jacks (horse-eye jack, blue runner, bar jack, etc.) constitute a large group,mostly inhabiting offshore waters, but sometimes penetrating estuarine areas.The same occurs with other pelagic species such as sharks and different species ofScomberomorus.The finfish fishery occurs from all fishing ports (Figure 2), along the wholecontinental platform of the country. Catches of fishes started to rise in 1959 andreached maximum value around 1986 and 1987. Since then, the catches decreasedcontinuously and currently the stocks of the principal commercial species areconsidered fully exploited and in some cases overexploited (Figure 5).Demersal fishes represent 62.4% of finfish captures in the Cuban shelf. In thisfishery, mullets and mojarra are found in estuarine and littoral zones, while grunts,snappers and some groupers inhabit reef and rocky bottoms, near grass meadows(Thalassia). In deeper waters by the edge of the shelf, there are bigger and morespecialized species of snappers (silk snapper) and groupers.

162Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 5Historical catches of finfish in Cuban waters30 000Catch (tonnes)25 00020 00015 00010 0005 00005963677175798387919599Lutjanidae is the fish family of higher economical importance for the Cubanfishery. This group comprises 7.5% of the national capture and 21% of fishcatches, especially the lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), mutton snapper (L.analis), grey snapper (L. griseus) and the yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus).Seasonal landings are the result of fishing a variety of species. For instance,many species are fished during their reproductive season. The most significantspawning aggregations under fishing exploitation are lane snapper, muttonsnapper, grey snapper, mullets, Nassau grouper, blue runner and billfishes.The absence of territorial rights between different enterprises complicates thecurrent statistical system and makes it difficult to assess the potential of differentregions because various enterprises operate in the same fishing zone, competingfor the resources without a clear benefit for the domestic fishery economy.Most of the boats utilized for the finfish fishery in Cuba are made offerrocement and wood, with only few made of fibreglass. The length ranges from15 to 20 m (Figure 6). In 1988, the fleet was composed of around 840 vessels, butin 1998 this number decreased to 400 vessels.The most common fishing gears used in this fishery are pots, nets, fixed nets(tranques), gillnets, longline (bottom and surface) and trawlnets. Castile pots,bottom longlines and vertical longlines are used in the fishery for deep snappers. Inoceanic waters, the Japanese pelagic longline is used to fish tuna and pelagic sharks,but is limited to 300 hooks. For fishing small tunas there is a fleet of 18 baitboats.Nets are used mainly in shallow waters and in coastal lagoons. The mostcommon nets are the trawling nets, fixed nets and gillnets. The common trawlnet(chinchorro) is between 800 and 1 000 m long (8–10 m high). These trawlnets areused in broad flat areas (seagrass meadows and sandy areas), where they are pulledby two 15 to 20-m boats for two to three hours. This fishing gear is used mainlyin the northeastern region of the country.

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 163FIGURE 6Ferrocement vessel used in the finfish fishery3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSThe Ministry of Fishing Industry of Cuba registered a total of 42 012 workers(25 457 are males and 9 076 are females). Women do not participate in harvesting,but they can be found in all the other stages of the process. The labour distributionby categories is presented in Table 1.TABLE 1Labour distribution in the fishing activity in CubaAffiliationNumber of peopleFishers 7 479Directives 3 727Technicians 6 149Administrative 1 134Services 4 378Workers 19 145To learn about fishers’ experiences in the fishery, 105 lobster fishers from twocompanies were interviewed through surveys. The results show that 53.3% ofthem have more than 20 years dedicated to fishing lobsters, confirming the labourstability of the fishers.Education in Cuba is free and mandatory up to grade nine, unlike otherdeveloping countries in Latin America, which makes the level of education of fishersabove basic compared with countries in the same region. For instance, the captainand the engine operator of the boats must have qualifications at the technical level.Cultural and sport activities are frequently organized in the fishery communities.

164Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFishery communities have a variety of services including running water, sewagesystems, free medical services, primary and secondary schools, shopping centres,community social centres and postal offices. In these communities, fishers areconsidered well paid and, in general, they have comfortable houses. A retirementfee is paid to fishers when they attain 60 years of age for men and 55 years forwomen. The amount of this fee is estimated from the number of years worked andthe income from the last ten years. In order to benefit the worker even more, thebest five years are taken into account.Currently, a share system is in place among fishers. Fishers receive an amountof money according to their catch (by kilogram of lobster or shrimp landed). Theyreceive payment according to the quality of the product. From the amount earnedin each trip, fishers subtract operating costs (ice, fuel, food), and 5% which is usedfor social security. They receive the remainder in two instalments, 80% in Cubanpesos and 20% in United States dollars. The amount of money they earn improvestheir personal incomes significantly.Fishers are affiliated with a union which advocates for the protection andfulfilment of their rights and defends their interests before the managers ofthe enterprise. In addition, if fishers need financial assistance to cover variousexpenses (e.g. boat or engine repairs) during the closed season, they have openaccess to credit, which can be paid back when they earn more money (e.g. duringthe periods of higher abundance).Generally, fishers are invited to participate in the meetings of the FisheryAdvisory Committee, which is the main board of the Ministry of the FishingIndustry, to present, discuss and approve the principal guidelines of fisheryregulations and management before they are adopted. Participants include theprincipal officers of the Ministry of the Fishing Industry, fisheries scientists andrepresentatives of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, HavanaUniversity, tourism, and from other related organizations within the fishingindustry. Aside from the regulations revised in this committee, allocations ofterritorial rights are granted to the lobster and shrimp fisheries. Each enterprisehas its own territory previously defined and they define access to newcomers;generally, the presence of other vessels is not allowed.In the last few years, there has been an increasing effort to promote conservationof fish stocks and their habitats, as well as the implementation of marine protectedareas (MPAs). There is a plan to include 20–25% of the Cuban shelf in marineprotected areas in the near future.4. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES4.1 Lobster fisheryHistorically, assessments of the spiny lobster resource in Cuba have been basedon several types of analysis, including prediction of future catch based on patternsof juvenile settlement (Cruz et al., 1995b); yield-per-recruit analysis (Puga et al.,1995); virtual population analysis (VPA) (Puga et al., 1996, 2005, 2006); surplus

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 165production models (de León et al., 1991; Puga et al., 2003); and Delury depletionmodel (González-Yáñez et al., 2006).In Cuban waters, reproduction occurs all year with the largest number ofbreeding females between March and May and a secondary peak in September.The smallest length of a captured breeding female was 67 mm CL (carapace length)(Cruz and de León, 1991), and the estimated lengths at maturation at 50% and100% were 81 mm and 97 mm CL, respectively.Puga et al. (1999) used a Thompson and Bell analysis based on informationfrom the fishery between 1992 and 1998 in the south zone of Cuba. To introducerisk analysis while testing alternative management options, a stochastic variant ofthe model was used taking into account the uncertainty of some of the biologicalparameters. In addition to this analysis, Puga et al. (2003) adjusted the biomassdynamic model to the catch per unit effort series from 1991 to 2001 with a catchseries from 1928 to 2001, taking into consideration observation errors in catchand fishing effort, and the structural error in the method of calculation of thecatchability coefficient. The goal of this is to assess the status of the resource inrelation to some bio-economic reference points.By comparing lobster catches from the 1980s to current trends, a reduction of42% of landings has been observed at the national level (Puga et al., 2006). Theresults of all assessments undertaken in Cuban waters suggest that the lobsterfishery is fully exploited. The last stock assessment indicates a potential catcharound 8 000 tonnes (Puga, 2005). Recruitment patterns show a declining trendsince the 1980s and currently reductions of 37% in the south and 49% in the northhave been reported (Puga et al., 2006). Taking into account this situation and theaccumulative effect in habitat damage, the current potential catch is likely to bearound 6 000 tonnes.4.2 Finfish fisheryFrom all species captured by the finfish fishery in Cuban waters, one of the mostimportant is the lane snapper, especially in the Gulf of Batabanó. Cruz (1978),using a surplus production model, estimated the MSY for 1978 at 3 300 tonnes.The author has raised concern about certain levels of overexploitation since 1975and suggested an increase in the minimum legal size to 17 cm. Carrillo (1979)reported lower levels of biomass for the MSY (2 310 tonnes for the entire Gulf ofBatabanó, and a MSY of 1 920 for the eastern part). Obregón et al. (1990), using aproduction model with mortalities, estimated the MSY for lane snapper between220 and 251 tonnes for the northeastern platform. Valle (2003), using a dynamicproduction model (Praguer, 1994, 2000), incorporated uncertainty and estimatedthe MSY at 128 tonnes, concluding that this stock is overexploited and suggestingsome alternative strategies for biomass recuperation. Baisre (1985b) suggestedgrowth overfishing combined with recruitment overfishing for this fishery, due tothe use of very productive and no non-selective fishing methods (tranque). Afterthis period, some management measures were put in place: reproductive closurefrom April to June, minimum legal size of 18 cm and catch quotas. After 15 years,

166Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeansome signs of recovery were assumed; however, new assessments performed byValle (1997, 2001, 2003), using different approaches (Csirke and Caddy, 1983;Caddy and Defeo, 1996) and considering uncertainty in the parameters, concludedthat the stock was overexploited (MSY = 1 009 tonnes ±183 tonnes).Pedroso et al. (1986) assessed the lane snapper in the northwest platformof Cuba using Beverton and Holt models. They determined a recruitment of2.7 million individuals and a potential annual catch of 268 tonnes; similar resultswere obtained ten years later through VPA by Valle (1996). By using a VPAanalysis and Dynamic Production Model (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Darbyand Flatman, 1994), Valle estimated a potential catch of 268 tonnes. Some otherassessments have been performed in other species such as yellowtail snapperand grey snapper using mainly surplus production models and VPA. For theseassessments, uncertainty was not considered.5. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGThe commercial fishing industry of Cuba is an important source of fishery productsoriginating from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region. The Ministry of theFishing Industry (MIP) is the agency in charge of directing and implementing thepolicies of the State and Government concerning research and the conservation,extraction, processing and marketing of fish resources.Aiming to improve economic efficiency and sustainable use of fisheryresources, a change in management focus has been in place. Probably the mostsignificant change in the MIP includes the decentralization of the day-to-dayoperations of the harvesting sector. The MIP was in charge of the legal andregulatory activities (i.e. administrative functions, enforcement, stock assessment,etc.), while the production enterprises were delegated to control most day-to-dayproductive activities and services. To facilitate the introduction of policy changesaimed at decentralization, a new overall organization structure was created withinthe MIP. The central idea of the new MIP structure is to incorporate modernentrepreneurial and management techniques via more horizontal and flexiblestructures called ‘associations’ (at present, these associations receive the nameof Industrial Fisheries Enterprises). These associations were created to bringdecision-making and responsibility closer to the point of production therebyincreasing the efficiency of the economic activities (i.e. fleet operations) related tofisheries harvests (Adams et al., 2000).The new MIP structure consists of numerous divisions, fisheries-relatedassociations, the National Fishery Inspection Office (ONIP), and the FisheriesResearch Centre (CIP). All of these units are subordinated to the minister. Theassociations consist of 15 provincial fishing associations (PFAs) and six otherassociations which have specific logistical responsibilities.A PFA is located within each province, including the Isla de la Juventud.These PFAs are responsible for producing shellfish and finfish landings incompliance with the species-specific harvest plans. These plans are developed bythe associations themselves, then consulted with and approved by the Executive

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 167Board of the MIP. The PFAs have independent control over productive resources(i.e. vessels, fuel, supplies, ice, labour, etc.). The PFAs also have control over thenumber of vessels in operation, as well as ensuring the enforcement of a variety ofregulations, including animal size restrictions, gear restrictions and closed seasons.The other six associations provide the necessary resources and logistical supportfor the PFAs. They also assist in feasibility studies of proposed projects with theoverall purpose of broadening fisheries market potential, finding new businessopportunities, and further development of other activities of common interest(Adams et al., 2000).The principal rules for fishery management are included in the Decree-LawNo. 164 ‘Fishery Rules’, approved by the Government of the Republic of Cubaon 26 May 1996.Some of the more important aspects of this law are: The establishment of a System of Fishery Authorizations, through whicheach vessel must hold a licence, which is granted by year. The control and supervision of all fishery regulations is performed by aNational Office of Fishery Inspection, which has 200 inspectors in chargeof enforcement of the regulations. Also, a system of penalty and sanctionsexists for those who do not comply with the law. The Commission of Fishery Consultation is the council for advice andconsultation that establishes regulations. In this council, commercial andrecreational fishers, state enterprises, universities, the Ministry of Science,Technology and the Environment, and other interested organizations(tourism, mining, transport, etc.) are represented. The Centre for Fisheries Research proposes measures of fishery regulations;these measures are analysed in the Commission of Fishery Consultationand finally approved by the Minister of Fishing Industry. The Director ofFisheries Regulations is in charge of the implementation of the resolutionsand the management measures, and the Office of Fishery Inspection isresponsible for control and enforcement of the regulations. Regulationsregarding each particular fishery are summarized in Table 2.5.1 Lobster fishery managementOne of the most important characteristics in fishery management of lobster isthe allocation of territorial rights for fishing to the different fishery enterprises.Such grants at enterprise level are shared between the boats operating on eachenterprise. Due to the fact that the artificial shelter (pesquero) is a fixed gear,which can remain at the bottom for long periods, they are exposed to being fishedby other people and not necessarily by who did the investment, construction,movement and placing of the shelters in the most convenient places. With thissystem, fishers have their own territory and, in some ways, they ‘cultivate it’; thesense of property helps them to invest on their grounds, repair their gears, takecare of the bottom, and obtain benefits which tie them to their territory. Specialmanagement regulations for these species are in place and reported in Table 2.

168Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean5.2 Finfish fishery managementIt is obvious that the only way to avoid the collapse of a fishery or economicallosses is through the regulation of fishing effort. In the finfish fishery in Cuba, theprincipal fishing regulations are based on the establishment of legal size limits fordifferent species of fish, and regulations of the size of the meshes in gillnets, trapsand in the cod-end in trawling nets (Table 2).TABLE 2Summarized information regarding regulations applied to the main fisheries in CubaRegulation Lobster FinfishClosuresReproductive closure of 120 days Seasonal closure during reproductivebetween February and June seasonLegal size limitsMinimum legal size of 76 cmcephalothorax lengthLegal size limits for different species;maximum sizes in length or weight forspecies suspected of having ‘ciguatera’poisoningTerritorial rights Territorial division by enterprises -Landing regulations Prohibition of land reproductive -femalesOthers Prohibition to fish in nursery areas The use of fixed nets known as tranquesis banned in the Cuban platform;eventual elimination of all the trawlersin Cuban waters; regulations of the sizeof the meshes in gillnets, traps and inthe cod-end in trawling netsAt present, the status of the principal commercial species of fish in the Cubanplatform is critical, showing symptoms of overexploitation. This is primarilydue to massive fishing gears, such as fixed nets (tranques), being deployed acrossthe path of spawning fish. The other fishing gear that has contributed to theoverexploitation of different commercial species is the trawling net, which is anon-selective gear capturing a great number of juveniles.Recently, the direction of the Ministry of the Fishing Industry, in order toprotect finfish species and achieve the recovery of the stocks, signed two newregulations. The first one is to ban the use of the system of fixed nets knownas tranques in the Cuban platform to protect the migration of the spawningaggregations. The second regulation is the gradual elimination, in a period offour years, of all the trawlers in Cuban waters. It is expected that these astringentmeasures can contribute to the recovery of the depleted fish populations in theCuban shelf.6. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONCommercial statistics collection has always been an important task undertaken inorder to be able to provide information to make management decisions. For thecollection of primary information, there is a group of professionals and specialistsin each fishery enterprise comprising a ‘Capture Board’ who, methodologicallyassessed by the Centre of Fishery Research, are in charge of the survey trips

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 169and collaborate in the collection of commercial fishery data. This informationis periodically sent to the Centre of Fishery Research for their analysis and isintroduced in the database of the fisheries to perform assessments.6.1 Lobster fishery researchResearch regarding this fishery covers a wide variety of disciplines given the factthat the economy of the country relies a great deal on the income derived fromit. Research includes studies from the biological point of view (i.e. larvae, juvenilerecruitment and population dynamics) to the socio-economic and technologicalanalyses. Recently, studies regarding oceanographic factors that can impactbiomass and catch trends of lobster populations have begun to take place (Puga,personal communication, September 2006).The life history of lobster in Cuban waters has been described by differentauthors (Baisre, 1964, 1978; Buesa, 1965; Cruz et al., 1986, 1995a; Lalana, 1989;Alfonso et al., 1991; Brito and Suárez, 1994). Research in Cuba has covered almostall stages of the life cycle of the spiny lobster (Figure 7).FIGURE 7Life history of the spiny lobster6.2 Finfish fishery researchClaro (1981, 1982, 1983a,b,c) and García-Cagide (1985, 1986a,b, 1987, 1988) foundthat size-dependent pattern of sex ratios in snappers, jacks and grunts suggestthat females are more abundant in almost all length classes and reach a larger sizethan males. Female dominance in the population might be explained by a greatersurvivorship, but also by differences in habitat preferences of both sexes, such asin the grey snapper.Patterns of sexual cell development (gametogenesis), particularly oogenesis,have been detailed in many Cuban marine species. Numerous papers containinformation on this important aspect of tropical marine fish reproduction(Álvarez-Lajonchere, 1979, 1980; García, 1979; García and Bustamante, 1981;

170Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanClaro, 1982; García-Cagide and Claro, 1983; García-Cagide, 1985, 1986a,b, 1987,1988; García-Cagide and Espinosa, 1991; Ros and Pérez, 1998).Sierra et al. (2001) summarized the existing information on feeding habits offishes in the Upper Caribbean and particularly in Cuba. The existing informationon feeding should not be considered definitive. Some data from Cuba show greatintraspecific differences among different regions. Large changes might also occurthrough time relative to environmental conditions.Most of the available data on age and growth to adult stages of Caribbean fishare based on predictable annual marks. Research in Cuba on adult life stages hasemphasized the use of rings deposited on bones (particularly the urohyal), scalesand otoliths (Olaechea and Quintana, 1970; Pozo, 1979; Claro, 1983a; Claro et al.,1989; García-Arteaga and Reshetnikov, 1992). Claro and García-Arteaga (2001)did a revision of the growth patterns of fish of the Cuban shelf.7. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESFish resources of the continental shelf of Cuba are limited; the potential biomassavailable is around 60 000 tonnes. Analysis of catch trends of several resourcesshow a historical loss of 20 000 tonnes caused by a combined effect of overfishingand changes in the marine ecosystem (Baisre, 2000). Even if some improvementsin fisheries policies could help to improve the current conditions, changes in theecosystem appear to be irreversible; hence, the fisheries in Cuban waters cannotsupport an increase in fishing pressure.In Cuba, it is expected that one way to improve conditions in aquatic productionto increase economic development is through: (a) improvement of infrastructure andtechnology for sustainable use of the resources; (b) aquaculture development; and(c) improve training programmes to increase the skills of those participating in theactivity at different levels (extraction, processing, etc.). All of this should go coupledwith strategies to protect the environment from which the resources depend.REFERENCESAdams C., Sánchez P. & García A. 2000. An overview of the Cuban CommercialFishing Industry and Recent Changes in Management Structure and Objectives.IIFET Proceedings.Alfonso I., Frías M.P., Baisre J. & Campos A. 1991. Distribución y abundancia delarvas de la langosta Panulirus argus en aguas alrededor de Cuba. Rev. Inv. Mar.,12 (1–3): 5–19.Álvarez-Lajonchere L. 1979. Algunos aspectos sobre la reproducción de Mugil liza(Pisces: Mugilidae) en Tunas de Zaza, Cuba. Rev. Cub. Inv. Pesq., 4(2): 25–61.Álvarez-Lajonchere L. 1980. Algunos datos adicionales y las relaciones largo-peso deMugil curema (Pisces: Mugilidae) en Cuba. Rev. Cub. Inv. Mar., 1(1): 75–91.Baisre J.A. 1964. Sobre los estadios larvales de la langosta común Panulirus argus.Contrib., 19. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras.Baisre J.A. 1978. Movimientos y migraciones de la langosta. Mar y Pesca., 158:36–40.

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 171Baisre J.A. 1981. Comportamiento de las Pesquerías Nacionales. Cent. Invest. Pesq.Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera, La Habana.Baisre J.A. 1985a. Los complejos ecológicos de pesca: Definición e importancia en laadministración de las pesquerías cubanas. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 327 (Supl.):252–272.Baisre J.A. 1985b. Los recursos pesqueros marinos de Cuba: Fundamentos ecológicosy estrategias para su utilización. Tesis doctoral en Ciencias Biológicas.Baisre J.A. 1993. Marine Fishery Resources of the Antilles. Part IV, Cuba. FAOFisheries Technical Paper, No. 326: 182–235.Baisre J.A. 2000. Crónica de la pesca marítima en Cuba (1935–1995). Análisis detendencias y del potencial pesquero. FAO: Documento Técnico de Pesca, No. 394.Roma, FAO.Baisre J.A. 2006. Assessment of nitrogen flows into the Cuban landscape.Biogeochemistry, 79: 91–108.Baisre J.A. & Arboleya Z. 2006. Going against the flow: Effects of river damming inCuban fisheries. Fish. Res., 81: 283–292.Baisre J.A. & Páez J. 1981. Los recursos pesqueros del archipiélago cubano. EstudiosWECAF 8.Brito M. & Suárez A.M. 1994. Algas asociadas a Laurencia implicata (Ceramiales,Rhodophyta) en la cayería de Bocas de Alonso, Cuba. Rev. Inv. Mar., 15 (2):93–98.Buesa J.R. 1965. Biología de la langosta Panulirus argus Latreille (Crustacea, Decápoda,Reptantia) en Cuba. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca.Caddy J.F. & Defeo O. 1996. Fitting the exponential and logistic surplus yield modelswith mortality data: some explorations and new perspectives. Fish. Res., 25: 39–62.Carrillo C. 1979. Estado de la pesquería de la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris) en laplataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Cuba. Rev. Cub. Inv. Pesq., 4(4): 1–42.Claro R. 1981. Ecología y ciclo de vida del pargo criollo, Lutjanus analis (Cuvier), enla plataforma cubana. Inf. Cienc. Téc., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 186: 1–83.Claro R. 1982. Ecología y ciclo de vida de la biajaiba, Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus),en la plataforma cubana. IV. Reproducción. Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol. Acad. Cienc.Cuba, 5: 1–37.Claro R. 1983a. Ecología y ciclo de vida del caballerote, Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus) enla plataforma cubana. I. Identidad, distribución y hábitat, nutrición y reproducción.Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 7: 1–30.Claro R. 1983b. Ecología y ciclo de vida de la rabirrubia, Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch),en la plataforma cubana. I. Identidad, distribución, hábitat, reproducción yalimentación. Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 15: 1–34.Claro R. 1983c. Ecología y ciclo de vida de la rabirrubia, Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch),en la plataforma cubana. II. Edad y crecimiento, estructura de poblaciones ypesquerías. Rep. Invest. Inst .Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 19: 1–33.Claro R. & García-Arteaga J.O. 2001. Growth patterns of fishes of the Cuban shelf.In Ecology of the marine fishes of Cuba. Edited by R. Claro., K.C. Lindeman andL.R. Parenti. Smithsonian Institution Press., Washington and London. pp. 149–78.

172Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanClaro R., García-Cagide A. & Fernándes de Alaiza R. 1989. Características biológicasdel pez perro, Lachnolaimus maximus (Walbaum), en el Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba.Rev. Invest. Mar., 10(3): 239–252.Claro R. & Parenti L.R. 2001. The marine ichthyofauna of Cuba. In Ecology ofthe marine fishes of Cuba. Edited by R. Claro., K.C. Lindeman and L.R. Parenti.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. pp. 21–57.Copemed. 2004. Inventory of the artisanal fishery communities in the Western andCentral Mediterranean. Informes y Estudios Copemed No. 4., Preliminary Release,Version 1.0. FAO-Copemed.Cruz R. 1978. Algunas consideraciones sobre las pesquerías de biajaiba (Lutjanussynagris Linné 1758) en la plataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Cuba. Rev. Cub. Inv.Pesq., 3(3): 51–82.Cruz R., Brito R., Días E. & Lalana R. 1986. Ecología de la langosta (Panulirus argus)al SE de la Isla de la Juventud. I. Colonización de arrecifes artificiales. Rev. Inv.Mar., 7(3): 3–17.Cruz R. & de León M.E. 1991. Dinámica reproductiva de la langosta (Panulirus argus)en el archipiélago cubano. Rev. Cub. Invest. Mar., 12 (1–3): 234–245.Cruz R., González J., de León M.E. & Puga R. 1995a: La pesquería de la langostaespinosa (Panulirus argus) en el Gran Caribe. Evaluación y pronóstico. Cuba. Rev.Cub. Inv. Pesq., 19(2): 63–76.Cruz R., Puga R. & de León M.E. 1995b. Prediction of commercial catches of thespiny lobster Panulirus argus in the Gulf of Batabanó, Cuba. Crustaceana, 68(2):238–244.Csirke J. & Caddy J.F. 1983. Production modelling using mortality estimates. Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci., 40: 43–51.Darby C.D. & Flatman S. 1994. Virtual Population Analysis: Version 3.1. User´sGuide. Inform. Technol. Series No. 1. MAFF Fisheries Lab., Lowestoft.De León M.E., Puga R. & Cruz R. 1991. Panorama de la pesquería de langosta enCuba durante, 1989. Rev. Cub. Inv. Pesq., 16(3–4): 21–29.FAO. 2008. Perfiles de Pesca y acuacultura por país. Cuba.http://firms.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?xml=FI-CP_CU.xml&dom=countrysector&xp_nav=1&xp_lang=es. Consultado Febrero 2008.García A. & Bustamante G. 1981. Resultados preliminares del desove inducido de lisa(Mugil curema Valenciennes) en Cuba. Inf. Cienc-Téc, Rep. Invest. Inst.Oceanol.,Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 158: 17–26.García C., Chirino, A. & Rodríguez, J.P. 1991. Corrientes geostróficas en la ZEE alsur de Cuba. In Memorias del Taller Internacional sobre ecología y pesquerías delangostas. La Habana, 12–16 de junio de 1990. ----, Universidade de Habana, Vol.12, No. 1–3, pp. 29–38.García T. 1979. Study of the family Sciaenidae (Pisces) in Cuban waters [In Romanian].Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bucarest, Romania.García-Arteaga J.P. & Reshetnikov Y.S. 1992. Edad y crecimiento del cibí carbonero,Caranx rubber (Bloch) en las costas de Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst .Oceanol., Acad.Cienc. Cuba, 1: 1–21.

Coastal fisheries of Cuba 173García-Cagide A. 1985. Características de la reproducción del civil, Caranx ruber, enla plataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst .Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba34: 1–36.García-Cagide A. 1986a. Características de la reproducción del jallao, Haemulonalbum, en la plataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst .Oceanol., Acad.Cienc. Cuba, 47: 1–33.García-Cagide A. 1986b. Características de la reproducción del ronco amarillo,Haemulon sciurus, en la región oriental del Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba. Rep. Invest.Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 48: 1–28.García-Cagide A. 1987. Características de la reproducción del ronco arará, Haemulonplumieri (Lacépede) en la región oriental del Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba. Rev. Invest.Mar., Ser., 8. 3: 39–55.García-Cagide A. 1988. Particularidades de la reproducción de la sardina de ley,Harengula humeralis (Cuvier, 1829), en el región oriental del Golfo de Batabanó,Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 12: 1–15.García-Cagide A. & Claro R. 1983. Datos sobre la reproducción de algunos pecescomerciales del Golfo de Batabanó. Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba,12: 1–20.García-Cagide A. & Espinosa L. 1991. Algunas características histológicas de lacherna criolla, Epinephelus striatus (Bloch) (Pisces: Serranidae). Cienc. Biol., 24:134–138.González-Yáñez A.A., Puga R., de León M.E., Cruz L. & Wolf M. 2006. ModifiedDelury depletion model applied to spiny lobster, Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804)stock, in the southwest of the Cuban shelf. Fish. Res., 79: 155–161.Hilborn R. & Walters C.J. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment. Choice,Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall.Johnson J. 2000. Key features of small-scale/artisanal fisheries. UN Atlas of theOceans.Lalana R. 1989. Zoobentos de dos lagunas costeras en la región de Tunas de Zaza,Cuba. Rev. Invest. Mar., 10(3): 223–232.Obregón M.H., Pozo E. & Valle S. 1990. Las pesquerías de biajaiba (Lutjanussynagris) en la plataforma nororiental de Cuba. II Congreso Ciencias del Mar, 18–22junio, La Habana.Olaechea A. & Quintana M.M. 1970. Pre-evaluación sobre la determinación de laedad en la biajaiba, Lutjanus synagris (Linné), Cuba. Segunda Reunión de Balancedel Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras (menagr.) 2: 50–61.Pedroso B., Obregón M.H. & Pozo E. 1986. Evaluación de la pesquería de la biajaiba(Lutjanus synagris Linnaeus, 1758) en la plataforma noroccidental de Cuba. V Forodel CIP, Cuba Enero, 1986.Piñeiro R., Puga R. & Gonzáles-Sansón G. 2006. Bases para el manejo integrado delrecurso langosta (Panulirus argus) en la zona costera sur de Pinar del Río. I. Factoresambientales. Rev. Invest. Mar., 27(3): 245–251.Pozo E. 1979. Edad y crecimiento del pargo criollo (Lutjanus analis [Cuvier, 1828] enla plataforma noroccidental de Cuba. Rev.Cub.Inv.Pesq., 4(2): 1–24.

174 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 174Prager M.H. 1994. A suite of extensions to a non-equilibrium surplus-productionmodel. Fish. Bull., 92(2): 372–389.Prager M.H. 2000. User´s Manual for ASPIC: A Stock Production Model IncorporatingCovariates. Programme Version 3.28. Miami Lab. Doc MIA-92/93-55. Fifth Edition.June 2000.Puga R. 2005. Modelación bioeconómica y análisis de riesgo de la pesquería delangosta espinosa Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804) en el Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba.Tesis Doctoral. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, La Paz Mexico.Puga R. & de León M.E. 2003. La pesquería de la langosta en Cuba. Report of theSecond Workshop on the Management of Caribbean Spiny Lobster Fisheries in theWECAF Area. FAO Fisheries Report, 715. pp. 85-91.Puga R., de León M.E. & Cruz R. 1995. Estado de explotación y estructurapoblacional de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus en Cuba. Rev. Cub. Invest.Pesq., 19(2): 41–49.Puga R., de León M.E. & Cruz R. 1996. Catchability of the main fishing methodsin the Cuban fishery of the spiny lobster Panulirus argus Latreille, 1804, andimplications for management, (Decapoda, Palinuridae). Crustaceana, 69(4): 2–16.Puga R., de León M.E., Capetillo N., Piñeiro R. & Morales, O. 2006. Evaluaciónde la pesquería de langosta en Cuba. Informe Nacional de Cuba al Taller Regionalsobre la Evaluación y la Ordenación de la Langosta Común del Caribe (Panulirusargus) del, 19 al 29 de septiembre de 2006. Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.Puga R., Hernández S., López M.J. & de León M.E. 2005. Bio-economic modellingand risk assessment of the Cuban fishery for spiny lobster Panulirus argus. Fish.Res., 75(1–3): 149–163.Puga R., Luis Y. & de León M.E. 1999. Evaluación del riesgo en la toma de decisionespara el manejo de la pesquería de langosta. VI Fórum de Ciencia y TecnologíaPesquera. Taller Regional Langosta, 1999. 22–25 Nov, 1999.Ros R.M. & Pérez C.M. 1998. Contribución al conocimiento de la biología del pezsable, Trichiurus lepturus Linné, 1758. Ciencias, Ser. 8, Invest. Mar., 37: 1–33.Siam, C. 1988. Corrientes superficiales alrededor de Cuba. Revistz Cubana deInvestigaciones Pesqueras, Vol. 13, No. 12. pp. 98–108.Sierra L.M., Claro R. & Popova O.A. 2001. Trophic biology of the marine fishes ofCuba. In Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Cuba. Edited by R. Claro, K.C. Lindeman& L.R. Parenti. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 115–148.Valle S.V. 1996. Crecimiento y evaluación de la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris, Linnaeus,1758) en la región Noroccidental de Cuba. Tesis Ms. Sc. Universidad de La Habana.Valle S.V. 1997. Evaluación de la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris, Linnaeus, 1758), enel Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba, Presentado en: Taller Internacional “Pesca 97”.Evaluación y manejo de recursos Pesqueros, 17–21 Nov., La Habana, 1997.Valle S.V. 2001. El uso de modelos de producción con mortalidades en la evaluaciónde la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris, Linnaeus, 1758) en la porción oriental del Golfo deBatabanó. Pesca, 2001, La Habana 12–16 Nov. 2001.Valle S.V. 2003. Diagnóstico del estado actual del stock de biajaiba (Lutjanus synagrisLinnaeus, 1758) en el Golfo de Batabanó, Región SW de Cuba. VI CongresoCiencias del Mar, ¨MARCUBA¨1–5 Dic, La Habana, 2003.

1758. Coastal fisheries of theDominican RepublicAlejandro Herrera*, Liliana Betancourt, Miguel Silva, Patricia Lamelas andAlba MeloHerrera, A., Betancourt, L., Silva, M., Lamelas, P. and Melo, A. 2011. Coastal fisheries ofthe Dominican Republic. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastalfisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 175–217.1. Introduction 1762. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 1782.1 Description of fisheries 1782.2 Fishing activity 1883. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 1913.1 Fishers’ characteristics 1913.2 Social and economic aspects 1934. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 1944.1 Community organization 1944.2 Fishers’ interactions with other sectors 1955. Assessment of fisheries 1976. Fishery management and planning 1997. Research and education 2017.1. Fishing statistics 2017.2. Biological and ecological fishing research 2027.3 Fishery socio-economic research 2057.4 Fishery environmental education 2068. Issues and challenges 2068.1 Institutionalism 2078.2 Fishery sector plans and policies 2078.3 Diffusion and fishery legislation 2088.4 Fishery statistics 2088.5 Establishment of INDOPESCA 2088.6 Conventions/agreements and organizations/institutions 209References 209* Contact information: Programa EcoMar, Inc. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. E-mail:ongprogramaecomar@yahoo.com

176Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean1. INTRODUCTIONIn the Dominican Republic, fishing has traditionally been considered a marginalactivity that complements other sources of income. This, and the low impact thatfishing has on the gross domestic product (GDP) (approximately 0.5%), are likelycauses for the limited economical and institutional support that the fishing sectorhas received compared with other sectors, such as agriculture or hydro resources.Despite this, Dominican Republic fishing activity has a long history, and hasdeveloped rapidly during the last two decades. The number of fishing boats,fishers and catches has grown since the beginning of the 1980s (FAO, 2001). Thefleet, which is comprised of more than 3 361 boats (98% of them artisanal), 8 399fishers and an average annual production of 11 000 tonnes, generates significantpressure on the traditional coastal and marine fishing resources (SERCM, 2004).Nevertheless, the national demand is still not fulfilled, leaving little opportunityfor export (which is estimated at 900 tonnes), which results in an annual import ofseafood products averaging 34 000 tonnes (Figure 1).FIGURE 1Fishing production, and import and export of seafood products,of the Dominican Republic from 1960 to 2005Source: Subministry of Marine and Coastal Resources.Fishing activities in the Dominican Republic include more than 300 species offishes, crustaceans, molluscs and echinoderms. These species are captured along1 575 km of coastline, 8 000 km 2 of platform (between 0 and 200 m of depth), and4 500 km 2 of oceanic banks and the adjacent oceanic environment, though theexclusive economic zone (EEZ) encompasses 238 000 km 2 (Figure 2).

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 177Fishing is carried out with more than 20 different fishing gear types and methods(Colom et al., 1994), and catches are landed at more than 200 sites distributedamong the 16 coastal provinces (SERCM, 2004; Table 1). Specialists are amazedby the growing dynamic nature of the fishing sector in the Dominican Republic,which has been developed solely through artisanal fishers’ technologies andknowledge, with informal finances and resources and little external intervention(FAO, 2001).FIGURE 2The Hispaniola map shows the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic,the 16 coastal provinces, the 200 m iso-bathymetric line,the oceanic banks and the EEZNote: The letters indicate: MO (Montecristi), PP (Puerto Plata), E (Espaillat), MT (María TrinidadSánchez), S (Samaná), ES (El Seibo), HM (Hato Mayor), LA (La Altagracia), LR (La Romana),SP (San Pedro de Macorís), SD (Santo Domingo), SC (San Cristóbal), PV (Peravia), AZ (Azua),BH (Barahona), and PD (Pedernales).

178Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIESAlthough it is not yet acknowledged, it is difficult to provide an exact definitionof the fishing types in the Dominican Republic due to two key aspects of thefishing activity. First, the partially controlled fishery and open access to the fishinggrounds allows for any available resource to be caught at any moment and inany accessible area of the coast, insular platform or surrounding oceanic region.Second, the Dominican Republic artisanal fishery does not target exclusively oneresource. Whatever is caught is considered potentially useful for consumption orcommercialization.For the purpose of this report we based the definition of fishing types onColom et al. (1994) and CFRM (2004), and have included some types which havenot been previously reported. We took a general approach, based on: (a) typeof resources and their fishing productivity; (b) fishing areas; (c) fishing gearexclusivity; (d) depth intervals; and (e) relevance of the resource to the nationalfishing regulations (Table 1).2.1 Description of fisheriesSpiny lobster fisheryThe spiny lobster fishery is the most valued in the Dominican Republic (SERCM,2004). The key species is the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). However,this fishery includes other species such as: the spotted spiny lobster (Panulirusguttatus; langosta pinta), the green lobster (Panulirus laevicauda; langosta verde),the copper lobster (Palinurellus gundlachi; langostín), the slipper lobster (Parribacusantarticus), and the Spanish lobster (Scyllarides aequinoctialis) (Silva, 1994).Colom et al. (1994) indicates that spiny lobster is caught with traps in the JaraguaNational Park, in the Pedernales Province. Historically, the spiny lobster coastalfishery has been associated with the Sud-Occidental platform (marine protected areaof the Jaragua National Park), where lobsters are especially abundant. The frequentreports of puerulus stage larvae on the trap ropes and in the shallow larvae groundsin coastal protected areas could indicate important local post-larvae recruitment.In fact, we have observed juvenile lobsters in all the stages (algal, transitional andpost-algal) in the area. A shallow marine grass and algae platform of 90 km 2 offersideal conditions for a nursery area, while 25 km 2 of rocky bottom and coral reefsprovide the appropriate environment for migrating juveniles and resident adultswhich require sites for reproduction (Herrera and Colom, 1995).Despite Pedernales’ importance as a lobster fishing area, it is questionable toplace such a high value on an extractive practice where sublegal juveniles compose90% of the catches from this area (Herrera and Betancourt, 2003b). Pedernales isnot the only fishing site; spiny lobster is subject to strong fishing pressure along thewhole Dominican Republic platform up to a depth of 30 m. This is documentedwith ecological and fishing data in Barahona (Schirm, 1995, 1995a), Azua (Meloand Herrera, 2002), La Altagracia (Chiappone, 2001) and Samaná (Herrera andBetancourt, 2003a). Lobster is also captured on the oceanic banks, where the fisheryis associated with the reef environment; however, there are no studies on this matter.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 179TABLE 1Main fishing types in the Dominican Republic. Fishing gears: At (Atarraya; casting net); Ba (Raft); Bu (Diving); Chah (Chinchorro de ahorque; gillnet);Char (Chinchorro de arrastre; trawl); Cd (Line); LC (Squid line); Ml (Manual); Nb (Nasa del bajo; shallow trap); Nc (Nasa chillera; depth trap); PA (Longline);Ja Jamos; bully nets); Main fishing zones Provinces of the Coasts (PC): AZ (Azua); BH (Barahona); BN (Banco de la Navidad – Christmas Bank); BP (Banco dela Plata – Silver Bank); LA (La Altagracia); MC (Montecristi); PE (Pedernales); PP (Puerto Plata); SA (Samaná); TP (Coastal provinces platform).NameKey species(local name/scientific/common)Lobster fishery Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus(langosta)Shrimp fishery White shrimp Litopenaeus schmitti (camarónblanco), pink shrimp F. duorarum (camarónrosado), Atlantic seabob Xiphopenaeuskroyeri (camarón siete barbas)Queen conchfisheryAssociatedhabitatCoastal/coralreef/oceanbanksQueen conch Strombus gigas (lambí) Coastal/oceanbanksReef fishery Many fish species (Lutjanidae, Haemulidae,Acanthuridae, Balistidae, Holocentridae,Serranidae, Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae,Scaridae, Sparidae, Labridae), crustacean(Majidae y Xanthidae) and molluscs(Cassidae, Trochidae, Ranellidae,Fasciolaridae, Strombidae and Octopodidae)Depth(m)Distance(nm)GearType offishery0–30 ≤5.3 Nb, Bu Small-scaleartisanal/SubsistenceDemersal/bay - 4-15 Char, At Small-scaleartisanal/SubsistenceCoastal/oceanbanks0–30 ≤5.3 Bu Small-scaleartisanal/Subsistence0–30 ≤5.3 Nb, BuChah,CdSmal- scaleartisanalMain fishingzonesPE, LA, MC,AZ, TPKey referencesHerrera andBetancourt, 2003b,2003cSA, MC Núñez and García,1983; Sang et al.,1997PE, LA, MC, TP Tejeda, 1995PE, MC, LA, SA,PP, AZ, TPSchirm, 1995, 1995a;Sang et al., 1997;Chiappone, 2001Deep-sea fisheryin the platformborderOcean banksfishery*Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus (chillo),blackfin snapper L. bucanella (chillo orejanegra), queen snapper Etelis oculatus(boral), cardinal snapper Pristipomoidesmacrophtamus, (roamo), vermilion snapperRhomboplites aurorubens (besugo), mistyyellowedge grouper Epinephelus mystacinus,misty grouper E. flavolimbatus (meros)Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus (chillo),blackfin snapper L. bucanella (chillo orejanegra), queen snapper Etelis oculatus(boral), cardinal snapper Pristipomoidesmacrophtalmus (roamo), misty yellowedgegrouper Epinephelus mystacinus (mero)Coastal 100–500 ≥5.3 Pa, Nc,CdSmal- scaleartisanalOcean banks 300–600 90 Pa SemiindustrialBH, SA, PE, TP Sang et al., 1997;Arima, 1997, 1998-1998b, 1999-1999b.BN, BP Kawaguchi, 1974;Arima, 1997, 1998-1998b, 1999-1999b.

180Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 1 (CONTINUED)NameKey species(local name/scientific/common)AssociatedhabitatDepth(m)Distance(nm)GearType offisheryMain fishingzonesKey referencesPelagic fisheryor FAD** fisheryTunas, bonitos and albacores: Thunnusalbacares (yellowfin tuna), Euthynnusalleteratus (little tunny), Auxis thazard(frigate tuna), Katsuwomis pelamis (skipjacktuna), mackerels Scomberomorus sp.(macarelas), wahoo Acanthocybium solandri(guatapaná), dolphinfish Coryphaenahippurus (dorado) and Atlantic sailfishIstiphorus albicans (aguja)Marlin fishery Blue marlin Makaira nigricans (marlin azul),white marlin Tetrapturus albidus (marlinblanco)Squid fishery Diamond squid Thysanoteuthis rhombus(calamar diamante)Pelagic coastalfisheryCarangidae (jacks), Clupeidae (herrings),Atherinidae (silversides), Hemiramphidae(ballyhoo), Gerridae, Sciaenidae (drums),Centropomidae (snooks), Engraulidae(anchovies), Sphyraenidae (juvenilebarracuda), some juvenile sharks (bull,blackfin, hammerhead, nurse, reef andlemon sharks)Crab fishery Blue land crab Cardisoma guanhumi (palomade cueva), swamp ghost crab Ucides cordatus(zumbá), black crab mountain Gecarcinusruricola (cangejo moro)Ornamentalspecies fisheryMany fish species: (Apogonidae, Balistidae,Chaetodontidae, Diodontidae, Grammidae,Haemulidae, Labridae, Ostracidae,Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Sciaenidae,Syngnatidae, Tetrodontidae) andinvertebratesPelagic − ≥5.3 Co, Ba,CuSmall scaleartisanalS and NE coasts Schirm, 1995bPelagic 40–100 8–32 Co Sport LA Just Us, 2006Pelagic 300–750 3–4 LC Small scalecommercialPelagic/coastal − − At, Co Small scalecommercialMangrove,coastalCoastal, coralreef0 − Ml Small scalecommercial0–30 ≤5.3 Ja MediumscalecommercialSA SERCM, 2000Whole coastline SERCM, 2004SA, PE, LA, MC Ramírez and Silva,1994MC CIBIMA, 1994; SERCM,2004* Does not include the lobster, queen conch and reef fish fishery in the shallow ocean banks region.** FAD: fish aggregating device.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 181The traps used for the lobster fishery in Pedernales catch many bycatch fishspecies, particularly white grunt (Haemulon plumieri; bocayate blanco) andspotted goatfish (Pseudopeneus maculates; salmonete). There are also invertebratebycatch species caught in this fishery. These species are also considered partof the catches (Schirm, 1995, 1995a); however, the small ones and those withno commercial value are discharged. Some invertebrates, such as the starfish(Oreaster reticulates), are used as bait. There is no estimation of the proportion ofdiscarded species. This fishery can be considered as a small-scale artisanal fisheryand as a subsistence fishery. The fishery takes place year-round, except during theclosure from April to July (Decree 316-86).According to the Subsecretaría de Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos(SERCM – Environment and Natural Resources State Subsecretariat, 2004), lobstermarkets can be classified into three types: (a) internal consumption in restaurants,supermarkets, fish shops; (b) tourism; and (c) export. The highest consumptionoccurs in the tourism market, in which all the capture is commercialized andconsumed fresh in the domestic market. The lobster production of the last12 years (1992–2003) has fluctuated from minimum values of 500 tonnes in 1996up to a maximum of 2 651 tonnes in 2002, with a drastic drop in 2003. This dropis attributed to loss of information in the fishing areas, or to a decrease in thecapture due to extreme meteorological events that occurred along the Dominicancoastline in 2003.Shrimp fisheryColom et al. (1994) recognize the shrimp fishery carried out with gillnets and castingnets in Sánchez, Samaná Province, as a national fishing unit, which was describedby Núñez and García (1983) and complemented by Silva and Aquino (1993) andZorrilla et al. (1995). This fishery started in the early 1960s, when the closure oftrain operations forced the local people to seek out other income sources. Threeshrimp species are landed in Sánchez town (Núñez and García, 1983): the Atlanticseabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), the pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) andthe white shrimp (Litopenaeus schmitti). The white shrimp can be considered thekey species, since it comprises between 86% (Sang et al., 1997) and 95% (Thenet al., 1995) of the total shrimp catch.The west region of Samaná Bay is the most important due to the fishing areaextension, the resource abundance and the number of fishers involved in thefishery. The flow of the Yuna and Barracote Rivers define an estuary regionof 400 km 2 in the west of Samaná Bay. Due to its high productivity, Samanáis considered the most important fishing area of the country, though SERCM(2004) indicates Manzanillo, Montecristi as another important fishing area.The fishing gear used in the shrimp fishery catches great quantities of non-target(or incidental) species, both invertebrate and fish species, which can comprise 54%of the total catch. Sang et al. (1997) showed that this bycatch could include upto 24 fish families and two crustacean families. Atlantic anchoveta (Cetengraulisedentulous), Jamaica weakfish (Cynoscion jamaicensis; gogó), stardrum (Stellifercolonensis; mandarín chino), whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnier; corvina),

182Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanhospe mullet (Mugil hospes; lisa), swordspine snook (Centropomus ensiferus;robalo) and the blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus and C. danae; portúnidos) wereamong the main species of bycatch. This is a small-scale fishery, which is carriedout year-round except during closure, in February and March (Decree 3546-73).The landings ranged between 125 and 200 tonnes between 1963 and 1980(Fisheries Development Limited, 1980), and according to recent data the averagecatch between 1992 and 2003 has been 184 tonnes with important fluctuations(SERCM, 2004). This amount is smaller than the production figures (400 tonnes)resulting from aquaculture in other regions of the country (FAO, 2001).Queen conch fisheryThe queen conch (Strombus gigas) fishery occurs all along the Dominican Republicplatform. This is a highly valued resource that represents between 6% and 16%of the national fisheries value. The queen conch fishery is linked to the platformareas with sea grass and algae, where juveniles and adults are especially abundant.These areas are located in the southeast of La Altagracia (Delgado et al., 1998;Chiappone, 2001), Montecristi (Geraldes et al., 1998) and particularly Pedernales,where most of the landings of the Dominican Republic take place (Appeldoorn,1993; Tejeda, 1995, 1995b; Posada et al., 1999, 2000). Nevertheless, the queenconch is under strong fishing pressure along the whole Dominican Republicplatform up to a depth of 30 m, as well as on the oceanic banks.This is a small-scale fishery that takes place year-round. The fishery’s maincommercial target is the domestic market (fresh or frozen), with a high tourismdemand. Queen conch production in the last 12 years (1992–2003) has fluctuatedbetween a minimum of 1 200 tonnes in 1999 and a maximum of 3 000 tonnesin 1992, with an average of approximately 2 000 tonnes. The export figures in2000 were around 300 tonnes (SERCM, 2004). Because diving is the method ofharvesting, there is no bycatch in this fishery.Coral reef fisheryThe coastal reef fishery takes place on the coral reefs along the entire DominicanRepublic platform, up to 30 m of depth. The main fishing locations are the wideplatform areas with relevant coastal reef ecosystems, including barrier reefs (withthe typical ecological zoning from the reef lagoons to the deepest frontal reef),fringe and patch reefs. Reef fishery studies have been conducted on the platformsof Montecristi (Luczkovich, 1991; Geraldes et al., 1998), Puerto Plata (Betancourtand Herrera, 2004), María Trinidad Sánchez (Decena and Díaz, 1982), Samaná(Sang et al., 1997), La Altagracia (León et al., 1995; Schmitt, 1998; Chiapponeet al., 2000; Chiappone, 2001), Santo Domingo (Geraldes et al., 1997), Azua(Bouchon et al., 1995), Barahona (Aquino and Infante, 1994; Beck and Colom,1994; Beck et al., 1994; Schirm, 1995, 1995a; Tejeda et al., 1995) and Pedernales(Schirm, 1995, 1995a; Reveles et al., 1997). Reef fish and invertebrates are understrong fishing pressure on the whole Dominican Republic platform, as well as inthe shallow areas of the oceanic banks.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 183More than 100 species are caught, and they belong to typical reef species,mainly Lutjanidae and Serranidae; however, the list also includes Haemulidae,Acanthuridae, Balistidae, Holocentridae, Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Sparidae,Scaridae and Labridae. These species are distributed in mangroves and sea grass(juvenile stages), as well as on coral reefs (adult stages).An exploratory trap fishery on the Barahona reef (Aquino and Infante,1994) indicates that there are more than 30 families of fish, with half of thecatch composed by Haemulidae (27%), Scaridae (16%) and Acanthuridae(12%). In Samaná, Sang et al. (1997) report 29 families in the reef fisherycaught with various gear in Sabana de la Mar. The study indicates that half ofthe catch is composed of Lutjanidae (33%), Haemulidae (15%) and Scaridae(8%). Among the most frequently reported species caught in the reef fisheryare: mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis; sama), grey snapper (L. griseus; pargoprieto), lane snapper (L. ynagris; bermejuelo), yellowtail snapper (Ocyuruschrysurus; colirrubia), graysby (Cephalopholis cruentata; arigua), Nassau grouper(Epinephelus striatus), many species of parrotfish (Sparisoma aurofrenatum andScarus taeniopterus), Haemulon aerolineatum, H. flavolineatum and H. plumieri(grunts) and Acanthurus bahianus.This fishery also catches crabs (Majidae and Xanthidae), such as the coralcrab (Carpilius corallinus; dormilona), Mitrax spinosissimus (centolla) and thespider crab (Stenocionops furcata; cangrejo araña), as well as molluscs (Cassidae,Trochidae, Ranellidae, Fasciolaridae, Strombidae and Octopodidade), cameohelmet (Cassis madagascariensis; lambí), West Indian Top Shell (Cittarium pica;burgao), Atlantic trumpet triton (Charonia variegate; tritón), common tulip snail(Fasciolaria tulipa; tulipán), Strombus costatus and Stromus pugilis (lambíes), andthe Caribbean reef octopus (Octopus briareus; pulpos) and common octopus(Octopus vulgaris; pulpos).This is a coastal artisanal, small-scale fishery mainly directed to the localmarket, with a high tourism demand. The fishery is characterized by the variousfishing gear utilized, which relates to the species diversity: traps, gillnet, diving(including diving with compressor), and a variety of fishing lines. Traps can catchnon-targeted species, and only the small species or those invertebrates which haveno commercial or fishing value are discarded. There are no reports on the amountof discarded fish. The gillnet causes accidental death of many non-targeted species,including some pelagic species, which do not belong to the reef fishery. There is noestimation of bycatch numbers. This fishery takes place year-round.Reef resources are under high fishing pressure; however, there are no productionestimations of the reef fishery as a whole. For example, as we indicate later in thischapter, SERCM (2004) reports all Lutjanidae species together, without specifyingwhether the species had been caught in the reef fishery with trap or in the deepsea fishery at 500 m with longline. Linton et al. (2002) recognize that the artisanalfishery represents one of the most important challenges for the recovery of theDominican Republic reefs, which are now lacking most of the relevant commercialspecies. Our numerous diving experiences in the reefs indicate almost complete

184Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanabsence of the fish in the Puerto Plata, Santo Domingo and Punta Cana reefs. Thisimpact is increased by the overexploitation of fish and invertebrate species for theartisanal market that is induced by tourism.Deep-sea fishery in the platform borderIn some areas of the Dominican Republic platform, a deep-sea fishery is undertakenbeneath the slope, at 100 to 500 m of depth. The most important areas aredocumented by exploratory fisheries, and they coincide with the areas where theplatform narrows and 100-m depth can be reached a short distance from the coastby an artisanal boat. Examples of these areas are the Bahía de Neiba in Barahona(Aquino, 1994; Colom, 1994; Colom and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Infante, 1995;Tejeda and Feliz, 1995), around Isla Beata and Alto Velo, in Pedernales (Schirm,1995b), and the north and east coast of the Península de Samaná (Sang et al., 1997;Arima, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c).The fishery is directed for Lutjanidae and Serranidae, in particular to sevenspecies that could account for 80% of the catch. Such species are (listed accordingto their importance): cardinal snapper (Pristipomoides macrophtalmus; roamo),silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus; chillo), blackfin snapper (L. bucanella; chillooreja negra), vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens; besugo), queensnapper (Etelis oculatus; boral), and the misty yellowedge grouper (Epinephelusmystacinus; meros) and yellowedge grouper (E. flavolimbatus; meros). Everyexploratory deep-sea fishery and catch analysis shows that these are the dominantspecies by weight in the catch; however, the percentages of the species may varyaccording to the location, depth and fishing gear.CFRM (2004) indicates another set of species as representative to the deepseafishery. They are: snappers (Apsilus dentatus, Lutjanus apodus, L. mahagoni,and L. analis); and groupers (Epinephelus adscensionis, E. guttatus, E. striatusand E. morio). These species are typical of more shallow waters; however, theirdistribution pattern does allow for them to be caught in the deep-sea fishery,though they are not dominant. Similarly, L. synagris, L. campechanus, Verilussordidus, Mycteroperca venenosa and Cephalopholis cruentata have been reportedin exploratory deep-sea fisheries. Traps, handlines and bottom longlines are thefishing gear used in this fishery.There are more than 20 species reported as bycatch in the deep-sea fishery.The species belong to the families: Branchiostegidae, Brotulidae, Carangidae,Congridae, Holocentridae, Labridae, Mullidae, Muraenidae, Ophycthidae,Polimyxidae, Sciaenidae, Sparidae and Synodontidae. The deep-sea fishery alsoreports catches of shark: Carcharinus limbatus and Mustelus canis (Colom, 1994).Traps capture most of the accidental fish species (belonging to 12 families), as wellas crabs (Carpilius coralinus) and lobsters. In deep waters, most of the catch iscomposed by large species. This is a small-scale fishery that applies fishing effortyear-round, and it seems to be spatially allocated in seasonal spawning areas thatare well known by fishers.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 185Deep-sea fishery on the ocean banksThere are two ocean banks in the Dominican Republic marine territory: LaNavidad and La Plata, as well as other small banks in the north. The ocean bankfishery shares many species with the deep-sea fishery on the inshore platform.Nevertheless, this work separates the ocean bank fishery from the deep-sea fisherysince it is undertaken more than 90 miles from land, which makes it inaccessibleto most artisanal fishers. In fact, FAO (2001) considers the ocean bank fisheryas a semi-industrial fishery, in which boats with decks, diesel engines, freezingequipment and ice storage, and 5 to 25 crew members, make 7- to 10-day tripsto the ocean banks. Kawaguchi (1974) carried out the first exploratory fisheryin the La Navidad Bank, and indicated the relevance of species such as Etelisoculatus and Pristipomoides macrophtalmus. Later papers by Arima (1997, 1998–1998b, 1999–1999b) reported 16 species and defined Lutjanus vivanus, Lutjanusbucanella, and Epinephelus mystacinus as key species other than those reportedby Kawaguchi (1974). Puerto Plata and Samaná are departure ports, and bottomlongline and handline are the fishing gear used in this year-round fishery, whichcan be limited by the hurricane season.Pelagic fishery or fish aggregating device (FAD) fisheryThe pelagic fishery occurs along the south coast, particularly in the provinces ofBarahona (Lee and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Tejeda, 1995; Reyes and Melo, 2004),San Pedro de Macorís (Schirm, 1995b), Samaná (León, 1996; Sang et al., 1997)and the north region. The main species are yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares),little tunny (Euthynnus alleteratus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), skipjack tuna(Katsuwomis pelamis), mackerels (Scomberomorus sp.), wahoo (Acanthocybiumsolandri), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) and Atlantic sailfish (Istiphorusalbicans). Sharks are also accidentally caught in this fishery.This is a seasonal small-scale artisanal fishery. Nevertheless, since it targetsmany species (most of them are migratory species), the fishery occurs yearround,depending on resource availability. SERCM (2004) considered the pelagicfishery as a developing fishery that produced 227 tonnes in 2003. Rainbow runner(Elegatis bipinnulatus; macarela), jack (Seriola sp.; blanquilla) and barracuda(Sphyraena barracuda; picúa) are non-target species; nonetheless, they are caughtand consumed.Sport fisherySince 1998, the sport fishery is undertaken in the coastal regions of Bávaro,Cabeza de Toro, Punta Cana, Boca de Yuma, Santo Domingo, La Romana andMontecristi. This activity is run by nautical clubs and it can be part of the touristactivities offered by hotels and resorts. Among the main nautical clubs whichorganize annual fishing contests in the Dominican Republic are the Club Náuticode Santo Domingo, located in Boca Chica, which has branches in Cabeza de Toroand Boca de Yuma, the Club Náutico de Haina, Club Caza y Pesca de La Romanaand Club Náutico de Montecristi, as well as Marina de Chavón (SERCM, 2004).

186Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThis is a seasonal sport activity. The main species are the blue marlin (Makairanigricans; marlin azul) and the white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus; marlin blanco),though other species can be included in this fishery. The white marlin is usuallycaught about 8 to 10 nautical miles from the coast, at 40 to 100 m depth. Thefishing season for this species runs from the end of April until the end of July.The best fishing area for blue marlin is located 32 nautical miles from Punta Cana,on the Pichincho Bank, Canal de la Mona. This species is generally distributed indeeper waters, generally at 70 m of depth. The fishing season starts in June andcontinues until the end of August. There are no official catch statistics for thesespecies. Tourism promotional Web sites offer some sporadic data. For example, in2003 during 28 fishing days, 46 white marlins and 10 blue marlins were reportedto be caught and released (Just Us, 2006).Pelagic coastal fisheryCFRM (2004) refers to the pelagic coastal fishery that occurs particularly onthe sea grass bottom in reef lagoons. Target species are numerous, and theybelong to a wide range of families: Carangidae (jacks), Atherinidae (silversides),Hemiramphidae (balyhoo), Sciaenidae (drums), Sphyraenidae (juvenile barracuda),Gerridae (mojarra), Clupeidae (herrings), Centropomidae (snooks) and Engraulidae(anchovies). The last four families are related to outflows of fresh water to thecoast, where Mugilidae (mullet) is also caught. The pelagic coastal fishery catchessome juvenile sharks as well, such as bull, blackfin, hammerhead, nurse, reef andlemon sharks.The fishery occurs year-round, catching both target and incidental specieswith gillnets, casting nets, hook-and-line, and occasionally traps. CFRM (2004)indicates that the most abundant species in terms of volume of catch are Caranxbartholomaei, with a mean annual catch of 176.20 tonnes, and Caranx hippox witha mean annual catch of 143.68 tonnes. However, in the case of the species used forbaits, such as sardines and machuelos (Opisthonema oglinum), the exact volume ofcatch is unknown, though they can reach high values. The pelagic coastal fisheryis considered a moderately exploited fishery; nonetheless, there are no data toconduct a complete assessment. The fish stocks could also be affected by coastalpollution. The fishery is unregulated.Diamond squid fisheryThe diamond squid fishery started in 2001 in the Dominican Republic under thedirection of the Japanese expert Tsinchichi Arima. The fishery was undertakenon-board of the Guarionex ship, donated by the Japanese government to theCentro de Desarrollo Pesquero (CEDEP/Fishing Development Center), inSamaná (SERCM, 2004). The target species is the diamond squid (Thysanoteuthisrhombus), which is an oceanic epipelagic species whose mantle can reach a lengthof 1 m and weight of 20 kg. The species distribution area covers the tropical andsubtropical waters in the world. Fishing depth ranges between 300 and 750 m, andthe main fishing site is three miles off the coast, to the east of El Francés, on theeast coast of the Samaná Peninsula. The diamond squid is fished with a special line

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 187for squids (squid dropline fishing). This is an artisanal seasonal small-scale fisheryin the early stages of development. The fishing seasons are not clearly definedsince the diamond squid’s oceanic migration patterns are practically unknown.The Subsecretaría de Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos (State Subsecretariatof Coastal and Marine Resources) indicates that the diamond squid fishery coulddevelop into the most important fishery in the near future (SERCM, 2004).Mangrove crab fisheryMany species of crab are caught in the mangrove areas of the Dominican Republic,which occupy 260 km 2 . The mangrove crab fishery is more relevant in the provincesthat have the largest mangrove ecosystems, particularly in Samaná, Montecristi,Pedernales and La Altagracia, which total almost 70% of the mangroves in theDominican Republic. The target species are blue land crab (Cardisoma guanhumi;paloma de cueva), swamp ghost crab (Ucides cordatus; zumbá) and black mountaincrab (Gecarcinus ruricola; cangrejo moro), with 2003 catches of 77.83, 28.49, and33.01 tonnes, respectively.Though these crab species are highly commercialized and consumed throughoutthe country, the mangrove crab fishery has never been reported among theDominican Republic fisheries. Nevertheless, its relevance is acknowledged sincethis is the most regulated fishery in the country, with seven Presidential Decrees in37 years (Ramírez and Silva, 1994). The regulations address key fishing-biologicalissues, such as the prohibition to catch females (Decrees 1345-67 and 2515-72);restriction to the legal minimum length; closures (Decrees 2945-72, 976-79 and317-86); fishing prohibitions (Decree 1867-76); and the national closure of fiveyears from 1996 to 2000 (Decree 68-96).Ornamental fish and invertebrate fisherySERCM (2004) groups this fishery together with the coral reef fishery becausethe fishing occurs basically in the same environment. However, we consideredaddressing the ornamental fishery independently since: (a) the objective of thefishery is not consumption, but commercialization in aquariums; (b) the targetspecies are small and colourful fish and invertebrate species, which do not havecommercial value for consumption; (c) fishing is undertaken manually, with smallbully nets and traps; and (d) currently the fishery is located only in the country’snorthwestern region, in the Montecristi Province. The ornamental fishery is acommercial medium-scale fishery undertaken by a small number of fishers and forwhich there is no precise statistical control in place.The export of ornamental fish started in the 1980s, and currently is distributedexclusively among three companies (Tropical Seas, Petrosa S.A., MontecristiExport y Puerto Libertador S.A.), which direct the fishery to 30 species ofornamental fish and a similar number of marine invertebrates. The companiesexport to international markets, mainly the United States. The amount ofreef species caught is not accurately known, though it has been estimated at205 901 animals between 1996 and 2001, averaging 34 316 animals per year and56 317 animals in 2003 (SERCM, 2004), indicating a substantial increasing trend.

188Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThe families represented in the catch are predominantly Apogonidae, Balistidae,Chaetodontidae, Diodontidae, Grammidae, Haemulidae, Labridae, Ostracidae,Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Sciaenidae, Syngnatidae and Tetrodontidae.SECRM (2004) indicates that the species with highest catch volume are: bluechromis (Chromis cyanea; cromis azul) and Royal gramma (Gramma loreto;gramma real), but the Centro de Investigaciones de Biología Marina (CIBIMA)had reported other species that even today are still caught, such as Sergeant Major(Abudefduf saxatilis; sargento mayor), cardinal fish (Apogon binotatus; cardenal),banded butterflyfish (Chaetodon striatus; banderita), porcupine fish (Diodonhystrix; guanábana), spotted drum (Equetus punctatus; obispos) and jacknife fish(E. lanceolatus; obispos), small mouth grunt (Haemulon chrysargyreum; bocayate),slippery dick (Halichoeres bivitattus; doncella), rock beauty (Holacanthus tricolor;guinea), spotted boxfish (Lactophrys bicaudalis; pez cofre), blue head wrasse(Thalassoma bifasciatum; cabeza azul) and slender seahorse (Hyppocampusreidi; caballito de mar) (CIBIMA, 1994). All these species are protected by theLey Sectorial de Biodiversidad (Biodiversity Sectorial Law) (USAID, 2002),in particular the slender seahorse which is on the Lista Roja (Red List) of theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).CFRM (2004) indicates that statistical data also report the export of black coral,anemones, crabs, bivalves, gastropods, polychaetes, starfish, sea cucumbers andother invertebrates. The extraction of these resources can affect the equilibrium ofcoral reefs; however, there are no studies on this subject. Moreover, the country islosing a valuable source of organisms with bioactive substances, which are highlyvalued in the international market. The extraction and commercialization of theseresources is regulated by Decree 318-86.2.2. Fishing activitySpiny lobster (Panulirus argus)Lobster is caught along the Dominican Republic platform by artisanal fisherymethods. The main fishing gear is trap. The trap could be made of chicken wireor plant fiber (Haitian traps). Most of the lobster fishing traps have a mesh sizeof 24 mm (if they are made of wire), and 41 mm (if they are Haitian traps). Noneof these traps have escape vents or biodegradable panels. The mesh used in thecurrent traps catch lobsters of 35 to 45 mm carapace length, although 80 mmcarapace length is the minimum legal size. This explains the high percentage ofsublegal lobsters in shallow fishing areas on sea grass (in or close to nursery areas),which can reach 90% in Pedernales and Samaná.Average crew size is two men fishing in small wooden boats called cayucos(2.9 to 6.4 m in length), wooden or fibreglass boats called yolas (3 to 7 m inlength), or small boats called botes (5.5 to 8.4 m in length). Fishers set 10 to100 traps, mainly on the sea grass bottom, between 1 and 30 m of depth, for3 to 13 days. Some lobsters are caught by free diving (between 1 and 10 m),or with a compressor (up to 30 m) using hooks or harpoons. Occasionally,lobsters are caught with gillnets.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 189About 40% of the fishers at national level target lobster exclusively (SERCM,2004). Therefore, it is estimated that 3 360 fishers and more than 1 500 boats areconcentrated in this fishery. Thus, the remaining 60% of fishers may catch lobsterincidentally; however, they still land and consume or commercialize their catch. Itis a fact that the growing and uncontrolled fishing effort on the lobster resourceand unsustainable fishing practices have caused a significant decrease in the catch,a disappearance of commercial-sized lobster, and an extinction of lobster in someregions (Herrera and Betancourt, 2003, 2003e).White shrimp (Litopenaeus schmitti)The white shrimp is caught in the Samaná Bay using 250 casting nets and350 trawls, which operate from 387 cayucos (small boats) and an average crewof two men. About 933 fishers participate in this fishery (SERCM, 2004). Eventhough the resource is overexploited, the high prices and the tourism demand haveresulted in increased fishing effort despite decreasing catches.There are no biological fishery studies on the white shrimp, and the stock(already overexploited) has never been assessed. Sang et al. (1997) measured492 shrimps and indicated an average of 35 mm for the cephalotorax length of whiteshrimp (113 mm of total length). There is a clear lack of biological information onthis resource, whose life cycle in the bay has never been studied, as well as a lackof information on gear selectivity and exploitation levels.Queen conch (Strombus gigas)Queen conch is the most important resource in the Dominican Republic. Thequeen conch fishery is completely artisanal; catches are obtained manually, by freediving or diving with an air compressor on the sea grass marine bottom. It occursin up to 33 m of depth. Crew members are two free divers, or three divers, if thediving is done with compressor. The fishery is undertaken with cayucos, or boats(yolas), whose exact number is unknown. The number of divers is also unknown.The fishery is regulated by Decree 312-86, which establishes the minimum legalfishing size at 25 cm of siphon length; and Decree 833-03, which establishes theannual closure of the fishery from 1 July to 31 October. However, there is noeffective control of the fishery. In fact, the resource is overexploited in the wholecountry, and the reports of sublegal juveniles in catches can reach 90% (Tejeda,1995). The species is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (UNEP-WCMC,2006), and export permits have been temporarily suspended to protect thespecies.Grouper (Serranidae)There are about 30 species of the Serranidae family in the Dominican Republicreef and deep-sea fishery (Silva, 1994; Sang et al., 1997). Cepalopholis fulva,C. ruentatus (graysby), Epinephelus guttatus and E. striatus (Nassau grouper) arereported in practically all reef fishery areas, while Epinephelus mystacinus and

190Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanE. flavolimbatus (yellowedge grouper) are reported in the deep-sea fishery on theplatform border and the oceanic banks. In the case of the reef fishery, Serranidaeare caught by handline, traps (made of wire of fibre, similar to the lobster fishery),or diving. In the deep-sea fishery, the fishing gear are longlines, handlines andtype-Z traps that are 2.30 m long, 1.80 m wide and 0.55 m high, made with chickenwire with a maximum mesh size of 0.37 cm, and using sardines as bait.The Serranidae catch reached 6 605 tonnes between 1992 and 2001, with anannual average of 657 tonnes. In terms of catch volume, the main species wasE. adcensionis with an annual average of 521 tonnes, equivalent to 79% of thetotal catch of Serranidae (SERCM, 2004). Non-discriminatory fishing, pairedwith the lack of effective regulations, has caused many Serranidae species to be ina critical state in some regions of the country. Studies in Samaná (Sang et al., 1997)reveal that all reef species are being caught before reaching maturity. Data fromLa Altagracia indicate that the intensive exploitation on the reef manifests itselfthrough population decreases, as well as decreases in species composition and size.Currently, the dominant species in terms of number and biomass are small-sizedspecies such as C. cruentatus (graysby) and C. fulva (coney) (Chiappone et al.,2000), which are no larger than 35 cm (Schmitt, 1998).There are no studies addressing the state of the Serranidae family species thatare targeted in the deep-sea fishery. Thus, high exploitation on the reproductivestocks could be occurring, especially in the spawning areas where they aggregate.The Serranidae family is protected only by Decree 2099-84, which prohibitsfishing during the spawning season, but the Decree does not clarify dates orspecies that are to be protected.Snapper (Lutjanidae)There are about 16 Lutjanidae species caught in the reef and deep-sea fishery(Silva, 1994; Sang et al., 1997). Lutjanus analis, L. griseus, L. synagris andOcyurus chrysurus are reported in practically every reef fishery, while L. vivanus,L. bucanella, Etelis oculatus, Pristipomoides macrophtalmus and Rhomboplitesaurorubens are reported in the deep-sea fishery on the platform border and theoceanic banks. The Lutjanidae family is caught with the same fishing gear as theSerranidae family: handlines, traps or diving in the reef fishery, and longline,handline and traps in the deep-sea fishery.Lutjanidae catches from 1992 to 2003 fluctuated from a minimum of 800 tonnesin 1997 to a maximum of 3 000 tonnes in 2003 (SERCM, 2004), with an annualaverage of 1 600 tonnes. Like Serranidae, biological fishery studies reveal that mostof the Lutjanidae species caught in the reef fishery are smaller than their size atmaturity. This group is not protected by any specific regulation.Other demersal fishThe reef fishery catches over 70 species of fish that belong to the familiesAcanthuridae, Balistidae, Haemulidae, Holocentridae, Labridae, Pomacanthidae,Pomacentridae, Scaridae and Sparidae, from which there is almost no information

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 191on the catches. However, Chiappone et al. (2000) data from ecological studies onLa Altagracia reef indicate that the intensive fishery has changed the abundanceranges, density and size of the parrotfish in the region, as the most abundantspecies (Scarus taeniopterus, Sparisoma aurofrenatum and Scarus croicensis) havesizes that do not exceed 30 cm in length. Schmitt (1998) shows the same lowdensity and small-size situation in the Haemulidae commercial species. Sang et al.(1997) data in Samaná are consistent with these examples.Pelagic resourcesPelagic resources are comprised of a large group of tuna, bonito and albacore,mackerel (Scomberomorus sp.), wahoo, dolphinfish and sailfish. These species arecaught in the sport fishery and in the pelagic fishery or by using FADs. The fisherycan be undertaken with longline, gillnet, trolling and live baiting fishing (viveo),with or without rafts. There are no regulations to control the pelagic fishery.Pelagic fish catches increased from 2001 to 2003, reaching 217 tonnes (SERCM,2004). This is attributed to the improvement of fishing technology and the use ofrafts, as well as the fishers’ sailing capacities, which allow them to work in areasfurther from the coast.In terms of the exploitation of the pelagic species by the sport fishery, and bynational or international tourist fishers, there are no official statistics. However,it is estimated that there are between 1 000 and 1 500 sport fishers, and about250 boats of every size, and that more than 3 000 tourists request sport fisheryservices in Bávaro, El Cortecito, Macao, Punta Cana and Cabeza de Toro(SERCM, 2004).Diamond squid (Thysanoteuthis rhombus)Diamond squid is caught from boats with a three-man crew by dropline fishing.Currently, only 20 fishers, 6 boats and 12 types of fishing gear are involved in thediamond squid fishery. Catches per boat can reach up to four or five squids a day(E. Fermín, personal communication). SERCM (2004) indicates that in 2003 thediamond squid experimental catch was estimated at 2 tonnes. The average weightper squid was about 13 kg. There have not been any biological fishery studies forthis species, whose reproduction, feeding and migratory patterns are unknown(Kazunari et al., 2001).3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS3.1 Fishers’ characteristicsThe last SERCM (2004) census showed that the total number of fishers in theDominican Republic was 8 399 (Table 2). Also, there are about 46 500 peopleindirectly employed in activities related to the fishery (SERCM, 2004).

192Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 2Number of fishers, landing sites and boats per coastal provinceCoastal province Landing sites Number of fishers Number of boatsMontecristi 8 612 225Puerto Plata 19 1 232 342Espaillat 4 105 48María Trinidad Sánchez 13 435 170Samaná 37 2 514 1 082Hato Mayor 6 402 259El Seibo 5 309 138La Altagracia 10 185 143La Romana 7 255 148San Pedro de Macorís 8 318 185Santo Domingo 4 228 128San Cristóbal 4 160 57Peravia 8 376 135Azua 7 387 180Barahona 13 432 192Pedernales 12 449 229Total 165 8 399 3 661Source: Based on SERCM fishing census data (2004).Most of the fishers are not dedicated full time to fishing. The Centro para laConservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, Inc. (CEBSE,1994) reports that in Samaná only 27% of fishers are exclusively dedicated tofishing. Other income activities are carpentry (6%), street/beach vending (2%),and agriculture (46%). Agriculture can be undertaken simultaneously with fishingactivities. In Montecristi, 80% of coastal fishers are full-time fishers (Luperón,1998). The percentage of fishers who are dedicated full time to fishing is related tothe economic benefits of the activity. Overexploitation of resources has resultedin more and more fishers looking into alternative economical activities, makingtourism (direct or indirect) related activities one of the most relevant options.Fishing in the Dominican Republic is primarily artisanal, and it is undertakenalmost exclusively by men. Very few women participate directly in this activityon-board, since working conditions are very hard and work can last the wholeday. Women participate in cleaning of fish and its commercialization, eitherfresh or processed (fried). Also, many women’s associations are oriented to theaquaculture of fish in tanks (Nolasco, 2000).At the national level, artisanal fishers show loyalty to their fishing grounds,and are generally very territorial. For example, the CEBSE (1994) reports that93% of Samaná fishers were born in the province. Historically, fishing has been

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 193recognized as an important traditional family economic activity. Moreover, thereare family names that have been linked to the exploitation of certain fisheryresources for many years.In Montecristi, 22% of fishers have been fishing in the area for more than25 years. However, there is also a migratory population that lives betweendifferent communities, fishing during specific times of the year and linking theirfishing activity to seasonal species such as wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)(Luperón, 1998). In Samaná, 40% of fishers have been fishing for more than20 years (Silva and Aquino, 1993). This indicates the existence of a permanentfishing population that carries out a significative historical traditional fishery.3.2 Social and economic aspectsThe socio-economic studies of the fishery sector are fragmented, rare, and moredescriptive than quantitative. The most recent national artisanal fishery censuses(Colom et al., 1994; SERCM, 2004) include only the number of fishers, fishingsites, fishing gear and boats, but do not address education or any other social andeconomic aspects of the sector. In general, it is understood that fishers have a loweducation level; however, the actual data are provided by local studies. Luperón(1998) indicates that 72% of the Montecristi fishers have completed primarystudies, 18% secondary studies and 7.2% are illiterate. The workforce in thefishery has a very low educational level and a high illiteracy rate, and no fisherswith any university level of education. CEBSE (1994) reports that 64% of fishershave primary educational level, 11.2% secondary level and 0.2% has reachedsome kind of technical or university level; 24.4% of fishers are illiterate. Onlyapproximately 50% of fishers have some elementary educational level (SERCM,2004).In terms of the fishers’ family structure, CEBSE (1994) is the only source ofinformation available in Samaná, which reports between 3 and 6 people in thehousehold, with an average of 5 people. There are households with a significantlyhigher number of members, reaching 12 or 13; however, these cases representless than 1% of the total households. We have not been able to find informationon family planning or family members’ roles. It is known, however, that fishingactivity has a family tradition in the Dominican Republic.Unfortunately, national artisanal fisher censuses (Colom et al., 1994; SERCM,2004) do not include economic income data. Therefore, the available informationis scattered, dated and narrowly focused. In Montecristi, in the northwest areaof the country, 58% of coastal fishers received a monthly income that fluctuatedbetween RD$500 and RD$1 000, which was below the national minimum salaryestablished by the government; 22% received income between RD$1 000 andRD$1 500; and 20% between RD$1 500 and RD$4 000 (Luperón, 1998). InBarahona, González et al. (1995) estimated fishers’ average monthly income as lessthan RD$500. SERCM (2002) recently indicated that the average monthly incomein this area was RD$3 000, and RD$4 000 in Azua. One United States dollar isequivalent to 37 RD pesos.

194Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanCEBSE (1994) shows age structural data of the Samaná fishers grouped by lessthan 20 years (8%), from 20 to 30 years (32%), from 30 to 40 years (28%), from 40to 50 years (16%), from 50 to 60 years (11%), and more than 60 years (5%). Thesenumbers are similar to the Montecristi data, where 71.2% of the workforce in thefishery is between 20 and 50 years old, with values of 29.6% and 23.2% for the agegroups of 20 to 30 years and 40 to 50 years, respectively (Luperón, 1998).With regard to the quality of life of fishers, the information available for thesouth region (González et al., 1994, 1995a, 1995b) and north region (CEBSE,1994; Luperón, 1998), as well as the authors’ experiences with fishing communitiesin the whole country, show that the majority of the fishing sector lacks theappropriate basic living infrastructure, medical care and education. The loweducational level, low income (that must be distributed among large families), andthe total dependence on fish buyers and processors are the main causes of povertyin the fishery, which has never been eradicated by any official programme.4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS4.1 Community organizationNationally, it is recognized that fishers’ organizational levels are low, andgenerally occur circumstantially under the influence of a local leader who typicallythen becomes an entrepreneur. In Samaná, CEBSE (1994) reports that 81% offishers are not organized, 16% participate in some kind of association, 2% incooperatives, and 1% are unionized. In Montecristi, Luperón (1998) commentson the current absence of organizations, and explains that the heterogeneity ofoccupations and interests make it difficult to create an organizational structure thatresponds to the collective interests of the sector. There have been many attempts tocreate cooperatives, which have received fishing gear, boats, refrigerating systems,vehicles and technical assistance; however, the absence of fiscal policies andresource mismanagement have damaged the institutionalization and sustainabilityof these endeavors, whose goods ended up in private entrepreneurs’ hands.Nevertheless, in other regions of the country there are fishing organizations thatare strong locally. They define themselves as associations or cooperative groups,though they do not differ much from each other in their organizational structureand functioning. Some organizations are simply collaborative groups with a fewmembers united by working relationships and common problems. On the otherhand, there are some organized associations with Memorandums of Understanding,administrative and accounting registry, and associated economic and socialachievements. We have not found a national registry of these organizations; thus,Table 3 has been constructed on the basis of our field experience.The engagement of fishers and community in co-management at the nationallevel seems limited. Mateo et al. (2000) offers an example of a co-managementexperience by Jaragua Group, an NGO that works in Pedernales region, with thedesign of a joint programme for fishing in Oviedo Lagoon. However, the pioneerfor fishing resources co-management strategies with fishers is Centro para laConservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno (CEBSE), an

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 195NGO that works in Samaná region (Lamelas, 1997). NGOs have been the onlysuccessful initiators for co-management of fishing resources with fishers in theDominican Republic. This has not been the case with governmental institutions,even though they are responsible for promoting co-management work.TABLE 3Some of the fishing organizations in the Dominican RepublicCoastal province Site Fishing organizationAzua Puerto Viejo Asociaciones El Progreso y Centolla (association)Puerto ViejoPuerto ViejoGrupo Cooperativo Pedro Tejeda (group)Asociación San Rafael (association)Barahona Barahona Grupo Manatí (group)La Altagracia Boca del Yuna Cooperativa de Pescadores de Boca de Yuma (coop.)Puerto Plata Luperón Asociación de Pescadores de Luperón (association)Samaná Sánchez Asociación de Pescadores de la Fe (association)SamanáLas TerrenasLas PascualasCooperativa del Golfo de la Flecha (coop.)Asociación de Pescadores Unidos de Las Terrenas(association)Asociación de Pescadores de Las Pascualas, El Valle yLa Majagua (association)San Cristóbal Nigua Asociación de Pescadores de Nigua (association)San Pedro de Macorís San Pedro Asociación de Pescadores del Parque (association)As part of the strategy to integrate all social sectors in the co-managementprocess, CEBSE created programmes for organizing the fishing sector thatincludes a diagnostic study for the sector. By a participative process that includedhundreds of persons, CEBSE managed to identify the main problems, recommendpolicies, and suggest the people or groups of people who should be involved inthe problem-solving process. CEBSE (1996) offers an integrated managementplan for Samaná region that includes concrete actions to address the fishing sectorproblems with the participation of state stakeholders (Samaná Municipality),control stakeholders (Navy), financial stakeholders (Fishing Commerce andAgricultural Bank), educational stakeholders (CEDEP) and fishing stakeholders(independent fishers and associations).4.2 Fishers’ interactions with other sectorsThe Dominican Republic coastal zone has tourism, ports and industry as priorityuses, with tourism being the most influential activity on the fishing sector. Froma socio-economic and cultural point of view, this new industry has establisheditself in the middle of villages that have traditionally lived on coastal resources,resulting in use conflicts, changing demographic patterns, and increasing the

196Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanimpact of human activities on coastal ecosystems. Tourism increased the range ofimpacts in coastal areas by developing new uses (to satisfy tourism demand) or byintroducing non-sustainable practices.The fishing sector’s interaction with other sectors that use the coastal zone is notdocumented in any published work. The information provided in this work derivesfrom the authors’ experiences, as well as some isolated data from environmentalimpact studies and public consultation, which analyse the fishing sector as part ofthe socio-economic realm. For example, interaction with the tourism sector hasbeen negative in the east and northeast, where tourism development has impactedthe fishing sector. The negative impact of tourism manifests itself through thephysical exclusion of the coastal zone (fishing villages and landing sites) and themarine zone (traditional fishing areas). Also, in many cases, tourism developmentis responsible for the relocation of fishers to sites far away from the fishing areas,causing fishers to look for other economic alternatives that are foreign to theirtraditions. In other cases, fishers have incorporated the possibilities that tourismoffers, increasing the exploitation of highly demanded species such as lobsterand queen conch. One of the worst consequences of these new practices is theextraction of reef species for handicrafts, which are sold to tourists in hotels orat shops on the beach. More than 50 invertebrate and fish species are involved inthese practices, most of them protected by national and international laws. Manyof these species are key species of the ecosystem and, furthermore, relevant for themaintenance of its biological equilibrium. It is also clear that overfishing of marineorganisms results from the high demand of these species in tourist centres.Another antagonistic factor between the fishing and tourism sectors is thedestruction and contamination of fishing sites due to nautical and subaquaticactivities, which are carried out without any educational environmental approach.This is common in diving enterprises, which are concessionaries of tourist hotelsin Puerto Plata, Bávaro or San Pedro de Macorís. Most of these problems havearisen due to the lack of national policies in territorial planning and integratedcoastal management, even though there are many proposals with regard to thelatter that have not been pursued, such as the most recent CFRM (2004) proposal.Impacts from diving also occur during non-regulated excursions, which areundertaken with no environmental educational purposes.Resorts established mainly in coastal areas have now been globalized, withchange as well in the fishing village culture that was so attractive to tourists whentourism began its development in the Dominican Republic. Currently, we find amix of behaviours and lifestyles that have forgotten, and in many cases neglect, thecultural values that have taken hundreds of years to develop (ABT, 2002).There are some examples where the fishing and tourism sectors have beenable to share the use of the coastal zone. In Bayahibe, La Romana, some fishersmanaged to integrate into the local tourism sector via an economically beneficialmaritime transportation system for tourists. In the Bahía de Luperón (LuperónBay) in Puerto Plata, the Marina Tropical Luperón (Luperón Tropical Marine)prioritized jobs for local fishers (Betancourt and Herrera, 2004).

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 1975. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESAs a starting point, we should make clear that biological fisheries studies havebasically taken a descriptive approach in the Dominican Republic; and traditionalstock assessment methods that are based on size frequency analysis, estimationof mortality and growing parameters, cohort analysis, fishing gear selectivity,predictive modelling and others have been absent. In fact, most of the referencesin this report relate to works that have addressed population dynamics in a generalmanner, or simply have addressed general biological or ecological aspects ofvalued fishing species.This is understandable when considering that most of the development of thisactivity has occurred outside the academic realm, without official support, andwith a major autodidactic component. In fact, 75% of the national researchers’works that are cited in the Reference section belong to biologists workingindependently in NGOs. State subsidized academic institutions have had a smallerinfluence in the development of fishery biology, due mainly to the fact that theirwork has been directed to basic research; while independent organizations, whichrequire financial support from international organizations for their projects,need to present applied research proposals with participation and benefits to thecommunities.Only a few works have attempted to obtain production estimates in Barahonaand Pedernales (Infante and Silva, 1994; Schirm, 1995; Silva, 1995) and Bahíade Samaná (Samaná Bay) (Silva and Aquino, 1994; Herrera, 2000), but they areisolated efforts. One of the main problems for fishery research in the DominicanRepublic is the lack of stock assessments. As part of the Proyecto Propescar Sur(Propescar Sur Project), Schirm (1995) estimated some population parameters forfour relevant fishing resources in Pedernales (Table 4), though we have not foundmore information on this matter.TABLE 4Basic population parameters for some resources in the Dominican RepublicSpeciesMales Females Combined k k kMeasurePanulirus argus 21 0.24 19.5 0.28 – – CL (cm)Haemulon plumieri – – – – 42 0.34 FL (cm)Pseudopeneus maculatus 27 0.70 25 0.35 – – FL (cm)Lutjanus synagris – – – – 45 0.23 FL (cm)Source: Estimated by Schirm (1995) using FISAT Programme.Note: L∞ = maximum length; k + parameter of curvature (from von Bertalanffy growth model).

198Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFisheries Development Limited (1980) was responsible for one of the mostcomprehensive fishery plans in the Dominican Republic. Based on acousticand exploratory research on the platform over one year, Fisheries DevelopmentLimited estimated the annual maximum fishing production. According to itsresults, the fishing resources on the platform (up to 200 m) and on the oceanicbanks Navidad and La Plata had the annual sustainable production capacityshown in Table 5, with 1.8 tonnes/km2 of yield per year.TABLE 5Annual sustainable production capacity tonnes of the fishing resources on the platformand oceanic banksExtension(km²)Demersal Pelagic TotalPlatform (200 to 500 m) 3 400 1 500 – 1 500Platform (up to 200 m) 8 000 10 738 3 439 14 177Oceanic banks 4 500 6 325 1 810 8 135Total 12 500 18 563 5 249 238 012Source: Based on Fisheries Development Limited (1980) and Giudicelli (1996).These figures, which seem to be the only realistic estimation available,are also supported by later assessments, which offer similar numbers for theannual productivity of pelagic and demersal resources on the southwesternplatform (1.7 tonnes/km2) (Infante and Silva, 1994) and demersal resources(0.9 tonnes/km2) (Schirm, 1995). For Bahía de Samaná (Samaná Bay), Silva andAquino (1994) estimated a total annual production of 163.3 tonnes for demersaland pelagics which, considering catch data from Sang et al. (1997), they weretheoretically divided in 17.6 tonnes for the estuarine littoral complex and143.8 tonnes for the coral reef-sea grass complex, with 1.2 tonnes/km2 and0.3 tonnes/km2 of yield per year, respectively (Herrera, 2000).Giudicelli (1996) calls attention to the fact that former assessments have onlytaken into account coastal pelagic and demersal resources up to 180 to 200 m ofdepth, without considering the demersal resources of the slope at 200 to 500 m ofdepth and the oceanic pelagic resources. Therefore, he adds to the assessment anestimated figure for the slope demersal resources, concluding that the sustainableannual production potential for the platform, slope and oceanic banks could bearound 18 500 tonnes for demersal and 5 000 tonnes for pelagic, with a total of23 500 tonnes. This limit has already been reached; thus, we can think that allpotential demersal (and some pelagic) species of the country are exploited tothe limit of their maximum level. Therefore, increasing production in a rationalmanner would require directing the effort to oceanic pelagic resources.As far as we know, ecosystem modelling, cost-benefit analysis, financialanalysis, or risk analysis applied to fisheries have not been undertaken. The only

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 199economic fisheries assessment was done by Walter (1994), which has not beenupdated. León (1997) analysed the distribution, commercialization and end-pointof fishing products in Samaná.Artisanal fishery endeavors are not large enough to require undergoingan environmental impact assessment process. Artisanal fishery proposals aremanaged by the State. Social impact assessments directed to artisanal fisherieshave not been done. However, many environmental impact studies consider thissector as a socio-economic component of the projects, and thus they are treatedas secondary. Even though some works have analysed social and economic aspectsof the artisanal fishery sector as we mentioned before, we cannot state that actualdemographic studies of the sector have been systematically undertaken.6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGCurrently, the Dirección de Recursos Pesqueros (DRP) is responsible for fisheriesmanagement in the Dominican Republic. DRP responds to the Environmentand Natural Resources Subministry, which in turn responds to the Environmentand Natural Resources State Secretariat (SEMARN). The Environment andNatural Resources State Subsecratariat (SERCM) replaced the former Ministryof Agriculture (SEA), and at the moment is the only national authority for thefishing sector.Theoretically, there is a traditional management system in place that coversthe basic control, enforcement and monitoring aspects of the national fishingactivities. Part of this system involves developing and maintaining a RegistroNacional de Pescadores (Fishers National Record), which considers licenceapplications to ensure that whoever undertakes any fishing activity is properlyregistered. To control the authorized fishing activity, fulfillment of the licencesystem and regulations are enforced, particularly fisheries closures, minimumcatch size and gear. This is carried out by inspectors trained by SERCM. Onthe other hand, SERCM periodically collects statistics data from the freshwaterand marine fisheries to assess catch trends and the degree of exploitation for thefishing resources. This provides key information for new temporary or permanentregulations at the national or local level. SERCM indicates that data are collectedin eleven Fishing and Coastal and Marine Administrative Service Stations that aredistributed state-wide and which receive instructions to collect field data.Other institutions related to the fishing sector are the Banco Agrícola dela República Dominicana (BAGRICOLA), which offers loans for acquiringequipment and gear to fishing groups, or associations, and the Development andCooperative Credit Institute (IDECOOP), which advises and certifies fishingcooperatives according to the legislation on national cooperatives. IDECOOPhas implemented financing projects for equipment to cooperatives on a fewoccasions.Fisheries management in the Dominican Republic has been the objective forseveral national plans, which coincided with the beginning of the 1980s (FisheriesDevelopment Limited, 1980; ONAPLAN, 1983), 1990s (JICA/SEA, 1992) and

200Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean2000s (ICRAFD, 2001). The first of these plans was developed by FisheriesDevelopment Limited (1980), in coordination with the Instituto Dominicanode Tecnología Industrial (INDOTEC), which presented a report for fishingdevelopment in the Dominican Republic that included a comprehensive compilationof former studies. This first plan also provided the first census for the fishing sector,with socio-economic, technological, commercial and biological fishing data, as wellas results from exploratory fisheries and the first estimates of fishing productivity.The Planning National Office (ONAPLAN) adds some recommendations forscientific and technological policies for the fishing sector (ONAPLAN, 1983). Thesecond plan was developed by the Japan International Cooperative Agency (JICA)that, together with SEA, elaborated the basic design of the Dominican Republiccoastal fishery development project (JICA/SEA, 1992). This work analyses in detailthe fishing antecedents in many regions of the Dominican Republic and providescriteria for implementing fishing projects. More recently, ICRAFD (2001) andCFRM (2004) offer a third plan that analyses the current situation, which providespractical guidance for future actions to improve the organization of fisheries in theDominican Republic. Besides some isolated achievements, none of these plans haveactually contributed to improving the socio-economic situation of the fishing sectorat the national scale. Moreover, none of them have developed into a long-term planto address and solve the multiple problems of the system.Even though there is an institutional framework, and despite the abovementionedplans indicating the major problems and needs, fisheries management inthe Dominican Republic has not been fully successful. One of the first challenges isopen access. While there is a legal requirement for fishers to obtain a fishing licenceissued by SERCM, in practice, there is no adequate control; thus any resource isfished at any time of the year, on any coastal area, platform or oceanic region. Eventhen, the official licence does not indicate precise catch quotas, fishing areas, speciesto be caught or fishing gear. Therefore, fishing is an uncontrolled activity directed byeconomic interests. Moreover, none of the Dominican Republic’s artisanal fisheriestarget exclusively one species. Regardless of gear type, catches are utilized forconsumption or commercialization, regardless of size or quality.This situation also reaches protected areas, such as the National Park Jaraguain Pedernales or the National Park Montecristi, where fisheries resources areunder the same fishing pressure as in non-protected areas. The management plansof these protected areas include measures to protect fisheries resources, but theyare simply not followed. There are several basic regulations for the protectionof fishing resources at the national level; however, they cannot be enforced sincethere are no personnel or resources for this purpose.The major problem relates to the institutional instability because SERCMemployees are removed every four years in accordance to the electoral term. Thiscauses loss of time, knowledge and valued personnel. Since there are no biologicalresearch institutions (either private or governmental), there is no periodicalscientific assessment independent from the fishery management sector, and officialreports generally focus more on achievements than on difficulties.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 2017. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION7.1 Fishing statisticsOne of the main challenges to organizing the Dominican Republic fisheries isthe lack of standardized and continued series of timely data, which would allowfor a regional and national analysis of the catch trends. At the national level, theSubministry of National Resources, under the SEA and currently SERCM, hasbeen reporting official global data of the catch (SERCM, 2004). It is stated thatthe information comes from statistics obtained in various landing sites in thecountry. These are the only available statistics, and their reliability is questioned(Giudicelli, 1996).Nevertheless, there have been some relevant local attempts to address thismatter. CEBSE maintained the fishing statistics in Samaná for some years (Silvaand Aquino, 1994; Silva et al., 1995; Aquino and Silva, 1995). Silva and Colom(1996) elaborated guidelines for collecting fishing statistics in the DominicanRepublic. In Pedernales, Schirm (1995) offered the only known work for theestimation of fisheries productivity on the south platform, and showed theincreasing trend in catches. However, these efforts were discontinued when theprojects that supported them finished and are no longer up-to-date.The catch classification system applied in the Dominican Republic is one ofthe problems that make statistics difficult to be obtained (Silva and Colom, 1996).Independent from where it is caught, catches are divided into special categories thatfollow a commercial criterion, rather than an ecological or biological criterion, andfish are grouped according to the quality and acceptability by consumers (Table6). This also applies to many of the research catches.TABLE 6Dominican Republic catch classificationCategoriesClass 1Class 2Class 3Class 4LobsterShrimpCrabQueen conchOctopusOthersGroups of speciesLutjanidae, Serranidae and ScomberidaeLutjanidae, Carangidae, Mugilidae, Serranidae and small ScomberidaePomadasidae, Pomacantidae and ScaridaeAcanturidae, Balistidae and othersLobsters from the Family Palinuridae and ScyllaridaeFamily PenaeidaeGenus Cardisoma, Callinectes, MithraxGenus StrombusGenus OctopusRays and sharksSource: Silva and Colom, 1996.

202Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThis system can be useful commercially; however, it is not useful for fishingstatistics. For example, Class 1 is a heterogeneous mix of snappers, yellowtailsnappers, silk snappers, mutton snappers, groupers, jewfish, graysbies, andking and Spanish mackerels. This includes demersal fish such as Lutjanidae(about 20 species) and Serranidae (about 50 species), which are distributed in themangroves and at 600 m, as well as pelagic species such as Scomberidae (about14 species). Some of these species have clear seasonality, some represent a reeffishery, while other species represent the deep-sea fishery on the border of theplatform or pelagic fishery, and they are caught with different fishing gears,making difficult any attempt of fishing effort standardization.To analyse the catch, it is necessary to identify individual species or groups ofspecies; thus, the current commercial classification must be complemented withbiological criteria. On this subject, it has been demonstrated that the concept of‘complex ecological fishing’ (Baisre, 1985) could be an approximation of highmethodological and practical value (Silva and Colom, 1996; Herrera, 2000). Oneof the key concepts to achieving clear statistics is categorizing resources harvested,so that catch, effort, and size and sex composition registries can be carried out ina relatively easy manner to obtain reliable statistics.7.2 Biological and ecological fishing researchThe Dominican Republic does not have a fishing research centre, nor does it havea national research plan to respond to scientific needs for fisheries management.Some governmental institutions, such as the Centro de Investigaciones de BiologíaMarina (the Center for Marine Biology Research) and the Acuario Nacional(National Aquarium), have temporarily adopted these functions through specificprojects. Even more relevant than these endeavors are the results obtained bynon-governmental organizations, such as the CEBSE, Grupo Jaragua, Centropara el Desarrollo del Noroeste, and Programa EcoMar (CEBSE, Jaragua Group,Center for the Development of the northeast and EcoMar Programme). Despitetheir limitations in time and geography, these efforts have created the basis for theDominican Republic fish biology studies over the long term (e.g. Table 4). Coastalprovinces have been the pilot areas for these endeavors, and thus the availableinformation is concentrated in those areas (Montecristi, Samaná, La Altagracia andPedernales). There is practically no information in the remaining provinces. Thereis some isolated information on pelagic resources from regional institutions thathave included Dominican waters in their study areas. All these results, which arepresented in Table 7, belong to isolated efforts.Shrimp fishery data: There are only general descriptive works on the shrimpfishery: key species, fishing gear and number of fishers (Núñez and García, 1983;Silva and Aquino, 1993; Then et al., 1995). Sang et al. (1997) offer some data onsize and catches of accidental species.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 203TABLE 7Projects that have contributed to the Dominican Republic fishing research. Coastalprovinces: Barahona (BH), Pedernales (PD), Samaná (SA) and La Altagracia (LA)Year Name of the project AreaSponsors/participants1980 Fishing development in the Dominican Republic General FDL/INDOTEC1987–1995Promotion of artisanal coastal fishery at thesouth littoralBH, PD, AZGTZ/SEA1992–1996Fishing communities involvement in theco-management of fishing resources in Samaná BaySAFF/CEBSE1993 Parks in peril: National park of the east LATNC/MAMMA/PRONATURA1993–1996Biodiversity inventory and characterization of thecommunities around Samaná Bay and PeninsulaSAHELVETAS/CEBSE1995–1998Conservation and management of the marine coastalbiodiversity in the Dominican RepublicMC, SA,PDPNUD/ONAPLAN/CEBSE/GJI/CIBIMA/CIDEN2002–2003Fishing and ecological research of the lobsterPanulirus argusPD, SA, AZPrograma EcoMar,Inc.Acronyms: CIDEN: Centro para el Desarrollo del Noroeste; CEBSE: Centro para la Conservacióny Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno; CIBIMA: Centro de Investigaciones deBiología Marina; FDL: Fisheries Development Limited; FF: Ford Foundation; GJI: Grupo Jaragua,Inc.; GTZ: German International Cooperation Agency; HELVETAS: Switzerland Association forDevelopment and Cooperation; INDOTEC: Instituto Dominicano de Tecnología Industrial; JICA:Japan International Cooperation Agency; MAMMA: Fundación Dominicana Pro-Investigacióny Conservación de los Recursos Marinos; ONAPLAN: Oficina Nacional de Planificación; SEA:Ministry of Agriculture; TNC: The Nature Conservancy; UNDP: United Nations DevelopmentProgramme.Lobster fishery data: All the information on the lobster fishery has beenrecently summarized by Herrera and Betancourt (2003b–2003d), who offer thefirst diagnosis of the resource. Information comes from catches on 60 landing sitesin the coastal provinces of Pedernales, Samaná, El Seibo, Hato Mayor and Azua,where 3 594 lobsters were measured, sexed, and had their reproductive conditionassessed. Lobsters were caught between 2 and 37 m of depth, in 3 325 traps (aswell as by diving or using gillnet). Sites, gear and fishing methods are describedfor this fishery; selectivity of wire traps and Haitian traps are compared; structureof size (by sex, fishing areas and depth) are analysed; and catch and effort dataare assessed. This analysis enabled the identification of the primary problems inthe management of this fishery, as well as offered specific recommendations fororganization of the fishery and the implementation of future regulations. Thelobster (Panulirus argus) also underwent a Postlarvae Recruitment MonitoringProgramme, which was developed but not completed (Herrera, 1996).Queen conch data: There are some general fishing evaluations on queen conch(Appeldoorn, 1993, 1997), but the most complete fishing-biological works areby Tejeda (1995a–1995c), which offer a complete description of the fishery inPedernales, including size structure, habitat, distribution, morphometry of the

204Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanshell, areas and fishing gear, catch data by effort unit by area and depth, andproduction estimations. More recent ecological work has been focused on larvaestudies (Vargas and Billini, 2000) and abundance estimation, distribution, andjuveniles and adults size structure in the marine protected areas in Parque NacionalJaragua (Jaragua National Park) in Pedernales (Delgado et al., 1998; Posada et al.,1999, 2000) and Parque Nacional del Este (east National Park) (Torres et al., 2000;Torres and Sealey, 2002a, 2002b).Oceanic banks fishing data: Arima’s studies (1997, 1998a–1998c, 1999a–1999c)are the only data on fishing operations with bottom longline on the oceanicbanks Navidad and Plata between 90 and 600 m of depth. The information relatesto seasons, depth, species, catch weight and fishing effort for about 16 species,among which there are key species (Lutjanus vivanus, Lutjanus bucanella, Etelisoculatus and Pristipomoides macrophtalmus). These biological data can be the basisfor future assessments of fishing stocks on the oceanic banks, and have specialrelevance when comparing key species on the coastal platform and the oceanicbanks fisheries (Table 8).TABLE 8Comparison of weight data (in grams) of the species and frequency (in percentage) inthe catch of four key species caught on the oceanic banks and Samaná BayLocalnameScientific nameWeight range (g)SamanáplatformOceanicbanksCatch frequency(%)SamanáplatformOceanicbanksRuama Pristipomoides macrophthalmus 92–432 227–953 0.3 93.0QueensnapperOjoamarilloEtelis oculatus 386–964 227–2 903 0.1 90.6Lutjanus vivanus 92–1 132 454–3 629 0.3 11.6Ala negra Luthanus bucanella 154–1 364 544–1 724 0.2 10.5Source: Based on Arima, 1999c and Sang et al., 1997.Pelagic fishery: Lee and Aquino (1994) and Colom and Tejeda (1995a) offer thefirst data on catch-per-unit effort for the pelagic fishery with rafts in Barahona.Schirm (1995c) offers a more complete analysis in this type of fishery, includingsites, fishing methods, species composition, abundance, resource seasonality, catchper-uniteffort, fishing yield, and management measures. Valdivia (2003) providesdata on an experimental tuna fishery with longline. There is relevant research onpelagic species undertaken by Virginia University in oceanic waters, around PuntaCana, which includes marking and recapture of species and their habitat preferences(Graves, 2002; Graves et al., 2003; NOAA Fisheries, 2004). In particular, sportfishery data on marlin belong to Web pages that promote this type of fishery as atourism option. Data include species, catch weight and seasonality (Just Us, 2006).

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 205Fishing gear assessment in exploratory fisheries: Fishing gears have beenassessed in certain fisheries, including: variation in species composition and catchfor three types of traps (Aquino and Infante, 1994), the effect of trap mesh size onthe size structure (Herrera and Betancourt, 2003a), and the comparison betweenbottom longline types in the catch of deep-sea fisheries (Arima, 1999c). Manyfishing gears and methods have been tested, such as the trawl (Beck and Colom,1994; Beck et al., 1994), bottom longline (Colom, 1994; Valdivia, 2003), depth linefishing (Aquino, 1994; Colom and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Infante, 1995), FADs(Lee and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Tejeda, 1995; León, 1996), handline (Tejeda etal., 1995) and traps (Lee, 1995; Tejeda and Feliz, 1995). All these studies providespecific data on species caught, catch volume and catch-per-unit effort.There are inventories of fishing biodiversity in the provinces of Montecristi(Luczkovich, 1991; Geraldes et al., 1998), Samaná (Sang et al., 1997), María TrinidadSánchez (Decena and Díaz, 1982), La Altagracia Sur (León et al., 1995; Schmitt,1998), Santo Domingo (Geraldes et al., 1997), San Cristóbal (Terrero, 1989), Azua(Bouchon et al., 1995) and Pedernales (Silva, 1994; Reveles et al., 1997).In general, fisheries biology studies have had a descriptive approach, whethereconomical, commercial, technological, social, taxonomical, or focused on gearassessment. Research on fishery biology with a long-term approach and withstock assessment of key species is practically non-existent. Despite the relevance infishery biology of studying the size and sex composition of exploited populationswith a spatial-temporal approach, there are no studies on this matter and much ofthe population data is inconsistent.Due to the limited research efforts as mentioned above, according to Giudicelli(1996) it is difficult to undertake reliable assessments for maximum sustainablecatch in Dominican waters. The only fisheries where population structure hasbeen studied are queen conch (Posada et al., 1999, 2000) and lobster (Herreraand Betancourt, 2003b–2003d) in Samaná, Pedernales and Azua, where spatialdistribution criteria has been derived for many life stages (nursery and reproductiveareas), as well as direct proof of overexploitation in growing and recruitmentstages. However, these fisheries have not been studied over a long enough durationto assess population parameters and thus there have been no attempts at some kindof fisheries modelling.7.3 Fishery socio-economic researchSocial and economic research on the fishery sector has not been a priority in thescarce studies undertaken, which have basically followed a descriptive approach.There are general data on the socio-economic characteristics of the fishingcommunities in Samaná (CEBSE, 1994), Barahona, Pedernales (Beck et al., 1994a;González et al., 1994, 1995a, 1995b) and Montecristi (Stoffle et al., 1994; Luperón,1998). It should also be mentioned that Nolasco (2000) addresses gender issues.

206Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean7.4 Fishery environmental educationThere are no national plans or programmes for fishers’ environmental education.The NGOs have taken the responsibility of developing informative materials,as well as carrying out workshops and educational activities with fishers andcoastal communities. There are important examples of environmental educationalactivities undertaken by PRONATURA in the Parque Nacional Submarino LaCaleta (Submarine National Park La Caleta) in Santo Domingo (Vega, 1998), theGrupo Jaragua, Inc. (Jaragua Group, Inc.) in Pedernales (Reveles et al., 1997; Mateoet al., 2000), the didactic manual from Fundación Dominicana ProInvestigación yConservación de los Recursos Marinos (MAMMA – Dominican Foundation forResearch and Conservation of Marine Resources) (Geraldes et al., 2001), and theworkshops in ecology and conservation of the lobster, carried out at the nationallevel by Programa EcoMar, Inc. (EcoMar Programme, Inc.).The only centre devoted to fishers capacity building is the Centro para elDesarrollo y Entrenamiento Pesquero (CEDEP – Center for Fishery Developmentand Training) in Samaná (SEA, 2000). This centre was donated by the Japanesegovernment through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and it ismanaged by SERCM. According to SERCM (2004), 150 professional fishers havebeen trained in the country, especially in Samaná and surrounding areas. This isa very low number considering that the centre has sufficient resources to train atleast 50 fishers per month in its facilities.JICA has provided important support to the development of artisanal fishersin Samaná. Japanese specialists have developed educational materials on everyissue that could be relevant for artisanal fishers, such as freezing equipment, fishpreparation and conservation, gear, fishing methods, use of GPS and ultrasound,repairing and maintenance of boats and engines, and basic knowledge on fishingcooperatives (Saito, 1999). All of these materials are in Hara’s (1999) Manual ofFishery Techniques and Knowledge introduced in the Dominican Republic.According to SERCM (2004), approximately 1 660 fishers in the south regionreceived assistance from PROPESCAR-Sur, either in administration matters or insocial organization and business management.8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESCurrently, there is much strength that we can rely on to improve the fishery systemin the Dominican Republic. First, despite the above-mentioned deficiencies, thereis a history and institutional organizational basis for the management and orderingof fisheries. Second, key issues are clearly identified for the main resources, as wellas the necessary measures to start solving the problems. Third, there is a groupof technicians who can face the challenge of taking fishery biology to a new levelof development. Fourth, the development of the Environmental ManagementSystem (Sistema de Gestión Ambiental), promulgated by the Natural Resourcesand Environment General Law (Ley General de Medio Ambiente y los RecursosNaturales), provides the setting for addressing fisheries resources and coastalcommunity impacts.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 207However, there are many gaps that have to be addressed in order to take advantageof the above-mentioned strengths, such as the lack of institutional assessment,management and fisheries control, as well as the absence of national plans for short-, mid- and long-term development, existing fragmented fishery legislation withoutefficient enforcement mechanisms, lack of reliable and precise fishery statistics, andthe absence of fishery research institutions with scientific sustainability criteria toundertake socio-economic studies directed to the fishery sector.The establishment of management institutions that are independent fromthe dynamics of the national political sector is one of the major challenges thatthe fishing sector faces. There is need for stable, experienced, responsible andknowledgeable institutions to develop and implement a long-term NationalPlan for Fishery Development in the Dominican Republic (Plan Nacional parael Desarrollo Pesquero de la República Dominicana). This plan must have anopen scientific vision, promote modern and efficient legislation, include reliablestatistical fishery systems, represent the reality of the national fishery in everyaspect, position the country as a leader in fishery resource management, and firmlysupport international fishing commitments. One of the national challenges wouldbe to create a scientific institution responsible for undertaking fishery biologicalstudies of the national resources. This would concentrate the national experienceand would assure (through research and projects) a move from the currentdescriptive research to the assessment and modelling of fisheries.8.1 InstitutionalismIf we really want to start assessing and managing our fisheries resources in arational manner, the Dirección de Recursos Pesqueros (DRP – Fishing ResourcesDirectorate) of SERCM must become a scientific institution for national fisheriesmanagement (stable and long-lasting), independent from political changes, ratherthan the current situation where office personnel are removed every four years. Itwould be necessary to implement policies for hiring technical personnel, as well asdeveloping specific programmes to educate the authorities in the sustainability ofcoastal zone management concepts. The fishing sector requires clear administrativedirection by implementing strategies based on technical, ecological, economic andsocial criteria to achieve rational management.8.2 Fishery sector plans and policiesIt is necessary to review the fishery plans developed since 1980 to the present,to identify the positive aspects related to fisheries development and elaborate aunified and definitive National Plan for Fishery Development in the DominicanRepublic, which would identify solutions for all the sector’s issues and gaps. Basedon the changes in the world economy, this plan should consider a subject that hasnever been addressed before: the relationships between the fishing sector stages(commercialization, distribution, export and import) to establish the sector trends inrelation to current global economy processes. It is necessary to develop clear policiesfor each of the sector components, especially for the most vulnerable element: thefishers.

208Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean8.3 Diffusion and fishery legislationIt is necessary to develop pieces of legislation unified in a General Law of Coastaland Marine Fishery Resources in the Dominican Republic to incorporate thecountry’s international commitments. Legislation should be explicit in terms of theresources being regulated and the specifications of the minimum legal size, closureperiods and protected areas; and the legislation must be based on the ecologicaland biological scientific knowledge of fishing resources. Regulations for thoseresources that are not yet regulated should be developed, and stricter legislationshould be assessed for protected resources. Regulation should clarify that fisheries’resources cannot be exploited prior to the undertaking of experimental fishingand population assessments. The updating and complementation of fisherieslegislation should be accompanied by efficient administrative and enforcementmechanisms, as well as by effective diffusion mechanisms that reach every levelof the fishery sector. Environmental education programmes should be developedby governmental and non-governmental institutions to teach the biological,ecological and conservational aspects supporting the regulations. This wouldallow for understanding the regulations as a means of preserving the resources thatsupport the fishery, and not just as restrictive rules. In this sense, diffusion of theFAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is essential.8.4 Fishery statisticsIt is necessary to implement a national fishery resources organizational systemthat includes economic (commercial categories) and ecological (resources, fishingtype, fishery ecological complex) criteria to define general categories, whichwould provide the basis for the systematic compilation of the fishery biologicalinformation. It is necessary to develop and maintain a fisheries statistics system forthe Dominican Republic, which would include a permanent inventory of speciescomposition, length, weight, catch, effort, as well as other fishery biology data toassess the evolution of the fisheries and develop predictive models. To contributeto controlling fishing activities it is necessary to start planning the establishment ofcatch assessment and monitoring centres in at least some key areas in every coastalprovince, in particular those with major potential such as Montecristi, PuertoPlata, Samaná and Pedernales.8.5 Establishment of INDOPESCAAn important aspect for the assessment and management of the Dominican Republicfishery would be the creation of the Instituto Dominicano de InvestigacionesPesqueras (INDOPESCA – Dominican Fishery Research Institute). INDOPESCAwould be responsible for designing and implementing the fishery biology researchplan, which should include comprehensive studies of distribution processes andlife cycles of the fishery resources, as well as address, for the first time, relevantaspects such as stock assessment and population dynamic studies of our mainresources. It should also include fishery productivity estimates, with an emphasison important areas such as the slope edge and La Navidad and La Plata oceanic

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 209banks which encompass highly valued reproductive stocks. INDOPESCA wouldalso be responsible for baseline social and economic studies of the fishery sector, aswell as advising official institutions for the protection of fishery resources throughcutting-edge assessment and management criteria. Moreover, INDOPESCAwould play the main role in fisheries environmental education and technicalassistance to the national fishery sector.8.6 Conventions/agreements and organizations/institutionsIt is essential to review and update the national and international agreements onfishing and fisheries resources, which have been subscribed to by the DominicanRepublic. Therefore, it is crucial to create an office to address these issues whileworking closely with the Ministry of International Affairs. It is crucial to analyseour participation in and commitment to current agreements, and identify inactionon agreements that could be relevant for national development. The same appliesto our involvement in regional organizations or institutions related to fisherycooperation. This would allow for improving the fishery sector with internationalfinancial and technical support.REFERENCESABT. 2002. Informe final Volumen 5. Capítulo 9: Recursos costeros y marinos. InDiagnóstico ambiental y análisis económico/fiscal, República Dominicana, Proyectode políticas nacionales de medio ambiente. Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambientey Recursos Naturales.Appeldoorn R. 1993. Report on the lambi fishery and resource in the area of PuntaBeata, Dominican Republic. Technical Report submitted to Propescar Sur.Appeldoorn R. 1997. Observaciones sobre el estado de los recursos pesquerosen el Parque Jaragua. Reporte del Grupo Jaragua, Inc. Proyecto GEF-PNUD/ONAPLAN Conservación y Manejo de la Biodiversidad Costero-Marina en laRepública Dominicana.Aquino A. 1994. Evaluación de la pesquería de profundidad en la Bahía de Neiba,República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, 1: 99–118.Aquino A. & Infante J. 1994. Composición de especies y volúmenes de captura denasas antillanas en Juan Esteban, Barahona, República Dominicana. Reportes delPropescar-Sur, 1: 127–151.Aquino C. & Silva M. 1995. La pesquería marina en la costa sur de la Bahía de Samaná(Sabana de la Mar y Miches), República Dominicana: Estudio Básico. Centro parala Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc.Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.Arima S. 1997. Relación sobre la operación de prueba de pesca (No. 2) Palangre verticalde fondo ensayado en el Guarionex. Mini-Proyecto en Centro de Entrenamiento yDesarrollo Pesquero.Arima S. 1998a. Relación sobre la operación de prueba de pescado (No. 1). In Manualpara artes de pesca en el Mini-Proyecto de Samaná. Agencia de CooperaciónInternacional de Japón (JICA). pp. 89–110.

210Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanArima S. 1998b. Relación sobre la operación de prueba de pescado (No. 3). In Manualpara artes de pesca en el Mini-Proyecto de Samaná. Agencia de CooperaciónInternacional de Japón (JICA). pp. 111–145.Arima S. 1998c. Comparación entre palangre de fondo y palangre vertical de fondo.En: Manual para artes de pesca en el Mini-Proyecto de Samaná. Agencia deCooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA). pp. 146–150.Arima S. 1999a. Informe mensual de las actividades de los barquitos del Mini-Proyecto.Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA), junio 4/1999, No. 21.Arima S. 1999b. Informe mensual de las actividades de los barquitos del Mini-Proyecto.Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA), julio 6/1999, No. 22.Arima S. 1999c. Datos de operaciones del palangre vertical de fondo por Guarionex,Marien, Magua y Higuey, en el Mini-Proyecto en Samaná. Agencia de CooperaciónInternacional de Japón (JICA)/ Centro de Entrenamiento y Desarrollo Pesquero(CEDEP).Baisre J.A. 1985. Los complejos ecológicos de pesca: Definición e importancia enla administración de las pesquerías Cubanas. FAO Fisheries Report, 327(Suppl.):251–272.Beck U. & Colom R. 1994. Resultados de experimentos de pesca con tramallo deahorque demersales en la costa Suroeste de la República Dominicana. Reportes delPropescar-Sur., 1: 78–82.Beck U., Infante J., Aquino C. & Reyes Z. 1994a. Algunos problemas en la gestiónde los recursos costeros en las Provincias de Barahona y Pedernales. Reportes delPropescar-Sur., 1: 119-126.Beck U., Lee R.U. & Castellanos A.R. 1994b. Resultados de las operaciones de pescacon redes de ahorque demersales del Grupo Manatí entre abril y junio de, 1989.Reportes del Propescar Sur., 1: 37–43.Betancourt L. & Herrera A. 2004. Bahía de Luperón: Apuntes ecológicos para laconservación de un Área Protegida. República Dominicana. Programa EcoMar,Inc./Universidad INTEC, Santo Domingo.Bouchon C., Bouchon-Navarro Y. & Louis M. 1995. Fish biodiversity in PuertoViejo Azua, Dominican Republic. Abstracts of the 48 th Annual Meeting of the Gulfand Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.CEBSE. 1994. Características socioeconómicas y culturales de las comunidadeshumanas alrededor de la Bahía de Samaná. Asociación Suiza para el Desarrollo y laCooperación/ Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samanáy su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.CEBSE. 1996. La estrategia para el co-manejo de los recursos pesqueros de la Bahíade Samaná. In Plan de Manejo Integrado para la Región de Samaná. Documento 1.Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno,CEBSE, Editora Ozama. pp. 69–90.CFRM. 2004. Presentation plan for managing the marine fisheries of the DominicanRepublic, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 211Chiappone M. (ed). 2001. Fisheries investigations and management implications inMarine Protected Areas of the Caribbean. A case study of Parque Nacional del Este,Dominican Republic. The Nature Conservancy.Chiappone M., Sluka R. & Sullivan K. 2000. Groupers (Pisces: Serranidae) in fishedand protected areas of the Florida Keys, Bahamas and northern Caribbean. Mar.Ecol. Prog. Ser., 198: 261–272.CIBIMA. 1994. Estudio preliminar sobre la biodiversidad costera y marina de laRepúblca Dominicana. Editora Alfa y Omega, Santo Domingo.Colom R. 1994. Resultados de los experimentos con palangre de profundidad parafondos rocosos en la Bahía de Neiba. Reportes del Propescar-Sur., 1: 83–88.Colom R. & Aquino A. 1994. Evaluación de la pesquería de profundidad en la Bahíade Neiba. I. Pesca de cala. Reportes del Propescar-Sur., 1: 89–97.Colom R. & Infante J. 1995. La pesca de cala en la Bahía de Neiba, Barahona,República Dominicana. Abstracts of the 48 th Annual Meeting of the Gulf andCaribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Colom R. & Tejeda J.C. 1995. Las pesquerías de FADs´ en la Bahía de Neiba,Barahona, República Dominicana. Abstracts of the 48 th Annual Meeting of the Gulfand Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Domincan Republic.Colom R., Reye, Z. & Gil Y. 1994. Censo comprensivo de la pesca costera de laRepública Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, 1: 45–77.Decena M.T. & Díaz I. 1982. Informe preliminar sobre los peces comestibles de lazona de Matancita, Bahía Escocesa. Contribuciones del Centro de Investigacionesde Biología Marina (CIBIMA). 28: 1–12.Delgado G.A., Chiappone M., Geraldes F.X., Pugibet E., Sullivan K.M., Torres R.E.& Vega M. 1998. Abundance and size frequency of queen conch in relation tobenthic community structure in Parque Nacional del Este, Dominican Republic.Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 50: 1–31.FAO. 2001. Fishery Country Profile. Dominican Republic. http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/es/DOM/profile.htmFisheries Development Limited. 1980. Desarrollo pesquero en la RepúblicaDominicana. Instituto Dominicano de Tecnología Industrial (INDOTEC), SantoDomingo, Dominican Republic.Geraldes F.X., Mateo C., Rosado G., Álvarez V., Marcano E.J., Vega M., Navarro S.,Pugibet E., Pérez M.P., Ramírez H., Rivas V., Rodríguez Y., Montero D.,Asunción M. & Montero C. 1998. La diversidad biológica de los ecosistemasmarinos del Parque Nacional de Montecristi, Reporte técnico final al proyectoGEF-PNUD/ONAPLAN: Conservación y Manejo de Biodiversidad de la ZonaCostera de la República Dominicana, Centro de Investigaciones de Biología Marina,CIBIMA, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.Geraldes F.X., Mateo J. & Vegam M. 2001. Manual de artes y métodos de pescademersal y pelágica, recomendaciones para la pesca sustentable en la RepúblicaDominicana. Fundación Dominicana ProInvestigación y Conservación de losRecursos Marinos, MAMMA, Inc.

212Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanGeraldes F.X., Vega M., Pugibet E., Torres R.E., Rodríguez Y., Almanzar L. &Guerrero D. 1997. Estudio y prospección de las condiciones ecológicas ambientalesy uso del Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta, Informe final, FundaciónDominicana ProInvestigación y Conservación de los Recursos Marinos, MAMMA,Inc.Giudicelli M. 1996. Las pesquerías dominicanas: evolución, situación y perspectivas.Informe de la FAO.González B., Abdala J. & Aquino E. 1994. El Propescar-Sur y la participacióncomunitaria en la gestión ambiental y el co-manejo de los recursos pesqueroen el litoral Sur de la República Dominicana. In Conferencia: La participacióncomunitaria en la gestión ambiental y el co-manejo en la República Dominicana.Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno,CEBSE/Caribbean Natural Resources Institute CANARI. pp. 53–64.González B., Aquino J.E. & Abdala J. 1995a. Evaluación socioeconómica de lospescadores del litoral Sur: I. Grupo Manatí, 1984-1993. Reportes del Propescar-Sur,3: 80–88.González B., Aquino J.E. & Abdala J. 1995b. Rentabilidad y factibilidad de lasprincipales pesquerías en la Provincia de Barahona, 1993–1994. Reportes delPropescar-Sur, 3: 1–18.Graves J. 2002. Billfish Research and management news for the mid-Atlantic. VirginiaInstitute of Marine Sciences.Graves J.E., Horodysky A.Z. & Kerstetter D.W. 2003. Tracking the fate and habitatpreferences of white Marlin released from commercial fishing gear with archivalpop-up tags. http://www.microwavetelemetry. com/Fish_PTTs/graves_article.htmHara Y. 1999 (Ed.). Técnicas y conocimiento de la pesca introducidas en la RepúblicaDominicana. Proyecto de desarrollo de la pesca artesanal en el área de Samaná (1996–1999). Secretaría de Estado de Agricultura/Agencia de Cooperación Internacionalde Japón, SEA/JICA.Herrera A. 1996. Programa de monitoreo del reclutamiento postlarval de lalangosta Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804) en el Parque Nacional Jaragua, RepúblicaDominicana. Informe Técnico a Propescar Sur, Barahona.Herrera A. 2000. Clasificación de datos de las pesquerías de Samaná bajo el conceptode los complejos ecológicos de pesca. In La clasificación numérica y su aplicaciónen la ecología. Universidad INTEC. pp. 83–84.Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003a. Efecto del tamaño de malla de la nasa sobre laestructura de tallas de la langosta Panulirus argus en la pesca de la plataforma dePedernales. In Investigaciones ecológico-pesqueras de las langosta Panulirus argusen la plataforma dominicana. Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora Búho, SantoDomingo. pp. 5–24.Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003b. Datos de la pesca de la langosta Panulirus argusen la región de Samaná con notas sobre P. guttatus. In Investigaciones ecológicopesquerasde la langosta Panulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana. Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora Búho, Santo Domingo. pp. 25–44.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 213Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003c. Datos de la pesca de la langosta Panulirus argusen la región de Pedernales. In Investigaciones ecológico-pesqueras de las langostaPanulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana. Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. EditoraBúho, Santo Domingo. pp. 45–68.Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003d. Datos de la pesca de la langosta Panulirusargus en la región de Azua. In Investigaciones ecológico-pesqueras de las langostaPanulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana. Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. EditoraBúho, Santo Domingo. pp. 69–93.Herrera A. &. Betancourt L. 2003e. Pautas para el ordenamiento de la pesca de lalangosta espinosa Panulirus argus en República Dominicana. In Investigacionesecológico-pesqueras de las langosta Panulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana.Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora Búho, Santo Domingo. pp. 94–116.Herrera A. & Colom R. 1995. Análisis de la estructura poblacional de la langostaPanulirus argus en datos de las pesquerías de la región de Beata, con recomendacionessobre el muestreo biológico. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, 3: 31–37.ICRAFD. 2001. Five Year Work Programme for the Dominican Republic (April2000–March 2005). Integrated Caribbean Regional Agriculture and Fisheries.Infante J. & Silva M. 1994. Producción pesquera provincias Barahona y Pedernales.Reportes del Propescar Sur, 1:153–182.JICA/SEA. 1992. Informe del estudio de diseño básico del proyecto de desarrollo depesca costera en la República Dominicana. Agencia de Cooperación Internacionalde Japón/ Secretaría de Estado de Agricultura/ D & A Engineering, Co. Ltd.Just Us. 2006. Blue and White marlin are running, Don´t miss out on a hot season.Punta Cana 2004 Sport Fishing Charters. http://www.gotmarlin.comKawaguchi, K. 1974. Handline and longline fishing exploration for snapper andrelated species in the Caribbean Sea and adjacent waters. Mar. Fish. Rev., 36: 9.Kazunari Y., Shimizu H. & Kosuge T. 2001. Diurnal swimming patterns of thediamondback squid as observed by ultrasonic telemetry. Pelagic and Deep SeaBiology Section, Ishigaki Tropical Station. Seikai National Fisheries ResearchInstitute. Fisheries Research Agency. http://www.snf.affrc.go.jpLamelas R. 1997. Hacia el co-manejo de los recursos naturales en la región de Samaná,República Dominicana. Community and the Environment: Lessons from theCaribbean 4. CANARI, Panos Institute, Washington, D.C., CEBSE, DominicanRepublic.Lee R. 1995. Informe sobre la introducción de la embarcación Caranx y nasas delhondo a la cooperativa Carlos Marte del Palmar de Ocoa. Reportes del Propescar-Sur 3: 20–32.Lee R. & Aquino A. 1994. Introducción de FAD´s en la Bahía de Neiba. Reportes delPropescar Sur, 1: 183–194.León F.D. 1996. Construcción de balsas con materiales desechables, Centro para laConservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE.

214Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanLeón F.D. 1997. Distribución, vías de comercialización y destinos de los productospesqueros de Samaná y Sabana de la Mar. Centro para la Conservación yEcodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic.León Y., Pugibet E. & Sulka R. 1995. The abundance of fishes in shallow, algal/seagrass habitats in the waters surrounding Parque Nacional del Este, DominicanRepublic. Abstracts of the 48 th Annual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean FisheriesInstitute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Linton D., Smith R., Alcolado P., Hanson C., Edwards P., Estrada R., Fisher T.,Fernández R.G., Geraldes F., Mccoy C., Vaughan D., Voegeli V., Warner G.& Wiener J. 2002. Status of Coral Reefs in the Northern Caribbean and AtlanticNode of the GCRMN. In Status of coral reefs of the world: 2002. Edited by C.R.Wilkinson. GCRMN Report, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.pp. 277–302.Luczkovich J.J. 1991. Marine ecology of the Buen Hombre coast. In Satellitemonitoring of coastal marine ecosystems: a case from the Dominican Republic.Edited by R.W. Stoffle y D.B. Halmo. East Carolina University. pp. 93–141.Luperón G. 1998. El sistema pesquero de la zona de Montecristi, RepúblicaDominicana: Estudio básico. Reporte final de resultados, Centro para el Desarrollodel Noroeste, CIDEN, Inc.Mateo J., Arias I., Hierro B. & Garrido E. 2000. Fisheries programme design inLaguna de Oviedo, Jaragua National Park, Dominican Republic: A co-managementexperience. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 51: 309–315.Melo A. & Herrera A. 2002. Datos pesqueros de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus(Latreille, 1804) en la plataforma de Azua, República Dominicana. Revista Cienciay Sociedad, Universidad INTEC, Santo Domingo, XXVII. 3: 453–477.NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan Amendment.Chapter 2 Description of Atlantic Billfish Fisheries National Marine FisheriesService. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/Nolasco R. 2000. Situación de la mujer en la pesca y acuicultura en RepúblicaDominicana. Primera Reunión de Puntos Focales de la Red Latinoamericana delas Mujeres del Sector Pesquero Acuícola Informe Final. Octubre del 2000. http://mujeres.infopesca.org/novedades/nov_2_rep_dominicana.htmNúñez F. & García E. 1983. Aspectos preliminares de la pesquería camaronera enel Puerto de Sánchez, República Dominicana. Tesis para la opción del grado aLicenciado en Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.ONAPLAN. 1983. Estudio de base del sector pesquero. Secretariado Técnico de laPresidencia de la República Dominicana, Oficina Nacional de Planificación.Posada J.M., Mateo I.R. & Nemeth M. 1999. Occurrence, abundance and lengthfrequency distribution of queen conch, Strombus gigas, (Gastropoda) in shallowwaters of the Jaragua National Park, Dominican Republic. Proc. Carib. J. Science,35(1–2): 70–82.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 215Posada J.M., Mateo I.R. & Nemeth M. 2000. Distribution and abundance of queenconch, Strombus gigas, (Gastropoda: Strombidae) on the shallow waters of theJaragua National Park, Dominican Republic. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 51: 1–15.Ramírez O. & Silva M. 1994. Co-Manejo de Recursos Pesqueros. LegislaciónPesquera Dominicana. Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía deSamaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc., Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Reveles B., Mateo J. & León F.D. 1997. Los peces del Parque Nacional Jaragua. Basede datos con información pesquera. Reporte técnico final del Grupo Jaragua, Inc. alproyecto GEF-PNUD/ONAPLAN: Conservación y Manejo de Biodiversidad dela Zona Costera de la República Dominicana.Reyes Z. & Melo A. 2004. Contribución a la pesquería del pez vela Istiophorusalbicans durante el período, 1992–1997 en la comunidad pesquera de Juan Esteban,Barahona, República Dominicana. Tesis para la opción del grado a Licenciado enBiología, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.Saito T. 1999. Conocimientos básicos sobre la cooperativa pesquera. En. Proyectode desarrollo de la pesca artesanal en el área de Samaná (1996–1999). Secretaría deEstado de Agricultura/ Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón, SEA/JICA,pp. 1–28.Sang L., León D., Silva M. & King V. 1997. Diversidad y composición de losdesembarcos de la pesca artesanal en la región de Samaná. Centro para laConservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc.,Proyecto de Conservación y Manejo de la Biodiversidad en la Zona Costera de laRepública Dominicana GEF-PNUD/ONAPLAN.Schirm B. 1995a. Estimación del Rendimiento Pesquero Máximo Sostenido en laszonas de la costa Sur. In Estimaciones sobre la situación de los recursos pesquerosen la costa Sur de la República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, pp. 13–24.Schirm B. 1995b. La situación pesquera en la zona de influencia del Proyecto PropescarSur. In Estimaciones sobre la situación de los recursos pesqueros en la costa Sur dela República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, pp. 25–47.Schirm B. 1995c. El uso de los recursos pesqueros con la balsa: ¿una alternativa para lapesca artesanal? In Estimaciones sobre la situación de los recursos pesqueros en lacosta Sur de la República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, pp. 48–65.Schmitt E. 1998. Using a combination of transect and roving diver surveys to assessreef assemblages: a case study in the Southeastern Dominican Republic. Atlantic andGulf Rapid Reef Assessment Workshop. (Abstract). http://www.coral.noaa.gov/agra/workshops/abstracts.htmlSEA. 2000. Homepage. Proyectos. Centro de Entrenamiento y Desarrollo Pesquero(CEDEP). Secretaría de Estado de Agricultura. http://www.agricultura.gov.do/proyectos/btines1.htm.SERCM. 2000. Proyecto Manejo Integrado de los Recursos Naturales MarinoCosteros para el Desarrollo Sostenible de Azua-Barahona. Subsecretaría de Estadode Recursos Costeros y Marinos/ Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambiente yRecursos Naturales, SERCM/SEMARN, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.

216Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSERCM. 2002. Proyecto Manejo Integrado de los Recursos Costeros Marinos parael Desarrollo Sostenible en las Provincias de Azua y Barahona. Reporte de laSubsecretaría de Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos, Secretaría de Estado deMedio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.SERCM. 2004. Los Recursos Marinos de la República Dominicana. Subsecretaría deEstado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos/Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambiente yRecursos Naturales, SERCM/SEMARN, Editora Búho, Santo Domingo.Silva M. 1994. Especies identificadas en las pesquerías costeras artesanales del Surorestede la República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar Sur, 1: 1–36.Silva M. 1995. Estimación de la captura y el esfuerzo máximo sustentable en la pesqueríamarina de la Bahía de Neiba, República Dominicana. Abstracts 48th Annual MeetingGulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Silva M. & Aquino C. 1993. La Pesquería Marina en la Provincia de Samaná, RepúblicaDominicana: Estudio Básico, Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo dela Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. Santo Domingo, DominicanRepublic.Silva M. & Aquino C. 1994. Estadísticas Pesqueras. Centro para la Conservación yEcodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. El Cayuco, 1(1): 6–7.Silva M., Aquino C. & King V. 1995. Estadísticas Pesqueras. Centro para laConservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. ElCayuco, 2(1): 2–4.Silva M. & Colom R. 1996. Guía para el levantamiento de estadísticas pesqueras enla República Dominicana. CEBSE-PROPESCAR-SUR/SEA, Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic.Stoffle B.W., Halmo D., Stoffle R. & Burpee G. 1994. Folk management andconservation ethics among small-scale fishers of Buen Hombre, DominicanRepublic. In Folk Management in the World’s Fisheries. Lessons for ModernFisheries Management. Edited by C.L. Dyer and J.R. McGoodwin. UniversityPress. Colorado. pp. 115–138.Tejeda J.C. 1995a. Evaluación de la pesquería del lambí Strombus gigas (L.) en elParque Nacional Jaragua, 1992–1993. República Dominicana. Tesis para optar por eltítulo de Licenciado en Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.Tejeda J.C. 1995b. La pesquería del lambí Strombus gigas en el Parque NacionalJaragua. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, 3: 42–69.Tejeda J.C. 1995c. Niveles de captura y algunos aspectos de la biología del lambíStrombus gigas en el área de influencia de PROPESCAR-SUR, durante el período,1988–1994, Barahona. Abstracts of the 48 th Annual Meeting of the Gulf andCaribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Tejeda J.C. & Feliz L. 1995. Niveles de captura de la pesquería de nasa chillera,utilizando tres tipos de carnadas en la Bahía de Neiba, Barahona. Abstracts of the48th Annual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 217Tejeda J.C., Feliz D. & Feliz L. 1995. Evaluación de la pesquería con línea de manoen las cuatro principales playas de la Provincia Barahona, República Dominicana.Abstracts of 48 th Annual Meeting Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, SantoDomingo, Dominican Republic.Terrero N. 1989. Informe sobre los peces costeros de Palenque, República Dominicana.Contribuciones del Centro de Investigaciones de Biología Marina (CIBIMA). 80:1–11.Then T.M., Balbuena E. & Casilla M.A. 1995. Situación actual de la pesquería delcamarón blanco, Penaeus schmitti, en Sánchez, Samaná., 1995. Tesis de licenciatura,Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Torres R.E., Bustamante G., Chiappone M., Geraldes F.X., Pugibet E., RodriguezY.,Sealey K.M.S., Tschirky J. & Vega M. 2000. Fisheries Zoning Plan for ParqueNacional del Este, Dominican Republic. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 51: 475–491.Torres R.E. & Sealey K.M.S. 2002a. Abundance, size frequency, and spatialdistribution of queen conch (Strombus gigas) in Southeastern Dominican Republic:A four-year population study in Parque Nacional del Este. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.Inst., 53: 120–128.Torres R.E. & Sealey K.M.S. 2002b. Shell midden surveys as source of informationabout fished queen conch (Strombus gigas) populations: A case study in ParqueNacional Del Este, Dominican Republic. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 53: 143–153.UNEP-WCMC. 2006. UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species onthe World Wide Web: http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/USAID. 2002. Proyecto de Ley Sectorial de Biodiversidad. Environmental Policy andInstitutional Strengthening, Dominican Republic.Valdivia, G.A. 2003. Reporte de pesca experimental de palangre de atún, CEDEP/JICA. Subsecretaría de Recursos Costeros y Marinos, Secretaría de Estado MedioAmbiente y Recursos Naturales.Vargas R. & Billini C.F. 2000. Larval abundance of Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) inJaragua National Park, Dominican Republic. Sustainable Development of CoastalZones and Instruments for its Evaluation International Conference, Germany.www.rabbitgraph.de/cdg/p_esbili.htmVega M. 1998. Proyecto Educación Ambiental a la Comunidad Vecina al ParqueNacional Submarino La Caleta. Programa de Apoyo a las Áreas Protegidas,Fundación MacArthur/PRONATURA. www.acuarionacional.com/publicaciones/modulos/pescay buceo7.htmWalter G. 1994. Comercialización de productos pesqueros en República Dominicana.Reportes del Propescar Sur, 1: 195–259.Zorrilla T., Balbuena E. & Casilla M. 1995. Situación actual de la pesquería delcamarón blanco en Sánchez, Samaná. Tesis para la opción del grado a Licenciado enBiología, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.

2199. Coastal fisheries of GrenadaROLAND BALDEO *Baldeo, R. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Grenada. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles andJ.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries andAquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 219–229.1. Introduction 2192. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 2212.1 Beach seine fishery 2212.2 Lobster fishery 2233. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 2234. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 2245. Assessment of fisheries 2256. Fishery management and planning 2256.1 Long-term plan 2276.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance 2287. Research and education 228Acknowledgements 229References 2291. INTRODUCTIONGrenada is one of the small island developing states in the eastern Caribbean.It comprises the main island by that name, the inhabited islands of Carriacouand Petit Martinique, and several uninhabited smaller islands mainly off thenortheast and southeast coasts (Figure 1). It is located in the Caribbean Seabetween latitudes 11.5° and 12.5° north and longitudes 60° and 61° west. Themain island of Grenada has a width of 18 km, a length of 34 km, a coastline ofabout 121 km, an area of 340 km 2 , and its highest point reaches nearly 900 m.Carriacou, located 24 km to the northeast of the mainland, is less mountainousand has an area of 34 km 2 . Petit Martinique is 2.3 km 2 and lies east of thenorthern part of Carriacou (FAO, 2006).* Contact information: Fisheries Officer. Fisheries Division. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. St.George’s, Grenada. E-mail: rolandbaldeo@hotmail.com

220Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanGrenada has a relatively large insular shelf area of 3 100 km 2 . The shelf isnarrow on the western coast, extending from shore less than 1 km to 200 mdepth. From the southeast to the northeast, the shelf varies in width between4 and 12 km, and extends to the west-southwest in a 19-km-wide tongue for about32 km. Depths on the shelf vary from 40 to 80 m with average depths of 30 to40 m. In the Grenadines, the shelf is from 20 to 60 m deep over the greater partof the area. Ocean currents generally flow from the east-southeast towards thenorthwest. Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde are at the north of the island, and Gouyaveis on the west (FAO, 2006).FIGURE 1Geographic location of the island of GrenadaSource: FAO, 2006.

Coastal fisheries of Grenada 2212. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITYGrenada’s most important fishery targets coastal pelagics within the country’sexclusive economic zone (EEZ). The main species targeted are:Yellowfin tunaBlackfin tunaAlbacoreBlue marlinSwordfishAtlantic sailfishDolphinfishWahooKing mackerelBigeye scadRound scad(Thunnus albacares)(Thunnus atlanticus)(Thunnus alalunga)(Makaira nigricans)(Xiphias gladius)(Istiophorus albicans)(Coryphaena hippurus)(Acanthocybium solandri)(Scomberomorus cavalla)(Selar crumenophthalmus)(Decapterus sp.)The fishery is essentially medium-scale commercial in which the entire catchis sold. Grenada’s fishery does not record bycatch since there is a market for allspecies captured. Because the main species targeted are migratory pelagics, there isan element of seasonality both in effort and catches. Catches of pelagic species aremost prevalent between October and July; however, this does not imply a totallyinactive period in between where catches approach zero. In this context, one mayargue that the fishery is essentially year-round.2.1 Beach seine fisheryThe beach seine fishery in Grenada has been researched and described by Finlay(1996). It targets coastal pelagic species in bays around the islands of Grenada,including jacks, round robins, rainbow runners, sprats and anchovies.In 1994, there were 41 large beach seines operating in Grenada, operated by289 fishers, most of whom are not the owners of the gear (Finlay, 1996). About25% of the seines in Grenada were based in Gouyave, and only one or two outof the more than a dozen have been owner-operated. Net units are operated bygroups of six to eight fishers who position themselves at a fishing location and taketurns fishing. Fishing practices are governed by a well-defined set of 15 traditionalrules enforced at the haul by the seine net community. The rules institutionalizehow fishers stake a claim to a haul by anchoring and tying the sternline to shore;how they determine the sequence of turns if more than one boat is preparing toseine; how to share the catch or revenue from it when helpers and volunteers takepart; and other practices designed to make fishing operations work smoothlyand predictably. In recent years, increasing competition and conflict among seinenets and also between seine nets and non-fishing coastal sea users have tended todisrupt the traditional practices necessitating consultations to decide on agreedupon management measures.

222Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThe process of formalizing the system of rules for seine fishing in Grenadahas been ongoing since 1982, when the Chief Fisheries Officer became awarethat there was an informal system. In the following years he interviewed manyseine fishers and interpreted, compiled and documented the rules. These werethen reconfirmed with groups of fishers in meetings at all major fishing areasand formulated into a set of rules that they could endorse for adoption by thegovernment as regulations. A survey to determine fishers’ views concerning beachseine fishing practices showed that 97% of captains strongly supported legalizingthe traditional rules.The seine net fishery in Grenada is a case of an attempt by the government tosystematically document traditional fishing rules and customs in order to considerincorporating them into formal fisheries legislation. A basic assumption andprerequisite is that the communities in which the fishing takes place should bewilling and able to perpetuate the traditional rules.Information regarding fishing activities for pelagic fisheries in Grenada isshown in Table 1, updated up to 2004. It is important to note that the informationprovided is also historically accurate (early 1980s). The most flexible variable is thenumber of boats in the fishery.In Grenada, other fishery species are targeted, as in the case of the Caribbeanspiny lobster. This species is of high importance in the wider Caribbean given its higheconomic value. In Grenada, this crustacean is captured using of trammel nets.TABLE 1Summary of fishing activity for pelagics in GrenadaSpeciesType and size ofgearType and sizeof boatNumber of boatsin fisheryAveragecrewYellowfin tunaSailfishSwordfishBlue marlinYellowfin tunaSailfishSwordfishBlue marlinYellowfin tunaSailfishBlue marlinSurface longline500 hooksSurface longline200 hooksSurface longline150 hooksLaunch 10–15 m 75 4Pirogue 7–9 m 120 3Open 5–7 m 210 2Blackfin tunaDolphinfishBarracudaTrolling lines – 3 Open pirogue 130 2–3JacksRound robinScadsBeach seineDouble ender5–7 m25 8Source: Statistical Unit, Fisheries Division, Grenada.

Coastal fisheries of Grenada 2232.2 Lobster fisheryAround Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde in the north of Grenada, fishers have usedtrammel nets as the main method for harvesting Caribbean spiny lobster sincethe 1980s. Nowhere else in Grenada is this gear used primarily for lobsters, andmany of these enterprises are owner-operated. These nets are non-selective, andhauling them physically damages productive bottom habitats. Use of trammel netswas recently prohibited in Grenada. The nets were prohibited in neighbouringcountries several years earlier.A boat will typically catch 30 to 60 kg of lobster per week in a season of 16to 24 weeks. Between 6 and 10 boats are usually operating, so landings of about10 tonnes per season of whole lobster from Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde are possible.Lobsters may be landed in Sauteurs or taken to holding pens in shallow water foraccumulation. Landings are usually taken by road to the Grenville fish market forsale, and some also find their way to the capital, St. George’s. The market acceptslobster caught by the illegal fishing gear, as well as lobster caught by Self-containedUnderwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) divers by hand or using loops.Although Sauteurs fishers exploit several fisheries, lobsters are the mainstay thatprovides them with their fishing identity and main livelihood. Estimates of personaland fishery-wide income vary considerably. However, fishers are said to expectabout US$2 000 per eight-month season. The seasonal value of the lobster fishery atthese locations may be around US$100 000, not counting indirect employment andvalue added in final marketing through hotels.While recognizing the illegality of their actions and agreeing to stop using thenets, trammel net fishers at Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde have argued that they needfirst to be provided with alternative and legally acceptable fishing gear that yieldsadequate returns. Dialogue between the fishers and Fisheries Division on this issuehas been ongoing for several years. Fishers argued successfully, at policy level,for relaxing enforcement of the legislation until the Fisheries Division introducedsuitable alternative gear. Phillip (2002) provides details of fishing methods. TheFisheries Division’s work with the fishers on alternative gear and persuadingthem to comply with the fisheries regulations is an attempt at co-management in afairly narrow sense. Due to the relatively remote location of the fishing areas awayfrom the capital and regular enforcement efforts, obtaining the fishers voluntarycompliance with the legislation is critical for management of the fishery.3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSAs of 2004, 1 931 fishers were registered with the Fisheries Division. Records alsoreveal that there are 35 weekend fishers and 365 part-time fishers, while the remainderis classified as full-time fishers (1 834). A part-time fisher is usually engaged in farmingpart of the time. Occupations engaged in by part-time fishers include construction andboat building. Some may travel abroad for part of the year.Few women in Grenada are involved in active fishing. However, theirparticipation in the industry is fairly high profile in the following areas: fishvending, fish processing (salting, smoking), export sector (as exporters), clerical

224Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanwork (for major exporters), quality control (for exporters), and financialcontrollers for their male fishing partners.The last role is of critical importance in maintaining the viability of the fisherfamily (Johnson St. Louis, personal communication, 2004). A fact that is notcommonly noted is that some women invest substantially in the industry as boatowners. Every parish in Grenada along the coast has communities with a longfishing tradition. However, with regards to the movements of fisheries fromone locality to another, the situation is fairly fluid. Fishers based in a particularlocation may originate elsewhere.In Grenada, 84.3% of all fishers possess a minimum elementary education (i.e.pre-secondary); 7.1% have reached secondary level; and 8.7% have completedtertiary level education (ranging from junior college to university). The averagefishing family size is five. The wife and sons usually play a supporting role to thefather (usually the fisher). The wife may help to process surplus catch (salting).The sons, if old enough, may accompany the father on fishing trips during schoolvacations. Fishers of small boats may earn between US$9 300 and US$10 000 peryear. (Johnson St. Louis, personal communications, 2004). For the larger boats (i.e.longliners) annual income ranges between US$15 300 and US$33 700.Grenada does not possess ‘fishing communities’ in the sense understood insome countries. Fishing is just another occupation in a normal community. Thereis no discernable difference in a community with a sizeable number of fishersfrom any other community, except perhaps the presence of boats, fishing gear andfishing infrastructure (jetty, fish markets). Grenadian fishers have the same accessto housing (with electricity, running potable water), transportation, medical care,school and entertainment facilities as the rest of the population.4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORSNot all fishers belong to a fisheries organization, but a significant number of themdo belong to some organized group. There are six fisher organizations nationwide.These organizations take the form of registered fishermen cooperatives and/or associations. Additionally, investors such as bankers and administrators mayactively participate in meetings in an advisory capacity.To the extent that fishers belong to registered organizations, they may participatein fishery management. It must be noted, however, that fishers’ contributions tomanagement at this level are mainly related to advocacy. Fishers may sometimesshare information on an ad hoc basis of a nature that can be directly utilized infishery management. Such information is usually of the sort that has implicationsfor monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). Another way in which fisheriesparticipate in fishery management is by sharing traditional ecological knowledge(TEK) with fishery managers.Community-wide involvement in fishery management is restricted to advocacyby individuals on specific issues and reporting of illegal activities (MCS). However,the community is not sufficiently informed about fishery issues in order to beeffective as it could be.

Coastal fisheries of Grenada 225Non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) involvement in fishery managementis very limited. Mainly, they have served to facilitate training programmes andcommunity discussions. From time-to-time, an NGO will focus attention on someaspect of the marine environment (e.g. habitat degradation, coastal erosion). Grenadacurrently has a number of NGOs (conservation groups and three universities)involved in marine turtle research that is aimed at protecting populations.In terms of interactions with other sectors, fishers targeting large pelagicsusing the surface (drifting) longlines sometimes do get into conflict over seaspace. A drifting longline occupies a substantial portion of available sea spacethus increasing the likelihood of gear overlapping and entanglement. Within theinshore coastal area, the beach seine targets mainly scads (bigeye and roundeyescads). These fishes are an important source of low-cost, high-quality protein forthe Grenadian community. In recent times, however, the demand for these fishesas bait for the large pelagic fishery has increased markedly.Other coastal activities include fishing for demersals, tourism-related activities,recreational diving, yachting and shipping. Very often, direct conflicts developbetween yachts and inshore pelagic fishers when the former get in the way ofbeach seines.Grenada does not possess anything resembling an integrated coastal managementpolicy.5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESStock assessment of large pelagics is normally conducted by the InternationalCommission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which uses avariety of models and tests. Neither Grenada nor other Caribbean countrieshave been conducting any assessments on the smaller pelagics (with the possibleexception of wahoo and dolphinfish). Population parameters include lengthand age at maturity. ICCAT also provides estimates of recruitments, yields andbiomass.Under the ecosystem approach to the Lesser Antilles Project (FAO, 2006),some attempt is being made to develop workable ecosystem modelling. One ofthe models being looked at is ECOPATH. There are large knowledge gaps as itrelates to Grenada’s pelagic fishery. Knowledge deficiency covers such areas as:no bio-economic assessment of the fishery; no cost-benefit or financial analysis;no risk/uncertainty analysis; no environmental impact assessment; and no socialimpact assessment.There may be some information on demographics of the fishing community.But issues as they relate to gender, movement of labour, traditional knowledge andcommunity-based management have never been subjects of targeted research.6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGGrenada’s fishery is centrally managed through a Fishery Management Unit(referred to as the Fisheries Division) within the Ministry of Agriculture. TheFisheries Division was established by an Act of Parliament in 1986. This piece of

226Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanlegislation, administered by the Fisheries Division, provides for the appointmentof a chief fisheries officer and other fisheries officers responsible for theformulation and review of fisheries management and development Plans, and afisheries advisory committee made up of fishers, investors and other stakeholdersin the industry. The Fisheries Act also makes provisions for the establishment ofaccess agreements, local and foreign fishing licences, fish processing operations,local management areas, fisheries conservation, fisheries research, and control ofgear and effort. In addition, the Fisheries Act provides for enforcement, and grantsrule-making powers to the Minister responsible for fisheries.Subsidiary legislation includes the following: Fisheries Regulations SRO #9 of 1987; Fisheries (Fishing Vessel Safety) Regulations SRO #3, 1990; Fisheries (Amendment) Regulations SRO #24, 1996; Fisheries (Amendment) Regulations SRO #2, 2001; Fisheries (Amendment) Act #1, 1999; Fisheries (Marine Protected Regulations), 2001.Legislation directly related to fishers includes: Grenada Territorial Seas and Marine Boundaries Act #25, 1989(defining EEZ a c onsolidation of SRO #17 and #20 of 1978); CARICOM Common External Tariff Order #18, 1995(Archipelagic baseline Ordinance); Grenada Ports Authority Act (Cap. 247); Fish and Fishery Products Regulations SRO #17, 1999; Merchant Shipping Act (1994); Waste Management Act #16, 2001.The Fisheries Division is under the Ministry of Agriculture and hence policiesguiding fisheries management and development are formulated and implementedwithin a framework that was developed and agreed upon for the agriculturalsector as a whole. Within this context, the issues of target stock conservation andmanagement, infrastructure enhancement and socio-economic development arethe main areas of focus.Grenada is signatory to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries(which incorporates the Precautionary Principle) as well as the Convention onBiological Diversity. The offshore pelagic fishery operates under the principle ofthe ‘commons’, whereas fishing opportunity is governed by a ‘first-come basis’.On the other hand, fishing opportunity in the inshore pelagic fisheries (scads)is subject to traditional conventions in territorial use rights in fisheries (TURF).Fishing opportunity is allocated to specific seines at specific times by commonagreement. This TURF system has evolved over many decades and is not written.It has proved to be effective in preventing conflicts among seine owners and for

Coastal fisheries of Grenada 227this reason is adhered to by all. The ‘right’ to fish in this sense simply refers tohaving a designated ‘turn’ to encircle a school of fish within a particular bay.Conservation measures as they relate to the pelagic fishery are twofold. Inthe case of large pelagics falling under the mandate of ICCAT, the conservation/management measures proposed by that organization are followed. With regardto the inshore pelagics, the law provides for the regulation of mesh sizes inbeach seines. The Fishery (Amendment) Regulations of 1996 and 2001, and theFisheries (Marine Protected Areas) of 2001, provide for habitat protection andenhancement. These pieces of legislation envisage the protection of both spawningand foraging habitats.All fishery officers are empowered by the Fishery Act as enforcement officers.Enforcement is normally conducted jointly with police/coast guard. Enforcementcovers such areas as illegal fishing (including fishing during the closed season andforeign fishing). Compliance within the pelagic fishery is fairly high.Grenada’s commercial fishery is subsidized. Subsidies include a rebate on fuelpurchased (82 cents on the gallon), all fishing gear and all safety-at-sea items(100% duty and 100% general consumption tax off). The law stipulates that only‘bona fide’ fishers are eligible for concessions.6.1 Long-term planGenerally the objective of fisheries management is to sustain and increase yieldsfrom fisheries resources for the purpose of satisfying and enhancing humanfood consumption and contributing to the socio-economic options available tothe Grenadian community. In this regard, long-term planning incorporates thefollowing aspects: Apply the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in the managementof specific stocks and habitats and use as reference points in conservationand management programmes. Apply technology that is efficient and selective. Continue the control of fishing effort in order to protect stocks from bothlocal and foreign fishers. Ensure that various fisheries sector providers are controlled and facilitatedfor the socio-economic development of the Grenadian community as awhole. Implement FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Conventionon the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) and ICCAT’s management measures. Continue to promote co-management in all fisheries. In addition, initiatives toimplement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management will continue. Strengthen the Fisheries Division’s capacity in data collection, processingand analysis. Improve fishery infrastructure. Continue the drive to ensure the security of the fishing fleet by vigorouslyenforcing safety at sea regulation.

228Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean Pursue institutional strengthening at the level of the Fisheries Division withemphasis on human resource development. Maintain regional and international collaboration in the interest of fisherymanagement and conservation.6.2 Monitoring, control and surveillanceAll fishery officers are empowered by the Fishery Act as enforcement officers.Enforcement is normally conducted jointly with police/coast guard. Enforcementcovers such areas as illegal fishing (including fishing during the closed season andforeign fishing). Compliance within the pelagic fishery is fairly high.Unfortunately, there is no formal mechanism to evaluate fisheries managementin Grenada.7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONThe following data are routinely collected at primary landing sites: catch andeffort, landings by species and weight, and fishing area/ground.Table 2 summarizes the type of data normally collected.TABLE 2Summary of fisheries data collectedType ofdataCatch andeffortFisherytypeData collected/methodLocation1 and 2 From production and landings All primary andtertiary landingsitesBiological 1 1 and 2 Measurements done by datacollectors at market wheneveravailableBiological 2Used to be collectedduring the national billfishtournament but discontinuedas the tournament is basicallyof catch and release typeBiological 1 and 2 Planned for as part of theecosystem based system ofmanagementPrimary landingsitesGYSAll marketsAgency/organization/institutionFD/MALFFFD/MALFFFD/MALFF for ICCATthrough CRFMFD/MALFF, CRFM, FAONote: type 1 refers to the large offshore pelagic fishery (yellowfin tunas, billfishes), while type 2 aresmall pelagics (blackfin, wahoo, dolphinfish, etc.).Note: GYS = Grenada Yacht Services; FD = Fisheries Division; MALFF = Ministry of Agriculture,Lands, Forestry and Fisheries; ICCAT = International Commission for the Conservation of AtlanticTunas; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; CRFM = CaribbeanRegional Fisheries Mechanism.1Length frequency.2Length frequency, weight, sex.With regard to large tuna and tuna-like species (especially billfishes), both stockassessment and fishery management is relegated to ICCAT. As a consequence, allcountries targeting species under ICCAT’s mandate, whether contracting partiesor not, are obligated to provide ICCAT with catch and effort and other relevant

Coastal fisheries of Grenada 229data. ICCAT then determines available biomass and decides on appropriatemanagement measures. All countries must comply with management measuresproposed by ICCAT.A limited amount of work has been done through the Organization of EasternCaribbean States (OECS) Fisheries Unit on the economic and social aspects ofthe fishery. While the study was a country-specific survey of fishing vessels, itdid incorporate information on fishers. Data included information on crew, socialstatus, dependencies, costs and expenditure, among others.There is no formal structured educational programme (environmental orconservation) on fishing or fisheries. From time-to-time, fisheries officers willmake ad hoc presentations in schools, community centres, cooperatives, and atthe university on issues concerning sustainable utilization of marine resources andconservation. During such presentations, the concept of sustainable utilization isnormally explained. Much focus is also placed on sensitizing people on fisheryconservation laws.Only one vocational institution (except for the Grenada Fishing School, 1980–1982) has ever sought to promote fishing as an occupation, but this programme hassince been stopped. As a rule, vocational institutions offer alternative occupationsto fishing.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe author is grateful to the following persons who assisted with the preparationof this report: Crofton Isaac (Fisheries Officer, Fisheries Division); Justin Rennie(Chief Fisheries Officer [Ag], Fisheries Division); Paul Phillip (Fisheries Officer,Fisheries Division); Johnson St. Louis (Fisheries Officer, Fisheries Division) andTracy Augustine (Data Clerk, Fisheries Division).REFERENCESFAO. 2006. Fisheries Country Profile for Grenada. [Online document] Web page:http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/GRD/profile.htm – Date of consultation: Nov. 24,2006.Finlay J.A. 1996. Community-level sea use management in the Grenada beach seinenet fishery: current practices and management recommendations. M.Sc. Thesis.University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados.Phillip P.E. 2002. Management recommendations for lobster fishery re: trammel nets.Fisheries Division manuscript.

23110. Coastal fisheries of MexicoJosé Ignacio Fernández * , Porfirio Álvarez-Torres, Francisco Arreguín-Sánchez,Luís G. López-Lemus, Germán Ponce, Antonio Díaz-de-León, Enrique Arcos-Huitrón and Pablo del Monte-LunaFernández, J.I., Álvarez-Torres, P., Arreguín-Sánchez, F., López-Lemus, L.G., Ponce, G.,Díaz-de-León, A., Arcos-Huitrón, E. and del Monte-Luna, P. 2011. Coastal fisheries ofMexico. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome.pp. 231–284.1. Introduction 2322. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 2332.1 Fisheries technology 2352.2 Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean fisheries 2352.3 Pacific coast fisheries 2372.4 Seasonality 2392.5 Non-target species and bycatch 2403. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 2403.1 Average annual income level 2413.2 Fishers’ levels of education and roles of family membersin coastal fisheries 2423.3 Processing and marketing 2433.4 Conflicts between fishers and other coastal activities 2444. Assessment of fisheries 2454.1 Status of the fisheries 2475. Fishery management and planning 2495.1 Historical trends 2495.2 Legal instruments, strategies and management tools 2505.3 Management and enforcement 2525.4 Fishers’ participation in fisheries management 2525.5 Community and NGO involvement in fishery management 2535.6 Management in accordance to international guidelines 2536. Research and education 2546.1 Ecosystem-based management approach 255* Contact information: Instituto Nacional de la Pesca-SAGARPA. Mexico. E-mail: WECSG20@yahoo.com.mx

232Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean7. Issues and challenges 2577.1 Fisheries assessment and approaches needed for integration 2577.2 Lack of long-term vision on fisheries management 2577.3 Flaws in fishery policies and lack of transparency 2587.4 Need for a definition of use rights 2587.5 Interactions between industrial and artisanal fleets and withother sectors 2597.6 Impact of subsidies on fishing activities 260References 2601. INTRODUCTIONSmall-scale fisheries in Mexico account for about 97% of the marine fleet. Thesefisheries cover about 70% of the continental shelf, which accounts for 10% of theexclusive economic zone (EEZ), and occur scattered along both coastal regions:the Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean (Figure 1). In thischapter, we first present an overview of the Mexican marine fisheries, emphasizingthe most important small-scale fisheries in each region, and providing moredetailed information when available. We refer to coastal, small-scale or artisanalfisheries as those that generate products for local consumption and marketing, usesmall-scale boats that operate with low capital investment, are labour intensivewith limited autonomy and capacity, and usually undertake daily fishing trips.Other fisheries (midscale and industrial) are referred to when applicable.FIGURE 1Map of the coastal area in Mexico surrounded by waters fromthe Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean SeaSource: Beltrán-Turriago, 2007.Total annual catch in Mexico has fluctuated in the last three decades around1.3 million tonnes (Figure 2). Different governmental programmes provided theincentive for the development of the fisheries between the 1970s and the 1980s,

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 233especially by improving technology and increasing fishing effort (Salas et al.,2007); more recently, catches range around 1 million tonnes (Figure 2).FIGURE 2Landing trends from 1950 to 2003 in MexicoLandings (thousand tonnes)1 8001 6001 4001 2001 000800600400200019401943Source: CONAPESCA, 2002.19461949195219551958196119641967197019731976Year1979198219851988199119941997200020032006The development of Mexican fisheries has been different between regions, aslandings from the Pacific contribute the most to the total national catch (77%),compared with those from the Gulf of Mexico (21%) and the Caribbean region(2%) (CONAPESCA, 2002). However, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbeanregion play an important role in terms of catch value and job generation. In theseareas, a high proportion of total catch comes from the artisanal (small-scale) fleetthat targets highly profitable species; other proportions of the landings come frommultispecies fisheries that are mainly seasonal.Landings from the Pacific have fluctuated more over the last two decadesthan those from the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean region (Figure 3). This occurredmostly during the early 1990s when El Niño-southern Oscillation (ENSO) eventscaused declines in abundant sardine stocks. Catches in the Gulf of Mexico andthe Caribbean Sea peaked by 1993–1994, the shrimp and the octopus fisheriescontributing the most to the overall catch.2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIESSmall-scale coastal fisheries can be described in terms of the catch of a varietyof target species, plus several incidental species. Target species comprise 28% ofthe catches in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, as registered in statisticalyeardocuments. Although subsistence fisheries are widespread, most artisanalfisheries can be characterized as small- to medium-scale commercial, since asignificant fraction of the catch is sold to local markets or to middlemen for bothdomestic and overseas markets.According to statistical yeardocuments (CONAPESCA, 2001), there are56 412 small artisanal vessels in the Pacific shores: 1 609 in Baja California;

234Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean3 633 in Baja California Sur; 7 234 in Sonora; 11 828 in Sinaloa; 4 442 in Nayarit;2 938 in Jalisco; 791 in Colima; 5 171 in Michoacán; 4 744 in Guerrero; 5 090 inOaxaca; and 8 932 in Chiapas.FIGURE 3Landing trends from the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Seaof main species targeted by coastal fleet in MexicoSource: SEMARNAP, 2004.On the other hand, there are 43 392 small artisanal vessels in the Gulf of Mexicoand Caribbean shores: 6 662 in Tamaulipas; 15 898 in Veracruz; 9 601 in Tabasco;5 362 in Campeche; 4 981 in Yucatán; and 888 in Quintana Roo (CONAPESCA,2001).Despite the differences in small-scale fisheries on both coasts, the percapita investment in fishing gear and boat equipment is generally low in bothcases, compared with semi-industrial fleets. However, fishing technology hasbeen improved during the past two or three decades as increases in both boatmotorization and the use of more efficient fishing gears have occurred. Thesechanges are the result of investments applied in these fisheries in Mexico, similarto investments in technology that have occurred in many other countries in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean during the same period (Salas et al., 2007). Regardlessof these improvements, productivity has not increased accordingly, since nearshorefishery resources are fully exploited, overexploited (Díaz de León et al.,2004) or fished down (Salas et al., 2004). Increasing fish demand and marketingof fish products has led to an excess of fishing capacity, resource depletion,waste of economic and human resources, and poor returns on investments. Inaddition, fishers have been faced with increases in frequency and intensity ofnatural phenomena in coastal areas such as hurricanes, tropical storms and redtides, which have impacted the resources and limited their fishing operations, thusaffecting fishers’ profits (Díaz de León et al., 2004; Salas et al., 2006).

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 2352.1 Fisheries technologyMexican artisanal fisheries vary in their degree of technology. The simpler side hasfishers operating from the shore or from propelled wooden canoes using cast nets orbeach seines. However, most fishing vessels are made of fibreglass and are 6 to 10 mlong. In some regions, the outboard-powered small vessels are called panga.Some fisheries, like the shrimp fishery that operates in coastal waters, use fixedgears which block migrations to the sea (tapos) and use small vessels to load thecatches and take them to shore. In Tamaulipas and Veracruz, fishers use small vesselsand ‘V’ shaped fixed nets (charangas) and they store the catch until it is taken toshore.In some cases, such as the octopus-grouper fishery in Yucatán and the lobsterfishery, several fleets of varying size and capacity target the same species. The largervessels generally use fishing methods and gears which incorporate the same level ofmechanical support for extraction, such as winches for grouper or traps for lobster.These vessels have the ability to expand their operations to deeper areas, usuallytargeting species of larger size, or other species like octopus. These fisheries canbe sequential, as different types of vessels operated by different stakeholders targetvarious life stages of the exploited populations, resulting in social interactions thatare not always explicitly considered in management. Even though it is generallyforbidden by regulations, diving is also a common fishing method in the Gulf ofMexico and the Caribbean, targeting species like lobster, conch and octopus.2.2 Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean fisheriesA variety of species are targeted in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.However, only a dozen of them represent the highest contribution in volumeand profit; other species are caught incidentally or in a complementary manner.A summary of the characteristics of the vessels used, as well as the usual crewemployed by the fleet that undertake fishing operations in the Gulf of Mexico andthe Caribbean region, are presented in Table 1. Appendix I presents a complete listof species targeted in the area.One of the most important fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico targets grouperand related species. The demersal species associated with reef areas (Veracruz)and rocky areas (Yucatán) are usually reported in a group called escama. Thissituation can obscure the organization of catch records and the assessment ofstocks, further complicating the implementation of management strategies thatproperly regulate the effort allocated to different stocks. The demersal fishesincluded in the ‘escama’ group include the following: groupers (Epinephelusflavolimbatus, E. morio, E. itajara, E. adscencionis, E. drummondhayi, E. nigritus,Mycteroperca bonaci, M. microlepis, M. venenosa, M. interstitialis); snappers(Lutjanus bucanella, L. vivanus, L. synagris, L. analis, L. griseus, L. jocu, Ocyuruschrysurus, Rhomboplites aurorubens), porgies (Calamus bajonado); grunts(Haemulon plumieri); banded rudderfish (Seriola zonata); hogfish (Lachnolaimusmaximus); and tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) (Monroy et al., 2000a). Atcertain locations in the Gulf of Mexico, between 35% and 70% of the total catchof escama is made up of the red grouper (E. morio).

236Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 1Summary of characteristics of boats and gears employed in the fisheries that operate inthe Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean regionSpeciesType and size ofgearType and size of boatNumber ofboatsAveragecrew sizeOctopusAlijos (small boats)carrying jimbas(wooden stick withseveral lines andbaits)3–4 m long, fibreglassboat, carried by a 7–9 mlong boat with outboardengine (15–75 hp) or bya 12–22 m long vesselacting as mother shipfor the alijos. Around 10alijos for mid-size vesselsand 2 alijos for smallvesselsAround 3 500small vessels,and 500 mid-sizevessels1–4 for smallboats, 10–12for mid-sizevesselsShrimpV-shaped nets15 to 50 m wide(charangas), castnets, gillnets4–6 m long, fibreglassboat with outboardengine (15–100 hp)Around 4 000small boats inTamaulipas-Veracruz1–4At least 200–400vessels in seabobfisheryMullets450–1 500 m longgillnets, 2–3.75 inmesh size4–6 m long fibreglassboat, with outboardengine (15–75 hp)No records 1–4GrouperLongline with1 500–2 000handlines or shortlonglines3–4 m long, fibreglassboat, carried by a 7–9 mlong boat with outboardengine (15–75 hp) or bya 12–22 m long vesselacting as mother ship forthe alijosAround 4 000small vessels,500–600 midsizevessels1–4 for smallboats, 4–12for mid-sizevesselsSpanishand kingmackerelsGillnets (300 m long,3.5–4 in mesh size),beach seines (400–800 m), handlines4–6 m long fibreglassboat with outboardengine (15–100 hp)No records1–4 in boats,up to 20when usingbeach seinesSharksand raysLonglines, gillnets4–6 m long fibreglassboat with outboardengine (up to 100 hp)Around 3 665small vessels1–4LobsterHooka system,artificial habitats(casitas) and traps inYucatán; nets, divingand same as above inQuintana Roo7–9 m long, fibreglassboat with outboardengine (between 50–75hp) and mid-size vessels(10–22 m long)998 small vesselsand 16 mid-sizevessels1–3 for smallvessels, 6–12for mid-sizevesselsFinfishGillnets, longlines,cast nets, handlines,beach seine nets7–9 m long, fibreglassboat with outboardengine (15 up to 100 hp)Up to 43 392small vessels1–4 for smallvesselsIn Tamiahua, Veracruz, the following species account for more than 50% ofthe total catches: spotted and silver weakfish (Cynoscion nebulosus and C. nothus);mojarras (Eugerres spp.); sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus); croaker(Micropogon undulatus); drum (Pogonias cromis); and red drum (Sciaenops

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 237ocellatus). White mullet and mullet catches account for another 9%. In LagunaMadre, Tamaulipas (north of the Gulf of Mexico), spotted weakfish, croaker,sheepshead and drum (together, 28% of catches) are caught with gillnets (Gómezand Monroy, 2000).Some fish species can also be caught in lobster traps (González-Cano et al.,2000), namely grouper (Epinephelus morio), hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus),cabrilla (Serranus cabrilla), and snappers (Lutjanus spp.). Other crustaceans, suchas crabs and lobster (Scyllarides nodifer), are also caught incidentally and areconsumed locally. On the other hand, white shrimp are caught in nets used tocatch seabobs in shallow waters of the Campeche Bank. In this zone no artisanalfishery for white or pink shrimp in shallow marine waters is allowed, although itoccurs frequently enough to be considered a serious problem. In Tamaulipas andVeracruz, small fishes and crabs of several species are caught in the charangas,although a list of such species has not been published (Fernández et al., 2000). InYucatán, shrimp are caught in the estuaries using nets called triangulos, which areoperated manually (Salas et al., 2006).2.3 Pacific coast fisheriesSeveral fisheries based in the Pacific region could be considered as a single group(or species) since they are very specialized (e.g. seaweeds, kelp, octopus, lobster andcrabs). Other species, such as the abalone, conch, clams, mussels and sea urchins,are hand-picked by divers using boat-based air compressors (called ‘Hooka’). Inthese fisheries it is not very common to report incidental catch, although somecomplementary species are captured by the divers. Table 2 depicts a summary ofthe characteristics of some of the fisheries in the Pacific region and Appendix IIincludes a complete list of species targeted in the region.The Pacific littoral fisheries are similar to the fisheries for shrimp in coastalwaters, with fishers using fixed gears blocking migrations to the sea (locally calledtapos) and small vessels to collect catches and take them to shore. There are alsoactive fishing gears to catch shrimp in shallow water, such as cast nets and suripera(a quasi-trawlnet).One of the most specialized fisheries in the area is the one for sharks, as itrequires different fishing strategies and gears than those used for finfish. However,some fleets that target finfish using gillnets and longlines also catch sharks. Thereis high species richness for sharks in the Mexican Pacific and almost all are soldcommercially when caught.In the squid fishery, which primarily targets the giant squid (Dosidicus gigas),some species appear as bycatch, for example, the common Pacific squid (calamarcomún del Pacífico, Loligo opalescens), the dart squid (calamar dardo, Loliolopsisdiomedeae), Lolliguncula spp., Illex spp., Ommastrephes spp., and Symplectoteuthisspp. These are also caught as bycatch by industrial shrimp trawlers.

238Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 2Summary of vessels and gear characteristics of the fisheries in the Pacific littoralFishery Type and size of gear Type and size of boatNumber ofvesselsSeaweed SCUBA diving, Hooka 5–7 m fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 59Kelp Hand-picked Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 613Abalone SCUBA diving, Hooka Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 878Conch SCUBA diving Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engineClamsSCUBA diving, Hooka, handpickedon low tideSmall fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 200MusselsSCUBA diving, Hooka, handpickedon low tideFibreglass vessels, outboard engine 55Giant squid Poteras Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 2 000Octopus SCUBA diving, Hooka Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 1 188ShrimpLobsterCastnets, suripera or dragona,seineMetal, wood and plastic traps(Californian type)Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine(55 hp)5-7 m fibreglass boats, outboard engine(40–75 hp)12 3391 110Crabs‘Chesapeake trap’, maximumdimensions 60 x 60 x 40 cmSmall vessels, fibreglass, outboard engine 2 700Stone crabs Traps Small vessels, fibreglass, outboard engine 760Sea urchin SCUBA diving, Hooka Up to 7 m fibreglass, outboard engine 615SeacucumberSCUBA diving, Hooka Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 7GroupersCroakersand drumsSnappersJacksFloundersGillnets, lineGillnets 100–500 m long, 3–6 in.mesh sizeBottom gillnets 200–300 mlong, 82.55 mm mesh size, line,handlineAlmadraba, beach net, lines(currican)Bottom gillnets, trawling, lines7 m fibreglass boat, outboard engine(45–60 hp)Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engineSmall fibreglass vessels, outboard engineSmall fibreglass vessels, outboard engineSmall fibreglass vessels, outboard engine(115 hp)Mullets Gillnets 2.5–3.5 in. mesh size Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 848Tilefishes Handlines, gillnets Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engineSnooksMackerelsCoastalsharksRaysSailfishDolphinfishMarlinGillnets; handline, SCUBAdiving, harpoongillnets 500 m long, 2.5-3.5 inmesh sizeLongline 1 500–3 000 m long,500–1000 hooks; up to 750 mlong and 350 hooksBottom gillnets 4–10 in. meshsizeFishing rodFishing rodFishing rodBCS = Baja California Sur; BC = Baja California.Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engineSmall fibreglass vessels, outboard engine500 in BCS,33–380 in thewest coast BCSmall fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 4 9737-8 m overall length, fibreglass outboardengine (75 hp or more)Sport fishing fibreglass vessels, outboardengineSport fishing fibreglass vessels, outboardengineSport fishing fibreglass vessels, outboardengine966966966

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 2392.4 SeasonalityMultispecies catches occur due to the seasonality of stock abundances; fisherstarget species that are most abundant at any given time. In addition, multigearfleets often switch target species with changes in resource abundance or regulations(Salas et al., 2004). One example of this involves the giant squid fishery. Thisfishery is a single-species fishery in the central region of the Gulf of Californiaduring the periods of high abundance of squid. But when the abundance of thisresource decreases, the fleet switches primarily to finfish. The same applies withlobster and octopus fisheries along the Yucatán coast.Seasonal effort shifting from one target species to another is common in manysmall-scale fisheries of Mexico. Seasonal effort and changes in catch patternsare due to three main factors: (i) closed seasons; (ii) changes in stock abundance(or resource availability in coastal areas); and (iii) changes in relative prices ofharvested species. A summary of the main seasonal allocation of effort of Mexicansmall-scale fisheries is presented below.Octopus: Caught in the Yucatán shelf during last five months of the year asa result of a closed season, mostly determined by the seasonal recruitment ofOctopus maya, the Mexican four-eyed octopus (Solís-Ramírez et al., 1998).Shrimp: In Tamaulipas and Veracruz, brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus)are more abundant from April to July for the artisanal fishery operating in thelagoons. Seabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) is more abundant at the beginning ofthe second part of the year. Seasonality of the fishery is affected by the closedseason (late May to mid-July in Tamaulipas and Veracruz and May to Octoberin Campeche). Juvenile pink shrimp are found in greater numbers in shallowwaters off the western seashore of the Yucatán Peninsula from June to Septemberand white shrimp are abundant from May to early September in lagoons ofthe southern Gulf; both species are caught illegally in those areas (Fernándezet al., 2000). In Yucatán, shrimp are caught by men and women in estuarineareas. Shrimp are caught between October and February in Chabihau (Cabrera,2003); in Celestun, the abundance of the four species (Farfantepenaeus aztecus,F. brasiliensis, F. duorarum and F. notialis) in the estuarine area varies throughoutthe year, so the area provides alternatives to fishers all year round (Defeo et al.,2005).Grouper: Due to reproduction-linked aggregations, groupers are morevulnerable to fishing from January to March. A closed season has been establishedbetween mid-February and mid-March. By the end of July fishing effort allocatedinitially to grouper and related species shifts mostly to the octopus and lobsterfisheries, and catches diminish to a third of the maximum (Monroy et al., 2000a;Salas et al., 2006).Spanish and king mackerel: These species migrate regularly along the Gulf´sshores, from south to north in spring–summer and from north to south inautumn–winter (Mendoza, 1968; Doi and Mendizabal, 1978; Schultz et al., 2000).As a result, two seasonal abundance peaks can be found, occurring at differenttimes according to location along the migration’s path. Spanish mackerel is

240Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanmore abundant in Tamaulipas in April and September to October, in Marchand October in Veracruz, in March and October–November in Tabasco, and inJanuary and November in Campeche, Yucatán and Quintana Roo. For the kingmackerel these peaks occur in June and August in Tamaulipas, May and August inVeracruz, May and October for Tabasco, in December to February in Campeche,in December and January in Yucatán, and in December and February in QuintanaRoo (Schultz et al., 2000).Sharks and rays: In many species caught by this fishery, abundance variesaccording to migratory movements occurring mostly during winter, when severalspecies are caught (Cid et al., 2000; Fuentes-Mata et al., 2002).Spiny lobster: Although migratory movements dependent on age and size havebeen described (González-Cano, 1991), their effect on availability has not beenclearly defined. Seasonality of the fishery is determined mainly by management,with a closed season from 1 March to 31 June (González-Cano et al., 2000).Catches are usually higher from July to September.2.5 Non-target species and bycatchBecause of the low selectivity and diversity of fishing gears and methods in thesmall-scale fisheries, the catches contain a considerable number of different species.It is important to notice here, however, that most of the products harvested by thesmall-scale fleet are sold and rarely discarded. In multispecific fisheries, as manystocks are diminishing and catch-per-unit effort continues to decline, fishers tendto keep those resources that can be traded in such a way that the travel costs canbe compensated and a profit generated from every fishing trip. This condition,however, does not apply in the case of the shrimp fishery. A list of non-targetspecies harvested incidentally is presented in Appendix III for artisanal fisheriesand in Appendix IV for shrimp trawl bycatch.3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSThe statistical yeardocument report indicated that 268 727 persons were employedin fisheries in Mexico in 2001 (CONAPESCA, 2001). In 1999, the NationalInstitute of Statistics, Geography and Information (INEGI) reported 154 379persons employed directly in fisheries and aquaculture and 83 058 employed injobs directly related to them.According to the statistical yeardocument of 2000 (CONAPESCA, 2001), therewere 104 028 persons involved full time in fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico andCaribbean seashores: 15 153 in Tamaulipas; 32 277 in Veracruz; 21 499 in Tabasco;12 307 in Campeche; 19 711 in Yucatán; and 3 081 in Quintana Roo. These numbersinclude artisanal and industrial fishers as well as 1 203 involved in aquaculture andother jobs directly related to the sector. In most cases, those registered by INEGIas employed in fisheries satisfy the criterion of obtaining most of their income fromfisheries or related activities. Despite these records, there is no accurate informationpublished that estimates the number of people involved in each of the mostimportant fisheries in the country, nor does discrimination by type of fleet exist.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 241Gómez and Monroy (2000) report that in the Laguna Madre there were1 233 small vessels operating in the finfish fishery. According to the same authors,there were 3 111 fishers operating in the northern Veracruz finfish fishery with2 408 small vessels.The number of fishers per vessel varies according to the type of fishery and theregion. For instance, in Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco and Campeche the averagenumber of fishers by registered small vessel is 2.2, while in Yucatán and QuintanaRoo the average is 3.7 fishers per vessel.The Pacific littoral presents a north-to-south decreasing gradient in the numberof fishers per vessel. This is due mainly in part to the fact that the Gulf of California(north) is a highly productive area, reflected in the economy through the presenceof industrial fleets targeting mainly tuna, sardine and shrimp. In comparison, therest of the Pacific shores are dominated by artisanal fisheries. The southern Pacificshores also experience higher indices of poverty.According to statistical yeardocuments (CONAPESCA, 2001), thereare 149 522 persons involved full time in fisheries in the Pacific seashores:6 444 in Baja California; 11 027 in Baja California Sur; 22 638 in Sonora; 39 681 inSinaloa; 10 627 in Nayarit; 5 001 in Jalisco; 2 281 in Colima; 8 527 in Michoacán;11 071 in Guerrero; 13 755 in Oaxaca; and 18 470 in Chiapas. These numbersinclude artisanal and industrial fishers as well as 15 969 persons involved inaquaculture and other related activities.The proportion of people working in fishing by state in the Pacific is as follows:Baja California (4.67%); Baja California Sur (5.21%); Sonora (13.53%); Sinaloa(24.36%); Nayarit (7.94%); Jalisco (3.70%); Colima (1.50%); Michoacán (7.22%);Guerrero (11.37%); Oaxaca (9.07%); and Chiapas (11.42%).In the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, distribution of people employed infisheries is as follows: Tamaulipas (0.55%); Veracruz (0.47%); Tabasco (1.14%);Campeche (1.8%); Yucatán (1.2%); and Quintana Roo (0.34%) (data comesfrom INEGI, 1999 and CONAPESCA, 2001). Dependence on fishing is moreevident in small fishing communities. For example, Méndez (2004) reports 67%of households are dependent on fisheries in Celestún, Yucatán.No official statistics give a clear idea of part-time employment in fisheries in theGulf of Mexico. Chenaut (1985) reports that many fishers along the Yucatán coastwere originally peasants; they engaged in fisheries when they were displaced fromagriculture. Many of these retained some of their agricultural activities. However,this situation should be considered a special case. The same author reports that inthe neighbouring Quintana Roo, the dependence of communities on fisheries ishigher because the land in the north of that state is unfit for agriculture. Fishingtraditions date back many years in many locations along the Mexican coast; Alcalá(1986) reports a figure of 500 years for some communities.3.1 Average annual income levelThere are big differences between the incomes derived from fisheries amongregions and types of fisheries. The average monthly income derived from fisheries

242Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanin municipalities of the five states around the Gulf of California for the period2000–2001 was 2 714 Mexican pesos (MXN) (1 US$ = 11.50 MXN), while inthe Gulf of Mexico states the average was 624 MXN. In Tamaulipas, the averagemonthly income was 702 MXN, 471 MXN in Veracruz, 579 MXN in Tabasco,475 MXN in Campeche, 526 MXN in Yucatán, and 989 MXN in QuintanaRoo. It is worth noting that the states with the highest average income have themost valuable fisheries: shrimp (Tamaulipas) and lobster (Quintana Roo) (dataprocessed from INEGI, 1999). Nadal (1996) reported that 14% of fishing units(employed in industrial fisheries) received 43% of the total income while 67% ofthem (those employing 1–15 fishers per unit) received only 2.8%.In many small fishing communities the lack of basic services such as runningwater, education and electricity has been reported (e.g. Melville, 1984; Rodríguez,1984; Cheanaut, 1985; Alcalá, 1986; Cesar and Arnaiz, 1998; Méndez, 2004). Evenin communities with basic services, the low income and the low average wagescreate low living standards for many artisanal fishers.Those states with large littorals and low populations, such as the whole BajaCalifornia Peninsula and Sonora in the Mexican northern Pacific, are characterizedby the lack of basic services and the dispersion of fish landing locations. In somestates such as Oaxaca and Chiapas in the southern Mexican Pacific, as well asnorthern Tamaulipas and Campeche, fishing communities are characterized bylow standards of living.Most fishers are native to the regions where they operate. However, there is aconsiderable seasonal migration in certain areas associated with local variationsof resource abundance. Fernández et al. (2000) and Gómez and Monroy (2000)reported on the seasonal migration of fishers to Tamaulipas from other states(mostly Veracruz) when the shrimp and mullet fisheries are in periods of highabundance. Alcalá (1986) reports the presence of transient fishers from Veracruzto Tabasco. Cesar and Arnaiz (1998) report migrant fishers from Veracruzestablishing fishing communities in northern Quintana Roo. In the MexicanPacific, some groups move seasonally between Chiapas and the Gulf of Californiafor the shark fishery.3.2 Fishers’ levels of education and roles of family members in coastalfisheriesGenerally speaking, the educational level among artisanal fishers is low. Méndez(2004) reported that less than 25% of boys in a fishing community in Yucatánreached secondary school. A similar figure was reported in Michoacán, on thePacific shore, where 28% of fishers studied some years of elementary school andonly 31% finished this educational level; 21% reached secondary school and only1% enrolled in college (Toledo and Bozada, 2002).Concerning family participation in the fishery, most times women have marginalroles in the harvesting process but play significant roles in processing. Youngermembers of the family play auxiliary roles and act many times as apprentices(Chenaut, 1985; Alcalá, 1986; Méndez, 2004). This level of participation isreflected in the annual income of families in fishing communities.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 243INEGI (1999) reports that only 3.7% of the people registered as directlyinvolved in fisheries and aquaculture are women, and 21% of them are working inadministrative and control areas. Women, along with the elderly and children, aremore involved with subsistence fisheries (Chenaut, 1985; Méndez, 2004).3.3 Processing and marketingFishery products coming from artisanal small-scale fisheries are mainly fresh,iced, frozen and, in very limited cases, processed. National, local and internationalmarkets receive the products from these fisheries. Finfish and shark (up to acertain size) are usually sold whole. Most of the shrimp artisanal catches in theGulf fisheries are of small sizes and are not suitable for international markets.Octopus is processed (frozen) for the export market. Around 20 to 25%of catches were exported in 2001, but in 1997 nearly 14 000 of the almost18 000 tonnes caught were sent to international (mostly Asian) markets(CONAPESCA, 2001). After 1996, when the north African octopus fisherycollapsed, international demand rose, doubling the price of octopus paid to fishersin the Yucatán and Campeche fishery (Solís-Ramírez et al., 1998; Hernández et al.,2000). However, prices were lower in consecutive years, and demand decreased(Salas et al., 2006).Around 40 to 50% of lobster catches are exported (González-Cano et al.,2000). Frozen lobster tails comprise around 30% of the exported volume, the restbeing fresh and iced (CONAPESCA, 2001).Close to 4 000 tonnes from approximately 8 000 tonnes of grouper catchesare exported to the United States of America, frozen whole or in fillets. The restis distributed in national markets and little is consumed locally (Monroy et al.,2000a).Nearly 70% of shark is sold fresh, 22% frozen, and the rest dried-salted. Sharkleather has been exported to the United States and Europe (294 tonnes in 1990,worth US$10 million). Although it does not appear in statistical yeardocumentssince 1996, shark fins are exported to Asian markets (190 tonnes and US$2.5million in 1987) (Cid et al., 2000).The female gonads of mullets earn a price four to five times that of the restof the fish (120 Mexican pesos per kg, around US$30 in 1994). Fresh mulletsare consumed locally and only 4% are exported. Around 48% of female gonadsare consumed locally, 24% are for the national market, and 28% are exported.Dried-salted mullets comprise 97% of the mullet products for the national market(Gómez and Monroy, 2000).On the Pacific littoral, seaweed is dehydrated and sold mostly in nationalmarkets. Kelp is dehydrated and sold in national markets and exported. Both areused to extract alginates.Abalone is sold fresh and iced in national (local) markets. It is also frozen orcanned for national markets and exportation. Most species of conch are sold freshand iced locally and are rarely canned. Conch is also used for handicrafts. Clamsand mussels are mostly sold fresh and iced; they are rarely frozen or in brine.

244Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSquid is mostly sold fresh and iced. Sometimes it is processed (canned), whileoctopus is sold mostly fresh and iced for the national market.Most of the shrimp coming from artisanal catches are of small sizes, makingthem unsuitable for international markets. These shrimp are consumed at local andnational levels. Large white shrimps caught in coastal waters are usually exportedand a small amount is allocated to national markets.More than 70% of lobster catches are exported, mostly frozen. At the nationallevel, lobster is sold iced and fresh. Crab is mainly sold fresh and iced for thenational market. Some large boats targeting crab and operating under a speciallicence process the meat into crabs sticks, which are cooked and exported.Practically all production of sea urchin is frozen and mostly exported; seacucumber is dried and mostly exported. Most marine fishes are sold whole orin fillets and are fresh, iced and frozen for national markets. A small amount ofgroupers and snappers are exported frozen, whole or in fillets. In several cases,gonads earn the highest prices and some species, such as mullets, are targetedmostly for the gonads. Some species (i.e. mullets) are dried-salted or smoked andsold in national markets.3.4 Conflicts between fishers and other coastal activitiesAllocation of marine resources has always been a complex issue to address infisheries. This issue is further complicated when deciding who will be grantedaccess to the most profitable resources, such as shrimp, lobster, abalone andconch, in Mexico. By decree these resources were allocated to members of fishingcooperatives in the 1970s and 1980s, restricting access by the members of theorganizations once they got the concession of the resources. By the 1990s thisdecree was changed and the access was opened to other participants. However,preference was given to those who have historical rights over the resources as longas they were able to demonstrate they were efficient in the production system.Another potential source of conflict in fisheries is the interaction of small-scalefisheries with industrial fisheries, especially in the cases where the same resourcesare targeted by both fleets. This is the case for the shrimp fisheries in Mexico, asjuvenile shrimp are caught by artisanal fishers in the estuaries, while the adultsare caught in marine areas. Juvenile shrimp can be overfished, reducing the stockavailable for population reproduction and as a fishing stock for the industrialfleet. The shrimp fishery is one of the most important fisheries in economicterms in Mexico and the conflict between artisanal and industrial fishers is agrowing concern for fisheries managers (Fernández et al., 2000). Similar types ofinteractions occur within the octopus and grouper fisheries, although the conflictshave not been as drastic as those reported in the shrimp fishery. However, octopusartisanal fishers along the interstate border of Campeche and Yucatán have beenclashing periodically over access to fishing grounds.Other conflicts arise between fisheries and conservation. One case in particularinvolves interactions between harvesters and marine mammals in the Gulf ofCalifornia. In the upper Gulf of California there is a marine reserve aimed

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 245to primarily protect the vaquita (Phocoena sinus) and the totoaba (Totoabamacdonaldii), which are threatened by shrimp trawl fishing activity and the use ofgillnets by the artisanal fishery. Moreover, there is restricted access to the core areaof the reserve for all fleets which is not respected by the artisanal fishers (Morales-Zárate et al., 2004; Lercari, 2006).Conflicts between commercial and recreational fisheries are also present.For instance, commercial fishers claim access to the dolphinfish stock normallyreserved for sportfishers. Commercial fishers claim that there is enough biomassof the stock to allow their participation, but sportfishers argue that reduction inindividual sizes could cause a negative impact on the tourist sector.Prohibiting fishing around oil platforms is a growing problem for fishers inthe Campeche Bank as the area has been banned to fishing operations. Pollutionfrom oil extraction activities is also a growing concern. Social disruption in fishingcommunities as a result of oil worker immigration has been noticeable in theCiudad del Carmen, Campeche (Rodríguez, 1984).Resort developments and tourism-related activities have been interfering withfishing activities in a high degree in the northern coast of Quintana Roo (Cesarand Arnaiz, 1998) and several places along the Pacific coasts, such as Huatulco,Acapulco, Manzanillo, Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlàn and Los Cabos, among others.4. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESThe National Institute of Fisheries has developed assessment of the stocks ofthe most important fisheries in Mexico; this assessment is periodically updated(INP, 1998, 2000). As a means to unify methods that facilitate comparisons andunderstanding of the results by the fishing community and all fishing sectors, theseassessments have been based on biomass models and in several cases uncertaintyand risk analysis have been included. This data includes information from themost important artisanal fisheries considered in those analyses. An importantcontribution for knowledge of the status of small-scale fisheries from the Gulfof Mexico is reported in Flores et al. (1997). A summary of some of the methodsemployed for stock assessment of several fisheries are listed below and the statusof the main fisheries by region is integrated afterwards.Arreguín-Sánchez and Pitcher (1999) analysed changes in catchability by sizeof the grouper fishery, comparing fleet trends through time. Several studies onreproduction have been conducted for grouper, including Brulé et al. (2003).Monroy et al. (2000a) and Giménez-Hurtado et al. (2005) applied an agestructured model to assess the grouper fishery. Age-structured models havealso been employed to assess the octopus fishery (Solís-Ramirez et al., 1998;Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2000; Hernández et al., 2000), the shrimp fishery (Castroand Arreguín-Sánchez, 1991; Fernández et al., 2000), and sardine in the Gulf ofCalifornia (Morales-Bojórquez et al., 2003). Cohort analysis has been used toassess the lobster fishery.Age-structured models have been used in many fisheries because of theimportance of considering age-related events (migrations, individual growth,

246Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanreproduction and sex shifts in protogynous hermaphrodite species like redgrouper), which facilitate the development of strategies for fisheries management.Yield-per-recruit analysis has been applied to shrimp fisheries (Arreguín-Sánchez and Chávez, 1985) and the Spanish and king mackerel (Schultz et al.,2000). Shark fisheries assessments are still in early stages, possibly due to lack ofdata. Yield-per-recruit analyses have been applied to the shark fishery by Cid et al.(2000).Biomass dynamics models, fitted assuming equilibrium, have been appliedto several fisheries, including grouper (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1985) and octopus(Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 1999). These are also used to evaluate recovery timeof some stocks after high levels of exploitation, as in the case of abalone andred grouper (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1992). Non-equilibrium conditions have beenassumed in more recent applications for the mullet and snapper fisheries (Gómezand Monroy, 2000; Monroy et al., 2000b).Dynamic bio-economic analyses have been applied to several fisheries: shrimp(Arreguín-Sánchez and Chávez, 1985), octopus, lobster and grouper (Seijo, 1986;Seijo et al., 1987; Seijo et al., 1991; Díaz de León and Seijo, 1992; Hernández, 1995;Seijo et al., 2001; Monroy, 1998). The inclusion of estimation of dynamic costs andrevenues helps in decision making and to understand the effect on fishers’ shorttermand long-term dynamics.Due to the economic importance of crustacean fisheries, including shrimpwhich produces half of the export revenues from fisheries and currently receivessubsidies and tax returns, financial analyses have been required (Goudet andGoudet, 1987; FAO/World Bank, 1988; FIRA, 2003). However, these studiesconcentrate primarily on the industrial shrimp fishery.Although some analyses, including uncertainty and risk analysis, in theassessment of some fishery resources have been undertaken by the NationalFisheries Institute, the results have not yet been published. Few case studies havebeen reported. Solís-Ramirez et al. (1998) evaluated the octopus fishery integratinguncertainty on the estimation of some parameters on the predictions made basedon an age-structured model.Some ecosystem trophic models based on the Ecopath-Ecosim software havebeen applied to different ecosystems on both coasts of the country: CampecheBank, the coasts of Veracruz and Yucatán, the northern and central Gulf ofCalifornia, La Paz Bay, Huizache-Caimanero system of lagoons, and the coasts ofJalisco and Michoacan, among others (Arreguín-Sánchez, 2002; Arreguín-Sánchezand Calderón-Aguilera, 2002; Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2004; Zetina-Rejón etal., 2004; Arreguín-Sánchez and Martínez-Aguilar, 2004; Lercari, 2006; Cruz-Escalona, 2005; Zetina-Rejón, 2004; Galván-Piña, 2005; Díaz-Uribe et al., 2007).

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 2474.1 Status of the fisheriesA summary of the status of the main small-scale fisheries of both the Gulf ofMexico-Caribbean and the Pacific regions is presented in Tables 3 and 4.TABLE 3Status of the main Mexican small-scale fisheries of the Caribbean andGulf of Mexico regionSmall-scale fishery Status Catch 2003 (tonnes)ShrimpBrown (Farfantepenaeus aztecus)Seven Bearded (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri)White (Litopenaeus setiferus)Pink (Farfantepenaeus duorarum)Red (Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis)FinfishRed grouper (Epinephelus morio)OctopusOctopus mayaOctopus vulgarisSpiny lobsterPanulirus argusPanulirus guttatus26 7989 08115 713828Shark (27 species) 5 651Conch/snailsQueen conch (Strombus gigas)White conch (Strombus costatus)50Development potential Fully exploited Overexploited ExhaustedSource: Adapted from Seijo and Martínez, 2006.The status of the main fishing stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, except those ofOctopus vulgaris, is critical since most of them are fully exploited or exhausted.Effort expansion in the octopus fishery of the Yucatán Shelf is directed towardO. vulgaris. The National Institute of Fisheries (NIF) assumed that this increasewould not impact the fully exploited O. maya stock since O. vulgaris occurs atgreater depths (>10 fathoms [>18 m]) than O. maya. The highest concentrations ofO. maya occur around 3 to 7 fathoms in near shore limestone crevices. However,there is no control over the operation areas of the fleet.Most fisheries require precautionary measures to avoid their depletion. Infact, four of the main stocks in the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean region are fullyexploited, two overexploited and two show signs of exhaustion. In contrast withthe Pacific region, most of the fisheries are artisanal.

248Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMost artisanal fisheries in Mexico present a high degree of overlap. It is notuncommon to find fishing cooperatives in the same locality that have permits tocatch shrimp, shark and finfish throughout the year. This condition complicatesthe assessment of the stocks involved in different fisheries; usually assessment hasbeen based on single-species analysis. In some regions fishers shift seasonally fromone species to another according to patterns of seasonal abundance, as alreadynoted. A list of the main target species (English common name, Spanish localname and scientific name) involved in the above-mentioned fisheries is providedin Appendix I.TABLE 4Status of the main Mexican small-scale fisheries of the Pacific regionSmall-scale fisheryShrimpBlue shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris)Pacific white shrimp (L. vannamei)White shrimp (L. occidentalis)Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus californiensis)Cristal shrimp (F. brevirostris)Seabob (Xiphopenaeus riveti)LobsterRed (Panulirus interruptus)Central Baja California PeninsulaStatus ofthe stockCatch2003(tonnes)97 1072 140Northern and southern Baja California populationsClamsBaja California Sur and SinaloaBaja California and Sonora11 290Octopus 1 044Sharks (30 species)OceanicAlopis pelagicusA. vulpinusCoastalCarcharinus falciformisSnappersLujanidae spp.20 9604 314Development potential Fully exploited Overexploited ExhaustedSource: Modified from Seijo and Martínez (2006); Seijo et al. (2006).

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 249None of the major fisheries along the shores of the Pacific Ocean havepossibilities of effort expansion. Six of them are categorized as fully exploitedand three as exhausted. For instance, Sala et al. (2004) report that, although somecatches are stagnant or still increasing for some species groups, catch-per-uniteffort shows a declining trend after 1980 in the Gulf of California. The authorsstate that coastal food webs in the area have been ‘fished down’ during the last30 years. A shift in the target species from high to low trophic levels has resultedin a dramatic increase in fishing effort in the region. Fishing not only impactedtargeted species, but also caused community-wide changes. In fact, large predatoryfishes such as sharks, gulf groupers, gulf coneys, goliath groupers and broomtailgroupers were among the most important catches in the 1970s, but became rare by2000. The results also show that species that were not targeted in the 1970s, suchas parrotfish, whitefish, spotted snapper, tilefish and creolefish, have now becomecommon catches. The authors argue that their results exhibit a clear trend thatGulf of California fisheries have fished down the food web, leading to effects onthe entire coastal ecosystem well beyond the direct impacts on targeted species.These fisheries are unsustainable in their current state and management needs to bere-evaluated with sound regulatory measures to prevent further degradation.5. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING5.1 Historical trendsSince 2000, most small-scale fisheries shifted from an open access regime to alicence limitation management strategy. Effort regulations have historically beenenforced by government and, in a limited and successful number of cases, throughcommunity management and co-management schemes such as in the case of thespiny lobster fisheries of Punta Allen (Seijo, 1993; Sosa-Cordero et al., 2008) andBaja California.Fisheries management in Mexico has undergone changes of emphasis andapproaches several times in the last decades. In the 1970s, a promotion policyreasserted exploitation of shrimp, lobster, abalone (the most valuable species),oyster, totoaba, pismo clam, cabrilla and sea turtles to cooperatives.During the 1970s and 1980s, emphasis was put on production increases. TheMinistry of Fisheries was established by 1982. At the end of the 1970s, catchesreached nearly 1.4 million tonnes, a fivefold increase in ten years as a result of afisheries sector development policy that greatly increased fishing effort. However,national catches oscillate around 1.2 million tonnes since the early 1980s.In the early 1990s, a change in policies occurred that aimed to promote privateinvestment, favour industrial fishers and abrogate the ‘reserved species’ regime.This policy matured in 1992, when the current Federal Fisheries Law was enacted.Thorpe et al. (2000) documented the effect of the introduction of the ‘NewEconomic Model’ in fisheries management in several Latin American countries,including Mexico. These authors present the change in emphasis from privilegingthe social (cooperatives) sector to favouring private investment.

250Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAs a result, the fisheries industry was incorporated in 1994 in the newly formedMinistry of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (Secretaría de MedioAmbiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca [SEMARNAP]) as an underministry, andas part of a global policy aimed at attaining sustainable development. Hernándezand Kempton (2003) discussed the effect of attempts to introduce a greaterdegree of scientific input in the management and public participation processes inMexico in the mid- to late-1990s. This intended to include fisheries in a broaderframework of natural resources management. The new fisheries plan statedsustainability as a goal and the Precautionary Principle as a guideline. Threeelements were introduced: (a) an attempt to make the decision-making processmore scientific-based; (b) a new legal instrument, the National Fisheries Chart(Álvarez-Torres et al., 2002); and (c) a more active participation of stakeholdersin decision-making.Since the end of 2000, at the beginning of the new administration, fisherieswere transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture: Agriculture, Livestock, RuralDevelopment, Fisheries and Food (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería,Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación: SAGARPA), shifting again to ‘incentives’of development (SAGARPA Plan Sectorial, 2001). At present, the agencyresponsible for fisheries management, monitoring and enforcement is the NationalCommission of Aquaculture and Fisheries (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura yPesca [CONAPESCA]). As a result of its transfer, the underministry of fisherieswas downsized, and its state delegations (formerly one in every one of the32 states) were reduced in number and incorporated into SAGARPA delegations,losing their hierarchical link to CONAPESCA.5.2 Legal instruments, strategies and management toolsThe fisheries included in this analysis are regulated in several ways. The octopusfishery is managed through a closed season (from January to August) that protectsindividual growth to marketable sizes and an annual catch quota. The shrimpfishery is regulated by closed seasons, mesh size and gear type restrictions andzonal restrictions for different users (prohibitions of trawling for industrial shipsbelow five fathoms, a 15 nautical miles from shore no-fish zone in the YucatánPeninsula). The lobster fishery has effort restrictions (by limiting the number ofconcessions), legal size limits, a prohibition of catching ovigerous females anda closed season. The grouper fishery has legal size limits and effort restrictions(number of permits), and a quota awarded to the Cuban vessels operating in thefishery is an allocation instrument. In the mullet fishery, a closed season, legalsize limit and mesh size regulations are applied. In the shark fishery, an issuing ofnew permits moratorium has been in place for some years (Cid et al., 2000), butproposed regulations on closed seasons and protection of breeding areas have stillto be applied. Regulations on the finfish fishery have yet to be applied widely.A relatively new legal instrument, the Official Mexican Standards (NormasOficiales Mexicanas [NOM]), was developed which included the usual regulationssuch as permits, gear type restrictions, season and area closures, legal size limits,

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 251quotas and bycatch excluding devices. Until 2000, only 14 fisheries were regulatedby NOMs, including shrimp, lobster and octopus.Fisheries on the Pacific littoral are regulated with different instruments asdescribed below.Seaweed: Fishing area, gears and landing places are controlled.Kelp: Exploitation of fishing areas are allocated to groups while areas, fishinggears, seasons and amount of fishing are defined by permits.Abalone: Closures by area and time. Four administrative areas were establishedand a quota is defined separately. There is a minimum legal size, fishing gear isregulated and fishing at low tides is prohibited. A stocks-recovery plan has beenimplemented with measurable success in some areas. The goal is to maintainbiomass at 50% of the pristine biomass.Clam: Pacific calico scallop includes a minimum legal size, catch quota andeffort by area in the Baja California Peninsula. A closed season is defined. Pismoclam and the purplelip rock oyster are currently species under special protectionand officially they are not commercially exploited. Their use is now regulated bythe General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (LeyGeneral de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente).Molluscs: Catch quotas by bank are defined for conch; fishing permits allowedfor mussel and octopus in the Pacific. Giant squid has a fishing effort controlbased on an annual catch quota.Shrimp: Seasonal and spatial closures by region, controls on fishing gears andamount of effort. Fixed gears are used as defined by the fishing law.Lobster: Minimum legal size by species and area, seasonal and spatial closures.In the central Baja California, fishing cooperatives agreed voluntarily to the use ofwindows for escapement in traps to reduce pre-recruits (sizes below L 50 ).Crab: In Sonora, the fishing sector has agreed on a seasonal closure to controlfishing effort of several species such as ‘stone crabs’, where the number of permitsis controlled. Fishing areas and minimum legal size are defined by target species.It is prohibited to capture gravid females.Sea urchin: Characteristics of the gears and landing places are controlled and seasonaland spatial closures, minimum legal size and catch quotas have been introduced.Sea cucumber: From 2000 to the present, this fishery is regulated under the‘promotion’ (fomento) scheme because limited information of the resourcedoes not allow access to a high number of users. Promotion permits involve thecommitment of the users to generate information for the better understanding ofthe resource for management purposes.Marine fishes: All marine fishes are globally managed by controlling accessthrough fishing permits. Some details are added for groupers where areas andfishing gears are defined and for mullets where minimum legal size, mesh size andseasonal closures are established by species and region.Sharks: Limited number of permits; new participants only by substitution ofvessels.Rays: Just fishing permits.

252Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSport fishing: Dolphinfish, marlin and swordfish appear as associated speciesin some commercial fisheries. However, there is no commercial fishing fordolphinfish or swordfish. Marlin is regulated under a commercial fishery, wherepermits specify fishing gears and areas.5.3 Management and enforcementBefore the mid-1990s, the Secretariat of Fisheries had an inspection and enforcementbody. After being incorporated into SEMARNAP, fisheries inspection and regulationenforcement was incorporated in the PROFEPA (an environmental attorney’s officewithin the Ministry of Environment). When the fisheries regulation was transferredto SAGARPA, most former fisheries inspectors remained in PROFEPA or weretransferred to SAGARPA’s delegations with no formal links to CONAPESCA,which formally did not have a fisheries inspection role. Since illegal fishing is aserious problem in many parts of the country, the effectiveness of enforcement hasbeen limited at best, even if institutional redesign had not played a role.The navy, in collaboration with fisheries management institutions, has playedan important auxiliary role in enforcement over the years. Several research centresacross the country have developed scientific research efforts on fisheries issues.However, although scientists from those institutions have been participating withfisheries (federal and states) authorities and advising enterprises or fishers aboutmanagement in the last decade, there are no institutional schemes to completelyformalize the use of this scientific infrastructure.5.4 Fishers’ participation in fisheries managementIndustrial fishers are associated with the National Fishing and AquacultureChamber. Artisanal fishers have the National Fishing Cooperatives Confederation.There are 2 976 registered fishing cooperatives in Mexico, along with2 954 organizations of other types, such as Fishing Production Societies, FishingProduction Unions, Social Solidarity Societies and others. In total, there are185 756 people associated within these organizations, 118 328 in cooperatives and67 428 in other kinds of organizations (CONAPESCA, 2001).In a process regulated by the Federal Metrology and Standardization Law (LeyFederal de Metrología y Normalización), committees should be formed to allowstakeholders to participate in decision-making processes, such as issuing MexicanOfficial Norms or assisting with certain management decisions (i.e. setting closedseasons). Although the fisheries regulatory agency (at present CONAPESCA)is the one that makes the final decision (and bears full responsibility for it), thisprocess is intended to be enhanced by stakeholder participation. At present,this process is far from perfect. Only some committees have been formed sofar. The functioning of those already established still has to be improved. Mostartisanal fishers’ organizations have yet to have consultants who can assist themon technical issues. Full representation of those invited to attend the meetings hasyet to be achieved. Hernández and Kempton (2003) discuss difficulties found inimplementing this system in the shrimp fishery, in particular the interactions ofartisanal and industrial fishers.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 253Recently an advisory body, the National Fisheries Council (Consejo Nacionalde Pesca), was formed that included representatives from industrial and artisanalfishers. However, it is still too early to discuss the results of the implementationof such a body in designing and implementing fisheries policies.5.5 Community and NGO involvement in fishery managementBeyond state committees, there is little involvement of the local community infisheries management. However, some communities in the Pacific and in PuntaAllen, Quintana Roo, in the Caribbean have experienced successful communitybasedmanagement programmes applied to the spiny lobster fishery (Seijo, 1993;Bourillon and Ramade, 2004).Pérez-Sánchez and Muir (2003) quote fishers as saying that distrust overthe honesty of cooperative leaders and authorities as an obstacle to an effectivecommunity organization. Ostrom (2000) points to these factors as a prerequisitefor community management of resources.The NGOs have had an increasing indirect role in the shape of proposalsand studies performed on local fisheries. One example is NGO involvementin processes like ecolabelling (Bourillon and Ramade, 2004). However, thisparticipation is not yet widespread.Chenaut (1985) reported a traditional, self-imposed, territorial partitioningsystem for lobster fishers in eastern Yucatán and northern Quintana Roo, whereterritorial units were assigned to communities, independent of their affiliation tofishing cooperatives. This author comments on the fact that fishing authoritiesdid not recognize the territorial divisions. However, such systems are not widelyused in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. In the Pacific littoral there areseveral examples of management where communities are participating, such as thecases of abalone, sea urchin and lobsters. Some attempts to involve stakeholders inmanagement have been made in finfish fisheries but without clear results yet.5.6 Management in accordance to international guidelinesIn 1982, Mexico signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) and the Agreement regarding the implementation of Part XI ofthe Convention. Previously in 1976, the National Constitution was modifiedto include the 200-nautical-mile EEZ. In 1999, Mexico signed the Agreement toPromote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measuresby Fishing Vessels on the High Seas. In 1995, Mexico signed the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries. Mexico has been an active promoter of thisCode.Although in the period 1994–2000 the Precautionary Principle was includedexplicitly in the Fisheries Sector Plan, it is not mentioned in the new sectorFisheries Plan that defines ‘sustainability’ as an aim.The main instrument of allocation of fishing rights is the fishing permit.Although in some cases, issuing of short-term permits has been recommended infisheries of uncertain status, as in the shark fishery (Cid et al., 2000), there is a trend

254Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanto issue longer term permits or concessions as a way of “giving legal certainty”to fishing activities and as a “tool for countering deterioration of the resources”(SAGARPA, 2001). At first, concessions had been issued to exploit demersalresources, mostly invertebrates that lend themselves to territorial divisions (suchas lobster or abalone).Quotas have been sparingly used in Mexico’s fisheries management. Thegrouper fishery has a quota awarded to Cuban vessels fishing in the Yucatán. Theoctopus fishery has a TAC-type (total allowable catch) overall quota that has beenused as a substitute for effort regulations. This quota has not been very effectiveand researchers recommended against it early on (Solís-Ramírez et al., 1998). Theclosest to an individual quota system is the one applied to abalone cooperatives inBaja California.6. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONStatistics are gathered periodically by local fishery offices, subordinated toSAGARPA’s delegations. This information is processed by CONAPESCA toproduce, among other things, statistical yeardocuments. The National FisheriesInstitute (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca [INP]) gathers data from samples on somefisheries included in research projects.Concerning fisheries research, a number of scientific research projects havebeen conducted to assess stocks harvested by small-scale fisheries in Mexico,including:(i) Studies on the octopus fisheries dating back to the early 1960s, which includethe description of the main exploited species (Octopus maya) (Voss and Solís-Ramírez, 1966), growth and recruitment (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1992), and thedevelopment of the fisheries (Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 1987; Solís-Ramírez,1975, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997; Solís-Ramírez and Chávez, 1986; Solís-Ramírezet al., 1998; Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2000).(ii) Studies on the shrimp fishery, including some relevant to the managementof the artisanal fishery (Castro and Santiago, 1976; Schultz and Chávez,1976), population dynamics, mortality and growth assessments (Smith, 1984,1988; Re-Regis, 1989, 1994; Castro and Arreguín-Sánchez, 1991, 1997), andoverviews of the fishery (Fernández et al., 2000; Ramírez-Rodríguez et al.,2001).(iii) Several studies on migration, growth, mortality, reproduction and generalpopulation dynamics on the Spanish and king mackerels (Mendoza, 1968; Doiand Mendizabal, 1978; Chávez, 1981; Mendizabal, 1987; Vasconcelos, 1988;Aguilar et al., 1990; Olvera et al., 1991; Sánchez et al., 1991; Arreguín-Sánchezet al., 1995). Schultz et al. (2000) present a general overview of the fishery.(iv) Studies on mullets, including growth, mortality and general ecologicalobservations from the mid- to late-1970s (Márquez, 1974; Castro, 1978).Gómez and Monroy (2000) summarized results from several unpublishedresearch reports and made a detailed description of the fishery.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 255(v) The grouper fishery has been studied in depth. Early studies date back tothe 1960s (Solís, 1969). Later studies include growth (Rodríguez, 1986),catchability (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1999), the state of the fishery (Doi et al.,1981; Arreguín-Sánchez, 1985; Contreras et al., 1995; Burgos and Defeo, 2000;Burgos and Defeo, 2004: Giménez-Hurtado et al., 2005), and interaction offleets (Zetina et al., 1996a). Monroy et al. (2000a) summarize many importantaspects of the fishery. Mexicano-Cintora et al. (2007) also integrate a list ofreferences of studies related to grouper and other demersal fishes from theYucatán shelf.(vi) The lobster fishery studies include works on feeding (Colinas and Briones,1990), reproduction (Ramírez, 1996), morphometrics (Zetina et al., 1996b),density and distribution (Bello et al., 2000), and descriptions of the fishery(Arceo and Seijo, 1991; Briones and Lozano, 1994; Ríos et al., 1995, 1997,2000; Cervera et al., 1996; González-Cano et al., 2000). An overview of thefishery can be found in González-Cano et al. (2000) and Salas et al. (2005).Although earlier work on shark fisheries can be found (e.g. Hernández, 1971),the first systematic studies in the 1980s and 1990s were performed by the INP (e.g.Uribe, 1990; Castillo-Géniz, 1992; Castillo-Géniz et al., 1998). Studies performedinclude species proportion in catches, morphometrics, types of fishing gears used,and times and places of occurrence of juveniles (Bonfil, 1997; Cid et al., 2000;Márquez, 2000; Soriano et al., 2000).Many studies of several finfish species from different areas have been presentedin different catalogues (e.g. Vega-Cendejas, 1998; Espino et al., 2003, 2004). Otheraspects such as growth and reproduction studies of some demersal fishes can befound in different theses (e.g. Rodríguez, 1992; Leonce-Valencia, 1995). Mexicano-Cíntora et al. (2007) present about 500 references on studies undertaken on fisheryresources from the Yucatán shelf.6.1 Ecosystem-based management approachA number of ecosystem models based on trophic webs have been developedwith emphasis on fishing activity using an ‘Ecopath with Ecosim’ platform (i.e.Arreguín-Sánchez, 2002). Several of them have been used for modelling fisheriesdynamics in the context of the ecosystem approach management strategies orassessing fisheries impact on the ecosystems.A number of trophic ecosystem models have been constructed along bothlittorals, putting emphasis on the role of fish resources. Generally most of thesemodels consider functional groups at the level of families with the exceptionof target or overfished species which are considered individually. The researchhas been focused to investigate the role of some stocks within the ecosystem,concentrating on fisheries management and conservation, and to evaluate theimpact of fishing of some resources on the ecosystem. In Table 5, existing trophicecosystem models are listed indicating the type of ecosystem considered for theanalysis and the main research purpose.

256Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 5Ecosystem trophic models constructed in Mexico indicating the type of ecosystem andthe main purpose for their constructionEcosystemCoral reefsCaribbean SeaNorthContinentalShelf of YucatánTrophicweb/roleXFisheriesconservationmanagementXImpactoffisheryX X XCampeche Bank X X XReferenceÄlvarez-Hernández (2003),Arias-González et al. (2004).Tabasco X Cabrera-Neri (2006)Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (1993a, b), Vega-Cendejas et al. (1993a, b), Arreguín-Sánchez (2000). Arreguín-Sánchez &Manikchand-Heileman (1998), Arreguín-Sánchez & Valero (1996).Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (2004), Arreguín-Sánchez & Manikchand-Heileman (1998),Vega-Cendejas (1993a, b), Zetina-Rejón(2004), García-Cuellar (2006), Zetina-Rejón & Arreguín-Sánchez (2002),Arreguín-Sánchez (2002), Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (1993a), Arreguín-Sánchezet al (2008a, b).SouthwestGulf of Mexico(Veracruz)Gulf of Mexicosynthetic modelJalisco andColimaSouthernSinaloaCentral Gulf ofCaliforniaNorthern Gulfof CaliforniaGulf of UlloaXXArreguín-Sánchez et al. (1993b),Arreguín-Sánchez & Chávez (1995),Cruz-Escalona (2005).X Vidal & Pauly (2004)X X XXX X XX X XXGalván-Piña (2005), Galván-Piña &Arreguín-Sánchez (2008)Salcido-Guevara (2006), Salcido &Arreguín-Sánchez (2007), Lozano (2006)Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (2002), Arreguín-Sánchez & Martínez-Aguilar (2004),Arreguín-Sánchez & Calderón-Aguilera(2002).Morales-Zárate et al. (2004), Lercari(2006), Lercari & Arreguín-Sánchez(2008), Lercari et al. (2007).Del Monte-Luna (2004), Del Monte et al.(2007).Models from bays and coastal lagoonsLa Paz Bay X X XArreguín-Sánchez et al. (2004), Díaz-Uribe et al. (2007), Arreguín-Sánchezet al. (2007).Concepción Bay X Gorostieta-Monjaraz (2001)Huizache andCaimaneroCelestunLagoonTerminosLagoonAlvaradoLagoonTampamachocoLagoonX X X Zetina-Rejón et al. (2001, 2003, 2004)XXXXXChávez et al. (1993). Vega-Cendejas(1998), Vega-Cendejas & Arreguín-Sánchez (2001)Manikchand-Heileman and Arreguín-Sánchez (1998), Rivera-Arriaga et al.(2003), Zetina-Rejón (2004), Zetina-Rejónet al. (2004).Cruz-Escalona (2005), Cruz-Escalonaet al. (2006).Rosado-Solórzano & Guzmán del Proó(1993)

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 257TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)EcosystemTrophicweb/roleFisheriesconservationmanagementImpactoffisheryReferenceMadingaLagoonTamiahuaLagoonX De La Cruz-Aguero (1993)X Abarca-Arenas & Valero (1993)Ascención Bay X Vidal & Basurto (2003)MangrovesystemXVega-Cendejas & Arreguín-Sánchez(2001), Vega-Cendejas (2003), Rivera-Arriaga et al (2003).Interdependent ecosystemsAlvaradoLagoon andadjacentcontinentalshelfTerminosLagoon andCampeche BankX X X Cruz-Escalona (2005)X X X Zetina-Rejón (2004)7. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES7.1 Fisheries assessment and approaches needed for integrationThere is a reasonable scientific effort on stock assessment when it comes toevaluating fisheries in Mexico. Originally there was a single species focus and,more recently, the ecosystem models have been introduced in some evaluations.However, social science studies related to the fishing sector (including social andeconomic analysis of fisheries) are poorly developed in Mexico (or at least carriedout by only a few researchers and ignored by managers). In recent years, theinternational community (Jentoft and MacCay, 1995; Berkes et al., 2001; Euanet al., 2004; Salas and Gaertner, 2004; Salas et al., 2007) has recommended the needto integrate natural and social sciences to find management strategies that focuson sustainability. Fisheries need to be examined within a broader natural resourceresearch and management framework.7.2 Lack of long-term vision on fisheries managementFisheries management in Mexico has undergone changes in emphasis andapproach several times in the last decades, but still lacks a long-term plan.Accordingly, related institutions have undergone several modifications. Fisheriesplans are updated every six years and usually change in approaches and emphasis.The Federal Fisheries Law and related regulations are general in scope and mainlygive broad structure for management. Hernández and Kempton (2003) andBeltran-Turriago (2007) have discussed the problems resulting from the completeredesign of Mexican institutions every six years, most especially the introductionof new administrations; those shifts have prevented the development of a coherentfisheries policy. Some efforts have been made to generate management instruments

258Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanthat transcend the institutional administrative changes and shifts in approaches,such as the case of the National Fisheries Chart, which includes a diagnosis ofthe state of the resources, characteristics of the fisheries, and setting legal limitsto fishing effort on a per fishery basis (Álvarez-Torres et al., 2002). This chart isupdated regularly based on scientific information, but could benefit from wideningits scope. There is also a need to develop the mechanisms for social participationin the decision-making and possibly the implementation of management andresearch programmes.7.3 Flaws in fishery policies and lack of transparencyHernández and Kempton (2003) stated that conditions such as low stock levels,too many fishers, trends of rent reduction, and no incentives to conserve theresource generate a race to fish and overcapitalization of the resource. In our view,institutional fragility should be added as a cause of these problems. The reductionof institutions devoted to fisheries research and management that have resultedfrom administrative changes generates deficits in terms of attention to problemsin the sector and effectiveness in management (Beltran-Turriago, 2007). Ostrom(2000) points out that effective social organization and institutional structure arethe only ways to combat problems related to poorly defined property rights.Allocation of property right has been defined as one of the effective managementtools dealing especially with artisanal fisheries. Thorpe et al. (2000) also state thatgreater management resources and expertise are required under such conditions.Other weaknesses in the management system concern equality among differentusers of resources and development alternatives during policy changes. It isimportant not to remain stagnant while searching for solutions to overexploitationand overcapacity. For example, reductions between 50 and 60% of fleet size havebeen suggested recently for the Mexican Gulf of Mexico shrimp fleet (Goudety Goudet, 1987; FAO/World Bank, 1988) and financial support from thegovernment has shifted to shrimp culture (36% of credits awarded), comparedwith 22% of credits devoted to industrial fisheries and 16% to artisanal fisheries.Geographically, there are also differences, with 83% of the credits awarded to fivestates in the north Pacific Region (CONAPESCA, 2001).On the other hand, there is a widespread perception of fisheries as a ‘productionactivity’ that does not consider the need for environmental protection. This, alongwith the dire economic situation of many fishers and the ever-growing dependenceof the fisheries sector on subsidies, drives upper level officials to design policiesthat in many occasions are not compatible with other branches of government.7.4 Need for a definition of use rightsThe increasing degree of conflict in Mexico’s fisheries stems in part from afree-access regime that persisted for decades. The environment of poorlydefined property rights can only lead to a ‘tragedy-of-the-commons’ and a‘prisoner dilemma’ type of outcome (Ostrom, 2000). Hence, cooperation amongstakeholders to conserve and obtain maximum benefits from an exploited resource

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 259is an important prerequisite for successful management schemes. There is a broadconsensus among social scientists on the pivotal role of institutional arrangementsin shaping peoples’ interactions with their natural environments and negotiationprocesses in natural resource management. Incentives for sustainable exploitationof fishing resources come in the shape of long-term assurance of being able to reapbenefits from them in a fair and equitable fashion. But this assurance can onlyoccur in a setting of well-defined use or property rights. The co-management ofcommon-pool resources in different parts of the world has been shown. However,territorial concessions are not widespread in Mexico. An exception would bethe area concessions awarded to cooperatives exploiting benthic resources suchas abalone or lobster in the Baja California peninsula. However, even thoughallocation of inshore areas to artisanal fisheries has been proposed, it still remainsunclear how these reserved areas would be established, especially with pressurefrom the industrial sector on government agencies and the lack of flexibility of thecentralized management system.7.5 Interactions between industrial and artisanal fleets and with othersectorsThorpe et al. (2000) discuss that conflicts between fishers, particularly betweenthe artisanal and industrial sectors, have generated serious problems in Mexicanfisheries. In this sense, it is common to find that industrial fishers and artisanalfishers blame each other for decreases in catches of several resources in differentareas. Illegal actions from artisanal fishers are reported by industrial fishers. Incontrast, artisanal fishers are concerned with the effects the excessive fishing powerfrom industrial fishers might have on several resources, especially spawners of somespecies (i.e. grouper or shrimp). Either way, it is a fact that effort and fishing powerhave increased greatly in Mexican fisheries. For example, the number of artisanalvessels rose more than fivefold since 1970 from 15 000 vessels to 102 000 in 2000.Before 1982, about 1 600 new artisanal vessels were incorporated each year. Onthe other hand, even though the industrial fleet has decreased approximately 5%from its maximum in 1983, the fishing power has increased due to the adoption ofnew fishing techniques and gears.Other productive activities compete for resources use, areas, or can limit theexpansion of fishing activities or serve as a complementary source of income forfishers in Mexico. Different regions present different conditions and the interactionof fisheries with other sectors varies among areas. For example, oil exploitation hasbeen an increasingly important activity in the Campeche Bank since the mid-1970s(Melville, 1984). Exclusion of some areas to fishing still remains a problem forsome people. Tourism is an important activity in the Yucatán (Méndez, 2004) andQuintana Roo (Cesar and Arnaiz, 1998) coasts and the expansion of this sectorincreases demand for seafood and labour. On the Pacific coast, there are welldeveloped tourism locations such as Los Cabos, Acapulco, Huatulco, Mazatlan,Manzanillo, Puerto Vallarta, Bahia de Banderas, and a number of smaller touristcentres. Cargo activities in some areas have been expanding, such as Lázaro

260Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanCárdenas, Manzanillo and Salina Cruz. Multiple uses of the coastal areas requireefforts to identify possible human and ecological interdependencies. In addition,definition on users’ rights of natural resources is required.7.6 Impact of subsidies on fishing activitiesSubsidies to fisheries (in the form of reduction in diesel fuel prices) went from468 million Mexican pesos in 2001 to 887 million in 2002. Initially, subsidieswere directed towards supporting the operations of the industrial fleet (as it onlyuses diesel). However, they began to be earmarked also to gasoline, used by theartisanal fleet at the end of 2003 (Cámara de Senadores, 2003). Subsidies were seenas an important issue in the Chamber of Deputies consultation’s results to ‘increasecompetitiveness’ (Comisión de Pesca de la Camara de Diputados, 2001). Althoughit has been acknowledged that subsidies should not be directed to increasingfishing effort (Cámara de Senadores, 2003), it seems that little attention has beenpaid to the economic effects, and those over the exploited stocks, of subsidies inmaintaining present levels of fishing effort (National Research Council, 1999;World Wildlife Foundation, 2001).REFERENCESAbarca-Arenas L.G. & Valero-Pacheco E. 1993. Toward a trophic model of Tamiahua,a coastal lagoon in Mexico. In Trophic box models of Aquatic Ecosystems. Editedby V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc., 26: 181–185.Aguilar S.F., Salas S., Cabrera M.A. & Martínez J.D. 1990. Crecimiento y mortalidaddel carito Scomberomorus cavalla, en la costa norte de la Península de Yucatán.Ciencia Pesquera, 8: 71–87.Alcalá M.G. 1986. Los pescadores de la costa de Michoacán y de las lagunas costeras deColima y Tabasco. Cuadernos de la Casa Chata No. 123. Centro de Investigacionesy Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. SEP. Mexico.Álvarez-Hernández J.H. 2003. Trophic model of a fringing coral reef in the southernMexican Caribbean. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 11(6): 227–235.Álvarez-Torres P., Díaz de León, A., Ramírez-Flores O. & Bermúdez-Rodríguez E.2002. National Fisheries Chart: a new instrument for fisheries management in inlandwaters. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 12: 317–326.Arceo P. & Seijo J.C. 1991. Fishing effort analysis of the small-scale spiny lobster(Panulirus argus) fleet of the Yucatán shelf. FAO Fisheries Reports, No.431 (Suppl.):59–74.Arias-González E., Núñez-Lara E., González-Salas C. & Galzi R. 2004. Trophicmodels for investigation of fishing effect on coral reef ecosystems. Ecol. Model.,172 (2–4): 197–212.Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1985. Present status of the red grouper fishery in the CampecheBank. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 38.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 261Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1992. An approach to the study of the catchability coefficientwith application to the red grouper (Epinephelus morio) fishery from the continentalshelf of Yucatán, Mexico. Doctoral Thesis. CINVESTAV-IPN Unidad Mérida,Yucatán, Mexico.Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1999. Tendencias poblacionales de una pesquería pelágicocosteramultiespecífica: respuestas a cambios en el esfuerzo de pesca. Proc. GulfCarib. Fish. Inst., 45: 655–666.Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2000. Octopus – red grouper interaction in the exploitedecosystem of the northern continental shelf of Yucatán, Mexico. Ecol. Model., 129:119–129.Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2002. Impact of harvesting strategies on fisheries and communitystructure on the Continental Shelf of the Campeche Sound, Southern Gulf ofMexico. In The Use of Ecosystem Models to Investigate Multispecies Management.Strategies for Capture Fisheries. Edited by T. Pitcher and K. Cochrane. FisheriesCentre Research Reports, 10(2): 127–134.Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Chávez E.A. 1985. Estado del conocimiento de las pesqueríasde camarón en el Golfo de Mexico. Invest. Mar. CICIMAR, 2(2): 23–44.Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Chávez E.A. 1995. An investigation of the trophic role ofthree pelagic fishes of the Western coast of the Gulf of Mexico using the ECOPATHmodel. Sci. Mar., 59(3–4): 307–315.Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Valero E. 1996. Trophic role of the red grouper (Epinephelusmorio) in the ecosystem of the northern continental shelf of Yucatán, Mexico.In Biology, fisheries and culture of tropical groupers and snappers. Edited byF. Arreguín-Sánchez, J.L. Munro, M. Balgos and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conferenceproceedings, 48: 19–27.Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Manickchand-Heileman S. 1998. The trophic role of lutjanidfish and impacts of their fisheries in two ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. J. FishBiol., 53 (Suppl. A): 143–153.Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Pitcher T.J. 1999. Catchability estimates and their applicationto the red grouper (Epinephelus morio) fishery of the Campeche Bank, Mexico. Fish.Bull., 97: 746–757.Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Calderón-Aguilera L.E. 2002. Evaluating harvestingstrategies for fisheries of the ecosystem on the Central Gulf of California. In TheUse of Ecosystem Models to Investigate Multispecies Management. Strategies forCapture Fisheries. Edited by T. Pitcher, and K. Cochrane. Fisheries Centre ResearchReports, 10(2): 135–148.Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Martínez-Aguilar S. 2004. Manejo adaptativo de la pesqueríade sardina, Sardinops caeruleus, del Golfo de California. In Ambiente y pesquería depelágicos menores en el noroeste de Mexico. Edited by C. Quiñónez-Velázquez, yJ.F. Elorduy-Garay. Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Mexico. pp. 1–16.Arreguín-Sánchez F., Seijo J.C., Fuentes D. & Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1987. Estado delconocimiento de los recursos pesqueros de la plataforma continental de Yucatán yregión adyacente. CRIP Yucalpetén. Contribuciones Investigación Pesquera. INP,México. Doc. Tec., 4: 1–41.

262Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanArreguín-Sánchez F., Seijo J.C. & Valero, E. 1993a. An application of the ECOPATHII to the north continental shelf ecosystem of Yucatán, Mexico. In Trophic boxmodels of Aquatic Ecosystems. Edited by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARMConf. Proc., 26: 269–278Arreguín-Sánchez F., Valero E. & Chávez E.A. 1993b. A trophic box model ofthe coastal fish communities of the southwestern Gulf of Mexico. In Trophic boxmodels of Aquatic Ecosystems. Edited by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARMConf. Proc., 26: 195–205.Arreguín-Sánchez F., Cabrera M.A. & Aguilar F.A. 1995. Population dynamics ofthe king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) of the Campeche Bank, Mexico. Sci.Mar., 59(3–4): 637–645Arreguín-Sánchez F., Solís-Ramírez M.J. & González M.E. 1999. Populationdynamics and stock assessment for Octopus maya (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) fisheryin the Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico. Rev. Biol. Trop. (en línea). http://rbt.ots.ac.cr/revistas/48-2-3/05.%20arreguin.htm.Arreguín-Sánchez F., Solís-Ramírez M.J. & González M.E. 2000. Populationdynamics and stock assessment for Octopus maya (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae)fishery in the Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico. Rev. Biol. Trop., 48(2–3): 323–31.Arreguín-Sánchez F., Arcos E. & Chávez E.A. 2002. Flows of biomass and structurein an exploited benthic ecosystem in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Ecol. Model.,156: 167–183Arreguin-Sánchez F., Zetina-Rejón M., Manickchand-Heilemanb S., Ramírez-Rodríguez M. & Vidal L. 2004. Simulated response to harvesting strategies in anexploited ecosystem in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico. Ecol. Model., 172(2-4):421–432.Arreguín-Sánchez F., del Monte-Luna P., Díaz-Uribe J.G., Gorostieta M., Chávez A.& Ronzón-Rodríguez R. 2007. Trophic model for the ecosystem of La Paz Bay,southern Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Fisheries Centre Research Reports.Canada, 15(6): 134–160.Arreguín-Sánchez F., Ramírez-Rodríguez M., Zetina-Rejón M. & Cruz-Escalona V.H. 2008a. Natural hazards, stock depletion, and decision making inthe southern Gulf of Mexico pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) fishery.Mitigating Impacts of Natural Hazards on Fishery Ecosystem. Amer. Fish. Soc., 64:419–428.Arreguín-Sánchez F., Zetina-Rejón M. & Ramírez-Rodríguez M. 2008b. Exploringecosystem-based harvesting strategies to recover the collapsed pink shrimp(Farfantepenaeus duorarum) fishery in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Ecol. Model.214: 83–94.Bello J., Ríos G.V., Liceaga M.A., Zetina C.E., Arceo P., Cervera K. & Hernández H.2000. Estimación de densidad y distribución de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argusen el arrecife Alacranes utilizando sistemas de información geográfica. CRIP-Yucalpetén. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Contribuciones Investigación Pesquera.Doc. Téc., No. 8.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 263Beltrán-Turriago C. 2007. Linkage between fisheries and the aquaculture sector inMexico’s rural development strategy. In Structural change in fisheries. Dealing withthe human dimension. Edited by OECD. Paris. pp. 184–210.Berkes F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R. & Pomeroy R. 2001. Managing smallscalefisheries. Alternative directions and methods. International DevelopmentResearch Centre. Ottawa, Canada.Bonfil R. 1997. Status of shark resources in the southern Gulf of Mexico andCaribbean: implications for management. Fish. Res., 29(2): 110–117.Bourillon L. & Ramade M. 2004. Coupling community management and ecolabelingto reconcile fisheries with conservation in Baja California, Mexico. Fourth WorldFisheries Congress. Vancouver, Canada.Briones P. & Lozano E. 1994. The spiny lobster fisheries in Mexico. In Spinylobster management. Edited by B.F. Phillips, J.S. Cobb & J. Kittaka. Fishing NewsDocuments. Oxford. pp. 144–154.Brule T., Deniel C., Colas-Marrufo T. & Renan X. 2003. Reproductive biology of gagin the southern Gulf of Mexico. J. Fish Biol., 63(6): 1505–1520.Burgos R. & Defeo O. 2000. Un marco de manejo precautorio para la pesquería delmero (Epinephelus morio) del Banco de Campeche. Oceanides, 15(2): 129–140.Burgos R. & Defeo O. 2004. Long-term population structure, mortality and modelingof a tropical multifleet fishery: the red grouper Epinephelus morio of the CampecheBank, Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Res., 66(2–3): 325–335.Cabrera M.A. 2003. Análisis bioeconómico de la pesquería de camarón en la cienegade Chabihau. In Caracterización y evaluación de la pesquería de camarón, fauna deacompañamiento y entorno ecológico de la ciénega y zona litoral de Chabihau E.Batllori. Informe Final. Sisierra-Conacyt. Proyecto: 2000-0706021, Mérida Yucatán,Mexico.Cabrera-Neri E. 2006. Estructura trófica y flujos de energía en el ecosistema de laplataforma continental de Tabasco, Mexico. Tesis de Maestría en Ciencias. CentroInterdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur,Mexico.Cámara de Senadores. 2003. Versión estenográfica de la reunión de trabajo delas Comisiones Unidas de Agricultura y Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural y MedioAmbiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, presidida por el senador Lauro Díaz Castro,realizada en Torre Caballito, piso 5, salas 4, 5 y 6 (17:00 horas). 8 de octubre de 2002.Castillo-Géniz J.L. 1992. Diagnóstico de la pesquería de tiburón de Mexico. INP-SEPESCA, Mexico.Castillo-Géniz J.L., Márquez J.F., Rodríguez M.C., Cortés E. & Cid A. 1998. TheMexican artisanal shark fishery in the Gulf of Mexico: towards a regulated fishery.Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 49: 611–620.Castro J.L. 1978. Catálogo sistemático de los peces marinos que penetran a las aguascontinentales de Mexico con aspectos zoogeográficos y ecológicos. DirecciónGeneral del InstitutoNacional de la Pesca. Mexico.Castro R.G. & Santiago R. 1976. Veda experimental de camarón en las costasde Tamaulipas en, 1974. Memorias del Simposio sobre la biología y dinámicapoblacional del camarón. S.I.C. Pesca. Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico. pp. 393–426.

264Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanCastro R.G. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1991. Evaluación de la pesquería de camaróncafé Penaeus aztecus del litoral mexicano del noroeste del Golfo de Mexico. Cien.Mar., 4: 147–159.Castro R.G. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1997. Mortality and stock assessment of thebrown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus (Crustacea: Penaeidae), in the northwest Gulf ofMexico. Rev. Biol.Trop., 45 (3): 1075–1083.Cervera K., Ríos G.V. & Zetina C. 1996. Métodos de captura para la langostaPanulirus argus utilizados en las costas del estado de Yucatán en forma experimental.Mem. II Simposio de Oceanografía Biológica en Mexico. Septiembre, 1996. La PazBaja California Sur, Mexico.Cesar A. & Arnaiz S. 1998. El Caribe Mexicano: una frontera olvidada. Universidadde Quintana Roo.Chávez E.A. 1981. Towards a rational management of Western Gulf of Mexico shorefisheries. In G.E. Lasker (ed.). Pergamon Press. Oxford. pp. 2018-2023.Chávez E.A., Garduño M. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1993. Trophic dynamic structureof Celestun Lagoon, Southern Gulf of Mexico. In Trophic models of AquaticEcosystems. Edited by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc., 26:186–192.Chenaut V. 1985. Los pescadores de la Península de Yucatán. Cuadernos de la CasaChata No. 121. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en AntropologíaSocial. SEP. Mexico.Cid A., Castillo J.L., Soriano S.R., Ramírez C., Márquez J.F. & Tovar J.R. 2000Tiburón. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico: Evaluación y Manejo,1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico. CINVESTAV, Unidad Mérida,Yucatán, Mexico.Colinas F. & Briones P. 1990. Alimentación de las langostas P. guttatus y P. argus(Latreille, 1804) en el Caribe mexicano. An. Inst. Cien. Mar Limn. UNAM. México,17(1): 89–106.Comisión de Pesca de la Cámara de Diputados. 2001. Consulta Nacional del SectorPesquero. Enero-Abril 2001. Informe. Cámara de Diputados LVIII Legislatura.Mexico.CONAPESCA. 2001. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca 2001. CONAPESCA/SAGARPA,Mexico.CONAPESCA. 2002. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca 2001. CONAPESCA -SAGARPA,Mexico.Contreras M., Moreno V. & Burgos R. 1995. Estado actual de la pesquería del mero(Epinephelus morio) en Yucatán. En: CD-Multimedia: Atlas Pesquero de Mexico,Pesquerías Relevantes. SEPESCA, INP. Cenedic Universidad de Colima, Mexico.Cruz Escalona V.H. 2005. Interdependencia ecotrófica entre la laguna de Alvarado,Veracruz y la plataforma continental adyacente. Tesis Doctor en Ciencias. CentroInterdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur,Mexico.Cruz-Escalona V.H., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Zetina-Rejón M. 2006. Analysis of theecosystem structure of Laguna Alvarado, western Gulf of Mexico, by means of amass balance model. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 72(1–2): 155–167.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 265Defeo O., Andrade-Hernández M., Pérez-Castañeda R. & Cabrera-Pérez J.L.2005. Pautas para el manejo de la pesquería de jaiba y camarón en un área naturalprotegida: el caso de la ría de Celestún, Yucatán-Campeche. CINVESTAV I.P.N.-CONABIO-PRONATURA. Mérida, Yuc., Mexico.De la Cruz-Aguero G. 1993. A Preliminary Model of Mandinga Lagoon, Veracruz,Mexico. In Trophic box models of Aquatic Ecosystems. Edited by V. Christensenand D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc., 26: 193-196.Del Monte Luna P. 2004. Caracterización del Centro de Actividad Biológica delGolfo de Ulloa, BCS, bajo un enfoque de modelación ecológica. Tesis Doctor enCiencias. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, BajaCalifornia Sur, Mexico.Del Monte-Luna P., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Lluch-Belda D. 2007. Marine ecosystemanalyses: BAC meets Ecopath Fisheries Centre Research Report, UBC, Canada.15(6): 114–133.Díaz de León J.A. & Seijo J.C. 1992. Multicriteria non-linear optimization model forthe control and management of a tropical fishery. Mar. Resour. Econ., 7: 23-40.Díaz de León J.A., Fernández J.I., Álvarez-Torres P., Ramírez-Flores O. & López-Lemus L.G. 2004. La sustentabilidad de las pesquerías del Golfo de Mexico. InDiagnóstico Ambiental del Golfo de Mexico. Edited by M. Caso, I. Pisanty & E.Ezcurra. Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE-SEMARNAT). Mexico. pp. 727-756.Díaz-Uribe J.G., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Cisneros-Mata M.A. 2007. Multispeciesperspective for small-scale fisheries management: A trophic analysis of La Paz Bayin the Gulf of California, Mexico. Ecol. Model, 201: 205–222.Doi T. & Mendizabal D. 1978. Evaluación preliminar de la población de sierra,Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill), frente a las costas de Veracruz. In Proceedingsof the Mackerel Colloquium. Edited by E.L. Nakamura and H.R. Bullis Jr. GulfStates Marine Fisheries Comm., 4: 43–55.Doi T., Mendizabal D. & Contreras M. 1981. Análisis preliminar de la poblacióndel mero Epinephelus morio (Valenciennes) en el Banco de Campeche. CienciaPesquera, 1 (1): 1–15.Espino E., Cruz M. & García A. 2003. peces marinos con valor comercial de la costade Clima, Mexico. CONABIO-I.N.P.Espino E., Cabral E.G., García A. & Puente M. 2004. Especies marinas con valorcomercial de la costa de Jalisco, Mexico. SAGARPA-I.N.P. Jalisco, Mexico.Euan J., Salas S. & Fraga J. 2004. Educación y entrenamiento interdisciplinario parael manejo integral costero. In El manejo costero en Mexico. Edited by E. Rivera, G.Villalobos, I. Azuz and F. Rosado. UAC-EPOMEX, Mexico. pp. 629-635.FAO/World Bank. 1988. Mexico Fishery sector review. FAO/World Bank CooperativeProgramme. Rome.Fernández J.I., Schultz L., Wakida A.T., Medellín M., Sandoval M.E., Núñez G.,Uribe J.A., Castro R.G., González A., González M.E., Santos J., Marcet G.,Aguilar F., Delgado B. & Chale G. 2000. Camarón del Golfo de Mexico y MarCaribe. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo,1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.

266Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIRA. 2003. Perspectivas del camarón 2003. Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relación conla Agricultura. Banco de Mexico. Morelia, Mexico.Flores D. Sánchez P., Seijo J.C. & Arreguín F. (eds). 1997. Análisis y diagnóstico delos recursos pesqueros críticos del Golfo de Mexico. EPOMEX Serie Científica 7.Fuentes-Mata P., Rodríguez-Mouriño C., Lorán R.M., García N., Ecudero F. &EcheverríaV. 2002. Pesquería de tiburones y Rayas. In La pesca en Veracruz y susperspectivas de desarrollo. Edited by P. Guzmán-Amaya, C. Quiroga-Brahms, C.Díaz-Luna, D. Fuentes-Castellano, C. Contreras, C. Silva-López. SAGARPA-Universidad Veracruzana. Veracruz, Mexico. pp. 187–194.Galván-Piña V.H. 2005. Impacto de la pesca en la estructura, función y productividaddel ecosistema de la plataforma continental de las costas de Jalisco y Colima, Mexico.Tesis Doctor en Ciencias. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, LaPaz, Baja California Sur, Mexico.Galván-Piña V.H. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2008. Interacting Industrial and ArtisanalFisheries and Their Impact on the Ecosystem of the Continental Shelf on theCentral Pacific Coasts of Mexico. Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress.Publ. Spec. AFS. 49: 589–600.García Cuellar J.A. 2006. Análisis del impacto de la industria petrolera en elecosistema y su relación con las pesquerías de la Sonda de Campeche, Mexico. TesisDoctor en Ciencias, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, La Paz,Baja California Sur, Mexico.Giménez-Hurtado E., Coyula R., Luch-Cota S.E., González-Yañez A., Moreno-García V. & Burgos R. 2005. Historical biomass, fishing mortality, and recruitmenttrends of the Campeche Bank red grouper (Epinephelus morio). Fish. Res., 71:267–277.Gómez M.G. & Monroy M.C. 2000. Lisa. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable enMexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.González-Cano J.M. 1991. Migration and refuge in the assessment and managementof the spiny lobster Panulirus argus in the Mexican Caribbean. Ph. D. Thesis,Imperial College, University of London.González-Cano J.M., Ríos G.V., Zetina C.E., Ramírez A., Arceo P., Aguilar C.,Cervera K., Bello J., de D. Martínez J., de Anda D. & Coba M.T. 2000. Langosta.In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico: Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.Gorostieta Monjaraz M. 2001.Dinámica de la estructura trófica del ecosistema de BahíaConcepción, B.C.S., Mexico. Tesis Maestría en Ciencias. Centro Interdisciplinariode Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico.Goudet y Goudet F. 1987. La Racionalidad Económica de la Captura de Camarónen el Golfo de Mexico; Análisis Teórico y Evidencia Empírica. Graduate thesis.Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de Mexico. Mexico.Hernández A. & Kempton W. 2003. Changes in fisheries management in Mexico:Effects of increasing scientific input and public participation. Ocean Coast. Manag.,46: 507–526.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 267Hernández A., Solís M., Espinoza J.C., Mena R., Aguilar F. & Ramírez F. 2000.Pulpo. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo,1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Mexico.Hernández C.A. 1971. Pesquerías de los tiburones en Mexico. Tesis Profesional.Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas, IPN, Mexico.Hernández A. 1995. Análisis bioeconómico, espacial y temporal de la pesqueríadel mero Epinephelus morio en la plataforma continental de Yucatán. Tesis deMaestría.INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática). 1999 IV Censode Pesca.Censos Económicos, 1999. Aguascalientes, Mexico.INP. 1998. Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo,1997-1998. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.INP. 2000. Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo,1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.Jentoft S. & McCay B. 1995. User participation in fisheries management: Lessonsdrawn from international experiences. Mar. Pol., 19 (3): 227–246.Leonce-Valencia C. 1995. Determinación de la edad y crecimiento del Huachinangode Castilla, Lutjanus campechanus, en el Banco de Campeche (Mexico) por métodosdirectos e indirectos. Tesis de Maestría. Centro de Investigación y de EstudiosAvanzados, Unidad Mérida. IPN. Mexico.Lercari D. 2006. Manejo de los recursos del ecosistema del norte del Golfo deCalifornia: integrando explotación y conservación. Tesis Doctor en Ciencias.Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur,Mexico.Lercari D. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2008. An ecosystem modelling approach toderiving viable harvest strategies for multispecies management of the northern Gulfof California. Aquatic Conservation.Lercari D., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Le Quesne W. 2007. An ecosystem simulationmodel of the northern Gulf of California. Fisheries Centre Research Reports,Canada. 15(6): 100–113.Lozano H. 2006. Historical ecosystem modelling of the upper Gulf of California(Mexico): following 50 years of change. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University ofBritish Columbia, Canada.Manickcchand-Heileman S. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1998. A trophic model andnetwork analysis of Terminos Lagoon, southern Gulf of Mexico. J. Fish Biol., 53(Supplement A): 179–197.Márquez F. 2000. Tiburones del Golfo de California. In Sustentabilidad y PescaResponsable en Mexico: Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional dePesca. Mexico.Márquez M.J. 1974. Observaciones sobre mortalidad total y crecimiento de longitudde lisa (Mugil cephalus) en la laguna de Tamiahua, Ver., Mex. I.N.P. Subsecretaria dePesca. S.I.C. Serie Científico 3: 1–16.

268Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMelville R. 1984. Condiciones laborales de los pescadores camaroneros en Ciudad delCarmen, Campeche. Cuadernos de la Casa Chata No. 112. Centro de Investigacionesy Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. SEP. Mexico.Méndez J.I. 2004. Actitudes hacia los recursos naturales y su uso en los jóvenes deCelestún, un estudio de caso. M.Sc. thesis. Departamento de Ecología Humana.Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Avanzados, IPN. Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.Mendizabal O.D. 1987. Análisis preliminar del estado de la población de sierra,Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill), del Golfo de Mexico. Tesis Profesional.Facultad de Ciencias. UNAM. Mexico.Mendoza A. 1968. Consideraciones sobre la biología pesquera de la sierra,Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill), en el Estado de Veracruz. Bios., 1(2): 11–22.Mexicano-Cíntora G., Leonce-Valencia C., Salas S. & Vega-Cendejas M.E.2007. Recursos pesqueros de Yucatán: fichas técnicas y referencias bibliográficas.Cinvestav del IPN., Mexico.Monroy M.C. 1998. Análisis bioeconómico de la pesquería del mero Epinephelusmorio en el Banco de Campeche bajo condiciones de riesgo incertidumbre. Tesis deMaestría, CINVESTAV, Unidad Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.Monroy M.C., Moreno V., Hernández A. & Garduño M. 2000a. Mero. InSustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000.Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.Monroy M.C., González M.E., Garduño M., Gómez G., Hernández I., Quiroga C.& Fuentes, P. 2000b Huachinango. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable enMexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.Morales-Bojórquez E., Gómez-Muñoz V.M., Félix-Uraga R. & Alvarado-Castillo, R.M. 2003. Relation between recruitment, sea surface temperature, anddensity-independent mortality of the Pacific sardine (Sardinops caeruleus) of thesouthwest coast of the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Sci. Mar., 67(1): 25–32.Morales-Zárate M.V., Arreguín-Sánchez F., López-Martínez J. & Lluch-Cota S.E.2004. Ecosystem trophic structure and energy flux in the upper Gulf of California,Mexico. Ecol. Model., 174: 331–345.Nadal A. 1996. Esfuerzo y Captura. Tecnología y Sobreexplotación de los recursospesqueros en Mexico. Colegio de Mexico. Mexico.National Research Council, Committee on Ecosystem Management for SustainableMarine Fisheries. 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press.,Washington, DC.Ostrom E. 2000. El gobierno de los bienes comunes. La evolución de las institucionesde acción colectiva. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico. Centro Regionalde Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico.Olvera R.M., Ruiz L., Borbón J.A., Sánchez A., Cerecedo J.L. & Sánchez R. 1991.Áreas de desove del peto Scomberomorus cavalla en la Zona Económica ExclusivaMexicana del Golfo de Mexico. Reporte XV Mexus-Golfo. (Inédito).Pérez-Sánchez E. & Muir J.F. 2003. Fishermen perception on resources managementand aquaculture development in the Mecoacan estuary, Tabasco, Mexico. OceanCoast. Manag., 46: 681–700.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 269Ramírez A. 1996. Reproducción de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus (Latreille,1804) en la costa noreste de Quintana Roo. Tesis Maestría en Ciencias. Facultad deCiencias. UNAM, Mexico.Ramírez-Rodríguez M., Arreguín-Sánchez F., Lluch-Belda D. & Chávez-Ortíz E.2001. Tendencias del reclutamiento de camarón rosado en la Sonda de Campeche yel colapso de su pesquería. Segundo Foro de Camarón del Golfo de Mexico y MarCaribe. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Mexico.Re-Regis M.C. 1989. Madurez gonádica del camarón rosado Penaeus duorarum enla Sonda de Campeche. CRIP Lerma-Campeche. Informe Técnico del InstitutoNacional de la Pesca (Inédito).Re-Regis M.C. 1994. Estacionalidad de la reproducción del camarón blanco Penaeussetiferus enla Sonda de Campeche. CRIP Lerma-Campeche. Informe Técnico delInstituto Nacional de la Pesca (Inédito).Ríos G.V., Zetina C. & Cevera K. 1995. Evaluación de “casitas” o refugios artificialesintroducidos en la costa oriente del estado de Yucatán para la captura de langostas.Revista Cubana de Investigaciones Pesqueras, 19(2): 50–56.Ríos G.V., Zetina C. & Cervera K. 1997. Evaluación de la captura de langostarealizada con el pesquero levable en la costa oriente de Yucatán. Memorias del IITaller Binacional Mexico-Cuba de langosta. La langosta de América. Mazatlán,Sinaloa, Mexico.Ríos G.V., Zetina C.E. & Arceo P. 2000. Evaluación de la población de la langostade la costa de Yucatán y análisis del efecto de la reducción de la talla mínima sobrela biomasa y la captura. CRIP-Yucalpetén. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Contrib.Invest. Pesq. Doc. Téc., 8: 16-26.Rivera-Arriaga E., Lara-Domínguez A.L., Villalobos-Zapata G. & Yáñez-Arancibia A. 2003. Trophodynamic ecology of two critical habitats (seagrassesand mangroves) in Términos Lagoon, southern Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries CentreResearch Reports, 11(6): 245-254.Rodríguez C. 1992. Contribución al conocimiento de la biología pesquera delhuachinango Lutjanus campechanus (Poey, 1960), en las costas del sur de Tamaulipas,Mexico. Tesis Profesional. Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Victoria. CiudadVictoria Tamaulipas. Mexico.Rodríguez H. 1986. Determinación de la edad y el crecimiento del mero (Epinephelusmorio, Valenciennes) en el Banco de Campeche utilizando dos estructuras óseasdiferentes (otolitos y hueso mesopterigoides). Tesis Profesional. Facultad deCiencias Biológicas. Univ. Autónoma de Nuevo León. Mexico.Rodríguez R.C. 1984. Los pescadores de la Laguna de Términos. Cuadernos de la CasaChata No. 112. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en AntropologíaSocial. SEP. Mexico.Rosado-Solórzano R. & Guzmán del Proo S.A. 1993. Preliminary trophic structuremodel for Tampamachoco lagoon, Veracruz, Mexico. Ecol. Model., 109: 141–154.SAGARPA. 2001. Programma sectorial de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural,Pesca y Alimentación. Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pescay Alimentación. Mexico.

270Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSala E., Aburto-Oropeza O., Reza M., Paredes G. & López-Lemus L.G. 2004.Fishing down coastal food webs in the Gulf of California. Fisheries, 29(3): 19–25.Salas, S. & Gaertner, D. 2004. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: managementimplications. Fish and Fisheries, 5: 153–167.Salas S., Sumaila R.U. & Pitcher T. 2004. Short-term decisions of small-scale fisheriesselecting alternative target species: a choice model. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 61(3):374-383.Salas S., Bello J., Ríos V., Cabrera M.A., Rivas R. & Santamaría A. 2005.Programma maestro del sistema-producto de las pesquerías de langosta en Yucatán.CONAPESCA-SAGARPA-CINVESTAV, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.Salas S., Mexicano-Cíntora G. & Cabrera M.A. 2006. Hacia dondé van las pesqueríasen Yucatán? Tendencias, retos y perspectivas. CINVESTAV I.P.N., Mérida, Yuc.Mexico.Salas S., Chuenpagdee R., Seijo J.C. & Charles A. 2007. Challenges in the assessmentand management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish.Res., 87: 5–16.Salcido-Guevara L.A. 2006. Estructura y flujos de biomasa de un ecosistemabentónico explotado en el Sur de Sinaloa, Mexico. Tesis de Maestría en Ciencias.Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur,Mexico.Salcido-Guevara L.A. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2007. A benthic ecosystem model of theSinaloa continental shelf, Mexico. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 15(6): 170–187.Sánchez G., Schultz L., Vasconcelos J., Gamboa R.B., Díaz C. & Iglesias A. 1991.Resultado de marca-recaptura de peto, Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier), en lascostas del Golfo de Mexico. Reporte XV Mexus-Golfo (inedit).Schultz L. & Chávez E.A. 1976. Contribución al conocimiento de la biologíapesquera del camarón blanco (Penaeus setiferus) del Golfo de Campeche Mexico.Mem. Simposium sobre Biología y Dinámica Poblacional de Camarones. Guaymas,Son., Mexico. pp. 58–72.Schultz L., Fernández J.I. & Rodríguez C.M. 2000. Sierra-Peto. In Sustentabilidad yPesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacionalde Pesca. Mexico.Seijo J.C. 1986. Comprehensive simulation model of a tropical demersal fisheryred grouper (Epinephelus morio) of the Yucatán continental shelf. Ph.D. Thesis.Michigan State University.Seijo J.C. 1993. Individual transferable grounds in a community managed artisanalfishery. Mar. Resour. Econ., 8: 78–81.Seijo J.C. & Martínez F.J. 2006. Análisis prospectivo de política de acuacultura y pescaen Mexico. FAO, United Nations. Mexico, DF.Seijo J.C., Solís-Ramírez M.J. & Morales G. 1987. Simulación bioeconómica de lapesquería de pulpo Octopus maya de la plataforma continental de Yucatán. Mem.Simp. Invest. Biol. Ocean. Pesq. Mexico. La Paz, B.C.S. pp.125–138.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 271Seijo J.C., Salas S., Arceo P. & Fuentes D. 1991. Análisis Bioeconómico comparativode la pesquería de langosta Panulirus argus de la Plataforma Continental de Yucatán.FAO Fisheries Reports, (Suppl.) 431: 39–58.Seijo J.C., Pérez E., Puga R. & Almeida R.C. 2001. Bio-economics. Report onthe Assessment of the Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus). FAO FisheriesReport, 619: 115–135.Seijo J.C., Caddy J.F. & Arzápalo W. 2006. Some considerations for an ecosystemapproach to management in the southern Gulf of Mexico. In The Gulf of Mexico:Ecosystem-Based Management. The Gulf of Mexico: Its Origin, Waters, Biota,Economics and Human Impacts. Edited by J.W. Day and A. Yáñez-Arancibia.Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University –Corpus Christi.SEMARNAP. 2004. Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico: Evaluación yManejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico. (en línea). http://inp.semarnat.gob.mx/Publicaciones/Publicaciones.htm. [Consulta: octubre del 2004].Smith M.K. 1984. Some ecological determinants of the growth and survival of juvenilepenaeid shrimp, Penaeus setiferus (Linnaeus), in Terminos Lagoon, CampecheMexico, with special attention to the role of population density. Ph.D. Thesis.Department of Zoology, University of California. Berkeley, California.Smith M.K. 1988. Grado de conocimiento del recurso camarón del Golfo de Mexico.In SEPESCA. (Ed). Los recursos pesqueros del país. SEPESCA-INP, Mexico.399–419.Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1969. The red grouper fishery of Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. 37 thAnnual Meeting. Gulf and Caribean Fisheries Institute. Miami, Florida, USA. pp.122–129.Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1975. Posibilidades de la pesca del pulpo de la Península deYucatán. Publ. Inst. Mex. Com. Ext., 347: 1–20.Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1988. El recurso pulpo del Golfo de Mexico y el Caribe. In: LosRecursos Pesqueros del País. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. pp. 463–478.Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1991. Octopus fisheries in the Mexican waters of the Gulf ofMexico and Caribbean Sea. In C.F.E. Roper, M. Sweeney & M. Vecchione (eds).Bull. Mar. Sci., 49(1–2): 667–668.Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1994. La pesquería del pulpo del Golfo de Mexico y CaribeMexicano. In Atlas Pesquero y Pesquerías Relevantes de Mexico. C.D. Multimedia.Secretaría de Pesca, INP. CENEDIC. Univ. de Colima, Mexico.Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1997. The Octopus maya fishery of the Yucatán Peninsula. In TheFishery and Market Potential of Octopus in California. Edited by M. Lang, F.G.Hochberg, R.A. Ambrose, and J.M. Engle. Smithsonian Institution. University ofSouthern California. pp. 1–10.Solís-Ramírez M.J. & Chávez E.A. 1986. Evaluación y régimen óptimo de pesca delpulpo de la península de Yucatán. An. Inst. Cien. Mar Limn., 13(3): 1–18.Solís-Ramírez M.J., Fernández I. & Márquez F. 1998. Pulpo. In Sustentabilidad yPesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1997-1998. Instituto Nacionalde Pesca. Mexico.

272Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSoriano S.R., Solís, A., Ramírez C., Cid A.& Castillo J.L. 2000. Tiburones del Golfode Tehuantepec. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico. Evaluación yManejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Mexico.Thorpe A., Aguilar-Ibarra A. & Reid C. 2000. The new economic model and marinefisheries development in Latin America. World Development, 28(9): 1689–1702.Toledo A. & Bozada L. 2002. El delta del río Balsas. Medio ambiente, pesquerías ysociedad. Instituto Nacional de Ecología. SEMARNAT. Mexico.Uribe J.A. 1990. Guía de campo para la identificación de tiburones y cazones de lasonda de Campeche. Ser. Doc. Trab. INP SEPESCA, 23: 1–48.Vasconcelos P. J. 1988. Migración de peces pelágicos costeros en el Golfo de Mexico(la sierra y el peto como ejemplos). In Los Recursos del Mar y la Investigación.Secretaría de Pesca. Instituto Nacional. de la Pesca. Mexico. 1: 17–22.Vega-Cendejas M.E. 1998. Trama trófica de la comunidad nectónica asociada alecosistema de manglar en el litoral norte de Yucatán. Tesis Doctor en Ciencias.Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, Mexico.Vega-Cendejas M.E. 2003. Trophic dynamics of a mangrove ecosystem in CelestunLagoon, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 11(6):237–243.Vega-Cendejas M.E. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2001. Energy fluxes in a mangroveecosystem from a coastal lagoon in Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Ecol. Model., 137:119-133.Vega-Cendejas M.E., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Hernández M. 1993a. Trophic fluxeson the Campeche Bank, Mexico. In: Trophic models of Aquatic Ecosystems. Editedby V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc., 26: 206–213.Vega-Cendejas M.E., Hernández M. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1993b. Trophicinterrelationships in a beach seine fishery from the northwest coast of YucatánPeninsula, Mexico. J. Fish Biol., 44: 647–659.Vidal L. & Basurto M. 2003. A preliminary trophic model of Bahía de la Ascensión,Quintana Roo, Mexico. Fish. Cen. Res. Rep., 11(6): 255–264.Vidal L., & Pauly D. 2004. Integration of subsystems models as a tool towarddescribing feeding interaction and fisheries impacts in a large marine ecosystem, theGulf of Mexico. Ocean Coast. Manag., 47: 709–725.Voss G.L. & Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1966. Octopus maya, a new species from the Bay ofCampeche. Bull. Mar. Sci., 16 (3): 615–625.World Wildlife Foundation. 2001. Hard facts, hidden problems. A review of currentdata on fishing subsidies. Technical Paper. WWF.Zetina C., Ríos G.V. & Capurro L. 1996a. Red grouper (Epinephelus morio)population in Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico, and different management strategiesconsidering the technological interactions of three fishing fleets. Ciencia Pesquera,13: 95–98.Zetina C., Ríos G.V. & Cervera K. 1996b. Relaciones morfométricas de langosta(Panulirus argus) de las costas de Yucatán, Mexico. Ciencia Pesquera, 12: 41–5.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 273Zetina Rejón M.J. 2004. Efectos de la pesca en ecosistemas interdependientes: Lagunade Términos y Sonda de Campeche, Mexico. Tesis Doctor en Ciencias. CentroInterdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico.Zetina-Rejón M.J. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2002. Flujos de energía y estructuratrófica de la Sonda de Campeche, suroeste del Golfo de Mexico. In Memorias delIII Foro de Camarón del Golfo de Mexico y del Mar Caribe. Edited by A. Wakida,R. Solana and J. Uribe. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, Mexico. pp. 70–77.Zetina-Rejón M., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Chávez E.A. 2001. Using an ecosystemmodeling approach to assess the management of a Mexican coastal lagoon system.CalCOFI Reports, 42: 78–90.Zetina-Rejón M.J., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Chávez, E.A. 2003 Trophic structure andflows of energy in the Huizache–Caimanero lagoon complex on the Pacific coast ofMexico. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 56: 803–815.Zetina-Rejón M.J., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Chávez E.A. 2004. Exploration ofharvesting strategies for the management of a Mexican coastal lagoon fishery. Ecol.Model., 172: 361–372.

274Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAPPENDIX ITarget species in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean regionby type of organism, common and scientific namesGroups Common name Spanish name Scientific nameMayan (red) octopus Pulpo maya, pulpo rojo Octopus mayaMolluscsCephalopodsCommon octopus Pulpo común, pulpo patón O. vulgarisCrustaceans Brown shrimp Camarón café Farfantepenaeus. aztecusWhite shrimp Camarón blanco Litopenaeus setiferusPink shrimp Camarón rosado F. duorarumSeabob Camarón siete barbas Xiphopenaeus kroyeriSpiny lobster Langosta espinosa Panulirus argusSpotted lobster Langosta pinta P gutatusGreen lobster Langosta verde P. laevicaudaFishLisa Lisa Mugil cephalusWhite mullet Lebrancha M. curemaGrouper Mero Epinephelus morioSpanish mackerel Sierra Scomberomorus maculatusKing mackerel Peto, carito S. cavallaMojarraMojarraGerres sp., Eugerres sp.,Eucinostomus sp.Gafftopsail catfish Bandera Bagre spp.Jack Jurel Caranx spp.Snook Robalo Centropomus spp.Weakfish Trucha Cynoscion spp.Snapper Guachinango, pargo Lutjanus spp.Seabass Corvine Cynoscion spp.Rudderfish, amberjack Esmedregal Seriola spp.Yellowtail snapper Rubia Ocyurus spp.Vermilion snapper Besugo Rhomboplites spp.Grunt Ronco Pomadasys, AnisotremusSea catfish Bagre Arius spp.Croaker Berrugata Menticirrhus spp.Pompano Pompano Trachinotus spp.Cabrilla Cabrilla Paralabrax, EpinephelusFlounder Lenguado Paralichtys, Syacium

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 275APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific nameSharks andraysAtlantic sharpnose shark Cazón de ley, caña hueca Rhizoprionodon terraenovaeBlacktip shark Tiburón puntas negras, volador Carcharhinus limbatusBonnethead Cazón cabeza de pala, pech Sphyrna tiburoScalloped hammerhead cornuda S. lewiniBullshark Tiburón chato C. leucasBlacknose shark Cazón canguay, pico negro C. acronotusSmalltail shark Tiburón poroso,cuero duro C. porosusSpinner sharkHammerheadTiburón curro, puntas negras,picudoCornuda grande, cornudagiganteC. brevipinnaS. mokarranNight shark Tiburón nocturno, ojo verde C. signatusSandbar shark Tiburón aleta de cartón, aletón C. plumbeusAngel shark Tiburón ángel, angelote Squatina dumeriliDusky sharkSpotted eagle rayTiburón prieto, negro,tabasqueñoChucho, chucho obispo, chuchopintadoC. obscurusAetobatus narinariSkate Raya Raja texanaSouthern stingray Raya látigo Dasyatis americanaLongnose stingray Raya látigo hocicona D. guttataCownose ray Raya gavilán Rhinoptera bonasus

276Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAPPENDIX IITarget species in the Pacific region by type of organism, common and scientific namesGroups Common name Spanish name Scientific nameMolluscs Blue abalone Abulón azul Haliotis fulgens(Gastropods)Yellow abalone Abulón amarillo H. corrugadaBlack abalone Abulón negro H. cracherodiiChinese abalone Abulón chino H. sorenseniRed abalone Abulón rojo H. rubescensCrown conch Caracol burro Melongena patulaPink murex Caracol chino rosa Hexaplex erythrostomusNorthern radix murex Caracol chino negro Muricanthus nigritusPurpura conch Caracol de tinta Purpura pansaCortez conch Caracol burro Strombus galeatusWavy turban Caracol panocha Astrea undosa, A. turbanicaBivalves Pismo clam Almeja pismo Tivela stultorumSqualid callista Almeja chocolata Megapitaria squalidaGolden callista Almeja chocolata roja M. auranticaDisk dosinia Almeja blanca Dosinia ponderosaMany-ridged venus Almeja roñosa de risco Peryglipta multicostataFrilled californian venusOrnate venusChione undatelaC. gnidiaCalifornian venus clam Almeja roñosa C. californiensisPacific lion´s pawAlmeja mano de león oalmeja voladoraLyropecten subnodosusPacific calico scallop Almeja catarina Argopecten circularisScallop Almeja voladora Pecten vogdesiArk Pata de mula Anadara tuberculosaPurplelip rock oyster Almeja burra Spondylus calciferRugose pen shell Callo de hacha Pinna rugosaMaura pen shell Callo de hacha china Atrina mauraMusselsMejillónMytilus californianus, M. edulis,Modiolus capaxCephalopods Octopus Pulpo Octopus hubbsorum, O. vulgarisWhite spotted octopus Pulpo manchado O. macropusTwo spotted octopus Pulpo manchado O. bimaculatusPulpo rojoO. rubescensGiant squid Calamar gigante Dosidiscus gigasEchinoderms Red sea urchin Erizo rojo Strogylocentrotus franciscanusSea urchin Erizo púrpura S. purpuratusSea cucumberPepino de marIsostichopus fuscus,Parastichopus parvimensis

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 277APPENDIX II (CONTINUED)Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific nameCrustaceans Brown shrimp Camarón café Farfantepenaeus californiensisBlue shrimp Camarón azul Litopenaeus stylirostrisWhite shrimp Camarón blanco L. vannamei, L. occidentalisCristal shrimpF. brevirostrisRock-shrimp Camarón roca, japonés Sicyonia dorsalis, S. penicillataSeabob Camarón siete barbas Xiphopenaeus rivetiCamarón zebraCamarón botalónTrachypenaeus faoeT. pacificusGreen crab Jaiba verde Callinectes bellicosusBlue crab Jaiba azul C. arcuatusBlack crab Jaiba negra C. toxotesRed lobster Langosta roja Panulirus interruptusGreen lobster Langosta verde P. gracillisBlue lobster Langosta azul P. inflatusLobster Langosta insular P. penicillatusStone crabs Cangrejo amarillo Cancer anthonyiCangrejo rojo de rocaCangrejo púrpuraCangrejo de roca moteadoCangrejoCangrejo mexicanoC. productusC. gracilisC. antennariusC. magisterC. jhongartiFishes Jewfish Cherna o mero Epinephelus itajaraVerdilloSandíaCabrilla piedreraBaquetaCabrilla sardineraParalabrax nebuliferParanthias colonusEpinephelus labriformisEpinephelus acanthistiusMyoteroperca rosaceaSpotted sandbass Cabrilla de roca Paralabrax maculatofasciatusSpotted cabrilla Cabrilla pinta Epinephelus analogusFlag cabrilla Cabrilla piedrera Epinephelus labriformisCabrilla cuerudaBayaCabrilla plomadaDermatolepis dermatolepisMycteroperca jordaniMycteroperca xenarchaPescadaStersolepis gigasShortfin corvinaCorvina azul, corvina dealeta cortaCynoscion parvipinnisOrange mouth corvina Corvina boca anaranjada C. xanthulusGulf curvina Corvina del golfo C. othonopterusStripped corvina Corvina rayada C. reticulatus

278Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAPPENDIX II (CONTINUED)Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific nameFish(continued)Corvina chiapaneca C. albusWhite seabass Corvina blanca Atractoscion nobilisDrum Corvina chata o boquinete Larimus argenteusChano sureñoMicropogonias altipinnisGulf croacker Chano norteño o berrugata Micropogon megalopsCorvineta armadaCorvineta roncoBairdiella armataB. icistiaKing croacker Berrugata, gurrubato Menticirrhus panamensisBerrugata californianaM. undutatusHighfin corvina Berrugata real M. nasusBerrugata roncadoraUmbrina xantiBerrugata aleta amarillaU. roncadorGrunterRoncoPomadasys macracanthus,P. panamensisBurrito grunt Burrito Anysotremus interruptusCortez grunt Mojarrón Lythrulof flaviguttatumBronzestriped grunt Roncacho Orthopristis reddingiPacific red snapper Huachinago del Pacifico Lutjanus peruSpotted rose snapper Pargo lunarejo, flamenco L. guttatusYellow snapperPargo amarillo, coyotillo,alazan, clavelinoPargo rojo, pargo colmillónL. argentiventrisL. jordaniColorado snapperPargo colorado, pargolistoncilloL. coloradoDog snapper Pargo mulato, pargo prieto L. novemfasciatusPargo rabirrubiaLutjanus inermisBlue and gold snapper Pargo azul-dorado,rayado Lutjanus viridisMangrove snapperPargo raicero, pargo demanglarLutjanus aratusMexican barred snapper Pargo coconaco, tecomate Hoplopagrus guentheriCommon jack Jurel Canarx hipposJack Ojón C. marginatusJurel toroJurel voraz, ojo de perraCaranx caninusC. sexfasciatusGreen jack Cocinero, jurel bonito C. caballusChicharro ojotonSelar crumenophtalmusYellow tail Esmedregal, jurel de castilla Seriola dorsalisAmberjack Esmedregal limón Seriola rivolianaEsmedregal cola amarillaEsmedregal fortunoSeriola lalandiS. peruana

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 279APPENDIX II (CONTINUED)Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific nameFish(continued)California halibut Lenguado californiano Paralichthys califomicusLenguado huarache Paralichthys woolmaniCortez halibut Lenguado de Cortes Paralichthys aestuariusLenguado cola de abanicoLenguado bocónLenguado diamanteXystreurys liolepisHippoglossina stomataHypsopsetta guttulataFourspot sole Lenguado cuatrojos Hippoglossina tetrophthalmusLenguado resbalosoMicrostomus pacificusThree-eye flounder Lenguado Ancylopsetta dendriticaStriped mullet Lisa rayada, cabezona Mugil cephalusWhite mulletLisa blanca, liseta, lebrancha Mugil curemaLisa hospePierna o blancoConejo, salmónMugil hospesCaulolatilus princepsCaulolatilus affinisRobalo plateado o garabato Centropomus viridisBlack snook Robalo prieto o piedra Centropomus nigrescensRobalo aleta prieta o paleta Centropomus mediusRobalo espina largaCentropomus armatusBlack snookRobalo aleta amarilla,constantino, robalitoCentropomus robalitoTarpon snook Constantino Centropomus pectinatusChub mackerel Macarela Scomber japonicusPacific mackerel Sierra Scomberomorus sierraSpanish mackerel Sierra Scomberomorus concolorYellowfin mojarra Mojarra de aletas amarillas Diapterus peruvianusSilver mojarra Mojarra plateada Eucinostomus argenteusMojarra blancaGerres cinereusPacific flagfin mojarra Mojarra E. gracilisSharks andRaysDolphinfish Dorado Coryphaena hipurusCazón mamónMustelus henlei, M. lunulatusSharpnose shark Cazón bironche Rhizoprionodon longurioScalloped hammerhead Cornuda o martillo Sphyrna lewiniPacific angel shark Angelote Squatina californicaBlacktip sharkTiburón cornudoCornuda prietaTiburón volador, puntasnegrasTiburón aleta de cartónTiburón coyotitoHeterodontus mexicanusS. zygaenaCarcharinus limbatusCarcharhinus falciformisNasolamia velox

280Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAPPENDIX II (CONTINUED)Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific nameSharksand rays(continued)Tiburón perroTiburón chatoTiburón perroAlopias superciliosusCarcharhinus leucasAlopias pelagicusTiger shark Tintorera Galeocerdo cuvierCornuda giganteGataTiburón azulCornudaMakoSphyrna mokarranGinglymostoma cirratumPrionace glaucaSphyrna mediaIsurus oxyrinchusThresher shark Tiburón zorro Alopias vulpinusTiburón puntas blancasTiburón martilloCarcharhinus longimanusSphyrna coronaSmall tail shark Tiburón cuero duro Carcharinus porosusLemon shark Tiburón limón Negaprion brevirostrisMustelus californicusCephaloscyllium ventriosumHeterodontus francisciCarcharhinus obscurusTriakis semifasciataHexanchus griseusNotorynchus cepedianusStingray Raya Dasyatis longusPacific manta Manta o mantarraya Manta hamiltoniLongtail diamond stingray Raya con espinasD. brevisBat ray Raya gavilán o tejolote Myliobatis californicusSeaweeds Sargazo Sargazo gigante Macrocystis pyrifera

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 281APPENDIX IIINon-target species and/or bycatchEnglish name Spanish name Scientific nameFinescale triggerfish Cochi Batistes polylepisOcean whitefish Pierna, blanco Caulolatilus princepsBighead tilefish Conejo, salmón Caulolatilus affinisCortez flounder Lenguado de Cortés Paralichthys aestuariusPacific bearded brotula Lengua Brotula ctarkiCalifornia scorpionfish Lapón californiano Scorpaena guttataSpotted scorpionfish Lapón, escorpión, rascado Scorpaena plumieriMexican hogfish Vieja mexicana Bodianus diplotaeniaCalifornia sheephead Vieja californiana Semicossyphus pulcherBocaccio Rocote Sebastes paucispinísKelp rockfish Rocote sargacero Sebastes atrovirensNorth Pacific hake Merluza norteña Merluccius productusSpeckled guitarfish Guitarra punteada Rhinobatos glaucosiigma,Whitesnout guitarfish Guitarra trompa blanca Rhinobatos leucorhyncfiusShovelnose guitarfish Guitarra viola Rhinobatos productusBanded guitarfish Guitarra rayada Zapteryx exasperalaCalifornia butterfly ray Raya mariposa californiana Gymnura marmorataPacific chupare Raya coluda del Pacífico Himantura pacificaWhiptail stingray Raya látigo común Dasyatis brevisPacific angelshark Angelote Squatina califomicaGrey smooth-hound Cazón, tiburón mamón Mustelus califomicusSiklefin smooth-hound Cazón segador Mustelus lunulatusBrown smooth-hound Cazón hilacho Mustelus henleiPacific sharp-nose shark Tiburón bironche Rhizoprionodon longurioInshore sand perch Serrano cabicucho Diplectrum pacificumSpotted sand bassCabrilla de rocaParalabraxmaculatofasciatusFlag Serrano Serrano bandera Serranus huascariiFlathead mullet Lisa rayada, lisa cabezona Mugil cephalusPacific porgy Mojarron, pluma marotilla Calamus brachysomusPaloma pompano Pampano paloma Trachinotus paitensisYellowfin surgeonfish Cirujano aleta amarilla, barbero Acanthurus xanthopterusPacific mutton hamlet Guaseta del Pacifico Alphestes immaculatusScrawled filefish Lija garrapatera, bota trompa Aluterus scriptusBurrito grunt Burro bacoco Anisotremus interruptus

282Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAPPENDIX III (CONTINUED)English name Spanish name Scientific nameThreadfin jack Jurel de hebra, cocinero, chicuaca Carangoides otrynterPacific crevalle jack Jurel toro Caranx caninusBigeye trevally Jurel voraz Caranx sexfasciatusPacific graysby Enjambre Cephalopholis panamensisShortfin weakfish Corvina azul, corvina aleta corta Cynoscion parvipinnisPacific spadefishZopilote, peluquero, chavelito, chambo,ojo de perraChaetodipterus zonatusRooster hind Baqueta Epinephelus acanthisbusSpotted grouper Cabrilla pinta Epinephelus analogusItajara Mero guasa, cherna Epinephelus itajaraStarry grouper Cabrilla piedrera Epinephelus labriformisStar-studded grouper Baqueta ploma Epinephelus niphoblesYellow spotted gruntRonco, chano, burro manchas amarillas,jiniguaroHaemulon flaviguttatumSpottail grunt Burro rasposo Haemulon maculicaudaGreybar grunt Burro almejero, guzga Haemulon sexfasciatumBlue-bronze sea chub Chopa rayada Kyphosus analogusCortez sea chub Chopa de Cortes, chopa gris Kyphosus elegansGiant manta Mantarraya, manta gigante Manta birostrisWavyline grunt Ronco rayadillo Microlepidotus inornatusGulf grouper Baya Mycteroperca jordaniLeopard grouper Cabrilla sardinera, mitan Mycteroperca rosaceaBronze-striped grunt Burrito, ronco rayado Orthopristis reddingiGoldspotted sand bass Cabrilla extranjera, lucero Paralabrax auroguttatusParrot sand bass Cabrilla cachete amarillo, lucero Paralabrax loroPacific cownose ray Manta gavilán Rhinoptera steindachneriPacific spottedscorpionfishLapón, escorpiónScorpaena mystesAlmaco jack Esmedregal limón, esmedregal almaco Seriola rivolianaBullseye puffer Botete diana Sphoeroides annulatusOrangeside triggerfish Cochi naranja, bota, pejepuerco Suflamen verresGafftopsail pompano Pampano fino, pampano rayado Trachinotus rhodopusPolla drum Berrugata roncadora Umbrina xantiLongfin salema Chula, jiguagua, salmonete Xenichthys xantiPacific ladyfish Macabi Elops affinisYellowfin mojarra Mojarra bandera, mojarra rayada Gerres cinereusPacific sierra Sierra del pacifico Scomberomorus sierraBluespotted cornetfish Trompeta, corneta pintada Fistularia commersonii

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 283APPENDIX III (CONTINUED)English name Spanish name Scientific nameCalifornian needlefish Agujón californiano Strongylura exilisRoosterfish Papagayo Nematishus pectoralisThreadfin jack Jurel de hebra, chicuaca Carangoides otrynterRainbow runner Macarela salmón Elagatis bipinnulataSnouted eagle ray Raya águila picuda Myliobatis longirostrisBat eagle ray Tecolote, raya murciélago Myliobatis californicaLongfin sanddab Lenguado alón Citharichthys xanthostigmaSpotted eagle ray Chucho pintado Aetobatus narinariThreadfin bonefish Quijo, macabi, chile, banana Albula nemopteraAnchovy Anchoveta, anchoa chicotera Anchoa spBlack snook Róbalo prieto Centropomus nigrescensYellowfin snook Róbalo aleta amarilla, constantino, robalito Centropomus robalitoPacific anchoveta Sardina bocona, boquerón Cetengraulis mysticetusMilkfish Sabalote Chanos chanosPacific bumper Jurel de castilla, casabe Chloroscombrus orquetaGolden mojarra Mojarra palometa Diapterus aureolusPeruvian mojarraMojarra aletas amarilla, mojarra china,malacapaDiapterus peruvianusPacific ladyfish Machete del pacifico Elops affinisPacific flagfin mojarra Mojarra tricolor Eucinostomus curan ischanaGraceful mojarra Mojarra charrita Eucinostomus gracilisBlackfin jack Chocho, jurel chumbo Hemicaranx zelotesCalifornia kingcroaker Berrugata Menticirrhus undulatusLongjaw leatherjack Piña bocona Oligoplites altusSquint-eyed croaker Corvineta bizca Ophioscion straboPacific thread herring Sardina crinuda Opisthonema libentateBrassy grunt Burrito corcovado Orthopristis chalceusBlue bobo Barbudo seis barbas Polydactylus approximansPanama grunt Ronco mapache Pomadasys panamensisBigscale goatfishChivo, chivato, salmonetePseudupeneusgrandisquamisMexican lookdown Jorobado escamoso, tostón Selene brevoortliBarred sand bass Verdillo, cabrilla de arena Paralabrax nebuliferMexican barracuda Barracuda mexicana Sphyraena ensisBigeye croaker Chano norteño Micropogonias megalopsGulf weakfish Corvina golfina Cynoscion othonopterusDow's mojarra Mojarra cantileha o blanca Eucinostomus dowii

284Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanAPPENDIX IVList of fish species composing shrimp-trawl bycatch of the southern Gulf of CaliforniaFamilySpeciesPercent(weight)Cumulative %Diodontidae Diodon holocanthus 14.08 14.08Serranidae Diplectrum pacificum 8.64 22.72Synodontidae Synodus scituliceps 7.72 30.44Serranidae Paralabrax maculatofasciatus 6.27 36.71Gerreidae Eucinostomus dowii 6.26 42.97Hamulidae Haemulon steindachneri 5.64 48.61Balistidae Balistes polylepsis 4.04 52.65Haemulidae Orthopristis reddingi 3.50 56.15Rhinobatidae Rhinobatos glaucostigma 3.09 59.24Achiridae Achirus mazatlanus 2.70 61.94Paralichthyidae Etropus crossotus 2.28 64.22Sparidae Calamus brachysomus 2.25 66.47Haemulidae Haemulidae 2.14 68.61Batrachoididae Porichthys analis 2.13 70.74Triglidae Prionotus stephanophrys 1.87 72.61Ariidae Arius platystomus 1.60 74.21Haemulidae Haemulopsis elongatus 1.58 75.79Sciaenidae Micropogonias ectenes 1.56 77.35Lutjanidae Lutjanus peru 1.27 78.62Paralichthyidae Hippoglossima tetrophthalma 1.25 79.86Urolophidae Urobatis halleri 1.17 81.03Serranidae Diplectrum spp. 1.06 82.09Narcinidae Diplobatis ommata 1.05 83.14Scorpàenidae Scorpaena russula 1.03 84.17Lutjanidae Lutjanus guttatus 0.79 84.96Haemulidae Haemulon maculacaudi 0.74 85.71Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides lobatus 0.74 86.45Paralichthyidae Cyclopsetta panamensis 0.73 87.18Mullidae Pseudupeneus grandisquamis 0.63 87.81Triglidae Prionotus ruscarius 0.60 88.41Gerreidae Diapterus peruvianus 0.59 89.00Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides spp. 0.52 89.52Haemulidae Haemulon elongatus 0.44 89.96Ophidiidae Lepophidium prorates 0.39 90.35Paralichthyidae Citharichthys spp. 0.39 90.75Triglidae Prionotus birostratus 0.39 91.14Urolophidae Urobatis maculatus 0.38 91.52Sciaenidae Umbrina xanti 0.36 91.88Haemulidae Pomadasys panamensis 0.31 92.19Gerreidae Eucinostomus gracilis 0.29 92.48Narcinidae Narcine entemedor 0.29 92.76Rhinobatidae Rhinobatos productus 0.29 93.05Ariidae Arius spp. 0.28 93.33Paralichthyidae Syacium latifrons 0.28 93.61Synodontidae Synodus evermanni 0.26 93.87

28511. Coastal fisheries of Puerto RicoMÓNICA VALLE-ESQUIVEL * , MANOJ SHIVLANI, DANIEL MATOS-CARABALLO AND DAVID J. DIEValle-Esquivel, M., Shivlani, M., Matos-Caraballo, D. and Die, D.J. 2011. Coastal fisheriesof Puerto Rico. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheriesof Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544.Rome, FAO. pp. 285–313.1. Introduction 2862. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 2862.1 Commercial fishery 2872.2 Recreational fishery 2912.3 Commercial fishing activity 2913. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 2934. Community organization and interaction with other sectors 2964.1 Community organization 2964.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectors 2975. Assessment of fisheries 2985.1 Reef fisheries 2985.2 Queen conch assessments 2995.3 Spiny lobster assessments 3015.4 Reef fish assessments 3046. Fishery management and planning 3056.1 Federal fisheries management 3066.2 Local fisheries management 3087. Research and education 3088. Issues and challenges 309Acknowledgements 310References 310* Contact information: MRAG Americas, Inc., St. Petersburg. Florida, USA. E-mail: monica.valle@mragamericas.com

286Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean1. INTRODUCTIONPuerto Rico is composed of an archipelago that includes the main island of PuertoRico and a number of smaller islands and keys, the largest of which are Vieques,Culebra and Mona (Figure 1). The main island of Puerto Rico is the smallest byland area but third largest by population among the four Greater Antilles (Cuba,Hispaniola, Jamaica and Puerto Rico). The length of its coastline is approximately1 094 km and the continental shelf area extends to 4 073 km2 (FAO, 2003).Until 2003 there were 44 marine protected areas (MPAs) in Puerto Rico makinga total of 3.4% of land area (FAO, 2003).FIGURE 1Map of Puerto Rico2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIESThe fisheries of Puerto Rico can be classified as small scale and mostly artisanal innature. Multiple gears are used to harvest a wide variety of fish and shellfish forcommercial, recreational or subsistence use. A high level of mixing is observed inthe landings, so a species-wide segregation of fisheries is not possible, except forsome snapper and grouper species within the reef fish complex, the queen conchand the spiny lobster. These species have been targeted commercially and havebeen better documented in the historical records. On the other hand, there islimited information on bait, ornamental, or recreational and subsistence fisheries.In the sections that follow, an overall description of the entire fishery of PuertoRico will be presented. However, focus will be placed on the commercial fisheryand on those species that, due to larger abundance or to traditional value oreconomic importance, have been better documented and for which managementregulations exist. Other components of the overall fishery will be merely outlined,but should deserve further consideration as more data become available.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 2872.1 Commercial fisheryThe commercial fisheries of Puerto Rico can be classified as small scale,multispecific, multigear and mostly artisanal in nature. While the fisheries arelargely demersal, some fishers also target pelagic species. The demersal fisheryincludes harvest for reef, bait, ornamental and deep-water species.The reef fishery harvests over 155 finfish groups or species and approximatelyten species of shellfish. The most prevalent groups in the reef fisheries includesnappers, groupers, grunts, mackerels, parrotfish, trunkfish, spiny lobster andqueen conch. The deep-water fishery targets snappers, groupers and tilefish.A variety of (ornamental) fish are sought after by the aquarium trade industry,including angelfishes, damselfishes, surgeonfishes, blennies, wrasses, basslets,jawfishes and others. The pelagic fishery is quite small and targets mostly tunas,dorado, wahoo, marlin, sailfish and swordfish.The Fisheries Research Laboratory (FRL) of the Puerto Rico Department ofNatural and Environmental Resources (DNER) monitors the commercial landingsof fish and shellfish in Puerto Rico since the implementation of the FisheriesStatistics Programme (FSP) in 1967. Currently, this project is supported by theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA/NMFS) through the State/Federal Cooperative Fisheries StatisticsProgramme. The main goals of this programme are to: (i) collect landings datafrom the island of Puerto Rico ensuring coverage of all coastal municipalities andtheir major fishing centres; (ii) determine the total weight and ex-vessel value ofthe principal finfish and shellfish landed in Puerto Rico each month; (iii) manage,correct, evaluate, and summarize data and prepare reports; (iv) collect biostatisticaldata; and (v) collect data to estimate catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) from landingsand from biostatistical data (Matos-Caraballo, 2001).Over the period 1971 to 2000, the total reported commercial landings of all fishand shellfish ranged from 907 tonnes (1992) to 3 266 tonnes (1979) and averaged1 724 tonnes from 1969 through 2000 (Figure 2a). Between 1995 and 2002, totallandings declined slightly, from 1 814 tonnes to 1 361 tonnes (Figure 2b) (NOAA,2003).

288Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 2Historical reported commercial landings of fish and shellfish in Puerto Rico, (a) 1930-2000,and (b) 1983-2002, with an approximate proportion of fish and shellfish (invertebrate)species. Pelagics include tunas, dorado, wahoo, marlin, sailfish and swordfish; shellfishinclude crabs, molluscs (clams, octopus, snails and other) and lobsters(a)(b)Sources: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL and NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Statistics Reports and Landings Files, NOAA,2003.By 2003, reported landings dropped to 1 089 tonnes (not shown), perhapsas a result of under-reporting (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a). Over these 30 years,the total combined fish and shellfish landings show declines beginning around1979 and continuing through 1993. The proportion of fish and shellfish of thetotal combined landings remained relatively constant, at about 83% and 17%,respectively. The reported commercial landings of combined fish and shellfish byregion indicate a consistent trend over the period 1971 to 2000. Historically, 48%of the total catch has been landed in the west coast, followed by the south (24%),east (18%) and north coasts (10%) (Figure 3).

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 289FIGURE 3Historical reported commercial landings of fish and shellfish in Puerto Rico,1971–2000, by regionSources: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL Cooperative Statistics Reports and NOAA, 2003.Recent data (2001–2003) showed that the most important fish categories, interms of percentage of total landings, were the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)with 8.9%; yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) 8.6%; queen conch (Strombusgigas) 8.1%; deep water snappers (mainly silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus) 7.1%;lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) 5.4%; various species of tuna (mainly yellowfin,Thunnus albacares and skipjack, Katsuwonus pelamis) 4%; grunts (mainly whitegrunt, Haemulon plumieri) 3.7%; king mackerel (Scomberomerus cavalla) 3.3%;dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) 3%; parrotfishes 3%; trunkfish 2.3%; groupers(mainly red hind, Epinephelus guttatus) 2.2%; and cero mackerel (Scomberomerusregalis) 1.90% (Figure 4) (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a).FIGURE 4Most represented species categories in the Puerto Rican commercial landingsbetween 2001 and 2003Source: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL and NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Statistics Reports and Landings Files.

290Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThe gears most commonly employed during the period (2001–2003) were lines(handlines, troll lines, longlines and rod and reel), accounting for 40% of the totalreported landings. Lines were followed by traps (fish trap and lobster trap) with22%; divers (skin and SCUBA) caught 19.6%; and nets (beach seine, gillnet, castnet and trammel net) accounted for 18% of the total (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a).The commercial fishery in Puerto Rico is a year-round activity, but decreasesduring the hurricane season, particularly in the months of August and September.Certain species are harvested seasonally, such as dolphinfish (October throughMarch in the north Coast, May to August in the south Coast), and yellowfin tuna(between May and September). Some other species (i.e. red hind, mutton snapper)are captured at greater rates during the reproductive season, when they formspawning aggregations (Matos-Caraballo, personal communication). The DNERhas implemented seasonal/area closures to deal with this problem, for example, aprohibition on fishing in an area off the west coast of Puerto Rico (TourmalineBank) from 1 December through 28 February, a period that coincides with thespawning season for red hind (CFMC, 1994).Approximately 99% of the fishery products are marketed as fresh food. Theremaining 1% is processed to make fish empanadas (empanadillas) or fried fishpatties (bolitas de pescado).Historical time series are available from the Puerto Rico Departmentof Natural and Environmental Resources, Fisheries Research Laboratory(DNER/ FRL) for a broad range of species and species groups from 1983–2003 (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a). Raw data for the main fish and invertebratecategories have been summarized to illustrate general trends over time (Figure2a, Figure 5). Landings for all categories have fluctuated between 1983 and2002, with an initial decline until 1992 and a general increase thereafter,peaking in years 1995–1997 at approximately 262 tonnes of shellfish, 176tonnes of pelagic species, and 1 270 tonnes of reef fishes.FIGURE 5Reported commercial conch and spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico for 1983–2002Sources: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL and NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Statistics Landings Files.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 291Between 1983 and 2002, the approximate proportion of each group fromthe total landings was: reef fishes (including ornamental and bait fish) near75.7%; pelagics (tuna, dorado, wahoo, marlin, sailfish and swordfish) 7.6%; andinvertebrates (crabs, clams, other molluscs, snails, octopus and lobster) 16.7%.If we disaggregate conch and spiny lobster from the invertebrate landings, theycorrespond to 7.3% and 7.9% of the total, respectively. These relative proportionshave remained fairly stable over time, with a few fluctuations. Since 1995, largeramounts of shellfish and pelagics are observed, compared with the previous values(1983–1994).2.2 Recreational fisheryUntil recently, the recreational fisheries of Puerto Rico were not well documented.In 1979, NOAA Fisheries implemented a national programme, the MarineRecreational Fisheries Sampling Survey (MRFSS), to provide a reliable database forestimating the impact of recreational fishing on marine resources. The MRFSS hasonly been conducted consistently in Puerto Rico since 2000. This survey providesestimates of total fish landed, the variance of the total, auxiliary information on theestimated number of fish released and the size composition of the fish harvestedand released (NOAA Fisheries, 2003).The species groups targeted in the recreational fishery are snappers, groupers,grunts, jacks, dolphin, wahoo and blue marlin. There are a series of recreationaltournaments for marlin, dolphin and wahoo. Although not necessarily targeted,the spiny lobster and queen conch are also harvested by recreational fishers(Matos-Caraballo, personal communication).Recreational fishing in the United States Caribbean can be a significant sourceof fishing mortality, and consists of activities by both locals and tourists. Currentfishing regulations for territorial waters require recreational fishers to have alicence or permit, and both federal and local regulations require the registrationof recreational vessels. However, information on recreational fishing activities isgenerally missing (NOAA Fisheries, 2003), so the level and trends in this fisheryremain largely unknown.2.3 Commercial fishing activityFor descriptive purposes, the commercial fisheries of Puerto Rico can be dividedinto four categories: reef, bait, deep water and pelagic fisheries. The reef fisherycan be further subdivided into reef fish, queen conch, spiny lobster and ornamentalfisheries. While fishing for different groups can occur on the same fishing tripgiven the multispecies and multigear nature of the overall fishery, each of thesecategories can be characterized by the group(s) of species targeted, the type of gearused, the type and size of the boats, the approximate crew size, and the number ofparticipants in the fishery (Table 1).A census conducted in 2002 (Matos-Caraballo, 2004b) calculated that a total of956 active commercial fishing vessels and 1 163 fishers were operating in PuertoRico. Data from this census also indicated that the multigear and multispecies

292Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeannature of the Puerto Rican fishery led most of the commercial fishers to exploittwo or more species categories (Table 1). Reef fish (including conch and lobster)were exploited by 87% of the total number of fishers interviewed (1 163), 36%exploited the pelagic species, 37% the deep-water species (particularly snapper),and 56% targeted bait fish; overlapping of target species exists. The gear typesthat accounted for the highest percentage of landings by weight between 2001 and2003 were lines (handline, troll line and rod-and-line), taking 40% of the totalcatch; traps (fish trap and lobster trap) with 22.1%; divers (skin and SCUBA)with 19.6%; and nets (beach seine, gillnet, cast net and trammel net) with 18.3%(Figure 6) (Matos-Caraballo, 2004b).TABLE 1Subdivision of the commercial fisheries of Puerto Rico into four categories, with theircorresponding characteristics. The total number of fishers in the 2002 census was 1 163CategorySpeciesType and sizeof gear1. Reef 1a. Reef fishes Fish traps, lobstertraps, bottom lines,beach seines, gillnets,trammel nets, skindiving and SCUBAdiving.Type andsize of boat(length inmetres)Averagecrewsize4.6–12 2Numberof fishers(2002)(% of total)1b. Spiny lobster Skin diving and SCUBAdiving. 4.9–6.7 2871c. Queen conch Skin diving and SCUBAdiving. 4.9–6.7 21d. Ornamental SCUBA and skin divers5.5–7.3 22. Pelagic Tuna, dorado,wahooBottom lines and trolllines 4.6–9 2 363. Bait Cast nets, beach seines,gillnets, troll lines andbottom lines 4.6–7.3 2 564. DeepwaterDeep watersnappers,groupers,tilefishesBottom lines and fishtraps4.6–12 2 37Source: Matos-Caraballo, 2004b.Note: Due to the multispecies and multigear nature of the fishery, the sum of the reported percentage of fishers bycategory does not add up to 100%.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 293FIGURE 6Percentage of total commercial landings by gear type reported in years 2001–2003Commercial landings by gear (%)403020100Lines Traps Divers NetsGear TypeSource: Commercial Landings Statistics Report (April 2001–March 2004); Matos-Caraballo, 2004b.3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSAccording to Matos-Caraballo (2004b), the number of commercial fishers has beendeclining steadily in Puerto Rico over the past decade. In 1996, a census determinedthat there were 1 758 active fishers on the island, but that total had declined to1 163 active fishers by 2002. Overall, the industry lost almost 34% of its participantsin that six-year period, after enjoying several decades of stability (Figure 7). Much ofthis decline has been attributed to a decreasing resource base, as evidenced by lowercatch in recent decades. Importantly, remaining fishers have also shifted effort fromtraditional gears, such as traps and nets, to SCUBA diving, free-diving and hooks(Matos-Caraballo, 2004b). The results thus suggest a consolidation brought uponmainly by resource constraints and associated economic effects.FIGURE 7Total number of fishers and vessels in the Puerto Rico fisheries from 1969 to 1996Source: Puerto Rico DNER Cooperative State Federal; NOAA Fisheries, 2003.

294Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMatos-Caraballo (2004b) reported that 36% of the 1 163 fishers interviewedin a 2002 census are full-time, and the remaining 64% are part-time. The levelof professionalization varies with the type of fishery. For example, a NOAAFisheries study conducted with members of the fish trap industry in the UnitedStates Caribbean found that Puerto Rican fishers obtained an average of 60%of their household income from commercial fishing (Shivlani et al., 2005).Similarly, western Puerto Rico’s pelagic fishery is largely full-time and industrialin composition, due mainly to the higher catch rates in the region. However, themajority of the fishery’s participants are artisanal (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini,2002; Matos-Caraballo, 2004b), and distinctions such as full- and part-time arefluid for these participants, based on factors such as resource abundance, accessto fishing capital, and other employment opportunities, among others. Otheroccupations in which fishers participate include jobs in the construction (especiallyin the past decade) and agricultural sectors. Others migrate, either temporarily oron a permanent basis, to the mainland United States to seek employment in avariety of mostly labour-intensive sectors (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002).Female participation is very limited in Puerto Rican fisheries or within theprocessing sector, as women only rarely participate directly (i.e. as fishers). In thefish trap industry, for example, women made up less than 1% of the 2003 trapfisher population. Instead, women generally engage in ancillary activities such asgear maintenance and repair, fishery product sales and marketing (e.g. runningrestaurants, selling fish, etc.), and accounting and other paperwork, among otheractivities; however, there is no cultural or otherwise defined division of femalelabour as exists in other fishing communities.Most fishers are local, in that they fish in adjacent waters and live withinlocal communities. This is due partly to the artisanal nature of the fishery and itscapacity, as well as the de facto (if not de jure) existence of territories, especiallyin the trap fishery (Posada et al., 1997). Most fishers use small, open vessels lessthan seven metres in length and with small, outboard motors. The pelagic fleet inPuerto Real, in western Puerto Rico, was an exception, as these fishers used tofish the deeper, offshore waters of Puerto Rico’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).This pelagic fleet, however, disappeared seven years ago (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002). Also, certain trap (and other gear) fishers may target deeper fishinggrounds, but such individuals also represent exceptions to the mainly local natureof Puerto Rican fisheries. In total, the 1 163 fishers represent only a small fractionof Puerto Rico’s 3.81 million residents (United States Census, 2004), making up0.03% of the island’s overall population. However, partly because much of PuertoRico’s population is located in urban centres, certain smaller coastal communitiesexhibit considerable fishing characteristics, including ports such as Guayama,Puerto Real and Las Croabas, among others.Apart from the local, mainly artisanal fleets in Puerto Rico, there has beenthe seasonal influence of United States mainland longliners, especially in the1980s and 1990s (NOAA Fisheries, unpublished data). At their peak in 1987–88,

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 295over 70 vessels operated seasonally from the United States Caribbean, longliningswordfish and tuna in both Atlantic and Caribbean waters.Fishing represents a long tradition in Puerto Rico, spanning well into thepre-Columbian period. Hook-and-line and traps are among the oldest gear typesin the Caribbean and have been used for centuries on the island. Similarly, netfishing has also been a traditional activity in Puerto Rico and can be traced backto the time of Spanish colonialism (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002). Morerecently, fishers have begun to supplement free diving – another traditional fishingtechnique – with SCUBA diving. Importantly, gear types have been and continueto be used in combination, rather than separately; that is, Puerto Rican fishers haveadopted a pliable approach, utilizing gears as conditions and resource abundancesdictate. As Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini report, gears such as nets are traditionaland have existed in Puerto Rican fisheries for several decades, but their use hasincreased considerably since the 1970s with the advent of technology and declineof trap catch rates.Little is known about the socio-demographic aspects of the Puerto Ricanfishery (NOAA Fisheries, 2004b). Gear-specific research, such as that conductedwith trap fishers (Shivlani et al., 2005), found that respondents completedan average of 9.4 years of schooling, and that only a small percentage (5.7%)continued past high school. The same study found that family size averaged justover three individuals (3.19) per family unit, which is slightly smaller than the3.41 persons per family unit reported for Puerto Rico in the 2000 United StatesCensus (United States Census, 2004).As noted previously, there are no culturally defined roles for family membersin the fishery. Many fishing operations involve more than one family member, andthere is evidence (see Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002) of in- and out-migrationsfrom the family fishing operations, where offspring may leave to pursue otheropportunities before returning to continue or re-establish fishing operations.Similarly, women in the family assist in marketing and sell fishery products,maintaining and repairing gear, and updating accounts; however, many womenalso pursue other, often professional careers, thereby supplementing householdincomes from non-fishery sources.Other aspects concerning the quality of life in the fishing community are bestunderstood via the prism of the economic welfare provided by fishing activities.Because most of the fisheries are artisanal in nature, most members of fishingcommunities are not affluent. Many supplement their incomes by undertakingother activities either on a part-time basis or as opportunities arises. Due to theavailability of public schooling, socialized medical care and institutionalizedwelfare, the economic malaise that otherwise is prevalent in other Caribbeansmall-scale fisheries is not observed in artisanal Puerto Rican fishing communities.However, quality of life remains an important issue that requires immediateattention within the island’s fishing sector.

296Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTION WITH OTHERSECTORS4.1 Community organizationThere are two main fishery organizations in Puerto Rico: Villas Pesqueras andcooperatives. The Villas Pesqueras (or fishery organizations) play several rolesin many fishing communities, including locations to land and sell products (i.e.processing sites), places to store gear, and meeting locations. Each associationis comprised of a governing body, organized as a board of directors. The mostexperienced (and politically deft) fishers are those who make up the board, withone fisher serving as association president. The Villas Pesqueras also are polarizedorganizations, in that they often provoke as much disdain as they attract affiliation(Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002). Nevertheless, the Villas Pesqueras remain themost prominent fishery organizations within most of the communities in whichthey are located.The other form of organization in Puerto Rico, encouraged primarily bythe government agency CODREMAR (Corporacion para el Desarrollo yAdministracion de los Recursos Marinos, Lacustres y Fluviales de Puerto Rico)in the 1980s, is that of fishery cooperatives. Cooperatives have not fared assuccessfully as first planned, and their overall success varies considerably bylocation and depends on a variety of fishery-related (marine resource abundance andquality, fishery technology and capacity) and non-fishery-related circumstances.Anecdotal information indicates that out of Puerto Rico’s 42 coastal municipalitiesand 90 fishing centres (ports where commercial fishing activity occurs), only thefollowing fishing centres actually work as real associations or cooperatives:Fisher Cooperative of Culebra, Isla de CulebraFisher Association of Villa del Ojo, Playuela, AguadillaFisher Association of Playa de Ponce, PonceFisher Association of Boquete, PeñuelasFisher Association of Hoar, San JuanFisher Association of Villa Pesquera de Puerto Real, Cabo RojoFishers exert influence in the fishery management process in the United Statesof America mainly via membership in organizations (such as the aforementionedVillas Pesqueras and cooperatives) which lobby for fishery interests and byrepresentation in the regional fishery management councils (Ross, 1997; Hannaet al., 2000). In the case of Puerto Rico, the regional council responsible forfishery management is the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC). TheCFMC is comprised of seven voting members and three non-voting members.These members are drawn from various federal and state (in this case territorial)agencies and from interest groups. Interest group representatives, which includecommercial fishery interests, are selected by the governors of Puerto Rico and theUnited States Virgin Islands (United States Census, 1852). The CFMC has at leasttwo fishers as voting members. Other fishers belong to CFMC’s advisory panel.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 297Many fishers participate in the public hearings. The DNER has approximately tenfishers to work in the review process for Puerto Rico’s Fishing Regulations.Involvement at the community level is exerted mainly through fisheryorganizations, which may represent community interests; presidents of fisherassociations often participate in public hearings. However, there is no formalcommunity-based representation in the management framework.There exist a number of local and extra-local non-governmental organizationsin Puerto Rico, and all of these exert some influence on fishery managementon the island, either formally through lobbying effort or informally by shapingpublic opinion. Groups such as the Committee for the Rescue and Developmentof Vieques (CRDV), which are interested in local issues that may include fisheryinterests, often work with fishers to address environmental and cultural impactsCRDV, 2004). Larger, United States-based and international non-governmentalorganizations, including The Nature Conservancy and The Ocean Conservancy,maintain a strong presence in the United States Caribbean, influencing fishery andmarine protected area (MPA) agendas, among others (TNC, 2004; TOC, 2004).4.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectorsFishers using different gear types may compete for the same resource, especiallyin a mixed fishery as exists in Puerto Rico (Scharer et al., 2002). That is, becausefishers often use different gear types (i.e. nets, traps, SCUBA diving and hookand-line)to target the same species, there is direct competition between gear types.Conflicts arise when fishers using one gear are affected by or are perceived to beaffected by fishers using another gear. Trap fishers, for instance, often argue thattheir catch is poached by divers (Scharer et al., 2002; Shivlani et al., 2005).Coastal activities in Puerto Rico are dominated by development and tourism,and both sectors compete and thereby conflict directly with commercial fishing(Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002). As gentrification proceeds along the island’scoastal zone, fishers are often outcompeted by more lucrative uses, includingcoastal development (resorts, hotels and housing) and recreational facilities(such as harbours and marinas); the end result is a decline in commercial fishinginfluence and presence within the coastal zone, similar to what has occurred inother areas (for example, see Schittone, 2001, for a review of gentrification in KeyWest, Florida). In some parts of Puerto Rico, modest Villa Pesqueras cohabit thecoastal zone with modern developments and sprawling marinas (Shivlani et al.,2005). Inevitably, as competing uses vie for presence in the coastal zone, conflictsarise over use and eventually existence rights. Recreational interests, for the mostpart, are winning the competition in Puerto Rico and much of the United States,as commercial fisheries decline due to a combination of lower resource abundance,greater access to fishery products from foreign markets, and higher profits to berealized from recreational and non-fishery sectors, among others.

298Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIESNOAA Fisheries is in charge of conducting periodic assessments and evaluatingfishery management. Selected species for assessment are analysed via the SoutheastData, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process, which is a region-wide initiativeinvolving the Gulf of Mexico, south Atlantic and Caribbean states. Scientists andstakeholders from local and federal agencies, as well as an external review panel,participate in this stock assessment process.Stock assessment efforts in Puerto Rico have concentrated on reef species,particularly those of greater economic importance, such as queen conch, spinylobster, shallow-water snappers and groupers, and more recently, deep-waterspecies. Assessments for ornamental, bait or pelagic species have not beenconducted. The main stock assessment studies conducted in Puerto Rico aredescribed in the sections that follow.5.1 Reef fisheriesResearch efforts in the United States Caribbean have provided some insight intothe life history, growth and biology of fish and shellfish species, and into theeffects of fishing pressure on some exploited stocks. Fishery independent surveyshave provided information on size structure, density, abundance and communitystructure of coral reef fishes and invertebrates of commercial importance. Manystudies have concentrated on spiny lobster and queen conch.In the early 1990s, stock assessments of spiny lobster, the shallow waterreef-fish complex and queen conch were conducted by Bohnsack et al. (1991),Appeldoorn et al. (1992), and Appeldoorn (1991, 1992), respectively. Cummingset al. (1997) performed catch rate, size composition and stock assessment analysesof red hind and coney from St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. In recentyears, Valle-Esquivel (2002a) conducted a review of the United States Caribbeanfisheries information with emphasis on queen conch, followed by assessments ofthe Puerto Rico and St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands stocks (Valle-Esquivel,2002b). In 2003, a group of scientists from NOAA Fisheries and the Universityof Miami conducted a comprehensive review of data and information for thedeep-water snapper-grouper complex (NOAA Fisheries, 2003). Mateo (2004)calculated relative indices abundance and performed yield-per-recruit analyses ofthe Puerto Rico spiny lobster. These efforts resumed in 2004 with comprehensiveassessments of the Caribbean spiny lobster and the yellowtail snapper (NOAAFisheries, 2005a, 2005b).The Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and amendments for reef fish, lobster,queen conch and coral fisheries in the United States Caribbean have been supportedby Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Regulatory Impact Reviews (RIR),Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (RFA), and socio-economic assessments (CFMC,1981, 1985, 1994, 1996, 2002, 2004).The objective of the Environmental Impact Statements is to assess theenvironmental consequences of management alternatives and to propose action forthose impacts. On the other hand, the prominent concerns in the regulatory policy

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 299considerations are the costs and benefits of regulatory actions. Costs and benefits areevaluated on socio-economic grounds, and include thorough financial analyses.Most recently, the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the GenericEssential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment to the four United States CaribbeanFMPs (CFMC, 2004) describes the EFH for each fishery, identifies the HabitatAreas of Particular Concern (HAPC), addresses adverse effects of fishing, andevaluates the consequences of alternatives. The EIS describes the physical,biological, human and administrative environments of each fishery, and highlightsthe fishing and non-fishing threats to EFH. A Social Impact Statement is implicitwithin the EIS, as the consequences to the fishing communities of each of theproposed alternatives are carefully outlined and evaluated.Other surveys have been conducted independently from the FMPs and RIRsthat include socio-economic information: comprehensive censuses of the fishers ofPuerto Rico (Matos-Caraballo, 1996, 2004b), an economic report of the fishers ofPuerto Rico (Matos-Caraballo, 2002), a queen conch stratification survey for theUnited States Caribbean (Rosario, 1995), and a conch CPUE assessment (Rivera,1999). These have been used to evaluate the number of full-time and part-timefishers, the alternative economic activities, the number of boats operating indifferent areas for each fishery, the gears commonly used, the species targeted,and the proportion of fishers. A more recent study (Murray and Associates, 2003)characterized the economic and social conditions of the fish trap fleet that operatesin Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Their survey collected dataon demography (age, education, number of dependents), fishing practices (usage,soak time, catch composition), revenue and cost (variable and fixed), capitalinvestment (vessel, traps), capacity utilization, regulatory contingent behaviour(trap limitation) and spatial deployment of effort.5.2 Queen conch assessmentsTwo stock assessments have been made of the queen conch stocks of Puerto Rico.Appeldoorn (1991, 1992) performed yield-per-recruit and production modelanalyses using biological data and catch and effort information from 1970 to 1986,and estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) values of 227 tonnes for thewhole coast of Puerto Rico, and 86 tonnes for the west coast, where fishing effortis concentrated due to higher conch productivity.More recently, Valle-Esquivel (2002b) performed catch rate analysis and stockassessments for the queen conch fisheries of Puerto Rico, the southwest coast ofPuerto Rico, and St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. The author estimatedrelative indices of abundance for the commercial sector using generalized linearmixed models (GLMM). For the stock assessment, the author adjusted a nonequilibriumsurplus production model (ASPIC) (Prager, 1994) to a time seriesof commercial landings (1983–2001) (Figure 8) and standardized CPUE indices(Figure 9). Median MSY values were calculated at 63.5 tonnes for the wholefishery and at 32 tonnes for the southwest coast.

300Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 8Estimated commercial queen conch landings for Puerto Rico during 1983–2001.Landings from the southwest coast (light grey) represented 58% of the totalconch landings (dark grey) during those yearsLandings (per tonnes)Source: Valle-Esquivel, 2002b.FIGURE 9Nominal and standardized CPUE indices for the whole coast (a) and thesouthwest coast (b) of Puerto Rico. Bars represent 95% confidence intervals(a)(b)Source: Valle-Esquivel (2002b), updated in 2005.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 301From a range of assessment scenarios, this author concluded that the queenconch fishery was undergoing overfishing and approaching an overfished state(Figure 10). Model projections under different management alternatives showedthat current fishing practices are not sustainable, and that fishing mortality shouldbe reduced immediately through the implementation of catch quotas, effortreduction, temporal/area closures, and/or size-limit regulations. Given the highuncertainty in the data and in the ASPIC results, Valle-Esquivel recommendedthe continuation of survey programmes to estimate fishery-independent indices ofabundance and the collection of recreational fisheries information and biologicaldata to improve assessments (Valle-Esquivel, 2002b).FIGURE 10ASPIC biomass (B/B MSY ) and fishing mortality ratio (F/F MSY ) trajectories for different stockassessment scenarios, with MSY ranging between 0.5e 5 –0.8e 5 kg(Biomass ratios are below the MSY threshold, fishing mortality ratios are above,indicating overfished and overfishing conditions)54B/B msyB/Bmsy and F/Fmsy3210F/F msy198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002YearSource: Valle-Esquivel, 2002b.5.3 Spiny lobster assessmentsPeriodic assessments have been conducted in the United States Caribbean todetermine the status of the resource and to guide fisheries management. In1990, Bohnsak et al. (1991) conducted the first formal stock assessment usingan equilibrium production model. Their analysis showed that between 1970 and1990 Puerto Rico’s lobster landings had fluctuated significantly around an averageof 144 tonnes, and that undersized lobsters accounted for 40% of the total catch.The authors recommended that more effort should be used to enforce and increasecompliance with the minimum size regulations and suggested that the lobsterstock would continue to be defined as overfished until the spawning potentialratio levels rose above 20% spawning potential ratios (SPR).Matos-Caraballo (1999) analysed the status of Puerto Rico’s spiny lobsterfishery from 1992 to 1998 and found significant signs of overfishing. In 1951,

302Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeana total of 202 tonnes of spiny lobster were harvested by 466 fishers. By 1991,only 96 tonnes were harvested by 576 fishers, thus showing an overall decreasein abundance. Results also suggested a decrease in the mean carapace length ofharvested lobster over a forty-year period (1951–1991). In addition, approximately59% of the spiny lobster caught between 1989 and 1991 were below legal size,perhaps due to poor enforcement. By 1998, an increase in enforcement efforts bythe Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) did lead to areduction in the catch of undersized lobsters to only 24% of the lobster landed.With this study, the author concluded that increased enforcement would help todecrease overfishing.Bolden (2001) assessed the status of spiny lobster in the United States Caribbeanfrom 1980 to 1999. The author’s analyses were based upon data gathered fromcommercial landings reports and biostatistical data from the NOAA Fisheriescommercial trip-interview programme. Bolden’s results indicated that the annualspiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico decreased steadily from 1984 to 1988 andfluctuated since then. Despite this decline in the fishery, the commercial valuefor the species increased substantially, by nearly 60% from 1994 to 1995 (fromUS$802 959 to US$1 373 497). Biostatistical data revealed that 20% of the spinylobsters landed were below legal size. Bolden concluded that consistent declinesin carapace length and CPUE and changes in sex ratios were signs of a decliningfishery and recommended that authorities monitor landings more carefully,particularly the compliance with minimum size regulations.In 2003, Mateo and Die (2004) re-examined the fishery and found that lobsterlandings in Puerto Rico had increased throughout the 1990s and had remainedstable since 1995, averaging roughly 129 tonnes. They estimated a combined-gearindex of relative abundance, with values fluctuating around 7 kg/trip between1983 and 2001. The authors recommended a continued improvement in datacollection, particularly of CPUE, and the use of size and relative abundanceindices for future assessments.In 2004, Mateo estimated the exploitation rates of spiny lobster by analysingtrip-interview data for the period 1999–2000 and using a yield-per-recruit analysis.Exploitation rates were estimated at 0.66 for males and between 0.68 and 0.71for females. The author concluded that the resource was fully exploited and thatoverfishing might be due to three main factors: management failure to enforcesize regulations, a lack of basic biological and ecological knowledge of the species,and a lack of management oriented research. The author recommended the needfor fully coordinated spiny lobster research involving government, fishers andindustry (Mateo, 2004).The most recent evaluation of the spiny lobster fisheries of the United StatesCaribbean was conducted in 2004–2005 at the Southeast Data, Assessment andReview workshops (NOAA Fisheries, 2005b). Analyses included a review of allprevious assessments, historical data, commercial landings, biological informationand abundance survey data. Results indicated that the main methods used toharvest lobster in Puerto Rico are SCUBA diving (43%), fish traps (38%) and

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 303lobster traps (9%). Trends in the landings showed several fluctuations, with anaverage of 105 tonnes harvested from 1983 to 2003, representing almost 50% ofthe average landings from the peak years (1977–1982) (Figure 11).FIGURE 11Estimated commercial spiny lobster landings for Puerto Rico, from 1969 to 2003.The dotted line represents the best estimate of historical landings andthe solid line represents data from landing recordsSource: NOAA Fisheries, 2004b.Length frequency analysis of the commercial landings showed significantdifferences in size composition over time and space and among gears. Theproportion of undersized lobsters declined significantly, from a level of 40–50%in the 1980s to approximately 15% between 2000 and 2003. This information,coupled with past yield-per-recruit studies (Mateo and Tobias, 2002; Mateo, 2004),suggested that the current minimum size was appropriate to maximize yield-perrecruit.To identify temporal trends in relative abundance, new standardized catchrates by gear and for the combined fishery were estimated for years 1984 to 2003(Figure 12). Fairly steady abundances were observed over this period, averagingroughly 7 kg per trip. These trends and the length distributions indicated somestability over the past 20 years. However, the application of standard and agestructuredproduction models failed to provide reasonable results regarding stockstatus, due to the uninformative nature of the available data. It was also suggestedthat spiny lobster assessments based on local dynamics would continue to failunless it is considered that recruitment, movement and connectivity may occurat a larger scale within the Caribbean basin. A number of recommendations werediscussed to improve future data collection and research programmes, to modifythe modelling approaches for stock assessment, and to develop and strengthenpartnerships with the fishing community (NOAA Fisheries, 2005b).

304Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 12Puerto Rico combined-gears relative abundance index for spiny lobster from tripinterview data. Nominal CPUE, standardized index of abundance and 95% confidencelimits for period 1984–2003 are shownSource: NOAA Fisheries, 2005b.In general, each assessment conducted since 1980 has yielded results indicatingthat the spiny lobster fishery in the United States Caribbean has shown signs ofoverfishing, and that landings, catch rates and relative abundance have declinedsignificantly since the beginning of the fishery. The general consensus is thatincreased enforcement of the current spiny lobster Fishery Management Planshould lead to a healthier fishery, while the standardization of available fisherydata and the collection of data more applicable to the assessment process shouldallow for a more accurate determination of its status. Further, managementof spiny lobster by means other than by relying on minimum carapace lengthregulations may prove more effective at maintaining a sustainable and profitablefishery (NOAA Fisheries, 2005b).5.4 Reef fish assessmentsA stock assessment workshop conducted in 1991 examined fishery trends forshallow and deep-water reef fishes in the United States Caribbean based onfishery landings and biostatistical data (Appeldoorn, 1992). Results showed thatthe reef fishery from Puerto Rico had declined from previous levels: in 1931,1 403 fishers using 711 vessels (only 9 with motors) landed 1 397 tonnes, andby 1989, 1 822 fishers with 1 107 vessels landed 1 046 tonnes. Between 1974 and1990, landings averaged 1 429 tonnes, reaching a peak of 2 431 tonnes in 1979(see Figure 2b). Composition of snapper landings shifted from mostly shallowwater to deeper water species. Catch-per-unit effort based on fish traps declined,and landings of larger individuals of groupers such as coney and hind decreasedover that period; Nassau grouper in particular continued to be very scarce.Biostatistical data showed that growth overfishing was a prevalent problem.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 305The most noteworthy management recommendations from this workshopwere to improve compliance and secure compatible regulations between theCaribbean Fishery Management Council and the Commonwealth and TerritorialGovernments; to reduce fishing effort, particularly on small fishes; to establish noharvest zones to protect spawning aggregations; and to include deep-water speciesin the Fishery Management Plan.Stock assessments have also been performed for individual species in PuertoRico and the United States Virgin Islands using mainly yield-per-recruit,production models and biostatistical data analyses. The main reef-fish species thathave been studied are red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) and coney (Cephalopholisfulva) (Beets and Friedlander, 1992; Sadovy and Figuerola, 1992; Sadovy, 1993;Bolden, 1994, 2001; Cummings et al., 1997), lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris)(Acosta and Appeldorn, 1992), and yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus)(NOAA Fisheries, 2005a).In 2003, a comprehensive review of Caribbean deep-water reef fish informationwas conducted at the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review workshop (SEDARNo. 4, NOAA Fisheries, 2003). The workshop focused on the deep-waterspecies that are most common in the commercial landings: silk snapper (Lutjanusvivanus), queen snapper (Etelis oculatus), blackfin snapper (Lutjanus buccanella)and sand tilefish (Malacanthus plumieri). Analyses included examination of thecommercial and recreational landings, and of biological and abundance survey datato investigate the possibilities for stock assessment. While in some cases the datawas considered insufficient, trends in the landings, species and size composition,and catch rates were estimated for silk and queen snapper for Puerto Rico and theUnited States Virgin Islands for years 1983–2002.A similar effort took place in 2004–2005 with the Southeast Data, Assessment,and Review workshops (SEDAR No. 8) for the Caribbean yellowtail snapper(Ocyurus chrysurus) and the Caribbean spiny lobster (NOAA Fisheries, 2005a,2005b). Analysis of the yellowtail snapper fishery of Puerto Rico included thedevelopment of standardized indices of abundance from fishery independentsampling and the examination of the size composition from commercial catches.Due to data limitations, only simple assessment methods were pursued, includingan innovative catch-free model and a non-equilibrium production model (ASPIC).Results from these models showed that the data were insufficient and inadequateto provide information on current stock status. Recommendations for effectivemanagement of the yellowtail snapper (and of reef-fish species in general) in theUnited States Caribbean emphasized a commitment for long-term research, datacollection and monitoring (NOAA Fisheries, 2005a, 2005b).6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGFisheries in Puerto Rico are a shared responsibility between the Commonwealthand the United States federal government. Federal waters extend from ninenautical miles (nm) to the lesser of 200 nm or an international border off PuertoRico. These are administered through FMPs developed by the Caribbean Fishery

306Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanManagement Council (CFMC) and approved by the Secretary of Commerce, withguidance from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, NOAA Fisheries).Each FMP defines the management unit (i.e. the species or groups of speciesthat are relevant to the management objectives). Currently, the CFMC manages179 fish stocks under four FMPs: (i) spiny lobster; (ii) queen conch; (iii) reef fish;and (iv) corals and reef associated invertebrates. They are described in detail inthe following sections. Federal regulations apply to commercial and recreationalfisheries.The fishing activity inshore, in territorial waters, is managed by theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico through the Department of Natural andEnvironmental Resources (DNER). The Puerto Rican Department of Agriculture(PRDA) also has some interest in fisheries, primarily administering landingfacilities and markets.6.1 Federal fisheries managementFishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and theUnited States Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1981)This FMP was implemented in January 1985, and was supported by anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR).The management unit was defined to include Panulirus argus (Caribbean spinylobster), described objectives for the fishery, and established managementmeasures to achieve these objectives.The primary management measures for spiny lobster established by the FMPare: definitions of MSY (376 tonnes per year) and optimal yield (OY) (from 264to 376 tonnes per year); prohibition on the retention of egg-bearing (berried)females; a minimum carapace length of 8.9 cm; requirements to land lobsterwhole, to include a self-destruct panel on traps and pots, and to identify and marktraps, pots, buoys and boats; and a prohibition on the use of poisons, drugs orother chemicals, and on the use of spears, hooks, explosives or similar devices totake spiny lobsters. Amendment 1 (May 1991) to the FMP added definitions ofoverfished and overfishing based on 20% spawning per recruit (SPR).Fishery Management Plan for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and theUnited States Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1996)This FMP was implemented in January 1997, and was supported by an EIS and anRIR. Primary management measures include: definitions of MSY (335 tonnes peryear) and OY (allow 20% SPR to remain intact); size limits including minimumlength (23 cm) and lip thickness (1 cm); a requirement that conch be landed inthe shell; a prohibition on the sale of undersized shells; a recreational bag limit ofthree queen conch per day, not to exceed 12 per boat; a commercial catch limit of150 queen conch per day; an annual spawning season closure that extends from1 July through 30 September; and a prohibition on the use of hookah gear.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 307Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the UnitedStates Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1985)This FMP was implemented in September 1985 and was supported by an EIS,an RIR, and modified by three subsequent amendments. The reef fish fisherymanagement unit includes shallow and deep-water species, comprising virtuallyall finfish that are known or believed to be captured by commercial, recreational,and/or subsistence fishers in the United States Caribbean.Primary management measures include: definitions of MSY and OY(3 493 tonnes, excluding marine aquarium finfish); specifications for theconstruction of fish traps; minimum mesh sizes for traps (3.8–5.1 cm); arequirement to identify and mark gear and boats; a prohibition on the useof poisons, drugs and other chemicals and explosives to take reef fish; sizelimit with 2.5 cm increase by year for yellowtail snapper (20.3–30.5 cm);a prohibition on the take or possession of Nassau and Goliath groupers;definitions of overfished and overfishing with respect to 20% SPR levels;a prohibition on the harvest, possession, and/or sale of certain speciesused in the aquarium trade (seahorses and foureye, banded and longsnoutbutterflyfish); and area closures for red hind and mutton snapper in theUnited States Virgin Islands and in the Tourmaline, Sierra and Bajo de CicoBanks off Puerto Rico.Fishery Management Plan for the Corals and Reef Associated Invertebrates ofPuerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1994)The CFMC’s Coral FMP was supported by an EIS and an RIR, was implementedin December 1995, and amended in 1999. Primary management measures includeprohibitions on the take or possession of gorgonians, stony corals, and any speciesin the fishery management unit if attached or existing upon live rock; on the saleor possession of any prohibited coral; on the use of chemicals, plants or plantderivedtoxins, and explosives to take species in the coral fishery management unit;a requirement that dip nets, slurp guns, hands and other non-habitat destructivegear types be used to harvest allowable corals; and a requirement of a permit toharvest allowable coral species.Generic Fishery Management Plans’ Amendments (CFMC, 2002, 2004)The CFMC submitted a Comprehensive Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendmentto the Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, Reef Fish, and Coral Fishery ManagementPlans to NOAA Fisheries in May 2005. The three-part purpose of this actionis to analyse within each fishery a range of potential alternatives to: (i) describeand identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery; (ii) identify other actionsto encourage the conservation and enhancement of such EFH; and (iii) identifymeasures to prevent, mitigate or minimize the adverse effects of fishing on suchEFHs.

308Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean6.2 Local fisheries managementOn 11 February 2004, a new Fishery Regulation Act for the Conservation andManagement of the Territorial Fishery Resources of Puerto Rico was issued by theDepartment of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) (DRNA, 2004).These regulations are applicable to territorial waters and complement the FederalFishery Management Plans. Puerto Rico follows the National AtmosphericAdministration/National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS) internationalguidelines and therefore not a ‘rights based’ system.Commercial fishers in Puerto Rico enjoy several forms of subsidies:(i) registration of each fishing vessel only costs US$5.00; (ii) 9% of the income fromfishing activities is exempt from taxes; and (iii) subsidies from the Department ofAgriculture to acquire fishing equipment and gear, up to a maximum of US$2 000.The implementation of Fishery Management Regulations in Puerto Rico is fairlyrecent, so the effects of management have not accrued or been fully evaluated. Thenew Fishery Regulations include closed seasons, marine reserves and minimumsizes and there are MPAs on the islands of Culebra, Mona, Monito and Desecheo.Because management regulations in territorial waters were implemented veryrecently, their effectiveness is yet to be seen.7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONThe Commercial Fishery Statistics Programme (CFSP) of the DNER FisheriesResearch Laboratory (FRL) has collected landings information since 1971.Landings data of the multispecies and multigear fisheries of Puerto Rico arecollected using a landing trip ticket system, which has been consistent since theprogramme’s inception. Trip tickets contain the following information: fishingdate, name of fish buyer, fisher and/or helper, fishing licence number, municipality,fishing centre (landing area), number of trips reported, gear type, fishing effort(hours fishing), weight in pounds by species or taxonomic family, market value,depth, and fishing area. Tickets use common names and species identification ispossible using Erdman’s (1985) numeric codes. Fishers usually land fishes, lobster,oyster and octopus in the round (not eviscerated); conch weights include (dressed)meat only (Matos-Caraballo, 2001).The CFSP also collects biostatistical data through the cooperative NOAA-DNER/FRL Trip Interview Programme (TIP), which consists of the identificationof the individuals caught by species, individual measurement in millimetres, andweight in grams. This programme also provides an estimation of the catchper-uniteffort and the catch composition. Landings and biostatistical data aremandatory by Law 278 issued on 30 November 1998. Finally the CFSP conductsfishery censuses every five to six years when funds are available (Matos-Caraballo,personal communication).In addition to the CFSP, the DNER/FRL Fishery Monitoring Programmecollects fishery-independent data. Catch from these scientific campaigns providesdetailed information on species composition and biostatistics, such as the size,age and weight structure of the species harvested. The DNER/FRL Research

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 309programme is also conducting a study on the reproductive cycles and size ofmaturation of many reef fish species that are important in the commercial andrecreational fisheries (see DNER/FRL Commercial Fishery Statistics Reportsbetween 1989 and 2004).The CFMC and NOAA Fisheries are currently conducting socio-economicstudies of the commercial fisheries of Puerto Rico. One such example is aneconomic study of the trap fishery in the United States Caribbean conductedin 2003 (Murray and Associates, 2003). The objective of this survey was tocollect realistic economic and demographic data to describe the socio-economiccharacteristics of trap fishers and trap fishing in Puerto Rico and the UnitedStates Virgin Islands. The data was collected via interviews with a group ofrandomly selected licence holders who fish with traps. The questionnaire providedinformation on operational, fixed, licence and management costs; the use of fishand or lobster traps; specialization in other fisheries; fishing effort (number oftraps deployed, soak times); cost and lifetime of traps; use and cost of other gear;vessel information (maintenance costs, lifespan, power, associated gear); catchinformation by area (species, trips, costs); crew share; and household income.Education on environmental issues and the conservation of Puerto Rico’sfishery resources are provided by the University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant CollegeProgramme and the DNER. Conferences are regularly held in schools aroundthe island, targeting not only children, but other diverse members of the fishingcommunity. Unfortunately, there are no vocational schools or training to promotealternative occupations (Matos-Caraballo, personal communication).8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESThe fisheries of Puerto Rico are generally well documented, and a relatively longtime series of catch and biological data have accrued over the past three decades.A variety of fishery-dependent, fishery-independent and socio-economic surveyshave been conducted in the area to support fisheries assessments and develop solidmanagement strategies. Strengths therefore include a good working knowledge ofthe basic fishery sector, in terms of participants, gear and catch trends. Additionalstrengths include the capacity among the research community to obtain data,provide support and to realize analyses conducive to improved knowledge of thestatus of the fishery resources. Finally, Puerto Rico has a robust set of managementregulations in place to preserve and rebuild fish and shellfish stocks, to protect theessential habitat needed for their subsistence, and to preserve the livelihood ofpeople dependent upon these fishery resources.Gaps include a poor understanding of socio-economic dynamics andrelationships, and how these affect fishing (e.g. bartering seems to be an alternativeto cash economies in some areas); characterization of fishing communities; sociohistoricaland cultural dimensions of fishing on the island; spatial capture andeffort profiles; misreporting or under-reporting by fishers; inconsistent or irregularsampling programmes; incomplete fishery databases; scarce or inadequate stockassessments; uncertainty on stock status for key species; and deficient enforcementof management regulations, among others.

310Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMajor challenges remain on how to improve data collection to the point whereconsistency is achieved, how to best characterize and report on the multispeciescomponent of the fishery, how to determine ways to retain fishing as a traditionalactivity in a region subject to gentrification and development, and how to bestincorporate fisher participation in the management process.To meet the challenges presented requires further and more expansive datacollection (including the characterization and monitoring of key fisheries andfishing communities); improving and enforcing zoning strategies that maintaina diverse coastal community and one which includes a working fishing sector;developing participatory research programmes that assist in data collection andminimize costs, while affording buy-in from the fishers; and improving theattractiveness of local markets for sustained or higher ex-vessel values (in the wakeof imported marine products).ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe gratefully acknowledge Manuel Valdéz Pizzini and Graciela García Molinerwho provided important documentation for this manuscript and gave muchinsight into the history and operation of the fisheries of Puerto Rico.REFERENCESAcosta A. & Appeldoorn R.S. 1992. Estimation of growth, mortality and yield-perrecruitfor Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus) in Puerto Rico. Bull. Mar. Sci., 50:282–291.Appeldoorn R.S. 1991. History and recent status of the Puerto Rican conch fishery.Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 40: 267–282.Appeldoorn R.S. 1992. Preliminary calculations of sustainable yield for queen conch(Strombus gigas) in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Proc. GulfCarib.Fish. Inst., 41 (A): 95–105.Appeldoorn R.S., Beets J., Bohnsack J., Bolden S., Matos D., Meyers S., Rosario A.,Sadovy Y. & Tobias W. 1992. Shallow water reef fish stock assessment for theUnited States Caribbean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-304,United States DOC, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast FisheriesScience Center, Miami, Florida.Beets J. & Friedlander A. 1992. Stock analysis and management strategies for RedHind, Epinephelus guttatus, in the United States Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Carib.Fish. Inst., 42: 66-79.Bohnsack J., Meyers S., Appledoorn R.S., Beets J., Matos-Caraballo D. & Sadovy Y.1991. Stock assessment of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in the United StatesCaribbean. Miami Laboratory Contribution No. MIA-9C91-49, National MarineFisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center.Bolden S.K. 1994. A summary of biological and fishery data on red hind (Epinephelusguttatus) and Coney (Cephalopholis fulva) stocks in the United States VirginIslands. MIA-93/94-32, NOAA, NMFS, SFSC, Miami, Florida.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 311Bolden S.K. 2001. Status of the United States Caribbean spiny lobster fishery,1980–1999. Miami Laboratory Contribution No. PRD-99/00-17, National MarineFisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida.CFMC. 1981. Environmental Impact Statement, Fishery Management Plan, Final andRegulatory Impact Review, for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and theUnited States Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.CFMC. 1985. Fishery Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, andDraft Regulatory Impact Review for the Shallow-Water Reef Fish Fishery of PuertoRico and the United States Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council,National Marine Fisheries Service.CFMC. 1994. Fishery Management Plan, Regulatory Impact Review, and FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for Corals and Reef Associated Plants andInvertebrates of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. CaribbeanFishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service.CFMC. 1996. Fishery Management Plan, Regulatory Impact Review, and FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Ricoand the United States Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council,National Marine Fisheries Service.CFMC. 2002. Comprehensive Amendment to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, QueenConch, and Coral Fishery Management Plans to Address Required Provisionsof the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act, as Amended bythe 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act – Draft Options Paper. Caribbean FisheriesManagement Council, National Marine Fisheries Service.CFMC. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential FishHabitat Amendment to: Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan, Queen ConchFishery Management Plan, Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, Coral FisheryManagement Plan for the United States Caribbean. National Marine FisheriesService, United States DOC, NOAA.Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques (CRDV). 2004. World WideWeb document. www.prorescatevieques.org/home.htmCummings N., Parrack M.L. & Zweifel J.W. 1997. The status of red hind and coneyin the United States Virgin Islands between 1974 and 1992. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.Inst., 49: 354-397.DRNA. 2004. Reglamento de Pesca de Puerto Rico. Estado Libre Asociado de PuertoRico. Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales.Erdman D.S. 1985. Common names of fishes in Puerto Rico. CODREMAR, 3(2):1–44.FAO. 2003. Resumen informativo sobre la pesca por países – Puerto Rico. (Disponibleen línea: www.fao.org)Griffith D. & Valdés-Pizzini M. 2002. Fishers at work, workers at sea: A Puerto Ricanjourney through labor and refuge. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA.Hanna S., Blough H., Allen R., Iudicello S., Matlock G. & McCay B. 2000. Fishinggrounds: defining a new era in American fisheries management. Island Press:Washington, DC.

312Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanMateo I. 2004. Population dynamics for the spiny lobster Panulirus argus in PuertoRico Progress Report. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish Inst., 55: 506–520.Mateo I. & Die D. 2004. The status of spiny lobster Panulirus argus in PuertoRico: Based on commercial landings data. Cooperative Institute for Marine andAtmospheric Studies, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,University of Miami.Mateo I. & Tobias W.J. 2002. Preliminary estimations of growth, mortality and yieldper-recruitfor the spiny lobster Panulirus argus in St. Croix, United States VirginIslands. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 53: 59–75.Matos-Caraballo D. 1996. Puerto Rico Fishery Census, 1995–96. Department ofNatural and Environmental Resources.Matos-Caraballo D. 1999. Overview of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, commercialfishery in Puerto Rico during 1992-1998. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish Inst., 52: 19–203.Matos-Caraballo D. 2001. Commercial Fisheries Statistics, 1989–2001: InterjurisdictionalFisheries Programme. DNER Fisheries Research Laboratory, Puerto Rico.Matos-Caraballo D. 2002. Informe Económico de Pescadores en Puerto Rico. Fax aRamón Martínez. DNER/ FRL. 20 Sept. 2002.Matos-Caraballo D. 2004a. Puerto Rico/NMFS Cooperative Fisheries StatisticsProgramme April 2001–March 2004. DNER Fisheries Research Laboratory, PuertoRico.Matos-Caraballo D. 2004b. Comprehensive Census of the Marine Fishery of PuertoRico 2002. Department of Natural and Environmental Resources/Fisheries ResearchLaboratory (DNER/FRL), Commercial Fisheries Statistics Programme.Murray T., Associates, Inc. 2003. Final Report on the United States Caribbean TrapEconomics Study 2001–2003.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA Fisheries). 2003. SEDAR 4 Data Workshop Report (SEDAR4-DW) for the Caribbean-Atlantic Deepwater Snapper-Grouper Complex. DOC/NMFS/SEFSC, Charleston, South Carolina. (Draft)National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA Fisheries). 2004a. Puerto Rico Coastal Management Programme.World Wide Web document.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA Fisheries). 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for theGeneric Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of theUnited States Caribbean. Available at: www.caribbeanfmc.com/feis/Volume%201%20Text.pdfNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA Fisheries). 2005a. SEDAR 8 Data, Assessment and ReviewWorkshop Reports for the Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper Ocyurus chrysurus. DOC/NMFS/SEFSC, Charleston, South Carolina.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 313National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA Fisheries). 2005b. SEDAR 8 Data, Assessment and ReviewWorkshop Reports for the Caribbean Spiny Lobster Panulirus argus. DOC/NMFS/SEFSC, Charleston, South Carolina.Posada J.M., Valdés-Pizzini M., Grove M. & Rosado, M. 1997. Mapping fishing groundsusing GPS technology. Proc. 49th Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., Bridgetown, Barbados, 1996.Prager M.H. 1994. A suite of extensions to a nonequilibrium surplus-productionmodel. Fish. Bull., US 92: 374–389.Rivera J.A. 1999. Queen Conch CPUE Assessment in Puerto Rico and United StatesVirgin Islands: Preliminary Report. NOAA-NMFS Miami Laboratory, Florida.Rosario A. 1995. Queen Conch Stratification Survey. SEAMAP-Caribbean Programme.CFMC/NMFS.Ross M.R. 1997. Fisheries conservation and management. Prentice Hall: Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.Sadovy Y. & Figuerola M. 1992. The status of the red hind fishery in Puerto Ricoand St. Thomas as determined by yield-per-recruit analysis. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.Inst., 42: 23–38.Sadovy Y. 1993. Biology and fishery of the red hind in Puerto Rico and the UnitedStates Virgin Islands. Report to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council.Scharer M.T., Prada M.C., Appeldoorn R.S., Hill R., Sheridan P. & Valdés-Pizzini M. 2002. The use of fish traps in Puerto Rico: current practices, long-termchanges, and fishers’ perceptions. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 55: 744-756.Schittone J. 2001. Tourism vs. commercial fishers: development and changing use ofKey West and Stock Island, Florida. Ocean Coast. Manag., 44(1–2): 15-38.Shivlani M., Valdés-Pizzini M., Murray T., Kirkley J. & Suman D. 2005. Acharacterization study of the economic and sociocultural impacts of fish traps in theUnited States Caribbean (Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands). Proc.56 th Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., November 10–14, 2003, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2004. Eastern Caribbean Programme. Available at:http://nature.org/wherewework/caribbean/usvirginislands/The Ocean Conservancy (TOC). 2004. Available at: www.oceanconservancy.org/dynamic/home/home.htm; www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/czmpuertorico.htmlUnited States Census. 2004. Census 2000 data for Puerto Rico. Available at:www.census.gov/census2000/states/pr.htmlValle-Esquivel M. 2002a. United States Caribbean Queen Conch (Strombus gigas)data update with emphasis on the commercial landing statistics. NOAA NationalMarine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Sustainable FisheriesDivision Contribution No. SFD-01/02-169. www.sefsc.noaa.gov/PDFdocs/QueenConchUpdate.pdfValle-Esquivel M. 2002b. Standardized catch rates and preliminary assessmentscenarios for Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) in the United States Caribbean. NOAANational Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. SustainableFisheries Division Contribution No. SFD-02/03-184. Available at: www.sefsc.noaa.gov/PDFdocs/QueenConchAssessment.pdf

31512. Coastal fisheries of Trinidadand TobagoElizabeth Mohammed*, Lara Ferreira, Suzuette Soomai, Louanna Martin andChristine Chan A. ShingMohammed, E., Ferreira, L., Soomai, S., Martin, L. and Chan A. Shing, C. 2011. Coastal fisheriesof Trinidad and Tobago. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheriesof Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544.Rome, FAO. pp. 315–356.1. Introduction 3162. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 3172.1 The soft-substrate demersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish) 3172.2 The hard-substrate demersal fishery 3202.3 The coastal pelagic fishery 3213. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 3234. Community organizations and interactions with other sectors 3285. Assessment of fisheries 3295.1 Stock assessments, bio-economic analyses and abundance surveys 3295.2 Ecosystem analyses 3305.3 Economic analyses: costs and earnings studies 3356. Fishery management and planning 3376.1 Fisheries management policy 3386.2 Fisheries legislation 3386.3 Fisheries monitoring and surveillance 3416.4 Fisheries subsidies 3416.5 Marine protected areas 3427. Research and education 3427.1 Research and projects 3427.2 Data and statistics 3437.3 Information management system 3457.4 Education, training and capacity building 345* Contact information: Fisheries Division, Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs.St. Clair Circle, Port of Spain, Trinidad, West Indies. E-mail: eliza_moham@yahoo.com

316Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean8. Issues and challenges 3468.1 Legislation 3468.2 Institutional structure 3468.3 Linkage between scientists and decision-makers 3478.4 Monitoring and enforcement 3478.5 Traditional resource management and stakeholder participation 3488.6 Integrated coastal zone management 3488.7 Data availability 349Acknowledgements 349References 3491. INTRODUCTIONThe fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago are multispecies, multigear and multifleet.Fisheries resources off the two main islands of the archipelagic state differ becauseof significant ecological differences. Due to its location on the South Americanshelf, the resources off Trinidad are diverse, including soft-substrate demersalspecies as well as small coastal pelagic species and large migratory pelagic species.Off Tobago, the prevailing oceanic conditions are favourable to small coastalpelagics and highly migratory pelagic species, and to a lesser extent, reef species.The differences in bathymetry and oceanographic conditions have resulted ingreater similarities between the fisheries of Tobago and other northern islandswith small shelf areas in the eastern Caribbean, while the fisheries of Trinidadare similar to those off the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In Trinidad, themain fisheries are the soft-substrate demersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish),the hard-substrate demersal fishery, the coastal pelagic fishery, and the oceanic(highly migratory) pelagic fishery. The coastal pelagic and hard-substrate demersalfisheries are dominant in Tobago. Except for the oceanic (highly migratory)pelagic fishery, all fisheries are coastal. However, some gears capture juveniles ofhighly migratory species in inshore coastal waters. This chapter focuses on thethree main coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago.Trinidad and Tobago, the southernmost islands of the Caribbean region,occupy a total area of 5 128 km 2 , of which 4 828 km 2 corresponds to Trinidad andonly 300 km 2 corresponds to Tobago. Tobago is located approximately 32 km tothe northeast off Trinidad (Figure 1). The coastline measures 470 km and the shelfarea extends to about 204 000 km 2 (FAO, 2006).

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 317FIGURE 1Geographic location of the islands of Trinidad and TobagoSource: Fisheries Division.2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY2.1 The soft-substrate demersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish)The soft-substrate demersal fishery targets mainly shrimps and groundfish.Several species of shrimps (mainly Paenidae) are caught including Farfantepenaeussubtilis (brown shrimp), F. notialis (pink shrimp), F. brasiliensis (pink-spottedshrimp, hoppers), Litopenaeus schmitti (white/cork shrimp), and Xiphopenaeuskroyeri (honey/jinga shrimp, seabob). Key groundfish species in this fisheryare Sciaenidae (e.g. Cynoscion jamaicensis, C. acoupa, Macrodon ancylodon,Micropogonias furnieri), Clupeidae, Engraulidae, Gerreidae (e.g. Diapterus sp.),Lutjanidae (e.g. Lutjanus sp., Rhomboplites aurorubens), Haemulidae (e.g.Haemulon sp., Genyatremus luteus, Orthopristis spp.) and Ariidae (Bagre sp.,Arius sp.). Shrimps are caught mainly by trawlnets, while groundfish are eithertargeted by the artisanal multigear fleet, using gears such as gillnets, fish pots,demersal handlines and demersal longlines, or caught as bycatch in the trawlnets.To a lesser extent, shrimp are also caught by beach/land seines, as part of theartisanal multigear fishery. Trawlnets operate mainly in the Gulf of Paria (westcoast of Trinidad) (Figure 2a), although larger trawlers also operate off the northand the south coasts. The artisanal multigear fleet, which targets soft-substrate

318Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeandemersal fish, operates mainly off the west and south coasts of Trinidad. Thefishery is seasonal, with shrimp catches being greatest from June to December andgroundfish catches greatest from January to July.FIGURE 2Fishing areas off Trinidad and Tobago: (a) soft-bottom demersal fishery (trawl); (b) hardbottomdemersal fishery (fish pots); (c) coastal pelagic fishery (gillnets); (d) coastalpelagic fishery (pelagic lines); and (e) coastal pelagic fishery (beach seine).Source: Fisheries Division.Trawlers operate only in Trinidad and are grouped into four categories (types).Type I is the smallest vessel with an average size of 6.7 to 9.8 m, and a 56 hpoutboard engine. Type II is larger in size (7.9 to 10.4 m) and is generally equippedwith inboard engines ranging from 48 to 100 hp. Both Types I and II use trawlnets

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 319of average head rope length between 10.4 and 10.7 m, with 3 cm mesh size at thecod end. Each vessel carries one stern trawl which is manually retrieved. TrawlerType III is larger (between 9.3 to 12.1 m, with 165 to 250 hp inboard engines)and deploys nets of 12.9 m average head rope length with mesh size at the codend averaging 3.5 cm. Each vessel carries one stern trawl which is operated usinga hydraulic winch. The largest trawler, Type IV, range between 10.9 and 23.6 m,with powerful inboard engines of 365 to 425 hp. The average head rope length ofthe trawlnet is 15 m, with the same mesh size as Type III, but each vessel carriestwo nets which are fastened to outriggers and retrieved with a hydraulic winch(Maharaj et al., 1993; Kuruvilla et al., 2000). According to the 2003 Vessel Censusconducted in Trinidad (Fisheries Division, unpublished data), there are 47, 55,10 and between 20 and 25 trawlers of each type (I to IV respectively), on which areemployed, on average, 92, 110, 30 and 80 persons, respectively.Bycatch of the trawl fleets is comprised mainly by several species of demersalfinfish and crabs. The ratio of bycatch to shrimp, estimated for the artisanaltrawl fleet in the late 1980s, was 15:1 (Maharaj, 1989). About 80% of the finfishcomponent of the bycatch comprised subadults and juveniles of the Ariid,Carangid, Clupeid, Engraulid, Gerreid and Sciaenid families. Kuruvilla et al. (2000)estimated a bycatch to shrimp ratio of 12:1 for the same fleet in 1999. The ratioof bycatch to shrimp in catches of the semi-industrial fleet was estimated at 12:1in the early 1990s (Amos, 1990) and 9:1 in the late 1990s (Kuruvilla et al., 2000).Few data are available for the industrial fleet; however, based on logdocument datacollected over a seven-month period, Kuruvilla et al. (2000) estimated a bycatch toshrimp ratio of 0.6:1 in the early 1990s. In general, some commercially importantfish species such as snappers and croakers are targeted when there is a high marketdemand or a decline in abundance of shrimp catches. Most of the bycatch in theshrimp trawl fishery is discarded. Discards were estimated at 94% overall catchfor Types I and II trawlers, 60% for the Type III fleet (Amos, 1990) and 66% forthe Type IV fleet (Maharaj, 1989; Kuruvilla et al., 2000).Generally, boats in the artisanal multigear fleet of Trinidad are between 7 and10 m, with outboard engines ranging from 40 to 75 hp (Chan A. Shing, 1999a),while those in Tobago are between 6.7 and 12.1 m with outboard engines of 15 to100 hp (Potts et al., 2002). There are 947 vessels in Trinidad (Fisheries Division,unpublished data on 1998 vessel census) and 126 vessels in Tobago (Potts et al.,2002). Based on an estimate of two fishers per boat, approximately 1 894 and252 persons are employed in the artisanal multigear fleet in Trinidad and Tobago,respectively. Although similar gears are used on the two islands there are variationsin the gear characteristics. Gillnets used in Trinidad are larger in mesh size (9.5 cmmonofilament and 10.2 cm multifilament) with net lengths of 450 to 1 098 m(monofilament) and 732 to 1 190 m (multifilament) (Hodgkinson-Clarke, 1994;Chan A. Shing, 1999a, 2002). Nets used in Tobago are of smaller mesh size (about4.4 cm) and overall dimensions (4 to 7 m long and 2 to 2.5 m deep) (Samlalsinghand Pandohee, 1992). Fish pots are constructed with steel or wooden frames andwire mesh. Fish pots in Trinidad are either square or arrowhead shaped, with

320Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeandiagonal mesh size of 3.8 to 5.0 cm, while those in Tobago are Z-shaped with meshsize of about 3.0 cm (Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip, 1992a). In addition togillnets and fish pots, demersal handlines and longlines are also used. The latterconsists of a nylon rope line of ¼-inch thickness and a leader line of nylon twinewith about 200 hooks of Number 1, 2 and 3 sizes each placed at about 4 m apart.As shown in Figure 3a, shrimp has dominated catches from this fishery inTrinidad since 1995 (26 to 56% of annual landings), with croaker being the secondmost abundant species (6 to 24% of annual landings). Annual landings have variedbetween 2 000 and 3 600 tonnes, peaking at over 3 000 tonnes between 2000 and2002. Locally, shrimp is marketed as fresh-chilled, peeled and breaded, or frozenwith heads and carapace removed. Shrimp is also processed into patties or ‘fingers’(Jobity et al., 1997). Catches from Types III and IV trawlers are mainly exported.Shrimp exports increased from 288 tonnes valued at US$ 1.1 million in 1992 to500 tonnes valued at US$3.1 million in 1995, with the United States of Americabeing the main export market (67% of exports in 1995). Other traditional marketsincluded the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada andthe Caribbean Community countries. Since 1995, shrimp exports have declinedconsiderably to less than 100 tonnes by 2004, valued at just over US$0.58 million(Kuruvilla and Chan A. Shing, 2002; Fisheries Division, 2007a). The decline wasdue mainly to price competition in the United States, exclusion from the EuropeanUnion (EU) market, and an increase in local sales due to growth in the nationaleconomy.2.2 The hard-substrate demersal fisheryThe hard-substrate demersal fishery targets mainly snappers year-round. Themain species of snappers caught are Lutjanus synagris (lane snapper), L. purpureus(southern red snapper) and Rhomboplites aurorubens (vermilion snapper).Other snappers of lesser importance in the catch are L. griseus (grey snapper),L. jocu (dog snapper) and L. vivanus (silk snapper/vivanot). Epinehelus sp.and Mycterperca spp. are the main species of groupers caught. Haemulon sp.is also caught and Panuliris sp. is present in the bycatch. The Trinidad fisheryoperates mainly on the continental shelf off the east and southeast coasts of theisland (Figure 2b), while boats from Tobago operate on the continental shelf andshelf edge northwest of Tobago, as well as the north and northeastern coast ofTrinidad (Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip, 1999a). The fishery is exploitedby both artisanal and semi-industrial multigear fleets, using mainly fish pots anddemersal handlines, with demersal longlines to a lesser extent. The same vesselsof the artisanal, multigear fleet operating in the soft-substrate demersal fisheryalso operate in the hard-substrate demersal fishery. There are 15 semi-industrialmultigear vessels in Trinidad and 10 in Tobago. Some of these vessels once formedpart of the trawl fleet but were subsequently outfitted for pot fishing and targetdeep-water demersal snappers off the east coast of Trinidad and southeast coast ofTobago. The vessels in Trinidad are larger (average length of 14.28 m) with enginesof 234 hp, compared to an average length of 6 to 12 m, with engines of 75 to 335 hp

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 321in Tobago (Fisheries Division, unpublished data; Potts et al., 2002). On average,there are five crew members per vessel on board the Trinidad fleet, and three onboard the Tobago fleet.The snapper resource is the most commercially valuable component of thehard-substrate groundfish fishery. Over the period from 1995 to 2006, estimatedannual landings of snapper by the artisanal, multigear fleet in Trinidad variedbetween 200 and 550 tonnes and accounted for between 30 and 74% of annuallandings in the hard-substrate demersal fishery (Figure 3b). Annual landings fromthis fishery have varied between 310 and 1 250 tonnes, with a substantial declinefrom 1 251 tonnes in 1995 to 392 tonnes in 2006. Exports of snappers are groupedwith shark, croaker, grouper, seatrout and dolphinfish in the records of the CentralStatistical Office. Between 1997 and 2003 average annual exports for the groupdeclined from 1 329 tonnes to 500 tonnes, with a US$0.98 million reduction invalue. In the 1980s, the fishery expanded to the offshore continental shelf on theeast coast of Trinidad due to the increasing importance of the export market. Thefishery almost exclusively supports the export market for red snapper.Snappers are also landed as trawler bycatch from the soft-substrate demersalfishery operating on the west and south coasts of Trinidad or as gillnet bycatchfrom the coastal pelagic fishery operating in shallow waters off the south coast ofTrinidad. During periods of consistently low shrimp catches snappers may alsobe targeted by industrial trawlers. Snapper resources on the east and north coastsof Trinidad are, however, illegally caught by vessels from neighbouring countrieswhich use both handlines and longlines. In the case of Venezuela (BolivarianRepublic of), a 1997 bilateral agreement between the governments of Trinidadand Tobago and this country designated the area outside of two miles from thesouthern coastline of Trinidad and northeastern Venezuela (Bolivarian Republicof) as a Joint Fisheries Management Regime Area (Maharaj and Rivas, 1997). Thisarrangement is still in place.2.3 The coastal pelagic fisheryThe coastal pelagic fishery targets Scombridae species, Serra Spanish mackerel(Scomberomorus brasiliensis) and king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), inTrinidad, and Exocoetidae (mainly Hirundichthys affinis), Coryphaenidae(Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), bigeye scad (Selarcrumenophthalmus) and round scad (Decapterus sp.) in Tobago. The bycatchin Trinidad is comprised of Clupeidae, Engraulidae, Belonidae, Carangidae,Pomatomidae, Elasmobranchii (e.g. Sphyrna tudes, Rhizoprionodon lalandii,Carcharhinus porosus and C. limbatus), Selene vomer, Oligoplites saurus, Diapterusrhombeus, Selene spixii, Caranx hippos and Caranx crysos (Henry and Martin,1992). As shown in Figure 3c, Serra Spanish mackerel dominates catches fromthe fishery in Trinidad, accounting for between 21 and 37% of estimated annuallandings from 1995 to 2006. Overall annual landings in the coastal pelagic fisheryhave varied between 4 300 and 10 000 tonnes, but only exceeded 9 000 tonnes in2002 and 2005.

322Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 3Time series landings data for (a) the soft-substrate demersal fishery; (b) the hardsubstratedemersal fishery; and (c) the coastal pelagic fishery in TrinidadEstimated landings (tonnes)Estimated landings (tonnes)4 0003 5003 0002 5002 0001 5001 00050001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20061 4001 2001 000800600Year400Others200Snapper01995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year(a)OthersCatfishCroakerSalmonSnapperShrimp(b)BarracudaEstimated landings (tonnes)10 0009 0008 0007 0006 0005 0004 0003 000OthersHerrings & anchovies2 000JacksTunas & billfishes1 000Sharks0King mackerel & wahoo1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006YearSerra Spanish mackerelSource: Fisheries Division databases; groundfish landings from Type IV trawlers prior to 2000 and landings ofthe semi-industrial, multigear fleet are not available.(c)The coastal pelagic fishery is the most widespread in Trinidad, operating off allcoasts (Figures 2c, d and e). In Tobago, this fishery operates mainly off the northcoast from Pigeon Point to Charlotteville (Figures 1 and 2c). These fisheries aretargeted by the artisanal, multigear fleets in both islands using gillnets, beach orland seines (340 to 660 m long with mesh size of 13 mm at the cod end and 152 mm

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 323at the wings) and pelagic handlines (lines of either steel, bronze, nylon or nylonchord 20 to 90 m length, each line with one hook). As well, the semi-industrial,multigear fleet (iceboats) in Tobago targets the fishery with pelagic handlines andgillnets. Coastal pelagic fishes are present in the bycatch of the Trinidad semiindustrial,longline fleet which targets highly migratory pelagic species and theTypes I and II trawl fleets which target shrimp and groundfish.Most landings from gillnets in Trinidad are sold fresh or chilled. Flyingfish,caught mainly off Tobago, is also processed and sold as frozen fillets. Largepelagic species such as dolphinfish, wahoo and tunas may be sold fresh at beachesor markets; however, large quantities are also processed and sold as frozen steaksor fillets. Catches from beach seines and bait seines are either utilized locally asfood or as bait. Some clupeids and possibly engraulids are exported. Between 1995and 2004, average annual export of herrings, sardines, anchovies and flyingfishdeclined from 605 tonnes (US$1 191 754) to 216 tonnes (US$806 437) (FisheriesDivision, 2007a). Exports of dolphinfish are grouped with snapper, grouper andseatrout in the records of the Central Statistical Office. Trends are as previouslydescribed under the section describing the hard-substrate demersal fishery.3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSIn Trinidad, about 6 500 people are employed in the marine fishing sector,61% of whom are fishers, about 19% are involved in the processing industry,another 19% in fish marketing and distribution, and the other 1% in vessel andgear construction and maintenance (Kuruvilla et al., 2002). The participationof women in the industry is not well documented; however, women are morelikely involved in the processing and marketing activities. Some fishers, employedwith the artisanal fleet in Trinidad, migrate along the coasts, fishing in differentareas depending on the seasonality of the Serra Spanish mackerel. In Tobago,approximately 228 fishers are employed in the coastal pelagic fishery that utilizesgillnets and troll lines (Potts et al., 2002).Social and economic assessments have been conducted on selected fleets andfisheries in Trinidad and Tobago: the trawl fleet operating from Orange Valley andOtaheite on the west coast of Trinidad which target the soft-substrate demersalfishery; the recreational fleet from the northwest peninsula of Trinidad whichtarget coastal and offshore pelagics; the artisanal, small-scale, multigear fleetfrom Tobago which target flyingfish and large pelagic species; and the artisanalmultigear fleet from Ortoire to Guayaguayare on the east coast of Trinidad whichtarget a variety of fisheries.The 1993 project on Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management, partly fundedby the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), focusedon two fishing communities (Orange Valley and Otaheite) on the west coast ofTrinidad, where activities are strongly dominated by trawl fleets in the soft-substratedemersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish). Under this project, a review of the 1990National Population and Housing Census showed that fewer people within thefishing community achieved senior secondary education (up to age sixteen) or

324Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeantraining in a trade or skill, and none received tertiary education compared with thenon-fishing community (Mohammed, 1995). The fishing community also had agreater mean household size (average of five persons compared with four personsfor non-fishing community), with women bearing children at an earlier age andhaving more children throughout their life than those in non-fishing communities.The 1994 household survey, conducted under the project, showed that the averagefisher household size of the two communities had increased to six persons, withindividual households ranging between three and thirteen people, with a slightlyhigher ratio of males to females (Camps-Campins, 1995).Fishing community surveys confirmed that activities at Otaheite were essentiallyartisanal and small scale (Boodoosingh, 1995). There was greater diversity in theoccupational structure of the non-fishing population, with employment in thepublic service, oil industry, agriculture and the construction sectors. A localbottling plant also hired both skilled and unskilled labour. At Orange Valley,however, fishing activities ranged from artisanal, small scale to industrial andmedium scale. The non-fishing community relied considerably on employment bya state-owned agricultural enterprise which also provided part-time employmentfor some fishers. Fishing was restricted to the male members of the household.Higher priority on formal employment than education at Orange Valley resultedin young males terminating education at an earlier age than young females (Camps-Campins, 1995). In many instances, male household members were the sole breadwinners while other family members engaged in subsistence activities such ashome-based food production, agriculture and small-scale animal husbandry. Apartfrom fishing, the male household members were generally responsible for hiringof labour if they were boat owners, supervision of market activities for the saleof catch, and management of household accounts. In some instances the femalehead of the household assisted with supervision at the markets and managementof household accounts.The average monthly income of the fishing household was generally lowerthan the non-fishing household. Average monthly income was less than US$228in 82% and 84% of fisher households in Orange Valley and Otaheite, respectively(Mohammed, 1995). However, the distribution of monthly income levels in thefishing households differed at the two sites, with some households at OrangeValley receiving more than US$1 404 per month (owners of semi-industrial,medium-scale trawlers) while no fishing household at Otaheite (artisanal, smallscale) earned more than US$702. Although the fishing community recognized apotential entrepreneurial activity for the household within the service industry(e.g. food shops, beauty salon, taxi service, dress-making, handicrafts, etc.),inadequate or incomplete training, child-rearing responsibilities, lack of cash flowor limited access to credit, fear of theft and vandalism, as well as lack of demandfor certain services, were major impediments (Camps-Campins, 1995).The fishing communities at both locations experienced a lower standard ofliving than the non-fishing community (Mohammed, 1995). A smaller percentageof fisher households were supplied with electricity, water and proper sewage

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 325disposal facilities compared with the national average (Mohammed, 1995). Inthe case of land tenancy, fewer persons within the fishing community ownedland (20% in Orange Valley, 13% in Otaheite) compared with the non-fishingcommunity (45% in Orange Valley, 38% in Otaheite).Over 75% of the households acknowledged changes in the fishing industrybetween 1984 and 1994, notably the reduction in catch and of the average fishsize, high operational costs, increasing number of new entrants to the fishingindustry and difficulties in securing employment outside the fishing sector. Thesechanges have negative economic impacts on the fishers. At Otaheite, over 50% ofthe households indicated little future for the fishing industry and therefore youthswere discouraged from fishing. Fishers at Orange Valley, on the other hand, werestill positive about their future, but recognized the need for cooperation withinthe community.A study to describe and assess the social and economic importance of the landedbycatch of the shrimp trawl fishery in communities at Orange Valley and Otaheitewas implemented in 2005 under the project – “Reduction of Environmental Impactfrom Tropical shrimp Trawling through the Implementation of Bycatch ReductionTechnologies and Change of Management” (Hutchinson et al., 2007). This projectis funded by FAO, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) andthe Global Environment Facility (GEF). A Rapid Appraisal Household Survey(RAHS) of the entire community showed that 17% of households at OrangeValley caught their own seafood, while 68% purchased seafood and 28% receivedseafood as gifts from family and friends who fish. In addition, 85% of householdsbought fish (assumed bycatch in the trawl fishery) at the fish market comparedwith other sources such as supermarkets. The mean weekly expenditure on foodfor each household during the three weeks preceding the survey was US$85.86,of which 12% was expended on seafood, 20% on meat, 21% on vegetables andlegumes, 10% on fruit and 37% on other foods. The Serra Spanish mackereland Whitemouth croaker were the most popular fish species consumed (24%and 16% of the households, respectively). The study estimated that 21 292 kg offresh fish, valued at US$43 345, was consumed annually by the 248 households atOrange Valley. Generally, the majority of families believed that the local fisherywas important to the community as a source of food, a contributor to health,nutrition, well-being and employment, as well as an income generator. The fisheryhad a positive impact on community lifestyle and recreation. Although 14% ofthe households felt that the fishery had no negative impacts on the community,some believed that it contributed to problems of drug and alcohol abuse (18%)and school absenteeism (14%).The RAHS conducted at Otaheite showed that 66% of households purchasedfresh seafood from markets compared with other sources (supermarkets androadside vendors). Of these households, 96% purchased fish from the OtaheiteFish Market. The mean weekly expenditure on food for each household wasUS$105.31, of which 12% was expended on seafood, 21% on meat, 11% onvegetables and legumes, 13% on fruit and 43% on other foods. A variety of fish

326Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanspecies were consumed at Otaheite, however, bechine (Sphyraena sp.), salmon(Cynoscion sp.), Serra Spanish mackerel and king mackerel were the mostpopular. The study estimated that 25 921 kg of fresh fish, valued at US$67 788,was consumed annually by the 250 households at Otaheite. Overall, the majorityof families felt that the local fishery was important to the community, citing thesame reasons as families at Orange Valley. Although 37% of the householdsfelt that fishing had no negative impacts on the community, some believed thatfishing contributed to pollution as well as drug and alcohol abuse (8% and 5%of households, respectively). Most households suggested that contribution of thelocal fish market to the community could be increased by improvement of theinfrastructural and cold-storage facilities.Fisher surveys conducted under the project received few responses. At OrangeValley, where only four fishers were interviewed, 80% sold all of their landedbycatch, while 20% sold 95% and gave the other 5% as gifts to family and friends.The average weekly value of total landings, from each two-day fishing trip, rangedbetween US$758.83 and US$319.51 at peak and low seasons, respectively. Thecorresponding estimated bycatch was 21.25% and 90.88% of total landings in thepeak and low seasons. Fishers estimated that 5% to 10% of bycatch, comprisingmainly eels and rays, was discarded at sea. All landed bycatch was sold to vendorsat Orange Valley, and there was no preference for any particular species of fish.Bycatch was perceived as an important contributor to income generation (80% offishers interviewed), employment (60%), and nutrition and food security (40%).A survey of seven Type III trawlers estimated an average replacement value ofUS$55 435, with vessel painting and net replacement being the main contributorsto annual maintenance expenses (US$1 278 and US$2 019, respectively). Fishersperceived the unmonitored at-sea purchases of shrimp from foreign vessels withconsequent negative impacts on market prices for catches from local vesselsand acquisition of labour on fishing vessels as the main challenges faced by thefishery.The fisher survey at Otaheite identified 50 fishers operating and landing theircatch at the Otaheite Fish Market. Trawlers were all of either Type I or II (pirogues)and privately owned. These vessels mainly targeted shrimp, but caught fish such asbechine, sardines and herrings during the low shrimp season. About 250 personswere directly employed in fishing and 50 persons were employed in supportactivities for the sector. Almost all the catch was sold to eight wholesale vendorswho supplied the San Fernando and Orange Valley markets. The estimated averagereplacement values of a pirogue, associated engines and nets were US$19 171,US$6 390 and US$575 respectively. A new pirogue with an inboard engine of100 hp was estimated to cost between US$15 336 and US$19 171. The cost ofused pirogues (10 years old) varied between US$5 112 and US$6 390 dependingon whether or not an engine and additional furnishings were installed. About twoor three nets were used per year, each at a cost of US$192 and US$80 for repairs.Boats were repainted every four months with material costs of US$128 per boat.Fishers perceived pollution (due to industrial, agricultural and domestic activity),

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 327piracy at sea, as well as inadequate infrastructure and business opportunities in thesector, as the main challenges faced by the fishery.A study on the recreational fishery in the northwest peninsula of Trinidad wasconducted in 1993. Forty-seven fishers were interviewed and the results showedthat they lived mainly in Diego Martin and surrounding areas such as Carenageand West Moorings. The Port of Spain and the townships along the main east-westthoroughfare of northern Trinidad were also popular places of residence. Most ofthe fishers (32%) were over 50 years of age and none were below 20 years. Retiredpersons accounted for 9% and senior executives accounted for 41% of the personsinterviewed, while 23% were professionals and 13% middle managers. Mostfishers owned their own boats. Although some recreational fishers sell a portionof the catch, there is no information on the income generated.In Tobago, a socio-economic study was conducted on the artisanal, small-scale,multigear fleet targeting flyingfish and large pelagics. Based on an interview of50 fishers operating at four main landing areas in Tobago, approximately 68%attained education up to the primary level (age 11 to 12 years) and 30% up tosecondary level (age 16 to17 years) (Potts et al., 2002). The remaining 2% pursuedpost-secondary education. Approximately 77% of the interviewees were 49 yearsand under, with more young men entering fishery since the late 1990s (Ferreira,2002). The livelihood of household members in the fishing communities dependedlargely on the flyingfish trade. Unemployed persons also assisted with offloadingthe catch, deboning and other similar activities. During the late 1980s, eightprocessing plants were in operation in Tobago; collectively, these employed about200 people.Coastal communities between Ortoire and Guayaguayare, on the east coast ofTrinidad, were surveyed in 2004 to characterize the biological, technical and socioeconomicattributes of the associated fisheries (Kishore and Clarke-Marshall,2005; Kishore et al., 2005). Gillnets were the main gear utilized (45.1% of vessels),except for fish pots and demersal handlines at Ortoire. Pelagic lines, beachseines, lobster and shark nets were of lesser importance. The area experiencesconsiderable influx of fishing vessels from other areas, especially the south coastof Trinidad between December and May. This influx occurs as fishers track themovement of Serra Spanish mackerel which arrive along the east coast of Trinidadfrom the South American mainland. It allows an increase in economic activity aswell as expansion of social networks during the first half of the year.Eighty-six fisher households were surveyed, of which 87% were headed bymen. Several fishers lived with extended families and as single persons, with theoverall mean household size of 4.4 persons. Many of the fishers had been fishingsince their early teens and about 23% had been fishing for more than 25 years. Fewmembers of fisher households had achieved tertiary level education (< 4%), while51% and 25% had achieved up to primary level and secondary level, respectively,and 14% had acquired technical and vocational skills. Although fishing was themain source of income for these households (60%), other substantial contributors,particularly for women, were employment in the government services and private

328Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeancompanies as well as non-governmental organizations. Women were involvedin the industry as boat owners, net menders, purchasers of fishing equipment,accounting and financial managers, assisting with deployment of beach seinesand as vendors. Women also performed leadership roles in community groupsand managed the households. About 37% of fishers had no alternative sourceof income while boat owners had a wider range of employment opportunitiescompared with crew members. Fishing contributed more than 60% of householdincome for 80% of the full-time fishers.Home ownership among fishers (74.7%) compared favourably with the widerMayaro/Guayaguayare community (80.6%). A variety of household amenitieswere also available to fishers: refrigerators (62–89% of interviewees); freezers(25–64%); motor vehicles (8–21%); stoves (92–96%); telephones (50–75%);water tanks (71–86%); televisions (73–89%); washing machines (63–75%); andcomputers (4–14%), among other articles. About 50% of 112 persons interviewedwere boat owners and 50% of these boat owners owned more than one boat.The major concerns of the fishing industry pertained to the lack of fishingfacilities; the declining fish stocks due to overfishing, pollution, damage to fishinggrounds and nursery areas, as well as the harvesting of juvenile fish and berriedlobsters; lack of organization in the fishing industry as there are few formalorganizations; limited involvement of regulatory agencies; and lack of cooperationamong fishers. Despite these concerns, 88% of the interviewees indicated that theyenjoyed fishing because of the excitement of bringing in a catch, self-satisfaction,and the challenge and serenity of being at sea rather than for the economic reasons(15%). However, many of these persons indicated that they would discourageparticipation of their children in the industry due to declining catches and failureof the industry to provide a steady income.4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORSIn general, the organization of fishers in Trinidad and Tobago is volatile, withgroups set up on an ad hoc basis to address a specific, short-term goal. Oncethe goal is achieved the organization attains a state of dormancy until anotherthreat is identified. Organizations are of two types, fishing associations or fishingco-operatives. Of the two, the co-operatives are more organized, with formalregistration at the Ministry of Labour and Co-Operatives and managed by a Boardof Directors. Fishing associations are informal groups with no legally bindingcommitments. Although it is recognized that issues impacting the livelihood offishers can best be resolved by lobbying as a group, lack of trust with regard tofinancial matters is usually the main factor negatively impacting the continuedoperations of the organizations. In 2003, there were 34 fishing organizations(9 co-operatives and 25 associations) in Trinidad and Tobago. Of these, 24 were inTrinidad and the remaining 10 in Tobago. These organizations are generally notwell managed (Picou-Gill, 2003).Currently the more vibrant fishers’ organizations in Trinidad are the Trinidadand Tobago Game Fishing Association, Almoorings Fishing Cooperative, Cocorite

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 329Fishing Association, Moruga Fishing Association, north Coast Multi-PurposeSociety Limited, Cedros Fishing Cooperative, Women in Fishing Association, andthe South East Fishing Association. The latter two associations were established asa result of initiatives under the 2004 study to develop a co-management framework(Kishore et al., 2005). The eight organizations are financially viable with effectiveorganizational structures, goals and planned activities that serve the interests oftheir members (Fisheries Division, 2007b). In Tobago, developments in the fishingsector during the 1980s spurred the Tobago House of Assembly to encouragethe formation of fishers’ organizations. However, the lack of the government’sfinancial support has been a major constraint. Investment is almost totally fromthe private sector. In 1999, the All Tobago Fisherfolk Association (ATFA) wasformed as a legal entity. In 2007, an ‘umbrella’ fisher organization – Trinidad andTobago Unified Fisherfolk – was established to coordinate activities among fisherorganizations and bring issues impacting the industry to the attention of decisionmakers.The interactions between fishers and other sectors are not well documented.Within the fishing sector, however, there are conflicts among fishers. During themid-1990s conflicts among fishers utilizing gillnets, fish pots and trawls off thenorth and south coasts of Trinidad escalated. Fish pot fishermen accused thoseutilizing gillnets of entanglement of their pots while gillnet fishers in turn accusedthose utilizing fish pots of destruction of their gear. In general, gillnet and fishpot fishermen accused those utilizing trawls of destruction of the fishing groundand depletion of fisheries resources. A ministerial committee was established toaddress the conflict and to propose recommendations for sustainable utilizationof the fisheries resources (Fisheries Division, 1997). Recommendations includedstricter zoning of trawl activity. Fishers also experience vandalism of boats andgear as well as piracy at sea. Since there is some association between fishing anddrug activity, it is difficult to ascertain the true reasons for the conflicts. Currently,the Fisheries Division is without the resources to exercise a greater role inconflict resolution. As a result, the Division’s intervention is constrained to crisissituations.5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES5.1 Stock assessments, bio-economic analyses and abundance surveysStock assessments have been conducted for each of the coastal fisheries of Trinidadand Tobago since the late 1980s (Table 1). The soft-substrate demersal fishery hasbeen extensively studied under a Working Group of the Western Central AtlanticFishery Commission (WECAFC). This Working Group conducts both stockassessments and bio-economic analyses. The hard-substrate demersal and smallcoastal pelagic fisheries were assessed under an FAO project to improve datacollection systems and to assess marine fisheries resources in Trinidad and Tobago.Future stock assessments for the soft-bottom demersal and small coastal pelagicfisheries are facilitated under the respective working groups of the CaribbeanRegional Fisheries Mechanism. As well, an ad hoc Working Group under the

330Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanWECAFC is responsible for assessment of the flyingfish resources in the easternCaribbean. Abundance estimates for certain species groups were available from a1988 research cruise conducted by the Fridtjof Nansen, a Norwegian vessel.As shown in Table 1, several methods have been used to assess the variousfisheries, including surplus production models, catch-at-age models, length-basedmodels, virtual population analyses, yield-per-recruit models and abundancesurveys. Some assessments were conducted jointly with Venezuela (BolivarianRepublic of), using methods such as biodynamic production models and bioeconomicanalyses. Recent assessments indicate that the majority of the fisheriesare either fully or overexploited. Earlier assessments showed that some resourceswere either underexploited or inconclusive, such as the lane snapper and sharks,respectively. However, declining catch quantities and sizes of fish in the catchsuggest that these resources may currently be overexploited.5.2 Ecosystem analysesIn addition to stock assessments, preliminary ecosystem analyses have beenconducted on the soft-substrate demersal fishery. Ecosystem statistics andnetwork flow indices were derived, and the possible impacts of trawling onthe biomass of model components were explored using a trophic model for theGulf of Paria (Manickchand-Heileman et al., 2004). Almost 80% of the catchtrawl fleet consisted of fish from trophic levels 2 and 3, with an average trophiclevel of 2.97. The associated primary production required for the 1997 totalcatch was 28.3 tonnes per km 2 (about 2% of net primary production). For themajor component of the catch, comprising several shrimp species, the associatedprimary production required for the 1997 catch was 8 tonnes per km 2 (0.56% ofnet primary production). The total system flow of biomass was 2 285 tonnes perkm 2 , of which 25% was attributed to all consumption, 16% to respiration andthe remaining 59% to input of detritus. Estimated high ecotrophic efficiencies formany system components suggest efficient utilization of secondary productionby predators. Mean transfer efficiency was 12.2%. The food web was dominatedby the detrital pathway (bottom-up control) and the ecosystem was relativelymature (Finn cycling index of 7.2%). Simulations showed marked decreases infish biomass and conversely increases in invertebrate biomass (notably shrimpand crab) when fishing mortality rate was increased by 50% over five years. Onrelaxation of fishing effort, the fish biomass recovered but that of crabs declinedeven further. Except for a decline in the biomass of crabs, a reduction in fishingmortality rate elicited the opposite response in system components. A comparisonof the 1997 biomass of system components with those obtained from a 1945trawl survey showed significantly higher biomass in 1945, with the exception ofcarangids, penaeids and possibly clupeids, suggesting a possible shift towards asystem dominated by lower trophic levels.

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 331TABLE 1Stock assessment, bio-economic analyses and abundance surveys conducted onfisheries of Trinidad and TobagoSpecies(assessmentyear)Farfantepenaeussubtilis(brown shrimp)1973–1996F. subtilis(brown shrimp)1973–2001F. notialis(pink shrimp)1992–2001Xiphopenaeuskroyeri(seabob)1992–2001F. subtilis,F. notialis,Litopenaeusschmitti(white shrimp),and X. kroyeri1995–1998Sciaenidae(croakers)1988F. subtilis,F. notialis,F. brasiliensis,L. schmitti(white shrimp),and X. kroyeri(1975;, 1988–2004)Micropogoniasfurnieri(Whitemouthcroaker)1977–1982MethodBiodynamicproductionmodel (jointassessment withVenezuela)Surplusproductionmodels:BIODYN andASPIC (jointassessment withVenezuela)Catch-at-ageand VirtualPopulationAnalysis modelsCatch-at-ageand VirtualPopulationAnalysis modelsBio-economicanalysis(jointassessment withVenezuela)Abundancesurvey usingdemersal trawlBiomassdynamic(production)model forthe shrimpresourcesshared betweenTrinidad andTobago andVenezuelaYield-perrecruitanalysisStock status andreference pointsOverfished:MSY = 1 200–1 300tonnesSeverely overfished:overfishing since 1970;F current = >3 F msyB current = 0.23 B msyMSY = 1 000 – 2 000tonnesFully exploitedF current = 0.71F msyBPR current = 0.40 BPR 0Mainly young shrimpcaughtOverexploitedF current = 0.71F msyBPR current = 0.20 BPR 0Fully to overexploitedOvercapitalizedEffort current = 17 523days at sea (Trinidad:8 175 days; Venezuela:9 348 days)B o of F. subtilis =481 tonnesAt current effort39% chance that B ofF. subtilis will be

332Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 1 (CONTINUED)Species(assessmentyear)MethodStock status andreference pointsManagementrecommendationsSourceM. furnieri(Whitemouthcroaker)1989–1997M. furnieri(Whitemouthcroaker)1989–1997Cynoscionjamaicensis(Jamaicanweakfish)1989–1997M. furnieriC. jamaicensis1989–1997PomadasyidaeGrunts1988LutjanidaeSnappers1988Lutjanussynagri(Lane snapper)1988L. synagris(Lane snapper)1980–1981Depletion andyield-per-recruitmodellingSurplusproductionbiodynamicmodelling andyield-per-recruitanalyses (jointassessment withVenezuela)Depletion andyield-per-recruitmodellingMultispecies,multigeardynamic bioeconomicanalysisAbundancesurvey usingdemersal trawlAbundancesurvey usingdemersal trawlAbundancesurvey usingdemersal trawlYield-perrecruitanalysisof multigearfleet which usesfish pots offnorth and eastTrinidadOverexploitedOverexploitedMSY = 1 500 tonnesF msy achieved between1987–1993F 1998 = 0.4–3.2Y 1998 = 1 800 tonnesOverexploitedFully to overexploitedB, 1989 = 6 322 tonnes(M. furnieri) and 602tonnes = (C. jamaicensis)B, 1997 = 3 754 tonnes(M. furnieri)B, 1997 = 273 tonnes(C. jamaicensis)Effort, 1997 = 11 635 daysat seaMaximum rentgenerated in 1997(US$101 per day pervessel)B = 100 tonnes (Trinidadsouth coast)Biomass = 400 tonnes(Trinidad north coast)and 450 tonnes (Trinidadsouth coast, 5% biomassof all demersal fish)Mean catch rate of 10kg/hr (south Trinidad)and 25 kg/hr (eastTrinidad)86% sampled individualson south coast were1–30 kg and 14%between 30–100 kgUnderutilized (howevercurrently species maybe approaching highlevel of exploitation oroverexploited)TC = 1.38 yearsF current = 0.17YPR = 70gLimit fishing effort forall fleets (trawl andmultigear)No further increase infishing effort; limitedentry in future; reducefishing mortality to 0.4to achieve 0.4 SSB 0Limit fishing effort forall fleets (trawl andmultigear)Limit fishing effortto 1997 level for allfleets since this optionmaximizes the minimumfinal biomass attainableand minimizes loss ofopportunityIncrease TC to 2 years(corresponds to 30 cmTL; average Lm is 28 cmTL) by increasing meshsize of pots, mesh size oftrawlers and hook sizeon lines. Increase F to0.8. These will increaseyear-per-recruit to122 g. However, need toconsider effects on otherspecies in fisherySoomai et al.(1999)Alió et al.(1999)Soomai et al.(1999)Soomai andSeijo (2000)Instituteof MarineResearch(1989)Instituteof MarineResearch(1989)Instituteof MarineResearch(1989)Maingot andManickchand-Heileman(1987)

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 333TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)Species(assessmentyear)MethodStock status andreference pointsManagementrecommendationsSourceL. synagris(Lane snapper)(1908–2004)L. purpureus(Caribbean redsnapper)1990–1991Rhomboplitesaurorubens(Vermillionsnapper)1990–1991SerranidaeGroupers1988Epinephelusflavolimbatus(Yellowedgegrouper)1990–1991Mycteropercainterstitialis(Yellowmouthgrouper)1990–1991Scomberomorusbrasiliensis(Serra Spanishmackerel)Late 1980sS. brasiliensis(Serra Spanishmackerel)1991–1992Mean sizemodel andCatch-freemodel forthe fleetsusing gillnets,handlines andtrawl gear inTrinidadYield-perrecruitanalysisof multigearfleet which usesfish pots offnorth and eastTrinidad andeast TobagoYield-perrecruitanalysisof multigearfleet which usesfish pots offnorth and eastTrinidad andeast TobagoAbundancesurvey usingdemersal trawlYield-perrecruitanalysisof multigearfleet which usesfish pots offnorth and eastTrinidad andeast TobagoYield-perrecruitanalysisof multigearfleet which usesfish pots offnorth and eastTrinidad andeast TobagoYield-perrecruitanalysisfor fishery offTrinidadLength-basedmodel forfishery offTrinidadUncertain. Possiblygrowth-overfished dueto high proportionof immature fish inthe catch. Emigrationof large fish mayaccount for the highF estimated.F (1980, 1997) = 0.94 – 3.69Constant CPUE trendsdespite high F suggestconstant recruitmentFully to overexploitedTC current =1.4 yrs (28 cm TL)TC current < Tm (Lm = 33 cmTL)F current = 0.29F max = 0.26F 0.1 = 0.15 at Tc currentYPR current = 489gOverexploitedTc current = 2.1 yearsTc current > Tm (0.6 years)F current = 0.79 – 1.54YPR current = 350gBiomass = 200 tonnes(Trinidad south coast)Fully or overexploitedLm = 52.8 cm TLTC current = 3.3 yearsTC current < TmF current = 0.1 – 0.12YPR current = ≈ 235 gFully or overexploitedLm = 38 cm FLTC current = 3.3 yearsF current = 0.17YPR current = ≈ 240 gUnderexploited(however currentlyoverexploited)F = 0.27TC = 3 yearsYPR < 50 gFully exploitedF current = 0.6Y current = 2 815 tonnesSSB current = 0.22 SSB 0SSB current = 6 258 tonnesPreliminary assessment.Fishing effort shouldbe monitored and notincrease until furtherresearch on migrationpatterns, stock structureand status indicateotherwiseRestrict fishing effortand increase age at firstcapture to 3 years byincreasing mesh size inpots. This will increaseyield-per-recruit to 569 gat F currentRestrict fishing effortand increase TC to 3years by increasing meshsize in pots. This willincrease yield-per-recruitto 401 g at F currentRestrict fishing effort,increase mesh sizeof traps since otherspecies in fishery areoverexploited, estimateimpacts of illegal foreignfishingRestrict fishing effort,increase mesh size oftraps, estimate impactsof illegal foreign fishingNo increase in theexisting mesh size ofgillnets (11.4 cm)No increase in fishingeffort, gillnet mesh sizeshould not be < 4.75inch stretched mesh,encourage line fishingover gillnetsSoomai andPorch (2007)Manickchand-Heileman andPhillip (1992b;1996)Manickchand-Heileman andPhillip (1992b)Instituteof MarineResearch(1989)Manickchand-Heileman andPhillip (1992a)Manickchand-Heileman andPhillip (1992a)Sturm et al.(1987)Henry andMartin (1992)

334Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTABLE 1 (CONTINUED)Species(assessmentyear)MethodStock status andreference pointsManagementrecommendationsSourceS. brasiliensis(Serra Spanishmackerel)1972–2002S. cavalla(King mackerel)Late 1980sS. cavalla(King mackerel)(1996–1998;2004)S. cavalla(King mackerel)(1996–1998;2006–2007)Hirundichthysaffinis(Four-wingedflyingfish)(1990–1992)Clupeidae andEngraulidae(Herrings,anchovies andsardines)1988Surplusproductionmodel (ASPIC)using datafor entiredistributionrange of speciesincludingTrinidadYield-perrecruitanalysisfor fishery offTrinidadBiomassdynamicSchaeferproductionmodel andyield-per-recruitmodel forthe fishery inthe southernCaribbean(includingTrinidad)BiomassdynamicSchaeferproductionmodel andyield-per-recruitmodel forthe fishery inthe southernCaribbean(includingTrinidad)Length-basedmodel forfishery offTobagoAbundance(hydroacoustic)surveyB msy = 8 000 tonnesF msy = 0.2B 2003 = 0.84 B msyF 2001 = 1.17 F msyStatus quo performedbadly and 0.75 F currentperformed best in thelong run (25 years)Underexploited (possiblyoverexploited currently)F = 0.34TC = 4 yearsYPR > 300gInconclusive - PossiblyoverexploitedF 0.1 = 0.26–0.66F 20%SPR = 0.62–1.11F 96-98 = 16% below or80% above F 20%SPRF 04 = 85–202% aboveF 20%SPRAt F 0.1Rel. YPR = 0.13–0.24Rel. SSBPR = 0.26–.4At F 20%SPRRel YPR = 0.14–0.25Study preliminary,improve time series ofinput data as well as ageand size data, obtainspecific managementobjectives from decisionmakersNo increase in theexisting mesh size ofgillnets (11.4 cm)Study preliminary,improve input datato generate growthparameters. Reducecurrent fishing mortalityby 66% or alternativelyimpose a 6-month closedseason to increaserelative spawning stockbiomass per recruit from10 to 22%. Enforce fishor mesh size regulationsto increase TC. Imposelimited entry to replacecurrent free access.No increase in fishingeffort until assessment isupdated.InconclusiveResearch to ascertainstock range andF 0.1 = 0.34 – 0.45 migration patterns,F 20%SPR = 0.66 - 0.80 growth and mortalityrate parameters.F 96-98 =Inclusion of catch, effort149 to 350% of F 0.1 and biological data from84 to 180% of F 20%SPR all countries targetingthe stock into assessmentF 06-07 = 182 to 332% analysis. Inclusion ofof F 0.1historical time series data103 to 171% of F 20%SPR on catch and effort intoassessment analysis.Fully exploitedTC = 0.6 yearsF current = 3.3Y current = 433 tonnesB current = 906 tonnesB = 6 000 tonnes(Trinidad north coast);16 000 tonnes (Trinidadeast coast) and 24 000tonnes (Trinidad southcoast). Potential yield =20 000 tonnesConservative approachto increasing local effort,restrict foreign effort,consider ecologicalrole of species inmanagementMartin andNowlis (2004)Sturm et al.(1987)Martin andHoggarth(2007)Martin andDié (2008)Samlalsinghand Pandohee(1992)Instituteof MarineResearch(1989)

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 335TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)Species(assessmentyear)MethodStock status andreference pointsManagementrecommendationsSourceCarangidae,Sphyraenidae,Scombridae1988Sharks1988Carcharhinusporosus(Small tailshark)1992C. limbatus(Blacktip shark)1992Abundance(hydroacoustic)Abundancesurvey usingdemersal trawland acoustictechniquesAnalysis ofcatch andeffort, lengthfrequency andage-length dataAnalysis ofcatch andeffort, lengthfrequency andage-length dataB = 12 000 tonnes(Trinidad north coast);14 000 tonnes (Trinidadeast coast) and 12 000tonnes (Trinidad southcoast)Biomass = 1 100 tonnesin waters off TrinidadInconclusiveM = 0.245q = 0.22(however, currently,species may beoverexploited)InconclusiveM = 0.303q = 0.44Underexploited(however, currently,species may beoverexploited)Preliminary assessment.Improved data collectionnecessary. Need toincorporate catchesof other countriesexploiting the resourcein analysesPreliminary assessment.Improved data collectionnecessary. Need toincorporate catchesof other countriesexploiting the resourcein analysesInstituteof MarineResearch(1989)Instituteof MarineResearch(1989)Walker (1992)Walker (1992)5.3 Economic analyses: costs and earnings studiesSoft-substrate demersal fishery: Three costs and earnings studies have beenconducted for the soft-substrate demersal fishery. The first focused on Types Iand II trawlers legally operating off Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) duringthe 1991/1992 fishing season (Ferreira and Maharaj, 1993). The fleet appearedmarginally profitable. In fact, vessels operated at a little better than break-evenpoint and at a loss in years when recruitment was particularly low. The averageannual return to owners’ management and capital was estimated at US$723, or 10%average rate of return on capital. Profit was maximized at 58% of the contemporaryeffort. The second study examined operations of all trawl fleets (Ferreira, 1998).Thirty-three percent of Type II trawlers, 50% of Type III trawlers and 60%of Type IV trawlers appeared to be operating at a loss. Without accounting fordepreciation, Type II trawlers operated between a loss of US$5 900 and a profit ofUS$15 300. Similarly, Type III trawlers operated between a loss of US$4 300 anda profit of US$17 800. Type IV trawlers had much higher losses, with US$25 500for losses and US$17 000 for profit. Type II trawlers appeared more efficient thanTypes III and IV as the revenue-per-cost ratio, benefits to crew and owner per unitof revenue and returns on investment were higher. Small trawlers were also morelabour intensive than capital intensive. Mean labour costs to current vessel valuewere 0.7, 0.2 and 0.1 for Types II, III and IV trawlers, respectively. The net profitof a Type II trawler was US$1 800, while Types III and IV trawlers suffered netlosses of US$2 400 and US$19 700, respectively, and returns on investment were

336Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanestimated at 21%, -5% and -20% for Types II, III and IV trawlers (Kuruvilla etal., 2000). The third study was similar to the second but conducted more recently(Kuruvilla et al., 2002). In this instance, only the Type III trawlers, on average,realized a profit (US$8 900), which corresponded to 15% return on investment.Types II and IV trawlers suffered losses of US$389 (-4% return on investment)and US$996 (-1% return on investment), respectively. Despite negative cash flows,vessels continued to operate because owners had ceased repayments on their loans.Given the expected high maintenance costs (many vessels were between 10 and20 years old), many owners also opted to reduce costs by working their ownvessel, doing repairs on vessel and gear themselves, and purchasing used enginesand parts (Kuruvilla et al., 2002).Hard-substrate demersal fishery: A simple cost analysis was conducted on theartisanal, multigear fleet operating between Ortoire and Guayaguayare on theeast coast of Trinidad (Kishore et al., 2005). The average trip preparation costwas highest for vessels utilizing demersal longlines (US$170), compared withfish pots (US$107), and banklines or demersal handlines (US$131). Fuel was thegreatest contributor to overall trip cost (average US$131 for vessels utilizing eachof three gear types), followed by bait (average US$33) and food for crew members(average US$10). The average cost of ice, ground transport for landed catch andpost-landing cleaning operations per fishing trip was US$8.00, US$3.57 andUS$9.25, respectively. The cost of entry to the fishery for a vessel utilizing fishpots (primary gear) and pelagic lines (secondary gear) was estimated at US$11 623,while a vessel utilizing banklines (primary gear) and demersal longlines (secondarygear) would cost US$7 098.Small coastal pelagic fishery: Costs and earnings studies were conducted on theartisanal, multigear fleet (component using gillnets) in Trinidad and the artisanaland semi-industrial multigear fleets targeting flyingfish in Tobago. Simple costanalyses were also conducted on the artisanal, multigear fleet operating betweenOrtoire and Guayaguayare on the east coast of Trinidad and the recreational fleetoperating off north Trinidad. In the artisanal, multigear fleet (component usinggillnets) of Trinidad, costs and revenues were found to vary significantly betweenlanding beaches due to differences in the production activities (Parkinson, 1992).Gross seasonal revenue was US$4 500 per fisher from the sale of an average catchof 4 200 kg. Average monthly fishing operation costs was US$1 100 per fisher,with variable costs (boat and engine repair, net repair, fuel, oil and other triprelated expenses) accounting for 93% of total costs. The average monthly netrevenue above the variable and total costs was US$132 and US$68, respectively.Preliminary studies for the Tobago fleets (Ferreira, 2002; Potts et al., 2002) showedprofits which far exceeded those of other, similar fleets in the region and, therefore,the results require verification.The average trip preparation cost was highest for artisanal vessels fishingoff the east coast of Trinidad and utilizing multifilament gillnets (US$107.60)compared with pelagic lines (US$101.79), monofilament gillnets (US$81.10) andbeach seines (US$23.65) (Kishore et al., 2005). Fuel was the greatest contributor

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 337to the overall trip cost (average US$50.97 for vessels utilizing each of four geartypes). The average cost of ice, post-landing cleaning, ground transport for landedcatch, and food for crew members was US$6.17, US$6.00, US$4.06 and US$11.69,respectively. Bait was utilized only by vessels deploying pelagic lines (average costof US$10.28 per trip). The cost of entry to the fishery was greater for a vesselutilizing gillnets (US$13 222) compared to beach seines (US$11 575). Fuel cost perfishing trip in the Trinidad recreational fleet was greatest for vessels using troll lines(US$44) and least for those using gillnets and demersal longlines (US$8) (Mike,1993). Initial gear costs were high for boats involved in line (US$200 to US$300)and spear (US$210) fishing, while gear replacement costs were greatest for vesselsusing troll lines (US$12). Spears and fish pots were replaced infrequently and thecost of gillnet replacement was negligible.6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGMarine fisheries activities in Trinidad and Tobago are evolving in the context ofa dynamic international environment of governmental and non-governmentalorganizations towards the sustainable natural resource management objective.Trinidad and Tobago is signatory to the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the Cartagena Convention, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention onFishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, the Agreementfor the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation andManagement of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks,and a contracting party to the International Commission for the Conservationof Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Trinidad and Tobago adopted the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995. Adoption of these conventions andother ‘soft-laws’ (i.e. non-binding) place specific responsibilities on the countryfor management of marine resources, including fisheries. The implementation andevaluation of fisheries management measures is the responsibility of the FisheriesDivision of the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs inTrinidad and the Department of Marine Resources and Fisheries, Tobago Houseof Assembly, in Tobago.Support for administration of the fisheries sector, including resource andcoastal zone management, is provided by a number of governmental agencies,including the following Ministries: Works and Transport; Health; Trade andIndustry; Finance; National Security; Foreign Affairs; the Office of the PrimeMinister; and the Tobago House of Assembly. Regional organizations such as theCaribbean Community, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM),and the University of the West Indies (UWI), as well as international organizationssuch as FAO and other United Nations agencies, the Global Environment Facilityand foreign donor governments (e.g. European Union and Japan) also play a keyrole in the research and administrative activities of the Fisheries Division.

338Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean6.1 Fisheries management policyTrinidad and Tobago has recently reviewed its marine fisheries policy andassociated legislation (Moore-Miggins and Company and Scales ConsultingLimited, 2006; University of the West Indies, 2006; Fisheries Division, 2007b). Thedraft policy for the fishing sector addresses recommendations from a 2005 reviewof the fish and fish processing industry (Fish and Fish Processing Industry Team,2005) and supports the Government’s Vision 2020 Plan for Trinidad and Tobago’sachievement of developed country status by 2020. This plan emphasizes theneed to enable competitive business in the agricultural sector while recognizingthe need for sustainable fisheries. The major fisheries-related objectives of theplan are to improve the management and regulation of fisheries, to improveproduct safety for fish and fish products so as to meet international standards, tosafeguard fisheries resources and augment stocks to optimal levels, and to developaquaculture as a major enterprise as a basis for diversification, income growth andenhanced food security (Fisheries Division, 2007b).The overarching policy objectives support the Precautionary Approach tosustainable fisheries management and conservation (Fisheries Division, 2007b).These objectives aim to introduce a management structure with the capacityand resources to address current national, regional and international issues infisheries, including obligations under associated treaties and conventions. Toeffect management, attention is given to modernizing the legal and regulatoryframework with introduction of appropriate mechanisms to strengthen thefisheries surveillance and enforcement capability. In addition, the policy promotestransparency in decision-making, with participation of stakeholders in themanagement process and consideration of the socio-economic implications ofmanagement measures in decision-making. To address the impacts of multisectoraland competing use of the coastal zone on fisheries, the policy supports anintegrated approach to coastal zone development with mechanisms to reduceassociated conflicts and compensate impacted fishers. The policy objectives alsoseek to address environmental issues in fisheries and to promote the protectionof critical fish habitats. Modernization of fisheries infrastructure, with emphasison local and international food quality assurance and efficient use of resources, aswell the creation of a safe working environment for fishers, are also promoted.6.2 Fisheries legislationThe principal legislation governing domestic fishing in Trinidad and Tobago is theFisheries Act of 1916 and the subsequent amendments to the Act, the Fisheries(Amendment) Act 1966, and the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1975. The Act appliesto all rivers and tidal waters in Trinidad and Tobago and to the 12-mile territorialsea. It empowers the minister responsible for fisheries to make regulations toprescribe mesh size of nets, to restrict the size of fish, shrimp, crabs and turtlescaught, to prohibit their sale, and to prevent the catching of these species eitherabsolutely or to limit it by season or area. A Fisheries Management Bill, preparedin 2006, will repeal the Fisheries Act of 1916 and the relevant sections of the

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 339Archipelagic Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone Act of 1986. The Bill embracesthe principles outlined in the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention andthe FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Bill facilitates thepreparation of fisheries management plans and the establishment of managementsystems and will, in accordance with the management plans, facilitate the controlof access to fisheries resources through the establishment of a licensing system forboth local and foreign fishing vessels.The Fishing Industry (Assistance) Act of 1955 makes provisions for the grantingof financial assistance to the fishing industry. The Marine Areas (Preservation andEnhancement) Act (1970), through regulations implemented in 1973, provides fordesignation of restricted areas and the requirement of the minister’s approval toenter and remove marine fauna from such areas (limited to coral reef management).A National Parks and Other Protected Areas Bill has been drafted, which will havean effect on the Marine Areas (Preservation and Enhancement) Act when enacted.The Archipelagic Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1986) provides forthe declaration of archipelagic waters, the establishment of a 200-mile exclusiveeconomic zone (EEZ), the determination of total allowable catch by nationals, andmakes provisions for foreign fishing and associated surveillance and enforcement.The Fish and Fishery Products Regulations (1998) under Section 25 of theFood and Drugs Act Chapter 30:01 authorizes the minister with responsibilityfor health to grant licences for the import and export of fish which have beenhandled and packed under conditions conforming to health and safety standardsprescribed under the Act. The regulations specify the requirements for handlingfish, the general and specific operating requirements for establishments handlingor processing fish, the requirements for vessels used for fishing or transportingfish, and for vehicles and equipment used for unloading, handling, holding andtransporting fresh fish for processing. As a consequence of non-compliance withthe regulations, fish and fishery products originating in Trinidad and Tobagowere banned from export to the European Union in 1999. Currently, the Fish andFishery Products Regulations are under review.The soft-substrate demersal fishery: Legislation regulating operations of thetrawl fleet targeting the soft-substrate demersal fishery specifies fishing areas andgear dimensions (the Fisheries Control of Demersal Bottom Trawling ActivitiesRegulations of 1996 and the associated Amendment Regulations of 1998 and2004). Within the Gulf of Paria, Types I and II trawlers are permitted to operateoutside of one nautical mile from the coast, Type III trawlers, with engines lessthan or equal to 180 hp, are permitted in areas of six fathoms or more in depth,and Type IV trawlers, with engines greater than or equal to 180 hp, are permittedin depths of ten fathoms and more. On the north and south coasts of Trinidadtrawling is permitted outside of two nautical miles. However, off the north coast,the fishing area is further restricted to the region west of Saut d’Eau. Trawlingoff the north coast of Trinidad is restricted to the period from 15 November to15 January, while night fishing is prohibited. Trawling is also prohibited off theeast coast of Trinidad and within 12 nautical miles off the coast of Tobago. The

340Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanminimum diagonal, stretched mesh size on the cod end of the trawlnet is restrictedto 7.6 cm when trawling for fish, and 3.8 cm when trawling for shrimp. The entryof new trawlers to the fishery is restricted under a 1988 Cabinet decision.To reduce turtle bycatch in the trawl fishery, the Fisheries (Conservationof Marine Turtles) Regulations were implemented in 1994. These regulationsstipulate the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TED) on nets deployed by Types IIIand IV trawlers and provide the type and design specifications. This conservationmeasure facilitates trade between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States.Conservation of marine turtles is also supported by the Protection of Turtle andTurtle Eggs Regulations of 1975. Trawlnets are subject to inspection by UnitedStates trade officials, who also grant certification that permits export fromTrinidad and Tobago to the United States. Trinidad and Tobago is also currentlyparticipating in a project funded by FAO, UNEP and GEF aimed at reducing theenvironmental impacts of tropical shrimp trawling through the introduction ofbycatch reduction devices.The hard-substrate demersal fishery: Legislation aimed at the demersal hardsubstratefishery prohibits the capture or sale of snapper less than 20.3 cm.Assessment studies on major snapper species confirmed the capture of snappersprior to maturity. It was recommended that mesh sizes be increased to maximizeyield and to prevent overfishing, and biodegradable panels be utilized in theconstruction of fish pots. A study was also commissioned to ascertain theappropriate mesh sizes for fish pots (Mohammed, 2000).The coastal pelagic fishery: Prior to 2000, regulations limited gillnet lengths (upto 272.73 m), minimum mesh size (4.4 cm) and minimum length of several speciesmarketed, including the Serra Spanish mackerel and king mackerel (30.5 cm).Due to conflicts among various fishing groups (Fisheries Division, 1997) and thenear full exploitation of the Serra Spanish mackerel (Henry and Martin, 1992),regulations were amended in 1998 to increase the minimum diagonal stretchedmesh size to 10.8 cm, with exceptions for those nets used to catch mullet andflyingfish (Ministry of Food Production and Marine Resources, Fisheries Divisionand the Monitoring and Advisory Committee on the Fisheries of Trinidad andTobago, 2001). In addition, a 0.64 cm incremental increase in the current mesh size(10.2 cm) was proposed over a three-year period to arrive at the recommended12.1 cm mesh size for the fishery (Fisheries Division, 2003).Due to the greater efficiency of monofilament nets compared with multifilamentnets, and continuing conflicts between fishers utilizing gillnets, fish pots andtrawls on the south coast of Trinidad, a ban on the use of monofilament gillnetswas imposed in March 2000. Continuing dissatisfaction by the fishing communityregarding this ban resulted in an amendment of the regulations in 2002. Theseregulations again specified a minimum diagonal stretched mesh size of 10.2 cmfor gillnets, but 8.9 cm for nets used to catch mullets and 4.5 cm for nets used tocatch flyingfish. The quantity of any species other than mullet landed by the 9 cmmesh size should not exceed 15% of the total catch, and vessels are prohibitedfrom carrying nets of less than 11 cm mesh size together with nets of other mesh

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 341sizes on the same fishing trip. The main objective of management is to increasethe size at capture, through increased mesh size, in order to avoid recruitmentoverfishing.6.3 Fisheries monitoring and surveillanceA Fisheries Monitoring, Surveillance and Enforcement Unit (FMSEU) wasestablished within the Fisheries Division in 2004, thereby strengthening thecapability for enforcement of national fisheries regulations as well as forinternational fisheries management recommendations for large migratory pelagicspecies. The FMSEU has initially played a greater role in management of theoffshore fisheries through implementation of trade-related monitoring andinspections programmes to ensure compliance with ICCAT regulations, issuanceof the required certificates of eligibility (COE) or statistical documents for exportof swordfish to the United States, compliance with regulations governing the use ofTEDs, monitoring of processing plants and export shipments to deter mislabellingof goods, and monitoring and data collection from foreign vessels utilizing thetransshipment port at the National Fisheries Company to deter illegal, unreportedand unregulated fishing (Fisheries Division, 2004). Additionally, the FMSEUacts as liaison between fish processing plants and the Chemistry, Food and DrugDepartment of the Ministry of Health, to facilitate inspections for compliance withsanitary and phytosanitary regulations. Coastal fisheries are monitored at landingsites and at sea operations investigated to ensure compliance with mesh size andother fisheries management regulations. The FMSEU is assisted by the Trinidadand Tobago Coast Guard (at sea) and Protective Services (on land), particularly inareas of high security risk. An assessment of the impact of the FMSEU on industrycompliance with current regulations is to be undertaken. However, until the unit isadequately staff with trained and experienced personnel and legislation is updatedto address current issues in fisheries management, the unit’s effectiveness remainsconstrained.6.4 Fisheries subsidiesThe Fishing Industry (Assistance) Act of 1955, amended in 1975, provides forgovernment’s financial assistance to the fishing industry. Subsidies are providedon fuel and oil used by vessels, cost of vessel replacement, cost of semi-industrial,multigear vessels and cost of vehicles used in commercial fishing. Duty and taxesare also exempted on imported engines, vessels, engine parts and marine accessories.The criteria for the award of subsidies are that applicants must be fishers, fishingvessel owners or fishing proprietors who are citizens of Trinidad and Tobagoand are registered with the Fisheries Division. The fisher registration system,though voluntary and not used for management, is linked to administration of theincentive programme. As a result, most fishers, including recreational fishers, areregistered. The government’s additional support to the fisheries sector is largelythrough the provision of services at no cost to the sector. These services includeadministration of the incentive programme, implementation of fisheries recurrent

342Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanand development projects, infrastructural development, issuance of import andexport licences for fish and fishery products, assessment of fisheries resources,provision of fisheries-related information, registration of fishers and fishingvessels, and monitoring, surveillance and enforcement.6.5 Marine protected areasThe Buccoo Reef area in Tobago is the only area that has been designated arestricted area under the Marine Areas (Preservation and Enhancement) Act of1970. Traditionally a major tourist attraction in Tobago, this reef is impacted by anumber of socio-economic and environmental factors. In 1990, under a cooperativeproject between the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) and the Tobago House ofAssembly (THA), ecological surveys of the reefs around Tobago were conductedand a management plan was proposed for the Buccoo Reef Marine Park. Theproject had several components which studied the environmental conditions ofthe reef, and included public education and awareness as well as socio-economicaspects (Institute of Marine Affairs, 1994a, 1994b).7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION7.1 Research and projectsA research project developed in 1999, which was a collaborative effort betweenthe University of East Anglia, the University of the West Indies and the THA(Brown et al., 1998, 1999), attempted to develop and promote sustainableresource-use strategies through an analysis of the conflicts and trade-offs betweendifferent uses and users of the marine protected area. The project was viewedby stakeholders and the THA as an important contribution to implementingsustainable coastal resource use, as outlined in the management plan for theBuccoo Reef Marine Park, especially since the existing situation was oneof conflicting management, ineffective enforcement and suspicion and noncommunicationbetween stakeholders, including resource managers. The studyused multi-criteria analysis (MCA) as a framework for assessing the resource usestrategies and for quantifying the impacts of coastal zone management optionson the urban and rural communities in the coastal zone. Research included thecollection of economic, social and ecological data to perform an environmentaleconomic valuation of the Buccoo Reef Marine Park. Social and economic datacollection was based on a survey to estimate consumer surplus from recreationaluse of the marine park, a census of informal business vendors, and a series of semistructuredinterviews. Ecological data, including fish counts by species, mangroveleaf fall, water quality and plankton tows, were used to estimate productivity. TheTobago tourism sector was modeled to determine the economic costs and benefitsof various tourism development options. Results of the surveys showed a highdegree of consensus among stakeholders which provided the potential action forco-management. Future work will seek to address how the participatory processescan be institutionalized.

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 343Fisheries research is the responsibility of mainly two governmental agencies, theFisheries Division in Trinidad and the Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheriesin Tobago. The Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) and the University of the WestIndies (UWI) also conduct fisheries research. However, these two institutionsshare a much broader mandate. IMA operates a regional Fish Age and GrowthLaboratory established under the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism(CRFM). Although there is collaboration among the government agencies, UWIand IMA, there is room for improvement in the coordination of research whichwould significantly improve the efficiency, relevancy and technical output forfisheries management in Trinidad and Tobago. Additionally, the Fisheries Divisioncollaborates with other departments within the Ministry of Agriculture, as well asother governmental bodies with responsibility for trade, the environment, healthand research. The Division also collaborates with FAO, ICCAT, CRFM and otherregional bodies with common fisheries-related interests.This report focuses only on data collection programmes implemented by theFisheries Division and Fisheries and Marine Affairs Section. These programmesare designed to collect data on fisheries landings and effort, biology of selected,commercially important species, and details on fishing boats and gear.Biological studies have been conducted on several major commercial species.These include several species of shrimp (Henry, 1987; Lum Young et al., 1992),groundfish (Dass, 1983; Manickchand-Dass and Julien, 1983; Manickchand-Dass, 1987; Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip, 1992a, 1992b, 1996, 1999, 2000;Manickchand-Heileman and Kenny, 1990a, 1990b), flyingfish (Samlalsingh andPandohee, 1992), sharks (Chan A. Shing, 1993, 1999b) and mackerels (Sturm,1974, 1978; Sturm and Julien, 1983; Julien et al., 1984; Sturm et al., 1987; Sturmand Salter, 1990; Henry and Martin, 1992). Among the biological characteristicsstudied are morphometrics, reproduction, age and growth and length-weightrelationships.The Fisheries Division does not routinely conduct ecological studies. Thesestudies are usually conducted in association with the IMA and UWI. Further,there are no routine social and economic data collection programmes. As a result,studies conducted thus far have been either ad hoc or the subject of short-termprojects funded externally.7.2 Data and statisticsFisheries landings and fishing effort: Collection of fisheries landing and fishingeffort data in Trinidad was instituted in the mid-1950s (Kenny, 1955; Kennyand LaGois, 1961). The early system focused on two major fish markets: one inthe north of the island at Port of Spain, the other in the south at San Fernando(Figure 1); but this system has since been expanded to include 23 of the 65 existinglanding sites around Trinidad (Ferreira, 2003). The current system records data onall trawl fleets (soft-substrate demersal fishery) and the artisanal multigear fleet(all three fisheries), but no data are recorded for the semi-industrial multigear fleetwhich targets the hard-substrate demersal fishery. The interview method is used

344Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanto acquire information on the quantity of fish landed by species, ex-vessel priceby species, fishing duration, gears used, areas fished, crew number and ex-vesselprice per species. The system incorporates a formal process for data verificationand editing, as well as regular training of data collectors in species identificationand data collection techniques. Data from 1995 are computerized in an Oraclebasedsystem which generates estimates of total landings, ex-vessel value andfishing effort from recorded data. Various institutional capacity impedimentsconstrain the Fisheries Division’s ability to computerize and analyse historicaldata collected between 1960 and 1994. Ad hoc collection of landings data beganin the early 1970s in Tobago. In 1988 the system was regularized but focusedonly on the artisanal multigear fleets which targeted flyingfish from about threelandings sites on the island. A 1995 system modification sought to include allthree coastal fisheries through monthly random sampling at 8 of 45 landing sites.However, institutional capacity difficulties have hindered use of the data for stockassessment and management.Biological data collection: Prior to 1991, biological data were collected on anad hoc basis to address short-term projects and data needs. Routine collectionof biological data began in 1991 under an FAO/UNDP project to establish datacollection systems and assess marine fisheries resources. The project focusedon five major shrimp species, Serra Spanish mackerel, king mackerel and sharks(Carcharhinidae) in Trinidad, as well as the four-winged flyingfish (Hirundichthysaffinis) in Tobago. Length frequency data were collected for both shrimp and fishspecies. In addition, maturity (including gonad weight) data were recorded andotolith samples extracted for ageing of fish species. The collection of biologicaldata was also assisted by the regional Caribbean Community Fisheries ResourceAssessment and Management Programme (CFRAMP). In Tobago, monthlycollection of biological data (length frequency and maturity) for flyingfish beganin 1988 under a regional Eastern Caribbean Flyingfish Project. The FAO/UNDPproject continued and strengthened the data collection between 1991 and 1992.Biological data collection was reintroduced in 1996 for a year’s duration under theCFRAMP, and expanded to include dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), yellowfintuna (Thunnus albacares), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), albacore (Thunnusalalunga), king mackerels (Scomberomorus cavalla) and vermillion snapper(Rhomboplites aurorubens). Institutional capacity difficulties have hampered thecollection of biological data at varying times on both islands.Fishing vessel and fisher details: The earliest census of fishing vessels wasundertaken in Trinidad and Tobago in 1942 (Brown, 1942; Mohammed andChan A. Shing, 2003). A recent study identified several other similar surveys:1946 (Anonymous, 1948); 1957 (Anonymous, 1958; 1959 (Kenny, 1960); 1968(Vidaeus, 1970); and 1980 (Fisheries Division Vessel Census, unpublished data).The level of detail has varied from a simple list of fishing vessels to a list of vesselsby landing site, fishery and gear type. Since then, national vessel censuses havebeen conducted in 1991 (under the FAO/UNDP project referred to previously),1998 and 2003 (Chan A. Shing, 1999a; Fisheries Division, unpublished data).

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 345These censuses have further expanded the scope of the data collected to includeinformation on vessel and engine characteristics, associated seasonality ofoperations, fishery targeted and species caught. The data are currently used withcatch statistics to generate estimates of total landings. A vessel registration systemcaptures details on vessel characteristics (e.g. length, width, depth, colour, methodof propulsion, engine horsepower and brand, year of construction, costs of vesseland engines, dates of purchase). A fisher registration system captures economic aswell as demographic information on fishers (e.g. date of birth, address, physicalcharacteristics, family size, level of education, fisheries-related training, gear usedand an inventory on the number of boats, engines and vehicles owned). Both thefisher and vessel registration systems are, however, voluntary and are used mainlyfor the management of subsidy claims.7.3 Information management systemAn information management system was established at the Fisheries Division in1989, with funding from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).Although there are three modules, socio-economic, harvest and stock assessment,only the latter two have been developed. The harvest module contains landingsand fishing effort statistics described previously. The stock assessment modulecomprises an electronic bibliographic database on regional marine fisheriesresources and management (in published reports, theses and grey literature) anddata processing methodologies. Approximately 60% of holdings are available inhard copy form at the Division’s Library/Information Centre. Specific researchprojects also contributed to the inclusion of research survey cruise informationand social, economic, ecological and environmental information for the Gulfof Paria in this bibliographic database. The information is available to the localpublic and the Division also responds to requests from regional and internationalinstitutions.7.4 Education, training and capacity buildingCurrently, the Fisheries Division presents general information describing fisheries,stock status, management and conservation through seminars, posters andexhibitions to the public and at the request of institutions. Conservationrelatedprogrammes, specifically for marine turtles, are implemented by theForestry Division of the Ministry of Food Production, Land and MarineAffairs. Conservation is generally promoted by a number of non-governmentalorganizations in Trinidad and Tobago. However, there is no national databaseidentifying all such establishments and their focus of interest.The Caribbean Fisheries Training and Development Institute, based in Trinidad,provides training in seamanship, navigation, engine repair and fish processingtechniques to members of the fishing community in Trinidad and Tobago and therest of the Eastern Caribbean. Fishers can also access a variety of education andtraining programmes, implemented by the Ministry of Social Development, whichpromote employment in other non-fishing sectors.

346Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESCurrently, fisheries management in Trinidad and Tobago is driven by regional andinternational initiatives for sustainable utilization of living marine resources, amidstthreats of possible trade embargoes in response to non-compliance. Althoughelements of a management system exist, outdated legislation, weak linkages amongkey government and non-governmental agencies, limited stakeholder involvement,inadequate monitoring and enforcement, absence of a mechanism linking sciencewith policy, exclusion of fisheries consideration in coastal zone management, andinadequate socio-economic data have contributed to the weak performance of thecurrent management system. Current management suffers from a lack of planningand non-implementation of measures already recommended. Some criticalmanagement issues, with emphasis on Trinidad, are discussed below.8.1 LegislationThe overall fisheries policy embodies international conservation and managementinitiatives. However, the legal basis for implementing management recommendationsis limited for the majority of fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago. The new DraftFisheries Management Act, when passed by Parliament, will address manyof the country’s fisheries management issues. The proposed new legislationincorporates all management requirements under international conventions andregional initiatives to which Trinidad and Tobago is signatory, as well as measuresto ensure sustainable use of fisheries resources, involvement of stakeholders inthe management process, and acquisition of fisheries data and information toguide future management measures. Between the Fisheries Act (1916) and theArchipelagic Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1986), there still remainsno control over local fishing in the EEZ area outside the 12 nautical mile territorialsea, no regulations for the management of freshwater fisheries and no legal basisfor the licensing of vessels as a management measure (Fish and Fish ProcessingIndustry Team, 2005). As a result, the majority of fisheries in Trinidad and Tobagohave remained open access.8.2 Institutional structureThe institutional structure of the Fisheries Division in Trinidad has remainedessentially unchanged since the 1980s. The Division, within the last ten years, hasexperienced a loss of ‘institutional memory’ and a severely reduced capacity toaddress current national, regional and international fisheries management issues.The Division is comprised of a Marine Fishery Analysis Unit, an Extension Unit, aFisheries Monitoring, Surveillance and Enforcement Unit (described previously),an Aquaculture Unit and an Administrative Unit. The Marine Fishery Analysis Unitcollects fisheries catch and effort and biological data, conducts stock assessmentsand other fisheries related assessments, and provides associated managementadvice. The Extension Unit conducts vessel inspections, issues fisher and vesselregistrations, implements the subsidies programme, processes fish import andexport licences, and attends to fishers claims for loss of earnings. The Aquaculture

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 347Unit encourages the establishment of small-scale aquaculture business enterprisesthrough training of aquaculturists. The Administrative Unit is responsible forthe general day-to-day functions of the Division and matters relating to fisheriespolicy and management in consultation with decision-makers at higher levelswithin the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs. Developmentof the Division’s technical capability to assess the social and economic impacts offisheries management as well as the impacts of coastal development on fisheries,and to undertake long-term policy review and planning, is critical to addressingcurrent national, regional and international fisheries management issues.The Fisheries Division receives administrative, financial and technical supportfrom a number of national, regional and international agencies. However, currentlinkages between the Fisheries Division and other government agencies, as wellas non-governmental organizations, are weak. These linkages provide littlesupport for directed social assistance programmes to the industry, training andalternative employment opportunities, apart from those already administered bythe Division. The role of fisheries in rural development and poverty alleviation isalso not well articulated.8.3 Linkage between scientists and decision-makersResearch findings suggest that much of the marine coastal resources are eitherheavily or overexploited, yet several management recommendations have notbeen implemented. The limited implementation of management recommendationsthus far has been motivated either by regional or international pressure orextreme dissatisfaction of the fishing community. Current research initiatives andmanagement could benefit considerably from a formal communication mechanismamong the decision-makers, fisheries scientists and the fishing industry that wouldbe expected to facilitate policy driven research and industry support for resultingmanagement measures. The draft fisheries policy and draft Fisheries ManagementAct provide for such a mechanism (Fisheries Division, 2007b).8.4 Monitoring and enforcementEffective fisheries management, as might be achieved through the monitoring andsurveillance of the industry’s operations, is hampered by the existing legislativeframework, as well as the low priority assigned to fisheries by the standardregulatory agencies (i.e. Coast Guard and Police Services). The geographical areacovered by current surveillance activities of the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guardis therefore inadequate. Illegal fishing by vessels from other countries continues(e.g. longline and handline vessels fish off the north and east coasts of Trinidad andiceboats fish off the north coast of Tobago). The limited national monitoring andenforcement capability has put local fishers at the risk of piracy, resulting in theloss of boats, engines and fishing gear, and occasionally the loss of life (Fish andFish Processing Industry Team, 2005). The situation is exacerbated by the nonadherenceof fishers to basic safety requirements while at sea.

348Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean8.5 Traditional resource management and stakeholder participationRights-based resource allocation or conservation-based traditional managementsystems are not implemented for any of the fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago.However, a ‘turn’ system, based on informal rules which confer the right of anet owner to operate his beach seine at a specified time and in a specified area, isin effect. This system reduces the incidence of conflict when several beach seineowners operate their gear at a beach of limited space.A forum for stakeholder involvement in policy formulation and decisionmakingon matters impacting their livelihoods and the sustainability of fisheriesis provided under the Monitoring and Advisory Committee (MAC), establishedin 1997. Representatives from the Ministry of Food Production, Land and MarineAffairs, the Institute of Marine Affairs, the University of the West Indies, theTrinidad and Tobago Coast Guard, the Environmental Management Authority,the fishing industry, and a non-governmental community-based organizationcomprise the MAC. Despite this diverse membership, however, there still remainslimited stakeholder participation in the management process since the Committeeis largely public sector driven.8.6 Integrated coastal zone managementIn Trinidad and Tobago, the responsibility for environmental and coastal zonemanagement rests with the Institute of Marine Affairs, the EnvironmentalManagement Authority (arising from the Environmental Management Act No. 3 of1997) and the Ministry of Planning, Housing and the Environment. Multisectoraluse of the coastal zone has developed in an uncoordinated manner, resultingin conflict among users. On the west coast of Trinidad, for example, industrialactivity associated with the oil and gas sector as well as chemical, aluminiumand steel plants, agriculture and human settlement all occur simultaneously withfishing. In Tobago, fisheries-related conflict occurs mainly with tourism sectoractivities. Due to the country’s developmental thrust, access to the coastal zone isrestricted. Future development is expected to further restrict access.A mechanism for consideration of the impacts of coastal zone developmenton fisheries was proposed by a 1993 FAO/UNDP Project on Integrated CoastalFisheries Management. Some of these impacts include displacement of fishers fromtraditional fishing areas and associated loss of income, pollution of the marineenvironment, destruction of critical habitats such as nursery areas and breedinggrounds of marine fish and invertebrate species of commercial importance, andchanges in the distribution of fisheries resources due to seismic activity associatedwith the petrochemical industry. The Fisheries Division, along with several otherstate agencies, currently reviews environmental impact assessments providedby developers prior to the issuance of Certificates of Environmental Clearance(CEC) by the Environmental Management Authority. Developers are requiredto modify their plans and include mitigation measures should their activityhave potential to negatively impact the fishing industry. However, appropriatelegislation, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are required to ensure

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 349industry accountability and effectiveness of the process. The fishing sectorremains marginalized as the petrochemical and natural gas sectors and relatedindustries take precedent in the development agenda in Trinidad and the tourismindustry takes precedent in Tobago. These sectors are the main sources of foreignexchange for the country. Zoning use of the coastal area is required to ensure nondisruptionof fishing and related activities by other users of the coastal zone (Fishand Fish Processing Industry Team, 2005).8.7 Data availabilityConsideration of the social and economic impacts of coastal development andfisheries management decisions on the livelihood of fishers has been limited.In addition, there is need for systems which make available information easilyaccessible for management decision-making. Currently, there are few establishedreporting systems through which the economic performance of fishing fleets,wholesale and retail sales and regional and international trade can be monitored.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors wish to acknowledge staff members of the Fisheries Division,Trinidad, who are responsible for data collection and computerization, reportgeneration and data quality control. We are extremely grateful to Mr KieronDraper who prepared the maps in this chapter and to the reviewers for theirvaluable comments and suggestions.REFERENCESAlió J., Marcano L., Soomai S., Phillips T., Altuve D., Álvarez R., Die D. &Cochrane K. 1999. Analysis of industrial trawl and artisanal fisheries of whitemouthcroaker, Micropogonias furnieri, of Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago in the Gulf ofParia and Orinoco River Delta. In Report of the third CFRAMP/FAO Workshopon Stock Assessment of Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries of the Brazil-Guiana Shelf,Belem, Brazil, 25 May–9 June, 1999. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 628: 138–148.Amos M. 1990. A study of Type III shrimp trawling in the Gulf of Paria. AdvancedDiploma in Resources Management and Environmental Studies. University of theWest Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados.Anonymous. 1948. Administration report of the Director of Agriculture for the year1947. Port of Spain.Anonymous. 1958. A reconnaissance agricultural and fisheries survey of the easterncounties of Trinidad and East Victoria. Report of the team which visited Trinidadin July 1957. Bulletin of Development and Welfare in the West Indies. No. 38.Reproduced by the National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago. Port of Spain,Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies.Boodoosingh M. 1995. Community Survey. Summ. Rep. FAO/UNDP ProjectINT/91/007 Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and MarineResources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Brown H.H. 1942. The sea fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago. Development andWelfare Bulletin No. 2.

350Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanBrown K., Adger N., Tompkins E., Bacon P., Shim D. & Young K. 1998. A frameworkfor incorporating stakeholder participation in Marine Resource Management: A casestudy in Tobago. Global environmental change working paper 98–23. Centre forSocial and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), Universityof East Anglia: Norwich, United Kingdom.Brown K., Adger N., Tompkins E., Bacon P., Shim D. & Young K. 1999. Evaluatingthe trade-offs between users of marine protected areas in the Caribbean. Summaryof the final technical report to DFID NRSP land-water interface programme.O.D.G. Working Paper. Overseas Development Group, School of DevelopmentStudies Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment(CSERGE), University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.Camps-Campins K. 1995. Household survey. Summary report. FAO/UNDP ProjectINT/91/007. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and MarineResources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Chan A. Shing C. 1993. The status of shark resources in Trinidad and Tobago. FisheriesDivision Internal Report No. 2. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Landand Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Chan A. Shing C. 1999a. Report on 1998 census of fishing vessels (Trinidad). FisheriesInternal Report No. 3. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and MarineResources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Chan A. Shing C. 1999b. Shark fisheries in the Caribbean: The status of theirmanagement including issues of concern in Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana andDominica. In Case studies of the management of elasmobranch fisheries. Edited byR. Shotton. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 378, Part 1. Rome, FAO.Chan A. Shing C. 2002. Atlas: Marine fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago. Part I:Trinidad Inshore Fisheries. Fisheries information series 10. Fisheries Division,Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad andTobago.Dass. 1983. Some aspects of the biology of the lane snapper Lutjanus synagris(Linnaeus, 1758) in Trinidad. IMA Res. Rep. No.12/83. Institute of Marine Affairs.Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Dié D., Alió J.J., Marcano L., Ferreira L. & Soomai S. 2004. Assessment of demersalstocks shared by Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela. Stock assessment report of theTrinidad and Tobago–Venezuela Meeting under the FAO/Western Central AtlanticFishery Commission ad hoc Working Group on the Shrimp and GroundfishResources of the Guiana-Brazil Shelf. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago, 18–22November 2002. DRAFT.FAO. 2006. Fisheries Country Profiles [online document] www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/TTO/profile.htm. Retrieved on 21 November 2006.Ferreira L. 1998. Economic analysis of the shrimp trawl fishery of Trinidad andTobago with management implications. Thesis: Dalhousie University, Halifax,Nova Scotia, Canada.

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 351Ferreira L. 2002. Social and economic assessment of the Eastern Caribbean flyingfishfisheries: a regional perspective. In FAO/Western Central Atlantic FisheryCommission. Report of the second meeting of the WECAFC Ad Hoc FlyingfishWorking Group of the Eastern Caribbean. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 670: 146-156.Ferreira L. 2003. National Report of Trinidad and Tobago. Prepared for the CFU/FAO Fisheries Statistics and Data Management Workshop. 10–22 March 2003.University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados.Ferreira L. & Maharaj L. 1993. Preliminary costs and earnings study of the artisanalshrimp trawlers operating in the “Special Fishing Area” adjacent to the mouth of theOrinoco River (Venezuela). Technical Report.Ferreira L. & Medley P. 2007. The shrimp fisheries shared by Trinidad and Tobagoand Venezuela. In CRFM, 2007. Annual Scientific Meeting Report – 2006.Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincent and theGrenadines. 1: 190-208.Ferreira L. & Soomai S. 2001. Trinidad and Tobago shrimp and groundfishfisheries. In FAO/Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, Regional Reviewsand National Management Reports. Fourth Workshop on the Assessment andManagement of Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries on the Brazil-Guiana Shelf.Cumaná, Venezuela; 2–13 October 2000. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 651: 105–114.Fish and Fish Processing Industry Team. 2005. Strategic Plan for the Developmentof the Fish and Fish Processing Industry in Trinidad and Tobago. Prepared underthe Standing Committee on Business Development of the Government of Trinidadand Tobago.Fisheries Division. 1997. Agreement to promote the sustainable management andoptimal utilization of the inshore fisheries resources on the north and south coastsof Trinidad and in the Gulf of Paria. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture,Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Fisheries Division. 2003. 2001/2002 Annual Report: Monitoring and AdvisoryCommittee on the Fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago. Fisheries Division, Ministry ofAgriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Fisheries Division. 2004. Development Programme 2004–2005. Fisheries Division,Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad andTobago.Fisheries Division. 2007a. Chapter 7. Fisheries and Aquaculture. In First Compendiumof Environmental Statistics. Trinidad and Tobago. Port of Spain (Trinidad andTobago): Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Planning and Development.Fisheries Division. 2007b. A draft policy for the fisheries sector of Trinidad andTobago. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources.Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.Henry C. 1987. Aspects of the reproductive biology of the honey shrimp/seabobXiphopenaeus kroyeri (Heller) in the Gulf of Paria. Fisheries Division, Ministryof Food Production, Marine Exploration, Forestry and the Environment. Port ofSpain, Trinidad and Tobago.

352Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanHenry C. & Martin L. 1992. Preliminary stock assessment for the carite fishery ofTrinidad. Technical Report of the Project for the Establishment of Data CollectionSystems and Assessment of the Fisheries Resources. FAO/UNDP:TRI/91/001/TR10. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources.Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Hodgkinson-Clarke F.M. 1994. The construction and operation of artisanal gillnets inTrinidad. Occasional Paper Series No. 3, Fisheries Division. Ministry of Agriculture,Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Hutchinson S.D., Seepersad G., Singh R. & Rankine L. 2007. Study on thesocio-economic importance of bycatch in the demersal trawl fishery for shrimpin Trinidad and Tobago. Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension,Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of the West Indies. St. Augustine,Trinidad, Trinidad and Tobago.Institute of Marine Affairs. 1994a. The formulation of a management plan for theBuccoo Reef Marine Park: IMA/THA Coral Reef Project Phase II, Volume IV:Socio-economic aspects. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Institute of Marine Affairs. 1994b. The formulation of a management plan for theBuccoo Reef Marine Park: IMA/THA Coral Reef Project Phase II, Volume V:Public Education and Awareness. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Institute of Marine Research. 1989. Final report: Surveys of the fish resources in theshelf area between Suriname and Colombia 1988. The Institute of Marine Research,Bergen, Norway.Jobity A., Kuruvilla S., Amos M. & Ferreira L. 1997. National report on the shrimpand groundfish fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago. In National report and selectedpapers presented at the Fourth Meeting of the WECAFC ad hoc Shrimp andGroundfish Working Group of the Guiana-Brazil Continental Shelf and CFRAMPShrimp and Groundfish Subproject Specification Workshop. Port of Spain, Trinidadand Tobago, 8–12 January 1996. FAO Fisheries Paper. No. 544 (Suppl.): 62–95.Julien M., Salter P. & Sturm M. 1984. Studies on the mackerel fishery of Trinidad. PartII: A preliminary report on mortality and recruitment of the carite Scomberomorusbrasiliensis (Collette, Russo and Zavala–Camin) in Trinidad. IMA Res. Rep.IMA/1/84.Kenny J.S. 1955. Statistics of the Port of Spain wholesale fish market. Journal of theAgricultural Society, June issue: 3–8.Kenny J.S. 1960. Some notes on the standardization of fishery statistics with anoutline of the system used in Trinidad and Tobago. Fisheries Division, Ministry ofAgriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Kenny J.S. & Lagois D.E. 1961. Availability of fish in Trinidad waters in 1960. WestIndies Fisheries Bulletin, 3: 14 p.Kishore R. & Clarke-Marshall M. 2005. An investigation of the fisheries resources,resource users and fisheries management by communities to establish a frameworkfor co-management: Manzanilla to Guayaguayare, east coast Trinidad. Institute ofMarine Affairs. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 353Kishore R., Ramsundar H. & Clarke-Marshall M. 2005. Development of a fisheriesco-management framework. Community-based coastal resource management: Acase study of fishing communities from Ortoire to Guayaguayare. Institute ofMarine Affairs. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Kuruvilla S., Chan C. & Shing A. 2002. Globalization, international trade and marinefisheries: Case study of the trawl fishery in Trinidad and Tobago. Fisheries Division,Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad andTobago.Kuruvilla S., Ferreira L. & Soomai S. 2000. The trawl fishery of Trinidad and Tobago.Fisheries Information Series No. 9. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture,Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Kuruvilla S., Chan C., Shing A., Ferreira L., Martin L., Soomai S., Lalla H.& Jacque A. 2002. Study on subsidies in the fisheries sector of Trinidad andTobago. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources.Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Lum Young P., Ferreira L. & Maharaj L. 1992. Preliminary stock assessment for theshallow water shrimp trawl fishery in the “Special Fishing Area” adjacent to themouth of the Orinoco River (Venezuela). Technical report of the project for theEstablishment of Data Collection Systems and Assessment of the Fisheries Resources.FAO/UNDP: TRI/91/001/TR9. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Landand Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Maharaj L., Ferreira L. & Lum Young P. 1993. Description of the shrimp trawlfishery of Trinidad. Technical Report of the project for the Establishment ofData Collection Systems and Assessment of Fisheries Resources. FAO/UNDP:TRI/91/001/TR5. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and MarineResources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Maharaj R. & Rivas M.A. 1997. Agreement between the Government of the Republicof Trinidad and Tobago and the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuelafor Cooperation in the Fisheries Sector.Maharaj V. 1989. The bycatch in the artisanal shrimp trawl fishery, Gulf of Paria,Trinidad. Master of Science Thesis in Fisheries Aquaculture and Pathology.University of Rhode Island, United States.Maingot J. & Manickchand-Heileman S. 1987. Yield-per-recruit analysis of the lanesnapper Lutjanus synagris (Linneus, 1758) in Trinidad, West Indies. Institute ofMarine Affairs. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Manickchand-Dass S. 1987. Reproduction, age and growth of the lane snapper Lutjanussynagris (Linnaeus), in Trinidad, West Indies. Bull. Mar. Sci., 40 (1): 22–28.Manickchand-Dass S. & Julien M. 1983. Species composition, seasonality andreproductive activity of a demersal fish stock in Trinidad, West Indies. IMA Res.Rep. No.15/83. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Manickchand-Heileman S. & Kenny J. 1990a. Studies on the biology of thewhitemouth croaker Micropogonias furnieri (Demerast 1823) in Trinidad, WestIndies. Fish. Bull., 88: 529-533.

354Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanManickchand-Heileman S. & Kenny J. 1990b. Reproduction, age and growth of thewhitemouth croaker Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest 1823) in Trinidad waters.Fish. Bull., 88 (Suppl. 3): 523-529.Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1992a. Preliminary stock assessment for thefish pot fishery of Tobago. Technical Report of the Project for the Establishment ofData Collection Systems and Assessment of the Fisheries Resources. FAO/UNDP:TRI/91/001/TR12. July 1992. Port of Spain, Trinidad.Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1992b. Resource assessment profiles of thered snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens),yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus), yellowmouth grouper(Mycteroperca interstitialis) and grunt (Haemulon melanurum). Tech. Rep. Proj.FAO/UNDP/TRI/91/001/TR04. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1999a. Description and status of the snapper/grouper fishery of Trinidad and Tobago. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 45: 189–204.Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1996. Reproduction, age and growth of theCaribbean red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus) in waters off Trinidad and Tobago.In Biology, fisheries and culture of tropical groupers and snappers. Edited byF. Arreguín-Sánchez, J.L. Munro, M.C. Balgos and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc.48, Manila, pp. 137–149.Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1999. Contribution to the biology of thevermillion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens. Env. Biol. Fish., 55: 413–421.Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 2000. Age and growth of the yellowedgegrouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus, and the yellowmouth grouper, Mycteropercainterstitialis, off Trinidad and Tobago. Fish. Bull., 98 (Suppl. 2): 290–298.Manickchand-Heileman S., Mendoza-Hill J., Lum Kong A. & Arocha F. 2004. Atrophic model for exploring possible ecosystem impacts of fishing in the Gulf ofParia, between Venezuela and Trinidad. Ecol. Model., 172: 307-322.Martin L. & Dié D. 2008. Assessment of the king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)fishery of Trinidad and Tobago. In CRFM, 2008. Annual Scientific Meeting Report– 2007. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincentand the Grenadines (in press).Martin L. & Hoggarth D. 2007. The king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) fisheryof Trinidad and Tobago. In CRFM, 2007. Annual Scientific Meeting Report – 2006.Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincent and theGrenadines. (1): 235-265.Martin L. & Nowlis J.S. 2004. Surplus production model of Serra Spanish mackerel(Scomberomorus brasiliensis). Report of the First Annual CRFM (CaribbeanRegional Fisheries Mechanism) Scientific Meeting, 28–30 June 2004. St. Vincent andthe Grenadines.Medley P. & Ferreira L. 2004. Preliminary assessment of the Farfantepenaeus notialisand Xiphopenaeus kroyeri stocks in the Trinidad and Tobago trawl fishery. Reportof the First Annual CRFM (Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism) ScientificMeeting, 28–30 June 2004. St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 355Mike A.J. 1993. A survey of the recreational/part-time fishery of the north-westpeninsula of Trinidad. Master of Science Thesis. University of Hull, UnitedKingdom.Ministry of Food Production and Marine Resources, Fisheries Division and theMonitoring and Advisory Committee on the Fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago.2001. Report: Management regulations for the gillnet fishery of Trinidad andTobago.Mohammed E. 1995. Secondary data (Rural Profiles) for the Orange Valley and Otaheiteregions. Summary report of the FAO/UNDP Project INT/91/007 IntegratedCoastal Fisheries Management. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Landand Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Mohammed F. 2000 Progress report on the fish trap fishery of Trinidad. FisheriesDivision, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas,Trinidad and Tobago.Mohammed E. & C. Chan A. Shing. 2003. Trinidad and Tobago: Preliminaryreconstruction of fisheries catches and fishing effort, 1908–2002. In From Mexicoto Brazil: Central Atlantic Fisheries Catch Trends and Ecosystem Models. Editedby D. Zeller, S. Booth, E. Mohammed, and D. Pauly, D. Fisheries Centre ResearchReports, 11(6): 117–132.Moore-Miggins and Company (Trinidad and Tobago) and Scales Consulting Ltd(United Kingdom). 2006. Report on the September 2006 Stakeholder Consultations.Submitted to the Fisheries Division based on the agreement relating to consultancyservices for the expedition of the revision and finalization of the Draft MarineFisheries Management Act and Drafting of Regulations for the Ministry ofAgriculture, Land and Marine Resources.Parkinson K. 1992. Production costs and revenues for the gillnet fishery of Trinidad,1991. Fisheries Division Occasional Paper Series No. 1. Fisheries Division, Ministryof Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Picou-Gill M. 2003. Report on Institutional Building Conference. 29–30 September2003. CARICOM Regional Fisheries Mechanism. Georgetown, Guyana.Potts A.C., Thomas A.D. & Nichols E. 2002. An economic and social assessment ofthe flyingfish (pelagic) fishery of Trinidad and Tobago. In FAO/Western CentralAtlantic Fishery Commission. Report of the second meeting of the WECAFC AdHoc Flyingfish Working Group of the Eastern Caribbean. Bridgetown, Barbados.8–12 January 2001. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 670: 133-145.Samlalsingh S. & Pandohee E. 1992. Preliminary stock assessment for the flyingfishfishery of Tobago. Technical Report of the Project for the Establishment of DataCollection Systems and Assessment of the Fisheries Resources. FAO/UNDP:TRI/91/001/TR11. July 1992. Port of Spain, Trinidad.Seijo J.C., Ferreira L., Alió J. & Marcano L. 2000. Bio-economics of shrimp fisheriesof the Brazil-Guyana shelf: dealing with seasonality, risk and uncertainty. In FAO/Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission. Report of the third Workshop onthe Assessment of Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries on the Brazil-Guianas Shelf.Belém, Brazil, 24 May–10 June 1999. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 628: 173–185.

356Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanSoomai S. & Porch C. 2007. The lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) fishery ofTrinidad and Tobago. In CRFM, 2007. Annual Scientific Meeting Report – 2006.Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincent and theGrenadines. (1): 219–232Soomai S. & Seijo J.C. 2000. Case study for a technologically interdependentgroundfish fishery: the artisanal multispecies, multifleet groundfish fishery ofTrinidad. Fourth FAO/WECAFC Stock Assessment and Management Workshopon the Shrimp and Groundfish Resources of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf, Cumana,Venezuela, 2–13 October 2000.Soomai S., Ehrhardt N., Cochrane K. & Phillip T. 1999. Stock assessment of twosciaenid fisheries in the west coast of Trinidad and Tobago. In Report of the thirdCFRAMP/FAO/Stock Assessment Workshop on the Shrimp and GroundfishResources of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf, Belem, Brazil, 25 May–9 June, 1999. FAOFisheries Report. No. 628: 124–137.Sturm M.G. de L. 1974. Aspects of the biology of the Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorusmaculatus (Mitchill) in Trinidad, West Indies. Ph.D Thesis. University of the WestIndies. St. Augustine, Trinidad.Sturm M.G. de L. 1978. Aspects of the biology of Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill)in Trinidad. J. Fish. Biol., 13: 157-172.Sturm M.G. de L. & Julien-Flus M. 1983. Studies of the mackerel fishery of Trinidad.Part 1: the present status of the mackerel fishery. IMA Res. Rep. Institute of MarineAffairs. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.Sturm M.G. de L. & Salter P. 1990. Age and reproduction of the king mackerel,Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier) in Trinidad waters. US Fish. Bull., 88: 361–370.Sturm M.G. de L., Julien-Flus M. & Maingot J. 1987. Yield-per-recruit analysis ofthe mackerel fishery in Trinidad. Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst., 38: 547–554.University of the West Indies. 2006. Draft Report on Fisheries Public Consultationconducted during the period May to August 2006. Submitted to the FisheriesDivision based on the agreement relating to consultancy services for the developmentof a marine fisheries policy for the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and MarineResources. Business Development Office, University of the West Indies, St.Augustine, Trinidad.Vidaeus L. 1970. An inventory of the Trinidad and Tobago Fishing Industry. Reportof the UNDP/FAO Caribbean Fishery Development Project. SF/CAR/REG/16M 7:2.Walker T.I. 1992. Trinidad and Tobago shark stock assessment. Mission Report. FAO,Rome, Italy.

35713. Coastal fisheries of UruguayOMAR DEFEO * , PABLO PUIG, SEBASTIÁN HORTA AND ANITA DE ÁLAVADefeo, O., Puig, P., Horta, S. and de Álava, A. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Uruguay. In S. Salas,R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and theCaribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 357–384.1. Introduction 3572. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 3582.1 Introduction 3582.2 Historical fishery phases in Uruguay 3602.3 Definition of a coastal fishery 3632.4 Description of artisanal fisheries 3643. Assessment of fisheries 3673.1 Methodological framework 3673.2 Fishes 3683.3 Invertebrates: crustaceans and molluscs 3744. Fishery management and planning 3765. Issues and challenges 377Acknowledgements 379References 3801. INTRODUCTIONUruguay is a country approximately 176 000 km2, with a population of over3.2 million. It is the second smallest country in South America, and is locatedbetween Argentina and Brazil and borders the Río de la Plata estuary andthe South Atlantic Ocean. The terrain is mostly plains and low hills, with718 kilometres of coastline. The capital, Montevideo, is located on the coast andutilizes its natural harbour to act as an important commercial centre. The countryis highly urbanized, with more than 92% of Uruguayans living in urban areas.Uruguay is divided up into 19 departments, which are political divisionswith their own administrator elected by popular vote. The Uruguayan fisheriessector contributes significantly to the country’s gross national product (GNP),representing more than US$160 million per year in export earnings derivedfrom catches reaching up to 140 000 tonnes. There are six departments which* Contact information: UNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias and DINARA. Montevideo, Uruguay.E-mail: odefeo@dinara.gub.uy

358Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanparticipate in coastal fisheries: Colonia, San José, Montevideo, Canelones, Rochaand Maldonado. Uruguayan ecosystems where fisheries are developed are mainlyincluded within the Uruguay-Buenos Aires shelf ecoregion, which has beenassigned with the highest rank of conservation importance in Latin America andthe Caribbean (Sullivan and Bustamante, 1999).In this chapter, we provide an overview of coastal fisheries in Uruguay. First,we describe the temporal extractive phases experienced by Uruguayan fisheries,and the corresponding socio-economic and managerial scenarios. Second, wedefine artisanal and coastal fisheries and the methodological implications whenaddressing them for Uruguay. Third, we assess the role of coastal artisanal fisherieswithin the global activity of the fishing sector, in terms of temporal variations inglobal catch, fleet composition and number of fishers. These fishery descriptorsare compared with those obtained for the industrial subsector. We also addressseveral bio-socio-economic indicators to characterize the status of the mostimportant coastal fisheries in the country. Last, we discuss management and policyalternatives directed to improve the situation of artisanal fisheries.2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY2.1 IntroductionThe Uruguayan Plan for Fisheries Development began in the early 1970s. In 1973,the signature of the ‘Tratado del Río de la Plata y su Frente Marítimo’ with Argentinaallowed the industrial fishing fleet of Uruguay to have access to shared resourcesin the Uruguayan-Argentinian Common Fishing Zone (UACFZ) extendedbetween 34º south latitude and 39º30' south latitude (Figure 1). In 1975, a legaland institutional framework was established, which facilitated the development ofthe sector through a policy that privileges the promotion of exportations throughincentives and credits. An assessment of the sector (INFOPESCA, 2001) revealedthat the three most important fish resources targeted by the industrial fleet (hake,white croaker and stripped weakfish) showed signs of overexploitation. In a laterstudy (Milessi et al., 2005), the application of a multispecies approach (60 stocksconsidered) showed declines in: (i) total landings; (ii) the Mean Trophic Level inmajor trophic webs; and (iii) the Fishing-in-Balance index (FishBase, 2008) ofUruguayan landings between 1990 and 2001. These results can be considered assurrogate indicators of impact and quality of marine ecosystems.The above concerns have been widely documented in Uruguayan industrialfisheries, as in many parts of the world (Botsford et al., 1997; Pauly et al., 2002;Myers and Worm, 2003). However, small-scale artisanal fisheries constitute asecond component for this world fishery crisis, normally ignored or erroneouslylumped into the industrial component (Castilla and Defeo, 2005). In the past,proximate causes of fishery overexploitation and potential (but ineffective)solutions, already documented for industrial fisheries, have ignored this artisanalsubsector. This overemphasis on industrial fisheries also occurred in Uruguay,from the very beginning of the Fishing Plan developed in the 1970s.

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 359FIGURE 1Study area comprising the 7 nm from the coast along the Río de la Plata and AtlanticOcean waters. The Uruguayan-Argentinian Common Fishing Zone (UACFZ) and theUruguayan exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are also shownCoastal fisheries in Uruguay are mostly artisanal in scale and provide abroad range of services important to human socio-economic development inthe country’s coastal areas (INFOPESCA, 2001; Puig, 2006; Pin et al., 2006).Pressure on the country’s artisanal fisheries appear to be continuously growingdue to new entries into the sector; a trend that can be attributable to relativelyhigh unemployment rates, coupled with low investment and operating costs, andeasy access to stocks even under diminishing catch rates and economic returns.The above concepts take utmost importance when considering that some coastalecosystems of Uruguay constitute essential habitats that include spawning andnursery grounds for the most important exploited species in Uruguay (Norbiset al., 2006; Retta et al., 2006), notably the white croaker (Micropogonias furnieri)and the stripped weakfish (Cynoscion guatucupa), which together represented

360Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanalmost 40% of total Uruguayan catches for the period 2001–2003. These coastalecosystems are especially labile because they support important artisanal fisheriesof these species in the country. Moreover, coastal lagoons and river mouths alongthe coastline constitute nursery grounds for several species artisanally targetedby fisher communities. Additionally, Atlantic rocky (e.g. Isla de Lobos and IslaGorriti) and subtidal soft bottoms support coastal invertebrate fisheries (artisanalor ‘medium-scale’ industrial) of increasing economic value that are fully exploited(blue mussel) or under high risks of overexploitation (clams, gastropods: see Rey,2000), some of them with important discarding rates (Rey et al., 2000) and underan open access system.2.2 Historical fishery phases in UruguayThe historical analysis of the Uruguayan fishing sector revealed three exploitationphases to describe long-term landing patterns: development, expansive andoverexploitation-diversification.(1) The development phase extended approximately between the late 1960s and thesecond half of the 1970s. It was characterized by relatively low and constantlandings. The fisheries operated primarily under open access regimes and theproducts were mostly channelled to domestic markets. There were no majorforeign market openings. Incipient, although not reliable, statistical coverageof fishery activity was set (Defeo, 1989). Absence of information was notonly restricted to this phase: it actually prevails in some non-traditionallyUruguayan fisheries subject to increasing effort levels.(2) The expansive extraction phase occurred during the second half of the 1970sand early 1980s as a result of the Fishery Development Plan carried out byUruguay with the support of FAO. This period included the development ofthe industrial fishing fleet, port infrastructure and the concomitant increaseof the processing sector. Uruguayan landings increased sixfold between 1975and 1981 (Figure 2a), as a result of increasing demand from foreign markets(e.g. Asia, United States of America) and the steady increase in the unitprices of fishery products. Landings were mainly based on three demersalfishes exploited by the industrial fleet: hake (Merluccius hubbsi), croaker(Micropogonias furnieri) and the stripped weakfish (Cynoscion guatucupa).Improvements in fishery technology and government credits stimulatedfishery activities (INFOPESCA, 2001). During this phase, employment rates,income and welfare for the sector exponentially increased. The representationof the fishery sector in the national economy increased from 0.13% of the grossnational product in 1975 to 0.61% in 1985, constituting the highest incrementof a given sector in the national economy during the 1980s. The Uruguayanfishing industry was mainly directed to export markets. This phenomenonpersists today: the domestic market constitutes only approximately 5% asa result of the relatively high prices of fish products when compared withtraditional products for domestic consumption such as meat. Even though not

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 361all the stocks are subject to external market forces (export), the foreign marketconstitutes an important driving force in fishery operations in Uruguay. Thisexpansive phase was somewhat stabilized in the mid-1980s (Figure 2a) whenmanagement measures were implemented in the three stocks mentioned above,which reached their respective maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels.(3) The overexploitation-diversification phase began in the second half of the1980s, but gained intensity during the 1990s. Two concurrent phenomenaoccurred during this phase (Figure 2): (i) the most traditionally exploitedfish stocks displayed a decreasing trend in catches and fishing yield and alsoshowed signs of overexploitation, which were evident from the early 1990sonwards and which persist today (Figure 2a); and (ii) new fisheries basedon virgin or underexploited stocks and also on incidental or bycatch species(Figure 2b) were developed. This did not imply a significant shift of the fishingeffort exerted on traditional demersal stocks; rather, a development of newfisheries based on virgin resources of high unit value and international demandoccurred (Milessi et al., 2005, and references therein).Not only traditional demersal resources were fully exploited or even overexploited.In several coastal artisanal fisheries the increase in unit prices, the lack of employmentand the open access regime stimulated short-term entry in these fisheries (Defeo,1989). The easy access to resources at open coasts makes regulatory efforts expensiveand ineffective, and signs of overexploitation were detected in species like the yellowclam (Mesodesma mactroides) (Castilla and Defeo, 2001) and in the blue mussel(Mytilus edulis platensis) (Defeo and Riestra, 2000).The diversification trend in fisheries, stimulated by government incentivesdirected to promote exportation of products from non-traditional species (Nion,1985), resulted in a marked increase in their relative representation in the totalcatch, especially between 1993 and 1999 (Figure 2b). Indeed, at the beginningof this time series, total landings were dominated by traditional demersal fishes(i.e. hake, white croaker), but this trend was reversed during the 1990s, withlandings of non-traditional fisheries representing more than 45% of total landings(Figure 2b) (see also Milessi et al., 2005). Consequently, total catches fluctuatedaround 130 000 tonnes, similar to amounts seen in the early 1980s. However,the more recent trend was the result of a combination of factors, includingthe overexploitation of traditional stocks and a steady rise in exploitation ofnon-traditional species. Furthermore, the increased pressure of non-traditionalresources compensated for the depletion of traditional species, hiding the issue ofoverexploitation and depletion of once abundant stocks.

362Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 2(a) Historical fishery landings of Uruguay, total and discriminated by traditional (hake,croaker and stripped weakfish) and non-traditional stocks. (b) Percentage of nontraditionalcatches for the period 1985–2003The diversification of fisheries was, in some cases, accompanied bymultidisciplinary scientific research, ranging from the basic biology of the speciesto economic analyses directed to assess the potential socio-economic benefits of theactivity (Defeo et al., 1994; Gutiérrez and Defeo, 2003). However, in most cases,the absence of studies about life history traits, demography, and the dynamics ofstocks and the fishery leads to weak management schemes. The impressive increasein fishing power of industrial vessels that occurred over the last two decadesdetermined progressive and yet unmeasured changes in catchability, which is alsosubject to variations in fishing intensity and stock biomass. These interactionshave resulted in a poor ability to calibrate fishing effort, and hence have added tothe difficulty and uncertainty associated with estimating this variable in the longterm (Milessi and Defeo, 2002).

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 363In Uruguay, the overexploitation trend in non-traditional resources occurredduring the diversification phase, a pattern that was supported by stock assessmentsand percentage of total catch (Figure 2b). In this sense, a sequential depletion pattern,already observed for Alaskan crustaceans throughout this century (Orensanz et al.,1998), was also detected in the lapse of only two decades. The depletion of formerlytargeted species determined a shift onto formerly low-value species or newlydeveloped fisheries, thus shortening the temporal distance between fishery phases.This phenomenon is actually occurring in the coastal multispecific fishery of thegastropods (Pachycymbiola brasiliana, Adelomelon beckii and Zidona dufresnei)(Riestra and Fabiano, 2000).2.3 Definition of a coastal fisheryIt is difficult to generalize on definitions embracing artisanal (often also calledsmall-scale) fisheries (Berkes et al., 2001; Castilla and Defeo, 2001). Artisanalfisheries are difficult to define unambiguously and the term tends to coverdifferent realities in different countries. For instance, in some developing countriesartisanal fisheries include hand-gathering in the intertidal or a one-man canoe,while 20-m trawlers, seiners or longliners are used in developed regions (Defeoand Castilla, 2005). Further, the subdivision between artisanal and industrialfisheries is not an internationally agreed concept. Definitions and associated dataare eventually found in selected national statistics using different criteria. This isone of the main reasons why FAO, through the Fishery Information, Data andStatistics Unit (FIDI), has never attempted to allocate systematically world catchesto one or other of the two categories. Here we define a Uruguayan artisanalfishery as an activity mainly operating in inshore coastal waters, aimed for saleand/or subsistence, by a single or small group of fishers that may or may not useboats. If boats are used, they are generally small (wooden or fibreglass boats) andequipped with oars, or outboard or inboard engines of less than 10 gross registertonnage (GRT). Fishing trips are normally run during the day, and activities areusually conducted at short distances from the base port, in the marine coastal zoneor in coastal lagoons. Intertidal hand-gathering fisheries in sandy beaches (surfclams) or rocky shores (blue mussel) are also included. It should be noted that in2003, the National Direction of Aquatic Resources (DINARA) did not allow theincorporation of artisanal vessels with a GRT greater than 3 (Decree-Law No.149/997) to the artisanal category; however, the figure of 10 GRT is kept here inorder to assess historical variations of the artisanal fishery.In order to circumscribe the term ‘coastal fishery’, the area analysed hereextended from the intertidal to seven miles offshore. In this setting, it is possible toassign an artisanal character to most coastal fishing activities developed within theseven-mile jurisdiction zone. This definition is also supported by administrativereasons, because the adjacent seven miles to the coast constitutes a fringe ofexclusive jurisdiction for the country included within the Territorial Sea definedunder the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the12 nautical mile zone from the baseline or low-water line along the coast. In this

364Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeancoastal area, Uruguay establishes spatial and temporal closures directed to protectaquatic resources, as well as the proper fishing gears to be used (Art. 37, Decree-Law No. 149/997). The analyses of coastal fisheries provided in this document givespecial emphasis to artisanal activities. However, in the case of sequential fisheries,where two fleets are spatially segregated (e.g. coastal artisanal and industrial inopen seas), different components of the life cycle of one or more species areaffecting the extent of these technological interdependencies (Seijo et al., 1998).2.4 Description of artisanal fisheriesArtisanal coastal fisheries in Uruguay are developed in continental waters (rivers),coastal lagoons, rocky and sandy shores, and in inshore coastal waters extendingfrom the intertidal to some seven miles offshore. Fishes from continental andmarine-estuarine waters dominate artisanal catches, even though invertebrates areincreasingly exploited. Coastal fishes are exploited by a fishing fleet with a GRTof less than 10 tonnes and 25 horsepower (hp) outboard engines, operating from48 small ports along the coast and using a wide variety of fishing gears that includegillnets, lines, hooks and traps. These fishing gears, as well as the main characteristicsof the fleet, have not been drastically altered during the last decades, with theexception of a very low number of vessels (approximately 15), with a GRT between3 and 10. Nowadays, artisanal vessels are less than 3 GRT (Puig, 2006).Extraction of intertidal or shallow subtidal invertebrates is done by fishers,who tend to operate individually under benign sea conditions at the intertidaland/or the near surf zone in these microtidal coasts using shovels or even byhand-picking. Divers operating from small artisanal boats, usually equipped withoutboard or inboard engines and ‘hookah’ air compressors, harvest subtidal bedsof blue mussels (Defeo and Riestra, 2000). They dive to maximum depths of 12 mand the extracted shellfish are sold to a middleman. A very small percentage ofthe catch is for self-subsistence. In the case of gastropods, the main activities areperformed by coastal bottom trawlers with a higher GRT than artisanal ones. Thefishery could be seen as sequential, even though artisanal fleet activities over thesestocks have been sporadic.Physiographic characteristics of the coast determine that the most importantcoastal fisheries are in fact sequential fisheries where adult stages are exploitedby the industrial fleet in open seas. Figure 3 categorizes all Uruguayan fisheriesaccording to their mechanization degree: (i) in case of marine fishes, artisanalfleets mostly operate on resources shared with industrial ones, defining sequentialfisheries; (ii) freshwater fishes from continental waters (not included in thisdocument) are exploited exclusively by artisanal fleets; and (iii) invertebrates areexploited by industrial (e.g. deep sea red crab) or artisanal (e.g. blue mussel andyellow clam fleets) and, in some cases, in a sequential form (e.g. gastropods). Incase (i), the management framework is even more complex because most of thesefisheries are shared with Argentina, as is the case in the most important coastalfisheries (i.e. white croaker and stripped weakfish).

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 365FIGURE 3Uruguayan fisheries by the mechanization degree of the fleets and by resource typeNumber of fisheries151050MarinefishesFreshwaterfishesInvertebratesIndustrial Artisanal SequentialThe artisanal fishery exhibits comparatively reduced extractive catches andsometimes competes with the industrial fishery. Catches from traditional industrialfisheries decreased from 1992 onwards because the three most importantindustrial fisheries achieved an upper ceiling close to their MSY (Figure 2a).The fairly constant catch levels for the period 1994–2003 have been achievedbecause of the exploitation of other stocks during the diversification phase.However, a decreasing trend is also noticed from the historical maximum close to140 000 tonnes in 1998. In contrast, the artisanal fishery remained fairly constant(3 000– 4 000 tonnes) during the same period (Figure 4a).The number of artisanal vessels has been, on average, more than six timeshigher than in the industrial subsector (Figure 4b). The number of industrialvessels registered between 1975 and 2003 has been close to 90, showing a slightincrease from 1997 to present, with a maximum of 116 in 2003 (last year analysed).On the other side, the number of artisanal vessels increased linearly from 1975(269) to 1996 (905). In the latter, DINARA updated the information of the fleet tothose with a GRT of less than 3, cancelling permits of those vessels which did notperform fishing activities during the last years or for a variety of other reasons.However, the number of artisanal vessels increased again from 1996 to 2003,reaching almost 600 vessels at the end of the analysed period (Figure 4b). It mustbe highlighted that fishers who carry out hand-gathering activities in the intertidal(e.g. almejeros) are not included here.Artisanal and industrial fisheries directly engage the same number of fishers:the industrial fleet registered an average of 1 538 fishers for the period 1997–2003,whereas the average of artisanal fishers has been close to 1 283 (Figure 4c). Bothsubsectors have shown an increase in the number of fishers through time, witha historical maximum of 1 782 (artisanal) and 1 400 (industrial) fishers for the

366Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanlast year of analysis (2003). Taking into account the catch volumes obtained byboth fleets, the mean catch per unit of employment generated has been almost30 times higher in the artisanal subsector, highlighting its critical socio-economicimportance in Uruguay.FIGURE 4Temporal variations in: (a) catch; (b) number of vessels; and (c) fishersin the artisanal () and industrial () fleets of Uruguay.Catch (tonnes per 1 000)Vessels160(a)1401201008060402001994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20031 000(b)800600400Recategorization20001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Fishers2 0001 5001 000(c) (c)50001997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Note: The number of stakeholders in related activities (e.g.processing plants) is not considered here.

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 3673. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES3.1 Methodological frameworkMost information was collected from the DINARA in Uruguay. The methodologicalapproach was based on the analysis of the following information (see alsoINFOPESCA, 2001): (i) surveys directed to assess the abundance and populationdynamics features of the stocks; (ii) commercial samplings; and (iii) fisherystatistics obtained from logdocuments. In order to assess the status of eachfishery, the following criteria were considered: (i) distributional patterns of stocks;(ii) mechanization degree of fleets; (iii) exploitation levels and stock status; (iv)definition of main taxonomic groups; and (v) assessment of scientific knowledgecoming from primary (databases) and secondary (scientific papers and informationfrom the private sector) sources. The main characteristics of these criteria could besummarized as follows:(i) Distributional patterns of stocks. In this document we considered the distributionalpatterns of coastal resources within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as wellas those shared with Argentina in the Río de la Plata or in adjacent waters of theUACFZ. Thus, species inhabiting international waters or those in continentalinner waters were left aside from this review unless explicitly stated otherwise.(ii) Mechanization degree of fishing fleets. We discriminated between artisanal andindustrial (mechanized) fisheries. In the case of sequential fisheries, we describedpotential technological interdependencies between them, including a spatial analysisof overlap areas between artisanal and industrial fisheries in the study area.(iii) Exploitation levels and stock status. We defined the status of the stocks inUruguayan waters as follows: (a) virgin or non-exploited; (b) underexploited;(c) underexploitation; (d) fully exploited; and (e) overexploited. Fisheryperformance indicators (e.g. bio-economic reference points: BRPs) containedin primary papers or reports were used to define the status of the stocks. Inthis context, precautionary approaches were operationalized by limit referencepoints (LRPs), such as the MSY, which represents conditions of immediateconcern to management; when MSY is achieved, complete cessation offishing, or curtailment of fishing effort to much lower levels, should occur(Caddy and Mahon, 1995). Thus, fully exploited stocks are defined as thoseexploited at levels close to some LRP. The term ‘underexploitation’ makesspecial allowance to exploited resources for which the lack of scientificinformation precludes the definition of a specific exploitation level. Whenquantitative information was lacking, the definition of stock status wasbased on judgements derived from technical assistance from scientists andmanagers. Decisions as to which indicator to choose, and what value of theindicator should correspond to an LRP, were chosen by analysis and/or bysessions between experts and stakeholders, reviewing past annual indicatorvalues from historical performance (Caddy and Defeo, 2003). Moreover,under a precautionary management scheme (Caddy and Mahon, 1995; FAO,1995; Caddy and Defeo, 2003), in data-poor situations we categorized thecorresponding fishery as it was in the immediate stage (in terms of increasingexploitation) to those judged by scientific experts.

368Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean(iv) Main taxonomic groups. We provide a broad categorization of stocks, asfollows: (a) fishes; and (b) benthic invertebrates (molluscs and crustaceans).The main reason underlying this classification is that differences in lifehistories generate different harvesting strategies (Orensanz and Jamieson,1998; Castilla and Defeo, 2001).(v) Scientific knowledge and information sources. Information for each species andfishery was classified as follows: (a) good quality; (b) out of date; (c) insufficient;(d) inadequate; (e) absent; and (f) variable according to site. In the latter, explicitallowance was made to the dissimilar amount of information collected according tothe location/area/habitat considered, particularly in species distributed over a widearea, which precludes obtaining feasible information all along the distributionalrange. Evaluation of the quality of the scientific information available for eachstock was done for the following issues: biomass, growth, reproduction, naturalmortality, fishing mortality, fishing effort (nominal and effective), catchabilitycoefficient, economic information, and existence of BRPs.3.2 FishesThe coastal artisanal fishing fleet targets species distributed in the Río de la Plata andAtlantic Ocean. The Río de la Plata can be divided into three zones (inner, middleand outer) with different hydrological characteristics. The main species exploited inthe inner and middle zones are streaked prochilod (Prochilodus lineatus), characin(Leporinus obtusidens), and catfishes (notably Pimelodus clarias). The two formerones comprise almost 50% of the total catches in the coasts of Uruguay. In theouter Río de la Plata and Atlantic coasts, the white croaker is the dominant speciesin the catches (Figure 5) and, together with stripped weakfish, represents almost40% of the total catch. Other exploited species are the Brazilian codling (Urophycisbrasiliensis) and various shark species (Mustelus schmitti, Galeorhinus galeus, Isurusoxyrhinchus and Lamna nasus).Table 1 summarizes the information about distribution, mechanization degreeand stock status of the main fishes exploited in the coastal zone of Uruguay.The historical analysis provided by more than 30 years of information show thatseveral stocks that were non-exploited or underexploited during the 1970s are nowoverexploited. This occurred during the last phase of fishery development depictedabove (Figure 2a). Some 90% of the stocks can be considered fully exploited oroverexploited and the remaining 10% virgin or underexploited. The fact that thereis no accurate scientific information about the status of important stocks exploitedin the inner and middle Río de la Plata (e.g. streaked prochilid, characin) is a majorcause of concern. Moreover, the most important marine stocks (white croaker andstripped weakfish), which are subject to a sequential exploitation by artisanal andindustrial fleets, are overexploited, especially the white croaker. Several stocks aredefined as ‘underexploitation’, suggesting a dangerous lack of scientific informationneeded to properly assess the status of the stocks. In the case of non-exploitedstocks, the absence of stock estimates opens a wide margin of uncertainty about thepossibility of sustainable development of these fisheries.

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 369FIGURE 5Main species captured by the artisanal fleet of Uruguay (%),also categorized by ecosystem inhabitTABLE 1Assessment of several coastal stocks exploited by the artisanal and industrial fleetsof Uruguay, based on indicators defined by the distributional extent, degree ofmechanization and phase of fishery development. RdlP: Río de la Plata;MF:Maritime Front; IW: international waters; CW: continental waters;Ind-Art: sequential fishery (industrial + artisanal)Common name Scientific name Distribution FleetDevelopmentphaseWhite croaker Micropogonias furnieri MF–RdlP–IW Ind-Art OverexploitedStripped weakfish Cynoscion guatucupa MF–RdlP–IW Ind-Art OverexploitedFlounder Paralichthys spp. MF Ind-Art OverexploitedSharksMustelus schmittiGaleorhinus galeusIsurus oxyrhinchusLamna nasusMF–IW Ind-Art OverexploitedBrazilian menhaden Brevoortia spp. MF–RdlP Ind-Art UnderexploitedWreckfish Polyprion americanus MF Ind-Art UnderexploitedSouthern eagle ray Myliobatis spp. MF–RdlP Ind-Art UnderexploitedMullet Mugil platalus MF–RdlP Ind-Art UnderexploitedLargehead hairtail Trichiurus lepturus MF Ind-Art Non-exploitedKing weakfish Macrodon ancylodon MF–RdlP Ind-Art UnderexploitedBrazilian codling Urophycis brasiliensis MF Ind-Art UnderexploitedStreaked prochlod Prochilodus lineatus RdlP–CW Artisanal UnderexploitedCharacin Leporinus obtusidens RdlP–CW Artisanal UnderexploitedCatfishLuciopimelodus patiPimelodus clariasRdlP–CW Artisanal UnderexploitedAdapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

370Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTable 2 summarizes bio-economic information of fish stocks, provided byprimary and secondary sources gathered for the last 30 years. The followingconclusions arise: (i) a relatively good scientific knowledge is found for the whitecroaker and stripped weakfish, but this knowledge is mainly based on informationprovided by stock assessment and statistical fishery information gathered for thearea of operation of the industrial fishery; (ii) estimates of biomass and BRPs arecircumscribed to these two stocks, and a notorious lack of information (qualityand quantity) is depicted for the remaining ones; (iii) the lack of scientificinformation precluded the implementation of solid management schemes; and(iv) no economic information (i.e. unit costs of effort, unit prices and returns) hasbeen included in the analysis of fisheries.TABLE 2Assessment of information available for the main coastal stocks exploited in Uruguay:fishes. Information quality: G: good; D: out of date; I: inadequate; R: insufficient;A: absent; VSS: variable according to the system analysed; M: natural mortality;F: fishing mortality; Nom: nominal effort; Ef: effective effort; q: catchability coefficient;BRPs: bio-economic reference points. See scientific names in Table 1Resource Biomass Growth ReproductionFishingMortalityeffortM F Nom Ef qEconomicsBRPsWhite croaker VSS G G I G G G I I GStrippedweakfishVSS G G I G G G I I GFlounder G G G I I I I I I ISharks G G G I I I I I I IBrazilianmenhadenD – I R-I I I I I I I I IWreckfish D – I R-I I I I I I I I ISoutherneagle rayD – I R-I I I I I I I I IMullet D – I R-I I I I I I I I ILargeheadhairtailI R-I I I I I I I I IKing weakfish D – I R-I I G I I I I I IBraziliancodlingStreakedprochilodD – I R-I I I I I I I I ID G G G G G G G A GCharacin D G G G G G D I A ICatfish I G G G G G D I A IAdapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 371White croaker and stripped weakfish: The above conclusions are of particularconcern for the most important marine stocks exploited in a sequential manner(white croaker and stripped weakfish). Information gathered for the whitecroaker shows that this stock is overexploited; judging from several assessmentsbased on different population dynamic models (Arena and Rey, 2000; Pin andDefeo, 2000; Rey and Arena, 2000). The stock is exploited by the Uruguayan andArgentinian industrial fleets in open seas, whereas the artisanal fleet of Uruguayexploits the stock at coastal zones, mainly in the middle and outer Río de la Plataand in Atlantic waters. Pre-adult stages are found in coastal waters (Puig andFontenla, 1993; Retta et al., 2006), even though the high selectivity of the fishinggears employed by the artisanal fleet minimizes the impact of the fishery on thispopulation component (Norbis and Verocai, 2001; Pin et al., 2006). In contrast,the trawling activities made by the industrial fleet not only affect the adult stages,but also the juvenile ones. Increments in fishing power of the trawling vesselsof Uruguay and Argentina have affected the stock, increasing the probability ofoverexploitation.The spatial dynamics of the fleet showed that the main fishing grounds forartisanal activities that target white croaker are mainly circumscribed to the middleand outer zones of Río de la Plata, representing, respectively, 71% and 52%of the artisanal catches (Figure 6). A daily analysis of the artisanal fleet carriedout between 2000 and 2004 showed a decreasing relative representation of thisimportant species from Río de la Plata to coastal waters in the Atlantic Ocean,where it represents only 7% of the catch. These results are important in evaluatingpotential conflicts between fleets. Indeed, to assess potential interactions betweenindustrial and artisanal fisheries in Uruguay, we evaluate bottom trawlingfishing effort at the adjacent zone of artisanal activities (Figure 7), expressed asthe number of trawls per vessel in a year (vessel/nm 2 /year). Daily fishing vesselactivities for 2004 were obtained from the official National Vessel MonitoringSystem programme developed by DINARA, with data filtered by trawl velocity(assumed between 3 to 4 knots). The colours denoting increasing indicator valuesof fishing intensity (from green to red), separated by cut-off values as in a TrafficLight Precautionary Management Framework (Caddy, 2002), show that mainpotential conflicts between fleets occurred in areas where the main catches ofwhite croaker are obtained by the artisanal fishery (orange and red in Figure 7).The heavily exploited fishing grounds where the industrial fleet operates couldimpact benthic habitats and communities, thus affecting the ecosystem as a wholeand generating a negative externality to the artisanal fleet.

372Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 6Spatial variation in annual mean catch (kg) and relative representation of whitecroaker catches obtained by the Uruguayan artisanal coastal fleet from 2000 to 2004.28 of the 48 artisanal fishery ports ( ) are shown as reference: 1- Arazatí;2- La Colorada; 3- Pajas Blancas; 4- Santa Catalina; 5- Cerro; 6- Punta Carretas; 7- Buceo;8- Malvín; 9- La Mulata; 10- Arroyo Carrasco; 11- Shangrilá; 12-Solymar;13- Arroyo Pando; 14- Atlántida; 15- Parque del Plata; 16- La Floresta; 17- Costa Azul;18- San Luis; 19- La Tuna; 20- Araminda; 21- Santa Lucía del Este; 22- Cuchilla Alta;23- Punta del Este; 24- Arroyo Maldonado; 25- Laguna de José Ignacio; 26- La Paloma;27- Barra de Valizas; 28-Punta del Diablo.The stripped weakfish occupies third place in Uruguayan landings, after thehake and the white croaker. Argentinian and Uruguayan catches have fluctuatedbetween 9 122 tonnes (1985) and 34 414 tonnes (1997), which makes it thesecond most important resource in the coastal trawling fishery. The resourceis overexploited (Arena and Gamarra, 2000; Table 1). A minimum landing andcommercialization size (27 cm total length), a prohibition of trawling nets incoastal waters for vessels higher than 10 GRT, and defined minimum net sizes forvessels of different categories were implemented. Studies show that it is neitherpossible nor recommendable to increase the fishing effort exerted intentionally orincidentally over this resource. Even though the industrial bottom trawling fisheryis the most important one, the fact that the stripped weakfish is not the targetspecies of any fleet and that it is captured by fleets of different characteristics andfishing power generates uncertainty in fisheries management. Also in this case, it isnecessary to integrate information coming from the artisanal and coastal trawlingfleets in order to develop solid management schemes.

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 373FIGURE 7Main 2004 bottom trawl zones quantified by number of vessels trawling/nm 2 /year,from trawl exclusion zone (lined area) to 12 nm. Data obtained from the NationalVessel Monitoring System (VMS) programme. The main artisanal fishery ports ( ) areshown: 1- Pajas Blancas; 2- Buceo; 3- San Luis; 4- Piriápolis; 5- Punta del Este;6- La Paloma. Colours denote increasing indicator values, separated by cut-off values,of fishing intensity (from green to red), as in a Traffic Light Precautionary ManagementFramework (Caddy, 2002)Other fishes: Many species that started being exploited during the last decade(i.e. the diversification fishery phase) have been subject to increasingly intensefishing effort (e.g. sole, Paralichthys spp.). These circumstances have causedoverexploitation in the medium term (Tables 1 and 2). Recent research conductedon non-traditional species show a decrease in the catch per unit effort (CPUE) andin the average size and age of exploitation, as well as a turnover effect of sequentialtarget species as a result of a decrease in fishery yields (Fabiano et al., 2000; Spinetti,2000). In all these cases, population dynamics of the stocks, as well as spatialdynamics of the fishing fleet, are unknown. This is especially important in otherspecies, such as the narrownose smooth-hound shark (Mustelus schmitti), which isendemic to the southwest Atlantic and which has been registered on the red list ofthreatened species as ‘Endangered’ (Massa et al., 2005). Indeed, the scarce scientificknowledge acquired has not been translated in effective management schemes toprevent the negative effects of fishing (see below). The lack of statistical informationderived from logdocuments is another negative factor common to many coastalfisheries, which underestimates catch volumes. This is especially noticeable forthe artisanal fleet.

374Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean3.3 Invertebrates: crustaceans and molluscsThe development of invertebrate fisheries was encouraged during the diversificationphase. Table 3 gives information about the invertebrates currently or potentiallyexploited in the coastal waters of Uruguay. Several benthic resources thatremained virgin in the 1980s and 1990s are currently fully exploited or sufferan imminent risk of overexploitation. This trend has also expanded to othernon-coastal species, such as the deep-sea red crab (Chaceon notialis) (Defeo andMasello, 2000), evidence that the issue goes beyond coastal fisheries. The situationis particularly worrying for the yellow clam fishery on sandy beaches, which hasbeen permanently closed to fishery activities during the last decade because ofthe occurrence of massive mortalities of unknown origin throughout the Atlanticcoast of South America (Fiori et al., 2004). The blue mussel is fully exploitedand managed with spatio-temporal restrictions of fishing effort and a minimumharvestable size limit (Defeo and Riestra, 2000).TABLE 3Assessment of several coastal stocks exploited by the artisanal and industrial fleetsof Uruguay, based on indicators defined by the distributional extent, degree ofmechanization and phase of fishery development: benthic invertebrates (crustaceans andmolluscs). UW: Uruguayan waters; IW: international waters; Ind-Art: sequential fishery(industrial + artisanal); UE: underexploitationCommon name Scientific name Distribution FleetDevelopmentphaseCrustaceansPink shrimp Farfantepenaeus paulensis UW and IW Artisanal UEBlue crab Callinectes sapidus UW Artisanal UEMole crab Emerita brasiliensis UW Artisanal Non-exploitedMolluscsYellow clam Mesodesma mactroides UW Artisanal OverexploitedErodona clam Erodona mactroides UW Artisanal UEHard shell clam Pitar rostratus UW Industrial UEPurple clam Amiantis purpurata UW Artisanal Non-exploitedBlue mussel Mytilus edulis platensis UW Artisanal UEWedge clam Donax hanleyanus UW Artisanal Non-exploitedBlack snail Pachycymbiola brasiliana UW Ind-Art UEAngulate volute Zidona dufresnei UW Ind UEGiant tun Tonna galea UW Ind UEPod mollusc Buccinanops cochlidium UW Artisanal Non-exploitedWhelk Stramonita haemastoma UW Ind-Art Non-exploitedAdapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 375The gastropods (Pachycymbiola brasiliana and Zidona dufresnei) have beenthe target of fishery development during the diversification phase, as the resultof the opening of new markets due to the depletion of similar stocks in otherparts of the word (Masello, 2000; Riestra and Fabiano, 2000). This is a typicalcase where fishing methods developed faster than the understanding of scientificknowledge, leading to a lack of strong management schemes. The resource becamefully exploited even before scientific knowledge was achieved, and scientificinformation is still insufficient to provide robust management guidelines (Riestraet al., 2000). It must be highlighted that the fishery is almost circumscribed totrawling vessels, and the impact of the artisanal fishery is very low.The scientific information on coastal invertebrate fisheries is qualitatively andquantitatively variable (Table 4). With the exception of the yellow clam and theblue mussel, no spatial management measures have been implemented, and biomassestimates are out of date or non-existent. The analysis of the spatial dynamics ofthe fishing fleet and the resource, a critical issue in coastal fisheries (Castilla andDefeo, 2001; Salas and Gaertner, 2004), has not been undertaken. This in turn hasprecluded the implementation of management areas.TABLE 4Assessment of information available for the main coastal stocks exploited in Uruguay:benthic invertebrates (crustaceans and molluscs). Information quality: G: good; D: out ofdate; I: inadequate; A: absent; VSS: variable according to the system analysed; M: naturalmortality; F: fishing mortality; Nom: nominal effort; Ef: effective effort; q: catchabilitycoefficient; BRPs: bio-economic reference points. See scientific names in Table 3Common name Biomass Growth ReproductionMortalityFishingeffortM F Nom Ef qEconomicsBRPsCrustaceansPink shrimp D I I A A A A A A ABlue crab A A A A A A A A A AMole crab G G G G A AMolluscsYellow clam G G G G G G G G G GErodona clam A A A A A A A A A AHard shell clam A A A A A A A A A APurple clam A A A A A A A A A ABlue mussel G G G G D G D A D DWedge clam G G I G A ABlack snail A A I A A I A A A IAngulate volute A A I A A I A A A IGiant tun A A A A A A A A A APod mollusc A A A A A A A A A AWhelk A A I A A A A A A AAdapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

376Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanNowadays there is scarce baseline information on few virgin resources thatcould withstand the development of small coastal artisanal fisheries, such as thewedge clam (Donax hanleyanus) and the sand crab (Emerita brasiliensis) in sandybeaches, and the pink clam (Amiantis purpurata) in the shallow sandy subtidal.For transient stocks artisanally exploited in coastal lagoons, as the penaeidshrimps (Farfantepenaeus spp.) and the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), the erraticoccurrence and high abundance fluctuations make them unpredictable to proposemanagement schemes for solid fishery development.4. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGArtisanal fisheries in Latin America are mostly open access regimes, and thusthe risks of overexploitation and dissipation of the economic rent are very high(Castilla and Defeo, 2001, 2005; Defeo and Castilla, 2005). They are also greatlyunregulated because of the underestimation of the societal role played by thissubsector, directly and indirectly engaging many more people per unit of fishlanded (fishers, co-workers, processing and commercialization sectors) than theindustrial fishery (Berkes et al., 2001; Defeo et al., 2007). Following the samepattern, many artisanal fisheries in Uruguay could be considered open access,with eventual operational management measures based on individual sizes andclosed seasons. Fishing intensity increased even under diminishing catch ratesbecause of low operating and opportunity costs of fishers. This could be theresponse of a weak or non-existent dialogue (last 20 years), including transfer ofknowledge between the national government and artisanal fishers, as well as alack of commitment among policy and decision-makers towards conservation andsustainable use issues.Artisanal coastal fisheries of Uruguay are continuously expanding, despitelongstanding policy support for industrialization of fisheries. This is most likelydue to its critical role as an economic buffer and safety valve for people movingin and out of the fisheries according to the opportunities in the national economy.These fisheries exhibit comparatively reduced catches and sometimes compete withthe industrial fishery (sequential fisheries). Several socio-economic factors, bothlocal and international, have aggravated the artisanal fishery situation in Uruguay,as in the rest of Latin America (Cabrera and Defeo, 2001; Castilla and Defeo,2001; DINARA, 2005). These are: (i) high unemployment rates, which favour themigration of people to coastal zones to work in artisanal fishery activities; (ii) lowoperative costs and easy access to coastal resources that justify an increase in fishingeffort even under low stock abundance levels; (iii) an increasing internationalmarket demand in unit prices, partly as a response to the depletion of similar stocksin Europe, the United States and Asia, which promoted an increase in fishing effortthat was not supported by sound science and management; (iv) weak managementschemes and inefficient enforcement of management measures, especially in thecoasts with easy access to stocks; (v) weak legislation schemes built on a top-downapproach that neglects the active participation of fishers under co-managementschemes; (vi) lack of knowledge, as most fishery systems still remain poorly

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 377understood regarding the linkages between the structure of the stock, its dynamicsand bio-economic features of the fishing process; and (vii) changes in local politicalconditions and a lack of a long-term policy for the subsector, which has generateduncertainty about future modifications of the management process, and in theresponse of fishers to regulations.In addition to the weaknesses mentioned above, the critical situation of theUruguayan artisanal subsector is also due to the lack of capacity and organization(Defeo, 1989, 1996; Amestoy, 1999; INFOPESCA, 2001; Puig, 2006, andreferences therein). Artisanal fisheries development programmes that served as abasis to the creation of Uruguayan cooperatives in the 1980s were initially wellstructured,involving the construction of cold-storage rooms. These rooms werean attempt to encourage independence of fishers from middlemen and offeredthem a higher negotiation power, as well as a place to store their products forthree or four months (INFOPESCA, 2001). However, these programmes failed,mainly because of the lack of specialization and qualification of fishers, as well astheir highly individualistic personalities that make it difficult to work together incooperative systems. The lack of organization determined that low prices are paidfrom middlemen systems. This is particularly important when the products arenot intended to satisfy the local markets, but are resold to middlemen or industrialprocessing plants that eventually export the products. These factors togetherundermine most fishermen cooperatives in Uruguay.Major conflicts between small-scale artisanal and large-scale industrial fisherieshave been occurring in different parts of the world, with resulting threats tofood security and local economies and, in some cases, ecosystem health (Berkeset al., 2001). This also happens in the study area, and these conflicts oftenresult in disadvantageous competition for the artisanal fleet for fishing groundsand resources. Industrial and artisanal Uruguayan fisheries usually competefor resources, notably the white croaker. Thus, management systems must bestrengthened in regards to species target of sequential fisheries. The industrialfleet that operates outside seven nautical miles catches approximately 80% of theresources shared with the artisanal fleet. It is essential to evaluate the evolution of thefishing power of all the fleets that take part in the fishery in order to develop robustmanagement schemes. The huge improvements of fishing power in industrial vesselshas compensated for nominal reductions in fishing effort, affecting the target speciesand any incidentally caught species, as well as the habitat. In addition, this cangenerate a de facto ‘legalized’ overexploitation scheme with ineffective operationalmanagement measures based on restrictions of catch, effort (i.e. global quotas,temporal closed seasons), and individual sizes (Milessi and Defeo, 2002).5. ISSUES AND CHALLENGESThe implementation of management schemes that explicitly take into accountthe different fleets acting in coastal stocks is a major challenge to be tackled inthe short term in Uruguay, because overexploitation risks are high and exclusionof one fleet could occur as a function of the magnitude of effort exerted by the

378Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeancompeting fleet. However, as industrial and artisanal fisheries operate on differentspatial and temporal scales and with diverse modus operandi, this implies theneed to use different drivers/priorities/governance and institutional arrangementsaccording to the characteristics of each fishery in order to solve overexploitationconcerns (Castilla and Defeo, 2005; Defeo and Castilla, 2005).Artisanal fishery information is inconsistent, weak, fragmented, inaccurateand unreliable. The easy access and dispersed nature of near-shore resources andlandings makes regulatory efforts expensive and ineffective and these areas areoften lacking in site-specific scientific information (Castilla and Defeo, 2001). Theincrease in catch volumes has historically contrasted with the rate of acquisitionof scientific information, which has generated weak management schemes. Mostof the world’s fishery science is devoted and applied to large stocks, and is seldomfeasible for small, artisanally exploited resources (Mahon, 1997; Castilla and Defeo,2005). If sophisticated stock assessment models are to be applied and managementstrategies, such as closures, are to be used, then the existence of significant gapsin scientific knowledge must be filled. In addition, determining the managementsystems that are most acceptable for resource users and most successful formanagers is essential (Defeo et al., 2007). These facts preclude the application ofsophisticated assessment models in these fisheries and call for a more simplistic,short-term approach, based on easy-to-use fishery indicators in a precautionarymanagement context, which would require strong collaboration among thescientific, management and fishing communities (Mahon, 1997; Johannes, 1998).Successful management of artisanal fisheries in Uruguay is a major challenge, butone of upmost importance.Operational management measures have not been useful in Uruguay(INFOPESCA, 2001), a phenomenon that has been verified worldwide (Caddyand Cochrane, 2001). In this context, marine protected areas (MPAs) have beensuggested as spatially explicit tools that could reduce deleterious effects of thefishery on coastal habitat and biodiversity (Caddy, 1999; Castilla and Defeo, 2001,2005; Manson and Die, 2001; Roberts et al., 2001; Pauly et al., 2002; Stergiou,2002; Caddy and Defeo, 2003). The MPAs could operate in a wide spectrumof spatio-temporal scales under different judgements and uses that range from‘no-take’ areas to management areas in which the sustainable use of the resourcesis planned (UICN, 1994; SANCOR, 1997). Given that many managementstrategies have failed in Uruguay, the MPAs arise as one of the few tools directedto protect species biomass, maintain biodiversity (including genetic biodiversity)and diminish the trend on the organisms’ size reduction and on their reproductivecapacity and success (Defeo et al., 2004). Another threat to the artisanal fisheryis the increasing environmental damage in Uruguayan coastal and continentalwaters as a result of different sources of anthropogenic activities. Cascadeecosystem effects have been observed in Uruguayan coastal systems that includethe exploited species, the sympatric fauna and the habitat (Defeo and de Álava,1995; Defeo, 1998). The existence of several anthropogenic impacts, together withthe absence of integrated management schemes, have affected the whole coast,

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 379including its biodiversity (Lercari and Defeo, 1999, 2003; Lercari et al., 2002;Muniz et al., 2002). This highlights the short-term need to implement integratedmanagement and conservation plans. Consequently, MPAs, if seen and used asmanaged areas, should enhance habitat restoration and biodiversity conservation,and will concurrently have a direct and positive socio-economic impact in theartisanal fishing communities (Castilla and Defeo, 2001).One of the main critical aspects that deserves utmost attention in the near futurein Uruguay is the implementation of strategic institutional structures (Charles,2001), defined as co-management, that include fishers in the decision-making andin the control and vigilance of the resources (Castilla and Defeo, 2001; Wilsonet al., 2003). Thus, the classic ‘top-down’ management scheme could be changedto one in which fishers, together with the management agency (DINARA),are co-responsible in the resource management, and that responsibility wouldbe institutionalized in the appropriate legal framework (Defeo and Pérez-Castañeda, 2003; Castilla and Defeo, 2005). This could be in conjunction withthe implementation of MPAs and the concession of territorial rights for fishing toorganized fishing communities. The effective inclusion of the fishers in institutionalmanagement schemes will constitute a positive element that will tend to avoid thefishery collapse in coastal resources of Uruguay. The successful example of Chileon the development of institutionalized co-management schemes with active stateparticipation of the artisanal fishing community in monitoring, enforcement andevaluation of management plans (Castilla, 1994; Castilla et al., 1998) could set thebasis for developing similar schemes in Uruguay.The above reflections could only be effectively set if implemented under a longtermsectorial policy that links biological, social and economic aspects. These longlastingactions are directed to rebuild populations to increase chances for successand to minimize future ecological, social and economic costs. This should relyon the introduction of efficient multiscale management regimes, effective socialpolicies and a close follow up of catch and stock status through sound science. Inthis setting, the Uruguayan government has begun to recognize the importance ofthe artisanal fishery subsector and it is currently developing the National Plan forthe Development and Management of Artisanal Fisheries (DINARA, 2005). Thisplan includes the development of a legal framework that will provide recognitionand support to the artisanal fisheries subsector, including fishers’ empowermentthrough the implementation of long-term co-management schemes.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe wish to express our gratitude to DINARA and the ‘Benthic Ecology Group’of the Marine Science Unit from the Faculty of Sciences (UNDECIMAR) forproviding valuable information and field and laboratory assistance. The editorsgave useful suggestions that improved the final manuscript. Financial supportfrom the National Council of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT)(Projects No. 1018 and 4034), PDT (Project S/C/OP/07/49 and Project UTF/URU/025/URU) is acknowledged. Part of this chapter is included in the M.Sc.thesis of S. Horta.

380Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanREFERENCESAmestoy F. 1999. Acuicultura y pesca continental en Uruguay. Informe TécnicoINAPE-PNUD, Montevideo.Arena G. & Gamarra M. 2000. Captura máxima sostenible de pescadilla. In Modelos deproducción excedente aplicados a los recursos corvina y pescadilla. Edited by M. Reyand G. Arena. Proyecto INAPE-PNUD URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 67–89.Arena G. & Rey M. (eds). 2000. Captura de grandes peces pelágicos (pez espaday atunes) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental, y su interacción con otras poblaciones.Proyecto INAPE-PNUD URU/92/003, Montevideo.Berkes F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R. & Pomeroy R. 2001. Managing smallscalefisheries. Alternative directions and methods. International DevelopmentResearch Centre, Ottawa, Canada.Botsford L.W., Castilla J.C. & Peterson C.H. 1997. The management of fisheries andmarine ecosystems. Science, 277: 509–515.Cabrera J.L. & Defeo O. 2001. Daily bio-economic analysis in a multispecific artisanalfishery in Yucatán, Mexico. Aquat. Living Resour., 14: 19–28.Caddy J.F. 1999. Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: will new paradigmsapply? Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 9: 1–43.Caddy J.F. 2002. Viewpoint: limit reference points, traffic lights, and holisticapproaches to fisheries management with minimal stock assessment input. Fish.Res., 56: 133–137.Caddy J.F. & Cochrane K.L. 2001. A review of fisheries management past and presentand some future perspectives for the third millennium. Ocean Coast. Manag., 44:653–682.Caddy J.F. & Defeo O. 2003. Enhancing or restoring the productivity of naturalpopulations of shellfish and other marine invertebrate resources. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper. No. 448. Rome, FAO.Caddy J.F. & Mahon R. 1995. Reference points to fisheries management. FAOFisheries Technical Paper. No. 347. Rome, FAO.Castilla J.C. 1994. The Chilean small-scale benthic shellfisheries and theinstitutionalization of new management practices. Ecol. Int. Bull., 21: 47–63.Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2001. Latin-American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis onco-management and experimental practices. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 11: 1–30.Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2005. Paradigm shift needed for world fisheries. Science, 309:1324–1325.Castilla J.C., Manríquez P., Alvarado J., Rosson A., Pino C., Espoz C., Soto R.,Oliva D. & Defeo O. 1998. The artisanal caletas as unit of production and basis forcommunity-based management of benthic invertebrates in Chile. Can. Spec. Publ.Fish. Aquat. Sci., 125: 407–413.Charles A. 2001. Sustainable fishery systems. Blackwell, London.Defeo O. 1989. Development and management of artisanal fishery for yellow clamMesodesma mactroides in Uruguay. Fishbyte, 7: 21–25.Defeo O. 1996. Experimental management of an exploited sandy beach bivalvepopulation. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat., 69: 605–614.

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 381Defeo O. 1998. Testing hypotheses on recruitment, growth and mortality in exploitedbivalves: an experimental perspective. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 125: 257–264.Defeo O. & Castilla J.C. 2005. More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keysfor co-management successes in selected artisanal Latin American shellfisheries.Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 15: 265–283.Defeo O. & de Álava A. 1995. Effects of human activities on long-term trends insandy beach populations: the wedge clam Donax hanleyanus in Uruguay. Mar. Ecol.Prog. Ser., 123: 73–82.Defeo O. & Masello A. 2000. La pesquería de cangrejo rojo Chaceon notialis en elUruguay: un enfoque de manejo precautorio (1995 y 1996). In Recursos pesquerosno tradicionales: moluscos, crustáceos y peces bentónicos marinos. Edited byM. Rey. Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 7–22.Defeo O. & Pérez Castañeda R. 2003. Misuse of marine protected areas for fisheriesmanagement: the case of Mexico. Fisheries, 28: 35–36.Defeo O. & Riestra G. 2000. El mejillón Mytilus edulis platensis en costas delDepartamento de Maldonado: propuesta para la ordenación de la pesquería. InRecursos pesqueros no tradicionales: moluscos bentónicos marinos. Edited byM. Rey. Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo. pp 58–72.Defeo O., Gómez M., Abdala J. & Medero R. 1994. Planificación de actividadespesqueras en base a recursos subexplotados de la Zona Común de Pesca Argentino-Uruguaya. Fr. Mar., 15: 165–172.Defeo O., de Álava A., Gómez J., Lozoya J.P., Martínez G., Riestra G., Amestoy F.,Martínez G., Horta S., Cantón, V. & Batallés M. 2004. Hacia una implementaciónde áreas marinas protegidas como herramientas para el manejo y conservación de lafauna marina costera en Uruguay. 1ª Jornada de Comunicación Científica del PDT:81–87.Defeo O., McClanahan T. & Castilla J.C. 2007. A brief history of fisheries managementand societal roles. In Fisheries management: progress towards sustainability. Editedby T. McClanahan and J.C. Castilla. Blackwell, London. pp. 3–21.DINARA. 2005. Objetivos Pesca Artesanal de la DINARA: Objetivos y actividadesde un programa de desarrollo y ordenamiento de la pesca artesanal. Documento deTrabajo.Fabiano G., Santana O., Delfino E. & Riet-Correa A. 2000. Análisis de la pesqueríade lenguado Paralichthys patagonicus en La Paloma, Uruguay. In Recursospesqueros no tradicionales: moluscos, crustáceos y peces bentónicos marinos.Edited by M. Rey. Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 51–73.FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome, FAO.Fiori S., Vidal-Martínez V., Simá-Álvarez R., Rodríguez-Canul R., Aguirre-Macedo M.L. & Defeo O. 2004. Field and laboratory observations of the massmortality of the yellow clam Mesodesma mactroides in South America: the case ofIsla del Jabalí, Argentina. J. Shellfish Res., 23: 451–455.FishBase. 2008. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (Eds). World Wide Web electronic publication.www.fishbase.org

382Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanGutiérrez N. & Defeo O. 2003. Development of a new scallop Zygochlamyspatagonica fishery in Uruguay: latitudinal and bathymetric patterns in biomass andpopulation structure. Fish. Res., 62: 21–36.INFOPESCA. 2001. Informe Proyecto Gestión Marítima - Componente Pesquero.Diagnóstico de los recursos pesqueros en Uruguay. Informe presentado a BancoMundial, Washington.Johannes R.E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: examplesfrom tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13: 243–246.Lercari D. & Defeo O. 1999. Effects of freshwater discharge in sandy beachpopulations: the mole crab Emerita brasiliensis in Uruguay. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.49: 457–468.Lercari D. & Defeo O. 2003. Variation of a sandy beach macrobenthic communityalong a human-induced environmental gradient. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 58S:17–24.Lercari D., Defeo O. & Celentano E. 2002. Consequences of a freshwater canaldischarge on the benthic community and its habitat on an exposed sandy beach.Mar. Poll. Bull., 44: 1392–1399.Mahon R. 1997. Does fisheries science serve the needs of managers of small stocks indeveloping countries? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 54: 2207–2213.Manson F.J. & Die D.J. 2001. Incorporating commercial fishery information into thedesign of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast. Manag., 44: 517–530.Masello A. 2000. Análisis histórico de la pesquería de caracol en Uruguay. Período,1991-1997. In Recursos pesqueros no tradicionales: moluscos bentónicos marinos.Edited by M. Rey. Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: 93–113.Massa A., Hozbor N., Chiaramonte G.E., Balestra A.D. & Vooren C.M. 2005.Mustelus schmitti. In IUCN, 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.www.iucnredlist.org>.Milessi A. & Defeo O. 2002. Long-term impact of incidental catches by tuna longlines:the black escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) of the Southwestern AtlanticOcean. Fish. Res., 58: 20–213.Milessi A., Arancibia H., Neira S. & Defeo O. 2005. The mean trophic level ofUruguayan landings during the period 1990–2001. Fish. Res., 74: 223–231.Muniz P., Venturini N. & Martínez A. 2002. Physico-chemical characteristics andpollutants of the benthic environment in the Montevideo coastal zone, Uruguay.Mar. Poll. Bull., 44: 956–976.Myers R.A. & Worm B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fishcommunities. Nature, 423: 280–283.Nión H. 1985. Evaluación y perspectivas del complejo pesquero uruguayo. 2.Análisis de la investigación biológico pesquera en el Uruguay. CIEDUR, SerieInvestigaciones No. 22, Montevideo.

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 383Norbis W. & Verocai J. 2001. Analysis of the population structure of croaker capturedby the artisanal fishery of Pajas Blancas. In El Río de la Plata: Investigación para lagestión del ambiente, los recursos pesqueros y la pesquería en el frente salino. Editedby D. Vizziano, P. Puig, C. Mesones and G.J. Nagy. Contribution No. 13. ProgramaEcoplata, Montevideo, Uruguay. pp. 175–187.Norbis W., Paesch L. & Galli O. 2006. Los recursos pesqueros de la costa de Uruguay:ambiente, biología y gestión. In Bases para la conservación y manejo de la costauruguaya. Edited by R. Menafra, L. Rodriguez-Gallego, F. Scarabino and D. Conde.pp. 197–209.Orensanz J. & Jamieson J. 1998. The assessment and management of spatiallystructured stocks. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 125: 441–459.Orensanz J.M., Armstrong J., Armstrong D. & Hilborn R. 1998. Crustaceanresources are vulnerable to serial depletion – the multifacted decline of crab andshrimp fisheries in the greater Gulf of Alaska. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 8: 117-176.Pauly D., Christensen V., Guenette S., Pitcher T.J., Sumaila U.R., Walters C.J.,Watson R. & Zeller D. 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature,418: 689–695.Pin, O. & Defeo O. 2000. Modelos de producción captura-mortalidad para la pesqueríade corvina (Micropogonias furnieri) (Desmarest, 1823) en el Río de la Plata y ZonaComún de Pesca Argentino-Uruguaya (1975-1986). In Modelos de producciónexcedente aplicados a los recursos corvina y pescadilla. Edited by M. Rey and G.Arena. Proyecto INAPE-PNUD URU/92/003: pp. 31–65.Pin O., Arena G., Chiesa E. & Puig P. 2006. Abundancia, capturas y medidas demanejo del recurso corvina (Micropogonias furnieri) en el Río de la Plata y ZonaComún de Pesca Argentino-Uruguaya (1975-2003). In Bases para la conservacióny manejo de la costa uruguaya. Edited by R. Menafra, L. Rodriguez-Gallego,F. Scarabino and D. Conde. pp. 225-232.Puig P. 2006. Una visión de la pesca artesanal en el Río de la Plata y una mirada a sufuturo. In Bases para la conservación y manejo de la costa uruguaya. Edited byR. Menafra, L. Rodriguez-Gallego, F. Scarabino and D. Conde. pp. 477-485.Puig P. & Fontenla F. 1993. Análisis de rendimientos y distribución por longitudesde corvina (Micropogonias furnieri) y la pescadilla de red (Macrodon ancylodon) enla zona costera uruguaya entre Punta Tigre y Punta Piedras de Afilar. ResúmenesX Simposio Científico de la Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente Marítimo.Montevideo, Uruguay.Retta S., Martínez G. & Errea A. 2006. Áreas de cría de peces de la costa uruguaya.In Bases para la conservación y manejo de la costa uruguaya. Edited by R. Menafra,L. Rodriguez-Gallego, F. Scarabino and D. Conde. pp. 211–217.Rey M. (ed). 2000. Consideraciones sobre la pesca incidental producida por laactividad de la flota atunera dirigida a grandes pelágicos. Proyecto INAPE-PNUDURU/92/003, Montevideo.Rey M. & Arena G. (eds). 2000. Modelos de producción excedente aplicados a losrecursos corvina y pescadilla. Proyecto INAPE-PNUD, URU/92/003, Montevideo.

384Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanRey M., Lorenzo M.I. & Páez E. 2000. Cálculo indirecto del descarte costero. Inf. Téc.No. 48, Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Montevideo.Riestra G. & Fabiano G. 2000. Moluscos gasterópodos de interés socioeconómicopara Uruguay. In Recursos pesqueros no tradicionales: moluscos bentónicosmarinos. Edited by M. Rey. Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 75–81.Riestra G., Fabiano G. & Santana O. 2000. El caracol negro Adenomelon brasilianacomo recurso no tradicional de importancia para el país: análisis socioeconómicode la pesquería y medidas precautorias de manejo. In Recursos pesquerosno tradicionales: moluscos bentónicos marinos. Edited by M. Rey. ProyectoURU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 82–92.Roberts C.M., Bohnsack J.A., Gell F., Hawkins J.P. & Goodridge R. 2001. Effects ofmarine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science, 294: 1920–1923.Salas S. & Gaertner D. 2004. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: managementimplications. Fish Fisheries, 5: 153–167SANCOR. 1997. Towards a new policy on marine protected areas for South Africa.South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research. Republic of SouthAfrica.Seijo J.C., Defeo O. & Salas S. 1998. Fisheries bio-economics. Theory, modelling andmanagement. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 368. Rome, FAO.Spinetti M. 2000. Cuantificación de las capturas de lenguado Paralichthys spp. enlos desembarques del puerto de Montevideo en, 1996. In Recursos pesqueros notradicionales: moluscos, crustáceos y peces bentónicos marinos. Edited by M. Rey.Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 75–83.Stergiou K.I. 2002. Overfishing, tropicalization of fish stocks, uncertainty andecosystem management: resharpening Ockham’s razor. Fish. Res., 55: 1–9.Sullivan K., & Bustamante G. 1999. Setting geographic priorities for marineconservation in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Nature Conservancy,Biodiversity Support Programme.UICN. 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. UICN Commissionon National Parks and Protected Areas, with the assistance of the WorldConservation Monitoring Centre. Gland, Switzerland.Wilson D.C., Nielsen J.R. & Degnbol P. (eds). 2003. The fisheries co-managementexperience. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

38514. Assessing and managingcoastal fisheries of Latin Americaand the Caribbean: underlyingpatterns and trendsRATANA CHUENPAGDEE * , SILVIA SALAS, ANTHONY CHARLES AND JUAN CARLOS SEIJOChuenpagdee, R., Salas, S., Charles, A. and Seijo, J.C. 2011. Assessing and managing coastalfisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: underlying patterns and trends. In S. Salas,R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and theCaribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 385–401.1. Characteristics of coastal fisheries 3862. Fisheries assessment tools 3883. Fisheries management tools 3914. Prospects in fishery assessment and management 3934.1 Comprehensive fisheries assessment 3944.2 Building capacity 3954.3 Incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerations 3954.4 Alternative management schemes 3964.5 Promoting equity, use rights and participation in management 3975. Concluding remarks 397References 398A synthesis of the characteristics of fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean(LAC), and of the methods and tools used for the assessment and managementof these fisheries can provide some insights and enable comparisons that may beuseful for improving the situation of coastal fisheries in the region. The synthesispresented in this chapter is drawn largely from the information provided by thetwelve country chapters, supplemented by previously published literature. In thefirst section, we present the key characteristics of these fisheries. The second andthird sections provide a comparative description of the various fishery assessmentand management tools employed and discussion on the challenges faced. In thefinal section, we summarize needs and prospects for improving assessment andmanagement of the fisheries in the region.* Contact information: Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.E-mail: ratanac@mun.ca

386Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean1. CHARACTERISTICS OF COASTAL FISHERIESWhile acknowledging the uniqueness of each coastal fishery, several attemptsto define and characterize coastal fisheries show emerging commonalities (e.g.Panayotou, 1982; Russel and Poopetch, 1990; Charles, 1991; Agüero, 1992; FAO,2000; Staples et al., 2004; Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Generally, coastal and smallscalefisheries share the following characteristics (Salas et al., 2007a):(a) Multispecies, multiple gears, with changing and flexible target species andgears employed.(b) Labour intensive, low-capital investment.(c) Many small landing sites dispersed along coasts, including remote areas.(d) Livelihood diversification (including non-fishing) is common among coastalfishing households.(e) Significant provision of food, income and jobs for coastal communities.(f) Migration of people from upland areas to coasts in search of jobs andincome from fisheries is common.(g) Intricate relationship between fishers and fish traders who often serve asmoney lenders.(h) Health provision and education facilities are generally poor due toremoteness of the areas.The complexity of these fisheries is increased by the heterogeneouscharacteristics of the fleet among countries and even within countries. This makesit difficult to evaluate the dynamics of the fleet and its fishery. The fleet hasincreased significantly in the last decade; an example of this trend as it applies tothe countries considered in this publication is depicted in Table 1.Coastal fisheries of LAC are also characterized by a number of challenges andproblems which, while not necessarily universal, are certainly widespread. Theserange from the high levels of labour involved and social implications and the lack ofpolicy support for such fisheries to the marginalization of some fishing communitiesdue to physical remoteness and economic disempowerment (Agüero, 1992; Pauly,1997; Thorpe et al., 2000; FAO, 2006). Also commonly found in many coastalfisheries are open access conditions, which have contributed to the overexploitationof fishery resources. For instance, in the 1980s, most countries encouraged increasesin fleets as a way of generating jobs and food for coastal communities (Thorpe et al.,2000; Agüero and Claverí, 2007). At times, governments have also supported themigration of people to coastal areas, to participate in fisheries as a ‘last resort’ sourceof employment (Salas and Torres, 1996). These programmes may have assumed thatit was unnecessary to control fishing intensity, as coastal populations grew, on thebasis that this was not seen as threatening the resources – yet the increased targetingof such resources has created severe problems with fish stock declines (Agüero,1992; Salas and Torres, 1996; Pauly, 1997).

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 387TABLE 1Number of fishers and fleet size of coastal fisheries in the twelve countries of LACincluded in this publication for the period between 1980 and 2004ArgentinaCountryBoat size and othercharacteristics of the fleetSmall boats (

388Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean2. FISHERIES ASSESSMENT TOOLSPauly and Agüero (1992) stated that by the 1990s the focus of fishery sciencein LAC had traditionally concentrated on the collection of data of total catchesof main fishery resources, and on fish stock evaluations based mainly on fishgrowth and mortality estimates. Salas et al. (2007a) observed that currently somecountries in the region still present limited human and logistic capacity to evaluatetheir resources, although some changes in these trends are evident in Mexico andcertain South American countries. Another issue regarding stock assessmentthat needs attention has to do with the use of old paradigms when evaluatingresources, some of which have already been shown to be inadequate (Caddy,1996; Caddy and Seijo, 2005). Several authors emphasize the need to go beyondanalysis of information based on the landings and to begin, for example, to explorethe spatial distributions of resources, catch and effort spatial trends, as well as toassess fishing strategies and fleet dynamics (Seijo et al., 1994; Cabrera and Defeo,2001; Salas and Gaertner, 2004; Caddy and Defeo, 2003; Caddy and Seijo, 2005). Amore recent trend calls for incorporation of an ecosystem approach in the analyses(Pauly et al., 1998; Plagányi, 2007; De Young et al., 2008).Table 2 provides information on fishery data and assessment methods,drawn from country-specific chapters in this volume, as well as from workshopdiscussions held during the CoastFish conference. It is evident that collectionof catch statistics and data on size frequency of fishing resources obtainedfrom the landings seems a common practice; fishing effort information in mostcountries is presented mainly in nominal figures when available. Of the twelvefisheries reported in this publication, data collection relating to Mexico, Cuba andArgentina are the most comprehensive.Bio-ecological studies in the countries are diverse, ranging from basic biologyto stock assessment through modelling. Environmental factors per se are seldomincluded. Observer programmes existing in Mexico and Argentina have generateddetailed spatial data on resource distribution. With this seemingly strong datacollection programme, these two countries are able to perform several types ofbio-ecological assessment using different types of models. Ecosystem-modellingapproaches on the other hand have been employed in Brazil, Mexico, and Trinidadand Tobago.On socio-cultural aspects, although many countries report a census on thenumber of fishers or boats or some general information, four countries of thetwelve – Argentina, Barbados, Brazil and Mexico – have assessed issues such associal and cultural dimensions, institutional arrangements and fisher perceptionson resource use, as well as management and compliance for some of their fisheries.These countries, as well as Cuba, also have performed economic assessmentusing methods such as benefit-cost analysis and, in some instances, bio-economicmodelling.

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 389TABLE 2Data and assessment methods employed in the twelve LAC countriesIssues/Tools Argentina Barbados Mexico Cuba Colombia CostaRicaBrazil Uruguay DominicanRepublicPuertoRicoGrenadaDATACatch statistics X X X X X X X X X X X XSize frequency X X X X X X X X X XSpatial data X X X X XTypes of gears X X X X X X XBiological surveys X X X X X X XObserver programme X XNumber of fishers X X X X X X X XOceanography information X X X XBIO-ECOLOGICALGrowth X X X X X X X X X X X XMortality X X X X X X X X X XRecruitment X X X X X X X X X XLarval studies X X X X XFeeding X X XReproduction X X X X X X X XTrophic models X X XSelectivity X X X X XSurplus production models X X X X X X X X X XVPA X X X X X X X XYield per recruit X X X X X X XBiomass dynamic models X X X X X XEnvironmental issues X X XEcology X X X XFishing effort analysis X X X XCPUE trend analysis X X X X X X X X X XSOCIO-CULTURALFishers' perception X X X X XInst. arrangements X X X XFishers' social profile X X X XMigration X X XTraditional knowledge X XECONOMICCost–benefit analysis X X X XOccupational structure X X X X XEconomic assessment X X X X X X X X XBio-economic models X X X X XMarket X X XTrinidadandTobagoFigure 1 summarizes the use of assessment tools within the LAC region. Datacollection is common in all countries; Caribbean countries also have elementsof bio-ecological assessment and some socio-cultural studies; South Americancountries generally cover all aspects of assessment, including those areas coveredby Caribbean countries plus economic assessments as well. Central America seemsto be the area where less comprehensive assessment is undertaken.The complexity of coastal fisheries systems, given their heterogeneity and highuncertainty, together with limited capacity for data collection and data analysis,has generated challenges to the assessment of such fisheries in the region. Thediscussion at the CoastFish conference (Salas et al., 2007b), in addition to literaturereviews, reveal limited capabilities within fishery research institutes in the region.This is due largely to a lack of trained personnel, insufficient financial support fordata collection, and an absence of well-defined programmes for routine assessmentand monitoring of resources.

390Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanFIGURE 1The range of assessment tools employed in the LAC regionCentral AmericaDATACatch, effort, size frequency (data collectedfrom landings), prices, costs, fisheriesindependent data collection, spatialanalysisCaribbeanBIO-ECOLOGICALBiomass estimates, selectivity experiments,recruitment, growth, mortality estimates,reproduction, feeding, trophic modelsSouth AmericaSOCIO-CULTURALOccupational patterns, socio-culturalassessment, fishers' profile, managementcomplianceECONOMICCost-benefit analysis, market analysis, bioeconomicmodelsThe reliability of catch statistics may be questionable in some cases due toinconsistent format and non-standardized methods of data collection. Usuallyonly the most important species (by volume or value) are separately recorded, andseparating data on individual species from the mix of species traditionally landedin coastal fisheries has been problematic. The difficulty in obtaining informationabout fishing effort is attributable to the diversity of gears and vessel types, andfishing seasonality. Thus, using the number of boats and number of fishers toassess fishing effort may not reflect the actual fishing pressure. The applicationof an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and other integratedmodels is still at an early stage in the region. There is also a general lack of trainedpersonnel to undertake interdisciplinary research.Despite the above challenges, some progress in fisheries assessment in the regionhas been observed. It has been recognized in recent years that improving scientificknowledge on coastal fisheries requires a shift in approaches; some examples arereported in the country chapters included in this volume (Puerto Rico, Cuba,Mexico). Among the positive efforts to date are the introduction of the spatialanalysis and the conceptual development of meta-populations and connectivity toaddress coastal fisheries problems (Caddy and Defeo, 2003; Ehrhardt, 2005; Rios-Lara et al., 2007; Seijo, 2007). There has also been an increasing recognition of theneed to incorporate social and economic issues, and to engage in multidisciplinarywork on integrated fishery analyses, including stakeholder analysis (QuesadaAlpízar, 2006; McConney and Baldeo, 2007).Another group of positive experiences in fishery assessment deals withthe progress in: (i) monitoring programmes that include collection of dataindependent from the landings; (ii) the involvement of fishers in data collection;

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 391(iii) improvements in the capacity of research institutes; and (iv) widening thegeographic and spatial coverage of data collection. In several countries, someinternational agencies have promoted such initiatives (e.g. FAO, InternationalDevelopment Research Centre [IDRC], Caribbean Community [CARICOM],World Wildlife Fund [WWF], World Bank, European Union [EU], etc.).3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TOOLSData availability limits the range of applicable assessment methods. The choice ofmanagement measures is in turn affected, since this choice depends largely on boththe type of data collected and this assessment. The types and range of managementtools employed in the twelve case studies for different types of fisheries resources,i.e. demersal (D), benthic (B) and pelagic (P) are shown in Table 3.TABLE 3Common measures and approaches used for the management of coastal fisheries in theLAC regionArgentina Barbados Brazil Colombia CostaRicaCuba Grenada Mexico PuertoRicoDominicanRepublicUruguayMANAGEMENT SYSTEMInstitutionalmanagement bodiesD P D P,D D,PState management D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P, D,P D D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P B,P D,PCo-management B,D B,D B D D,BTrinidadandTobagoSea tenureDACCESS RIGHTS AND REGULATIONS (who, when and where have access to the resources)Open access D(*) X(*) D(*),PRestricted access D,B B,P D D D P D,B,P P D DExclusive fishing area(TURFs)D B B X D D B BFishing permits B B B D D,B,P D D,B,P D,PClosed areas D,B,P B,P B D D D D D BSeasonal closure D B X D D D,B,P D D B DMarine protected areas X X XFISHERY POLICY INSTRUMENTSRestrictions on gearand fishing effortD D,P D,P D,B D,PMinimum legal size D,B B,D,P D D D D P D,B,P D,B,P D B D,PTotal allowable catch(total quota)D,B,P D,P D D BCommunity quotas D,P D D DProtection of berriedfemalesFishing restrictedduring spawningseasonIndividual quotas(fisher or boat)Species excludingdevicesUse of explosives orpollutants forbiddenD D DDDB B B D D B,P BD D D D DB,P B D D D,BNotes: D = Demersal; P = Pelagic; B = Benthic; X = Not specified by resource; *applicable to some species or for subsistencefisheries.

392Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanWhen it comes to the range of policy instruments employed to manage allthree types of fisheries, Mexico uses the widest range, followed by Argentina andColombia. Barbados employs a wide range of tools as well, but mainly to managethe dominant benthic resources, as is also the case in Brazil and Uruguay. TheDominican Republic, Uruguay and Grenada use comparatively fewer tools thanother countries in LAC. The top-down system dominates in the region, althoughfisheries co-management has been reported in Argentina, Barbados, Grenada, Brazil,Mexico and Costa Rica. Such institutional arrangements have proved to be easier toimplement for the management of species with limited mobility. They are becomingmore widespread in the region, along with related schemes such as marine tenurearrangements and territorial use rights, all of which can provide more practicalmechanisms of enforcement and monitoring (Castilla and Defeo, 2001; Hernándezand Kempton, 2003; Quesada Alpízar, 2006; country chapters in this volume).Minimal legal size, seasonal closures and fishing permits are the maininstruments applied for most resources in all twelve countries. Mexico is the onlycountry reporting the use of sea tenure, and together with the Dominican Republic,it imposes fishing restriction during spawning seasons. Countries reporting useof marine protected areas (MPAs) are Barbados, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.Quesada Alpízar (2006) also reports the existence of MPAs in Costa Rica.Banning of chemical use, poison and explosives are also common fordemersal species, particularly in reef areas. Compared to that for demersal andbenthic resources, management of pelagic species is sparse, with monitoring andenforcement generally more difficult, especially in cases of strong migratorybehaviour. Management of pelagic fisheries can include restrictions on gears andfishing effort.It has been noted that given the uncertainty in fisheries, and the need to applya Precautionary Approach, fishery managers need a set of multiple, mutuallyreinforcing management tools, to increase the robustness of the system and theresilience of the fishery overall (Cochrane, 1999; Charles, 2001). At the same time,not all management tools are appropriate in every situation. For instance, whilethe setting of total allowable catches (TACs) as global quotas – i.e. catch (output)controls – is used in a number of fisheries, concerns over the efficiency of suchan approach arise due to: (i) unreliable biomass estimates; (ii) limitations on thereliability of catch and fishing effort statistics; (iii) unreported catches; (iv) illegalfishing; (v) inadequate resources for monitoring and enforcement; and (vi) a moregeneral lack of institutional capacity. Problems of allocation can also arise. Thus,a broad set of management tools can be helpful, but careful selection would berequired to fit the situation at hand. Proper enforcement programmes are ofcourse mandatory in order to be able to implement management plans.Challenges in the management of coastal fisheries in the region relate largely tothe characteristics of the fisheries and the implementation methods. Generally, theexistence of open access fisheries and a lack of control over fishing effort, combinedwith high levels of illegal fishing, make the management tasks difficult. Participationof fishers is high in some cases but is generally lacking in most. Conflicts between

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 393coastal and industrial fisheries are still prominent. Weak institutions and lack ofappropriate frameworks to implement management regulations are also limitingfactors as reported in many cases in the country chapters.Despite the challenges in the management of coastal fisheries in LAC,some success stories can be noted. Increasingly, involvement of fishers in themanagement process has reduced some of the conflicts, and led to successfulallocation of local fishing rights. This is a notable trend in Barbados, Mexico andCuba. These advances do not apply, however, to whole countries, but only to acertain fishery or fisheries in a particular location within those countries (see Seijo,1993; FAO, 2000; Castilla and Defeo, 2001; McConney and Baldeo, 2007; Sosaet al., 2008).Fisheries management often requires a combination of measures, approaches,and institutional arrangements compatible with the particular situation. Measuressuch as marine protected areas may be used in conjunction with stock enhancementand habitat restoration, as well as restriction of fishing effort in the areas, as isdone in Barbados and Mexico, to increase management effectiveness. For demersaland benthic species, fishing permits and quotas may be implemented together,provided that the latter are not excessive and can be accompanied by adequatemonitoring and enforcement. Good examples of this arrangement are found inArgentina, Colombia and Mexico. In the case of pelagic species, given the highvulnerability to climate-related environmental change, both risk and uncertaintyanalyses are valuable tools when assessing and managing these fisheries, as is theuse of adaptive approaches through which management (and fishing intensity)responds to changing conditions.4. PROSPECTS IN FISHERY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENTCoastal fisheries are facing many problems, and while certainly some of theseare specific to certain subregions within the overall LAC region, several issuesand challenges reported by authors of the country chapters seem common; someof these have also been reported by other authors working with coastal (smallscale)fisheries (Staples et al., 2004; Agüero and Claverí, 2007; Béné et al., 2007;García et al., 2008). The challenges are wide-ranging in LAC fisheries, from thoserelating to fishery management (e.g. illegal fishing and a lack of institutionalcapabilities – technical, logistical and economic – for enforcing regulations) tothose relating to fishery assessment (e.g. a poor understanding of the dynamics ofthe socio-economic relationships in coastal fisheries that arise through interactionsamong diverse, complex ecosystems and communities). The challenges alsogo beyond the strict boundaries of fisheries themselves, to include concernsover environmental disturbance and habitat destruction, as well as the need forattention to factors that contribute to the vulnerability of coastal communities andsmall-scale fisheries.Addressing the problems associated with coastal fisheries in LAC will require aset of key responses, to be discussed sequentially in this section: (i) comprehensivefisheries assessment, which requires improved technical and financial supportfor research, on a permanent basis, and suitable support for developing and

394Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanimplementing appropriate assessment methods; (ii) building capacity for fisherydata collection, assessment and management; (iii) incorporation of social, economicand livelihood considerations in the broader ecosystem-based and livelihoodbasedapproaches, (iv) exploration of alternative management schemes, movingfrom traditional systems to new governance; and (v) promotion of equitable accessand clear fishery use rights among fishers, fishing communities and other relevantstakeholders, as well as organization and self-regulation of fishers, to enable fullparticipation in fisheries management.4.1 Comprehensive fisheries assessmentImplementation of fishery management plans relies heavily on fisheries assessments,which are undertaken in most countries of LAC by national institutes of fisheriesor the like. However, in many cases these institutes lack the financial and technicalsupport to keep up to date with changes arising in the fisheries. Most efforts haveconcentrated on gathering basic catch data, size frequency of individual organismsand, in only a few cases, fishing effort information. Given such data limitations,scientists are unable to undertake a full and integrated assessment of a givenfishery (including biological, social and economic aspects). Further, single speciesapproaches are the most common for this region, which may not necessarilybe appropriate given the complexity of coastal fisheries (with their multispeciesand multigear context). In addition to some comments here, this latter point isexamined in more detail later, in Chapter 15, within the context of the ecosystemapproach to fisheries.While fishing pressure has imposed significant problems on coastal fisheriesand their managers across most of the LAC region, the analysis undertaken hereindicates varying degrees of response in terms of fishery assessment. For example,major assessment efforts are apparent in parts of South America and someCaribbean islands like Puerto Rico, while the capacity to implement such measuresis less in Central America – where continuing use of conventional assessment toolslimits the capability to benefit from a broad package of management tools. Thiscan be a reflection of differences in the economic and human capacity to addressongoing needs as well as specific problems.A focus on biological approaches has dominated across much of the LACregion, but this focus has proven insufficient. Integrated assessment producesmultidimensional advice with a broader perspective (Charles, 2001; García et al.,2008). García et al. (2008) also emphasize the fact that assessment must be costeffective, rigorous, timely, integrative of approaches from different disciplines, andincorporating local knowledge in order to be effective. Of course, the presence andextent of these attributes will depend on the conditions prevalent in the particularregion where the evaluation takes place (scientific capacity, financial support, etc.)and the nature of the institutional framework for management.Finally, the information exchanges that led to, and that are reflected within thisvolume, indicate that an open and positive attitude by fisheries scientists to seekout and implement new approaches for assessment, and a general willingness to

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 395interact with others across the region in order to generate a suitable knowledgebase, are crucial ingredients in the quest for sustainable fisheries resources.4.2 Building capacityA move toward sustainable fisheries management, aiming to maintain healthyecosystems and improve fisheries in the Latin America and Caribbean region,requires the building of appropriate capacity. This in turn necessitates suitableproject development and training for (i) the selection and/or design of appropriateassessment approaches to match the diverse manpower and financial possibilitiesin the region (including, at least initially, designing approaches for data-limitedsituations); (ii) design of data collection systems for answering relevant fisherymanagement questions, notably within the context of ecosystem considerations;(iii) aiding decision-making in fisheries management in a context of uncertaintyand incomplete knowledge of the fishery and the ecosystem in which it operates;and (iv) fostering, among fishers and fishing communities, an understanding ofecosystem dynamics, interdependencies and the effects that various options forhuman interventions may have on these over time.The aid provided by some international agencies has partially helped LACcountries (e.g. through working groups organized by FAO, like that on spinylobster, or training courses or workshops such as those organized by theDanish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC). However, it is a common concern that,when international agencies leave, government agencies do not (or cannot)take responsibility to maintain the programmes initiated or promoted by theinternational agencies, and the results of those efforts fade. Thus, more attentionis required, on an ongoing basis, to build capacity and maintain it within theregion to improve the assessment of fisheries and to promote sustainable fisheriesmanagement.4.3 Incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerationsA major gap in the information reported in most country chapters within thisvolume relates to a poor understanding of how socio-economic, cultural andlegal considerations affect fishing and fisheries. Many fisheries problems aresocio-economic in nature, and many involve aspects of the coastal economy thatextend beyond the fishery (Fraga, 2004; Staples et al., 2004; Agüero and Claverí,2007; Salas et al., 2007a; García et al., 2008). For instance, while it has been statedin many cases that coastal fisheries can contribute to food security and povertyalleviation of local communities (Staples et al., 2004; Béné et al., 2007), a betterunderstanding of the socio-political circumstances, the legal frameworks and localconditions of communities is necessary in order to evaluate how governmentinterventions may succeed or fail with alternative management programmes orfuture development assistance in the search for sustainable fisheries and sustainablecoastal communities (Jentoft, 2000; Garcia et al., 2008; Hauck, 2008).

396Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanIt is necessary to understand the characteristics and functioning of fishingcommunities, the perceptions of people regarding the use and management ofnatural resources, the dynamics of fishing operations, the behaviour of resourceusers regarding compliance, as well as the way people cope with vulnerabilitygiven an increase in threatening conditions for coastal fisheries and those whodepend on them (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Chuenpagdee et al., 2004; Salas andGaertner., 2004; De Young et al., 2007; Hilborn, 2007).4.4 Alternative management schemesIn complex fisheries systems, where data is scarce, knowledge incomplete,uncertainty high, and fishers compete heavily for limited resources, conventionalmanagement systems – relying on top-down control by state agencies and basedon narrow approaches – have proved ineffective. Degnbol et al. (2006) call fora change in the way fisheries managers have been approaching the problems ofcomplex fisheries. They contend that the main trend in fisheries management hasbeen to look for solutions in the form of ‘discipline-specific approaches’. Thesemight involve economic tools (e.g. individual transferable quotas – ITQs) focusedon economic efficiency, bio-ecological tools (e.g. MPAs) promoted by biologistsand focused on resource conservation, or community-based management (CBM),promoted by anthropologists and emphasizing empowerment. The authorsargue that any one discipline alone cannot fully address the complex and diverseproblems of fisheries management and an integrated vision (transdisciplinary) andchanges in paradigms are necessary to challenge current fisheries problems.According to Degnbol et al. (2006), when only one criterion (e.g. biological,economic or social) is used to evaluate or implement management tools, there is arisk of ‘tunnel vision’. Application of a single management tool may be appropriatefor a particular context, but when promoted as ‘universal remedies’, it ceases to beuseful in tackling fisheries problems (a point highlighted by Charles, 2001). On theother hand, if several ‘discipline-specific approaches’ can be combined (subject toconcerns over conflicting objectives), the selection of one approach over others,or a combination of several, will depend on managers’ preferences, political willand implementation costs, among other factors (Seijo et al., 1998). While the useof multiple management tools is important for a resilient system, it may be bothpossible and more practical for managers to follow a well-known path using a set ofsimple tools (ones that are easy to explain to user groups, easy to implement and lesscostly to enforce). In some cases, this may limit the use of more complex approachessuch as an ecosystem approach for management (Plagányi, 2007), but may lead toan adaptive management process (Walters and Martell, 2004), or to move beyondthe traditional biological approach, which has dominated fisheries management ofsmall-scale fisheries in many countries (Staples et al., 2004).Employing a mixture of policy instruments and involving fishers in thedecision-making process and policy formulation are necessary steps towardsimproved management schemes in the LAC region. There are some positive trendsin developing effective alternative management systems for LAC coastal fisheries,

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 397as shown in some of the country chapters; these could signal progress for theregion in moving towards resource sustainability and social well-being. There is aneed, however, to expand and, where possible, replicate some positive examples ofself-governance to improve on conventional management systems. Responsibilityfor a change of vision and approaches must come from scientists, fishers andmanagers. To reach this goal, a broader and more participatory approach togovernance of fisheries is required. This policy direction will be explored in moredetail in Chapter 15.4.5 Promoting equity, use rights and participation in managementAn issue faced across the coastal fisheries of the LAC region is that of providingequitable access to and distribution of the resource among competing groups, andkeeping fishery access from being concentrated in too few hands. One avenue forachieving this is the allocation of fishery use rights – i.e. the right to go fishing,rather than ownership over the resources per se (Charles, 2002). Such schemesare said to create incentives for those holding rights to safeguard the well-beingof fishery resources (Berkes et al., 2001; Castilla and Defeo, 2001; Castilla andGelcich, 2008). However, allocation of fishing rights by themselves will not ensuregood fishery practices, to conserve resources, if the rights holders are not involvedin the management of the fishery. Furthermore, institutional adjustments are alsonecessary in order to achieve cooperation from different users’ groups to maintainhealthy resources (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2007).It is useful to highlight some successful examples in the LAC region, which mayencourage further exploration of options for allocation of fishing rights, whetherby area or by resource, or a combination of both. For example, in Chile and Peru,marine areas are allocated for fishing to specific groups, who also enforce theirown rules (FAO, 2000; Mendo et al., 2002; CeDePesca, 2005; FAO, 2000; Castillaand Gelcich., 2008). In Mexico, concessions by species and area are allocated forlobster fishing to some groups of fishers – these groups have regulated access tothe use of this profitable resource. The security of access through use rights hasencouraged self-enforcement actions in communities in Mexico and Grenada(Chuenpagdee et al., 2004; Seijo, 1993, McConney and Baldeo, 2007; Sosa et al.,2008).5. CONCLUDING REMARKSThis chapter has provided an analysis of the state of fisheries assessment andmanagement along the coasts of LAC, as synthesized from the country chapters inthis volume, as well as from additional insights arising in the CoastFish conference.We have seen that there has been progress in various areas, but also significant gapsremaining. The final section of this chapter focuses on the future, on the prospectsfor LAC coastal fisheries, and some directions forward, with an emphasis on(i) developing comprehensive fisheries assessment; (ii) building capacity for fisherydata collection, assessment and management; (iii) incorporating social, economicand livelihood considerations; (iv) implementing alternative management schemes;

398Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanand (v) promoting equity, appropriate use rights and participation in fisherymanagement. While these directions appear crucial for the future, choosing themost appropriate approaches for their realization will undoubtedly be crucial inincreasing the likelihood of improving the state of coastal fisheries in LAC.REFERENCESAgüero M. 1992. La pesca artesanal en América Latina: una visión panorámica. InContribuciones para el estudio de la pesca artesanal en América Latina. Editedby M. Agüero. ICLARM Conference Proceedings Contribution No. 835, ManilaPhilippines. pp. 1–27.Agüero M. & Claverí M. 2007. Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en AméricaLatina: una síntesis de estudios de caso. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesqueroen América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO Documento Técnico dePesca. No. 461. pp. 61–72. Rome, FAO.Allison E. & Ellis F. 2001. The livelihood approach and management of small-scalefisheries. Mar. Pol., 25: 377–388.Beltrán C. 2005. Evaluación de la pesca de pequeña escala y aspectos de ordenaciónen cinco países seleccionados de América Latina: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá,Colombia y Ecuador. Períodos, 1997–2005. FAO Circular de Pesca. No. 957/2,Rome, FAO.Béné C., Macfadyen G. & Allison E.H. 2007. Increasing the contribution of smallscalefisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper No. 481. Rome, FAO.Berkes F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R. & Pomeroy R. 2001. Managing smallscalefisheries. Alternative directions and methods. International DevelopmentResearch Centre. Ottawa, Canada.Cabrera J.L. & Defeo O. 2001. Daily bio-economic analysis in a multispecific artisanalfishery in Yucatán, Mexico. Aquat. Liv. Res., 14: 19–28.Caddy J.F. 1996. Regime shifts and paradigm changes: is there still a place forequilibrium thinking? Fish. Res., 25: 219–230.Caddy J.F. & Defeo O. 2003. Enhancing or restoring the productivity of naturalpopulations of shellfish and other marine invertebrate resources. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper. No. 448. Rome, FAO.Caddy J.F. & Seijo J.C. 2005. This is more difficult than we thought! The responsibilityof scientists, managers and stakeholders to mitigate the unsustainability of marinefisheries. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B., 360: 59–75.Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2001. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis onco-management and experimental practices. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish., 11: 1–30.Castilla J.C. & Gelcich S. 2008. Management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas) asa driver for self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. In Case studiesin fisheries self-governance. Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida.FAO Fisheries Technical paper. No. 504: 441–451.CeDePesca. 2005. The imperative of recognizing artisanal fishworkers’ fishing accessrights. http://www.cedepesca.org.ar/

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 399Charles A. 1991. Small-scale fisheries in North America: Research perspectives. InResearch and small-scale fisheries. Edited by J.R. Durand, J. Lemoalle, and J. Weber.OSTROM, Paris, France.Charles A. 2001. Sustainable fishery systems. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series. 5.Blackwell Science. UK.Charles A. 2002. Use rights and responsible fisheries: Limiting access and harvestingthrough rights-based management. In A Fishery Manager’s Guidebook. Managementmeasures and their application. Edited by K. Cochrane. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper. No. 424. Rome, FAO. 231p.Chuenpagdee R. & Jentoft S. 2007. Step zero for fisheries co-management: Whatprecedes implementation? Mar. Pol., 31(6): 657–668.Chuenpagdee R., Liguori L., Palomares M.L.D. & Pauly D. 2006. Bottom-up, globalestimates of small-scale fisheries catches. Fish. Cen. Res. Rep. 14(8). (Available atwww.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/).Chuenpagdee R., Fraga J. & Euan J.I. 2004. Progressing toward co-managementthrough participatory research. Society and Natural Resources, 17: 147–161.Cochrane K.L. 1999. Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasingcomplexity of fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56: 917–926.Degnbol P., Gislason H., Hanna S., Jentoft S., Nielsen J.R., Sverdruo-Jensen S. &Wilson D.C. 2006. Painting the floor with a hammer: Technical fixes in fisheriesmanagement. Mar. Pol., 30: 534–543.De Young C., Charles A. & Hjort A. 2008. Human dimensions of the ecosystemapproach to fisheries: an overview of context, concepts, tools and methods. FAOFisheries Technical Report. No. 489. Rome, FAO.Ehrhardt N. 2005. Population dynamic characteristics and sustainability mechanismsin Key Western Central Atlantic spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, fisheries. Bull. Mar.Sci., 76(2): 501–525.FAO. 2000. Informe del taller sobre manejo y asignación de recursos pesqueros apescadores artesanales en América Latina, Valparaíso, Chile, 25–28 de abril del2000.FAO. 2004. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA). Available at www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm.FAO. 2006. Informe de la consulta de expertos sobre los procesos de regulación delacceso a la pesca y la sostenibilidad de las pesquerías en pequeña escala en AméricaLatina. Lima, Peru, 9–12 de mayo. Informe de Pesca 803.Fraga J. 2004. Los habitantes de la zona costera de Yucatán: entre la tradición y lamodernidad. Páginas 497-506. En: Rivera-Arriaga E, Villalobos GJ, Azuz-AdeathI, Rosado-May F. (eds). El manejo costero en Mexico. Universidad Autónoma deCampeche, SEMARNAT, CETYS-Universidad, Universidad de Quintana Roo.García S.M., Allison E.H., Andrew N.J., Néné C., Bianchi G., de Graaf G.J.,Kolikoski D., Mahon R. & Orensanz J.M. 2008. Towards integrated assessmentand advice in small-scale fisheries: principles and processes. FAO Fisheries andAquaculture Technical paper. No. 515. Rome, FAO.Hauck M. 2008. Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Mar. Pol., 32: 635–642.

400Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanHernández A. & Kempton W. 2003. Changes in fisheries management in Mexico:effects of increasing scientific input and public participation. Ocean. Coast. Manag.,46: 507–526.Hilborn R. 2007. Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned? Fishand Fisheries, 8: 285–296.Jentoft S. 2000. The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Mar. Pol.,24: 53–59.McConney P. & Baldeo R. 2007. Lessons in co-management from beach seine andlobster fisheries in Grenada. Fish. Res., 87: 77–85.Mendo J., Fernández E., Orrego H., Rojas J.C., Foy Valencia P. & Solano A. 2002.Bases técnicas y marco legal para la implementación de áreas de manejo de recursoshidrobiológicos en la costa peruana. Programa APGEP-SENREM. ConvenioUSAID-CONAM. Peru.Panayotou T. 1982. Management concepts for small-scale fisheries: economic andsocial aspects. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 228. Rome, FAO.Pauly D. 1997. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization,and some implications for fisheries management. In Global trends: Fisheriesmanagement. Edited by E.K. Pikitch, D.D. Huppert and M. Sissenwine. Bethesda,Maryland, American Fisheries Society 20, Bethesda Maryland. pp. 40–49.Pauly D. & Agüero M. 1992. Small-scale fisheries in the Neotropics: research andmanagement issues. In Contribuciones para el estudio de la pesca artesanal enAmérica Latina.Agüero. Edited by M. Aguero. ICLARM Cont. No. 835. ManilaPhilipines. pp 28–36.Pauly D., Christensen V., Dalsgaard J., Froese R. & Torres F.C. Jr. 1998. Fishingdown the food webs. Science, 279: 860–863.Plagányi E. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO FisheriesTechnical Report. No. 477. Rome, FAO.Quesada Alpízar M.A. 2006. Participation and fisheries management in Costa Rica:From theory to practice. Mar. Pol., 30: 641–650.Ríos-Lara V., Salas S., Bello-Pineda J. & Peniche-Ayora I. 2007. Distribution patternsof spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). Fish. Res., 87(1): 35–45.Russel S. & Poopetech M. 1990. Petty commodity fishermen in the Inner Gulf ofThailand. Hum. Org., 49: 174–187.Salas S. & Torres R. 1996. Factors affecting management in a Mexican fishery. InDeveloping and Sustaining World fisheries resources. Edited by D.A. Hancock,D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer. The State of Science and Management.CSIRO. Australia. pp. 767–771.Salas S. & Gaertner D. 2004. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: managementimplications. Fish and Fish., 5: 153–167.Salas S., Chuenpagdee R., Seijo J.C. & Charles A. 2007a. Challenges in the assessmentand management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish.Res., 87: 5–16.

Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 401Salas S., Cabrera M.A., Sánchez J., Ramos J. & Flores D. 2007b. Memorias dela Primera Conferencia de Pesquerías Costeras en América Latina y el Caribe.Octubre 2004. Cinvestav U. Mérida, Mexico.Seijo J.C. 1993. Individual transferable grounds in a community managed artisanalfishery. Mar. Res. Eco., 8: 78–81.Seijo J.C. 2007. Considerations for management of metapopulations in small-scalefisheries in the Mesoamerican barrier reef ecosystem. Fish. Res., 87: 86–91.Seijo J.C., Caddy J.F. & Euan J. 1994. SPATIAL: Space-time dynamics in marinefisheries, a bio-economic software package for sedentary species. FAO Comp. Inf.Series. Fish. No. 6.Seijo J.C., Defeo, O. & Salas S. 1998. Fisheries bioeconomics. theory, modelling andmanagement. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 368. Rome, FAO.Smith V.L. 1969. On models of commercial fishing. J. Pol. Eco., 77: 181–198.Sosa-Cordero, E., Liceaga-Correa M.A. & Seijo J.C. 2008. The Punta Allen lobsterfishery current status and recent trends. In Case studies in fisheries self-governance.Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.No. 504. pp. 149–162.Staples D., Satia B. & Gardiner P.R. 2004. A research agenda for small-scale fisheries.FAO/RAP Publication/FIPL/C10009. FAO, Regional Office for Asia and Pacific,Bangkok.Thorpe A., Aguilar-Ibarra A. & Reid C. 2000. The new economic model and marinefisheries development in Latin America. World Development, 28(9): 1689–1702.Walters C. & Martell S. 2004. Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton UniversityPress. Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

40315. Toward sustainability forcoastal fisheries of Latin Americaand the Caribbean: effectivegovernance and healthyecosystemsJuan Carlos Seijo * , Anthony Charles, Ratana Chuenpagdee and Silvia SalasSeijo, J.C., Charles, A., Chuenpagdee, R. and Salas, S. 2011. Toward sustainability for coastalfisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: effective governance and healthy ecosystems. InS. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin Americaand the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO.pp. 403-421.1. Fishery governance and institutional design 4041.1 From open access to fishery use rights 4051.2 Overcoming exclusion costs and transactions costs 4061.3 Developing effective fishery institutions 4082. Fishery assessment and the ecosystem approach 4092.1 Fishery assessment 4102.2 Ecosystem approach to coastal fisheries 4123. Concluding remarks 416References 417Small-scale fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have tendedto suffer from the same overexploitation syndrome that characterizes manyfisheries of the world today, one that has led to a global pattern of exploitation,in which there is little room for expansion of the world’s fish catches and, indeed,many resources are overexploited or even exhausted (FAO, 2008). With the fishresources and fisheries of LAC so often in a poor state, what can be done aboutit? How can fishery sustainability be achieved in a coastal context – wherebythe needs of the present local coastal populations of fishers can be met without* Contact information: Universidad Marista de Mérida, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico. E-mail: jseijo@marista.edu.mx.

404Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeancompromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs – in the samelocation and other interdependent locations (Caddy and Seijo, 2005).Chapter 14 drew on a synthesis of results from the country-specific chaptersin this volume in order to review the overall state of fishery assessment andmanagement along the coasts of the LAC region. This led to five specific directionsproposed to improve the state of these fisheries, namely (i) comprehensive fisheriesassessment; (ii) building capacity for fishery data collection, assessment andmanagement; (iii) incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerations;(iv) adopting alternative management schemes; and (v) promoting equity, userights and participation in fishery management. These themes all fit into thetwo major policy frameworks being advocated globally as essential to the futureof fisheries – the development of new innovations in fishery governance andinstitutional design, and the adoption of an ecosystem approach to fisheries.In this chapter, we examine in some depth the nature of these two majorframeworks and explore how they can be effectively applied in the context ofsmall-scale fisheries management, particularly in the LAC region. The chapterthen closes with a synthesis of the key messages of this volume, highlighting inparticular the directions forward in improving the state of coastal fisheries acrossLatin America and the Caribbean.1. FISHERY GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNA focus on ‘governance’ of fisheries implies a broad perspective that encompassesactivities well beyond the day-to-day routines of management, and that also extendsbeyond the responsibility of governments alone. In other words, governanceinvolves various social actors, including private enterprises, civic organizations,communities, political parties, universities, the media and the general public(Costanza et al., 1998; Chakalall et al., 2007). Governance is about the collective,aggregated and integrative process that these actors explore together in solvingproblems and creating opportunities for society (Kooiman et al., 2005).These interactions can be fostered through communication, learning andnegotiation. Such initiatives will help to rebuild catch levels and ensure sustainablelivelihoods by providing the mechanisms for decision-making needed to initiatea control on fishing intensity. The resulting improvements will reduce the overallpressure on the resources and counteract the declines in catches and the consequentincreases in travel and transaction costs that fishers incur when competing for themost valuable resources. Recognition of the dynamics of the fisheries calls foradaptive strategies. Institutional arrangements, bio-ecological processes, marketconditions and environmental impacts must be reviewed and revised and thenmanagement strategies adapted accordingly.Three major themes relating to these challenges of fisheries governance areexplored in this section: (i) the need for, and the evolution toward, clear rights overaccess to and use of fishing grounds; (ii) approaches to reducing high exclusionand transactions costs in coastal fisheries; and (iii) the development of effectiveinstitutions for fishery governance.

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 4051.1 From open access to fishery use rightsOpen access fisheries – those in which there are no limits to access, so that anyonecan go fishing – are still common in LAC countries. However, it has becomeaccepted wisdom, based on experiences of fishery collapses worldwide, that openaccess is likely to result in overexploitation and overcapacity, thereby threateningthe long-term sustainability of fisheries. The overall need for and desirability ofrestricting the access and use of fishery resources is now accepted as a basic premisein fishery management (Ostrom and Hess, 2007; FAO, 2006; OECD, 2006).Such restrictions in fisheries are related to ‘use rights’ that define who can accessa fishery and how much fishing each can undertake (Charles, 2001, 2002, 2004;Ostrom and Hess, 2007). As indicated in other chapters of this document, variousforms of use rights are to be found in the small-scale fisheries of LAC (Salas et al.,2007; Agüero and Claverí, 2007, and references therein; Sosa et al., 2008), fittingwithin an overall diversity of governance arrangements and institutional designs.Use rights are key tools for the fishery manager not only in resolving openaccess problems, but also in helping to clarify who the stakeholders are in acertain fishery. They are essential as well to stakeholders – whether fishers, fishers’organizations, fishing companies or fishing communities – who are provided withsome security regarding access to fishing areas, use of an allowable set of fishinginputs, or harvest of a certain quantity of fish. In addition, with secure and durableuse rights, conservation measures to protect ‘the future’ become more compatiblewith the fishers’ own long-term interests, which may encourage adoption ofresponsible fishing practices and greater compliance with regulations. Finally, userights are seen as a mechanism to promote ‘responsible fisheries’ – indeed, as theFAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries notes, “The right to fish carrieswith it the obligation to do so in a responsible manner…” (FAO, 1995).The key element of use rights in coastal fisheries is typically ‘access rights’,which deal with participation in the fishery, specifically relating to entry (‘access’)into the fishery or a specific fishing ground. A fishing licence would be anexample of an access right as would the Customary Marine Tenure (CMT) andTerritorial Use Rights in Fishing (TURFs), which determine the locations wherecommunity members can access fishery resources. Another form of use rights isan individually-set numerical right, whether to use a specific amount of fishingeffort or to take a specific catch. There are some instances in Latin America ofindividually-based rights in small-scale fisheries, e.g. in some Chilean and Peruvianfisheries (CeDePesca, 2005; FAO, 2000; Castilla and Gelcich, 2008).Just as use rights serve to specify and regulate who is to be involved in resourceuse, there is a parallel need to specify who is involved in fishery management –through ‘management rights’. While the state has the general responsibility formanagement, it can delegate management functions. The question arises as to whoelse should be involved in fishery management, whether alongside government ordelegated by government.Both management rights and use rights reflect a trend toward rights-basedmanagement approaches, including systems of co-management as a key form of

406Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanmanagement rights. Indeed, as reported by Sutinen (1999), countries that utilize userights tend also to move towards co-management, since the latter tends to reduceadministrative costs and improve compliance with management regulations. Manysmall-scale fisheries in LAC involve some form of community-based managementor co-management rights (FAO, 2000; McConney and Baldeo, 2007; Salas et al.,2007; Sosa et al., 2008).Much has been written about the need for rights in fisheries, but there is muchless discussion of the process for assessing and (if necessary) implementing a rightssystem. There is a diversity of approaches to considering the role of use rights,and of steps in the process of assessing and developing a use rights system. For anexamination of the sequence of events in such a process, see Charles (2002).1.2 Overcoming exclusion costs and transactions costsSmall-scale fisheries in LAC share many of the same issues of all marine fisheries,notably high exclusion costs, high information costs and high enforcement costs.These key challenges and how they can be addressed are described here.First, an inherent characteristic of a fishery with exploited fish stocks is the highcost of excluding unauthorized fishers from exploiting the resource and enforcingregulatory compliance on those authorized to fish. High exclusion costs (sensuSchmid, 1987, 2004) mean that the use of an existing fish stock is difficult to limitto only those who have the right to fish it. Just because fishers have the nominalright to exclude others from harvesting a resource (i.e. through use rights) doesnot mean that the exclusion can be done effectively. Furthermore, the mobilityand migratory nature of most fish resources, combined with high uncertainty asto stock magnitude, means that an individual fisher is unlikely to benefit frompostponing capture of a fish with the expectation of taking it at a larger and morevaluable size later, since others are likely to have caught it in the meantime; that is,unless all or most fishers also agree to abstain. Consequently, each fisher tends tomaintain a high rate of harvesting, and thus generates high exclusion costs to theother fishers who tend to behave likewise.Options for avoiding the effects of high exclusion costs in small-scale fisheriesinvolve institutional structures and rights systems (Berkes, 1989; Seijo, 1993;Castilla and Defeo, 2001) such as: (i) implementation of community-based andco-management systems where the right to harvest the commons during thefishing season is allocated by the community to small-scale fishers; (ii) pecificationof individual rights through allocation within the fishing community; and(iii) community-allocated fishing grounds which can be transferred or leased amongmembers of the voluntary collective organization of small-scale fishers (Seijo, 1993).All of these approaches involve varying degrees of transactions costs that are facedby small-scale fishers, costs which may or may not be shared with government.Second, marine fisheries involve high transaction costs, which also diminish theefficiency of resource allocation over time. Transaction costs in most fisheries involve(i) costs of information; and (ii) enforcement or policing costs. First, efficient fisheries

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 407management implies high information costs, to cope with the major uncertaintiesinherent in natural systems, as well as a range of other biological, social, political andeconomic factors requiring a precautionary approach to fisheries management (Hilbornand Peterman, 1996). Second, fisheries management involves high enforcement orpolicing costs if management schemes are implemented and/or fishery use rightsallocated and policed. For many shelf fisheries, the areas to be policed are extensiveand conventional patrol vessel operations are ineffective and costly. Under thesecircumstances, a non-enforceable right becomes an empty right.The complexities of managing small-scale fisheries that are subject to highexclusion costs and high information and enforcement costs are further exacerbatedby a naturally fluctuating environment, changing coastal ecosystem dynamics, anda lack of solid governance. A set of mitigating strategies is required to deal withthese complexities and move towards fishery sustainability, as described above(Caddy and Seijo, 2005). To deal with these costs that prevent optimal harvestingof the resources, some strategies are presented in Table 1 for small-scale fisheriesthat target species with different degrees of stock mobility.TABLE 1Some strategies for mitigating the effects of high exclusion, informationand enforcement costs in small-scale fisheries, targeting stocks with differentdegrees of mobilityStock mobility Exclusion costs Information costs Enforcement costsSedentary or lowmobilityResources such as someinvertebrates (bivalves,lobster)Mobile(transboundary orshared stocks)Resources found inwaters of multipleneighbour nations(e.g. Caribbeanarea). These includemetapopulationsHighly migratoryResources that passnearby coastal areastargeted or incidentallyharvested by small-scalefisheriesEstablish area-baseduse rights or leasesamong communitymembersLimited entryagreed bilaterally ormultilaterally withallocation of a sharedtotal allowable catchHarvest quotas areestablished by acommissionMembers of thecommission setrules for entry tothe fishery, andarrange allocationnegotiationsCosts of stock assessmentand bio-economicanalysis are sharedbetween those derivingresource rent and thegovernmentBilateral/multilateralcooperation amongparties, along withstandardized datacollection and stockassessment, andcoordinated MCS,plus cost allocationproportional to userights (e.g. quota)Data collection andstock assessment areorganized by thecommission. Costs areshared proportionally tocatch quotasEmphasis on self-policingCommunity-managed MCS 1Co-management withgovernmentBilateral/multilateralcooperation inmanagement andenforcement of commonor harmonized regulationsCommission membersshare enforcement costsproportional to annualharvest by individualcountriesAdapted from Caddy and Seijo, 2005.1MCS: monitoring, control and surveillance.

408Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean1.3 Developing effective fishery institutionsLatin American and the Caribbean fisheries are by no means alone in needingto improve their institutional arrangements in order to enhance the efficiency,equity and overall effectiveness of fishery management. Uncertainty as to futurestock availability, particularly related to a common unsustainability of resourcesdiscussed earlier, has meant that attention tended to focus less on achieving longrunresults and more on short-run benefits.There are, however, positive measures that could improve governance. Somesmall-scale fisheries in the LAC region are very suitable for participatoryinstitutional arrangements, such as the co-management and community-basedmanagement approaches noted above. Indeed, there are various such fisheriesthat already operate using traditional management systems and have establishedinformal agreements within communities about access to fishing grounds. Forsuch fisheries, three specific directions noted in Chapter 14 – incorporating social,economic and livelihood considerations; adopting alternative management schemes;and promoting equity, rights and self-regulation – are especially relevant.Geographical remoteness of small-scale fishing communities, while oftenresulting in marginalization of this sector (especially in terms of the ability toinfluence management and decision-making) can, in some cases, be the incentivefor self-help approaches to fishery sustainability. Whether small-scale fishingcommunities have the potential for community-based approaches to fisheriesmanagement, it is recognized that careful discussion is required for the design andarrangement of appropriate institutions. Discussion about the suitability of sucha management scheme is also needed. As suggested by Chuenpagdee and Jentoft(2007), how the idea is conceived, communicated and discussed is as importantto success in implementing co-management and community-based managementsystems as is the implementation itself.The main principles for solid and lasting community management institutions insmall-scale fisheries and the factors which contribute to successful implementationare well captured in Ostrom (1990). For example, clear boundaries and ‘rules of thegame’ for the operation of the community managed fishery need to be identified.Fishers and other community members need to know who has the right towithdraw resources and from what areas. Appropriation rules and restrictions suchas closed season and closed area need to correspond with the local environmentaland social conditions, and fit within the capacity of the governing institutions tomonitor and control. The complexity and the dynamics of the ecosystems and thehuman components within fishery systems require that these rules are amenableto being modified through a collective decision-making process.In such institutional development, a key goal is to overcome individual incentivesthat operate counter to desired fishing behaviour. For example, in the absence ofa consensus to respect rules such as catch limit, any single fisher’s decision toincrease their individual catch rate will benefit that individual while also increasingcosts of other fishers. Using Shelling’s (1978) terminology, this constitutes a socialtrap, because the micro-motives of an individual fisher in the short-run are not

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 409consistent with the macro-results that this fisher, and others, desire in the longrun. The short-run micro-motives consist of catching as many fish as possible inorder to increase individual marginal benefits, while the long-run desired macroresultsmay involve achieving the maximum economic yield and/or sustaining theflow of protein-rich seafood. Another incentive to overcome is that of free riderbehaviour, defined as participation in the harvest without participation in the costsand constraints imposed by management of the stock, which tends to be present insmall-scale fisheries where the number of fishers is very large and fishing groundsextend widely in the coastal area, making self-policing unfeasible.Allowing for temporal fluctuations in resource productivity and preferencesof resource use, a sustainable yield from a fishery will tend to be attainable onlywhen the number of fishers is limited, and they act together to implement a formof effort regulation. Co-management and community-based management schemesprovide a platform for collective regulatory actions to take place. Furthermore,the participatory nature of co-management creates an expectation among fishersof a legitimate process, thus encouraging compliant behaviour (Chuenpagdeeand Jentoft, 2007; Jentoft, 2007). A successful co-management plan requiresthat the design of institutions is decided through meaningful participation andrepresentation of a broad range of stakeholders. For small-scale fishers, thisimplies that their rights to locally organize and to devise their own institutions arenot challenged by the government authorities (Ostrom, 1990).Other factors that may contribute to successful community management andco-management of small-scale fisheries are robust and transparent leadership,which also fosters cooperative behaviour, effective and timely conflict resolutionmechanisms at the local level, and access to training and technical assistance toimprove knowledge about ecosystems, use of habitat friendly and selective gears,and quality control during the harvesting and post-harvesting processes.2. FISHERY ASSESSMENT AND THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACHThe Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is rapidly becoming one of the mostprominent frameworks with which to assess and manage the world’s fisheries.The EAF is a fundamentally ‘integrated’ approach that connects ecological,socio-economic and institutional considerations and which, in turn, requires anintegrated approach to the assessment of fishery systems. The challenge then liesin simultaneously developing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management andan integrated approach to fisheries assessment.These two approaches are described in this section, with a focus on coastalfisheries, particularly in LAC, where many coastal states are already exploringecosystem approaches to improving fisheries management, and correspondingmechanisms for a comprehensive assessment of the fishery systems and thecorresponding coastal ecosystems. Moves toward EAF draw strongly on the rangeof policy and management directions described in Chapter 14 – certainly the use ofcomprehensive fisheries assessment and the adoption of alternative managementschemes, but also efforts to build capacity for fishery data collection, assessment

410Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanand management, and the incorporation of social, economic and livelihood aspectsinto management decision-making.2.1 Fishery assessmentAs noted in Chapter 14, effective management requires integrated approachesto the assessment of fisheries. However, meeting this need becomes especiallychallenging when considering the uncertain conditions faced by coastal small-scalefisheries (environmental variability, market demands, etc.) and the complexityinvolved (multigear, multispecies, resources and fleet interactions). In addition,application of integrated fisheries assessment and permanent programmes for theevaluation of stocks is greatly limited in many countries in the LAC region by lackof both financial support to conduct research and sufficient personnel with theskills required for that task in many countries in the LAC region.Several key components of coastal fisheries assessment are important, amongthem: (i) assessment of the resource itself; (ii) assessment of habitat and stockdistribution; and (iii) assessment of fishing effort, selectivity and impact ofdifferent fishing gears on resources.Stock assessment in small-scale fisheriesTwo fundamental approaches to evaluate the conditions of the fisheries and thestocks they depend on are: (i) using data from the fishery itself; or (ii) usingfishery-independent data – and in a few LAC cases – both (Puerto Rico,Argentina, Mexico). Data collection methods in fisheries involve on-site as wellas off-site methods. The former includes sampling of commercial fisheries andon-board observers on fishing vessels; the latter comprises reports of fishers abouttheir landings. Biological sampling of size, age, sexual maturity, etc., of commercialfisheries is a task most countries in the LAC region report as part of their strategiesto evaluate fisheries, generally because this is relatively cheaper than independentsurveys and on-board observer programmes. The method involving on-boardobservers is less common in small-scale fisheries, but involvement of fisheries inresearch programmes is becoming more frequent in the LAC area.Data reported by fishers could at times contain biased reports; however, it isbecoming clearer that information derived from fishers’ logdocuments, especiallyif those logdocuments are used for their internal accounting, could be very usefulfor fishery analysis, including that involving spatial stock distribution. In somecases fishers’ logdocument data are recorded by species (Mexico, Salas et al., 2004)and gear (Costa Rica, Chacon et al., 2007). Other approaches that integrate catchrecords at a mostly global level are reported by Chuenpagdee et al. (2006).As indicated in Chapter 14, the level of fisheries analysis in different countriesvaries from the simple catch and effort trend analysis and some aspects ofpopulation dynamics to more complex and sophisticated age structured analysesusing numerical and acoustic methods. For instance, analytical methods, includingacoustic studies combined with development of assessment models (Erhardt andDeleveaux, 2007), provide applications in the context of constrained data sources.

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 411Complexity of some stocks like small pelagic fishes will necessarily demandreliable spatial data in order to incorporate the dynamic behaviour of fishes.A less complex analysis, including size data and reproduction indicators, hasbeen applied to demersal or benthic species. For example, fisheries indicatorsproposed by Froese (2004) to evaluate overfishing conditions include: percentageof specimens with optimum length in catch, percentage of mature fish in catch,and percentage of mega-spawners in catch. The author argues that such simpleindicators have the potential to involve more stakeholders in the evaluation andmanagement of fishery resources and could easily be considered for small-scalefisheries. Assessment of time series data, including size distribution, have shownoverfishing patterns where fishing intensity has increased over time (Bené andTewfik, 2004).Habitat assessment and spatial analysisHabitats are particularly crucial to fishery sustainability, and spatial distributionof stocks can vary widely if changes occur in their habitat (Caddy, 2007). Inthis context, spatial analysis to evaluate the distribution or connectivity ofstocks becomes relevant, especially in cases where meta-populations have beenidentified. Studies focused on stock distribution based on habitat characteristicsthrough survey studies and fishery-dependent data have recently been reportedfor the region (Ríos et al, 2007; Jaureguizar et al., 2006). Other research has beendesignated to evaluate the effect of port location when spatially managing coastalfisheries (e.g. Seijo and Caddy, 2008).It should be pointed out that spatial analysis and sophisticated laboratorytechniques may be prohibitive for scientists in some countries in the LAC region.Modelling, however, could use simple spreadsheets through to more complexprogramming languages without necessarily requiring high technology. In bothcases, improvement of skills for the personnel in charge of stock assessmentmay be required. Support from international agencies has been oriented in thisdirection (FAO, CIDA, IDRC, WWF, World Bank, UNDP); however, it is thecommitment from the agencies in charge of management in the various countriesthat is essential in order to maintain the effort supporting detailed research oncethe agencies leave.Fishing effort, methods and gearIn most cases, the need to properly assess and control the fishing effort of smallscalefleets has been recognized in the LAC region. Nevertheless, the widedistribution of fishers along coastal areas makes proper evaluation difficult. Animportant consideration when assessing fisheries is the dynamics of small-scaleboats. The operators of these coastal boats make short-run decisions concerningwhat to fish for, where to allocate the corresponding fishing effort, matters ofbycatch and discarding, and long-run entry and exit decisions, which may or maynot include changes in fishing power. Studies concentrating on bycatch seem to bemore common in industrial fisheries than in small-scale coastal fisheries.

412Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanThe assessment of fishing effort allocations and investment was not commonwithin the evaluations in this publication, nor among the participants at theCoastFish conference. However, some work in the LAC region has been reported(Bené and Tewfik, 2001; Cabrera and Defeo, 2001; Salas et al., 2004; Salas andCharles, 2008). On the other hand, evaluation of fishing power and gear selectivityappear to be the most common of the categories referred to above, and seem to beused especially in those cases where deterioration of fisheries resources has beenacknowledged.Given the high diversity of fishing methods and gear employed in coastalsmall-scale fisheries in LAC, assessment of these fishing gears is particularlyrelevant. In addition, the need to improve selectivity – something more thanfishing efficiency – due to the level of deterioration of stocks in many parts ofthe region requires studies dealing with the effects of alternative fishing gear onspecies and size selectivity. These evaluations involve experiments to test differenttypes of gears and methods, which can be demanding in terms of time and money.However, participatory research can be undertaken with small-scale fishersgenuinely interested in sustaining the yield of their fishery (Chuenpagdee et al.,2003; Rueda, 2007).To support management decision-making (in addition to supporting bioecologicalanalysis and stock assessment), detailed information on the social andeconomic circumstances of the fishers and their communities, marketing patternsor conservation needs must be gathered in future research efforts in this field. Itshould be pointed out that a recent study by Garcia et al. (2008) indicates thatconventional frameworks for fishery assessment do not provide an adequate basisfor informed management decisions and development planning in small-scalefisheries.2.2 Ecosystem approach to coastal fisheriesA particularly significant move globally, to build alternative management schemesin fisheries and to incorporate the other directions noted in Chapter 14, is that ofthe EAF. There is international pressure on all fishing nations to implement anecosystem approach in their domestic fisheries and in any international fisheryin which they participate. The importance of the EAF was recognized in 2001 by47 countries participating in the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheriesin the Marine Ecosystem. The signing parties declared “that in an effort toreinforce responsible and sustainable fisheries in the marine ecosystem, we willindividually and collectively work in incorporating ecosystem considerations intothat management…” (FAO, 2001).The vision of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management is summarizedin Chapter 17 of Agenda 21: “The marine environment – including oceans andall seas and adjacent coastal areas – forms an integrated whole that is an essentialcomponent of the global life-support system and a positive asset that presentsopportunities for sustainable development. International law … sets forth rightsand obligations of states and provides the international basis upon which to pursue

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 413the protection and sustainable development of the marine and coastal environmentand its resources”. As pointed out by Cochrane et al. (2004) and Ward et al.(2002), a number of attempts have been made to translate this ideal into a practicaland feasible approach, including those of the United States National ResearchCouncil (1999), the Convention of Biological Diversity and the World Wide Fundfor Nature.FAO (2003) developed an interpretation of these and other efforts in the formof a rationale and a definition. The rationale: “The purpose of an ecosystemapproach to fisheries is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner thataddresses the multiplicity of societal needs and desires, without jeopardizingthe options of future generations to benefit from the full range of goods andservices provided by the marine ecosystem.” And the definition: “An ecosystemapproach to fisheries to balance diverse societal objectives by taking account ofthe knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human componentsand applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecological meaningfulboundaries”. As recognized by Cochrane et al. (2004), the implementation of theEAF is likely to be slow, and many countries, agencies and individuals are still inthe process of understanding and interpreting just what is intended by the termEAF. One agreement that is emerging from the discussion is the need to capturethe human and ecological interdependencies relevant for wise management ofcoastal ecosystems (De Young et al., 2008). This is particularly relevant in thecontext of small-scale fisheries.Ecosystem considerations in assessment and management of coastal fisheriesIntegrated management of marine ecosystems is an approach required to managemultiple and competing uses (including fish harvesting in this case) of certaindesignated marine areas, including managing multiple stakeholders. It also requires,like EAF, processes of participatory decision-making and conflict resolution. Itrequires estimation of externalities involved in using the ecosystem and valuationof the goods and services of the marine ecosystem. For the valuation of goods andservices of coastal ecosystems, it is important to acknowledge that human welfarecan be derived from them by direct use or by consumption of fish products, byrecognition of the indirect value of a marine ecosystem ecological service to theproduction of other goods and services, by the use or consumption of goods andecological services by future generations, and by the inherent existence of suchgoods and services (De Young et al., 2008).Two aspects of ecosystems considerations that require attention are the timeneeded to learn and acquire knowledge on the ecosystem, including the knowledgefrom fishers, and the need to carefully assess the impacts EAF interventions mayhave over the distribution of benefits and costs. A recent expert consultation onthe economic and social implications of EAF acknowledged that EAF objectivesand principles needed to be revised and expanded to better reflect social, economicand institutional implications (De Young et al., 2008). It has also been recognizedthat an understanding of EAF in the context of co-management and communitybasedmanagement is a priority (Seijo, 2007).

414Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanBecause of the greater uncertainties involved in considering ecosystemdimensions as opposed to the single species approach, application of decisiontheory to address situations of limited information seems to be the way to proceedwhile continuing to build appropriate ecosystem information systems. Theserequire more extensive coverage of capacity building and also training mechanismsfor applying EAF with appropriate parsimony.Some of the main issues that will need to be dealt with in small-scale fisheriesin the process of establishing ecosystem approaches for management are thefollowing (Seijo, 2007): Changes in management measures to implement an EAF are likely to lead topotential conflicts with stakeholders; this reality needs to be considered andallowances made in the process of developing an EAF for specific fisheries. Data collection requirements are greater with the EAF than with singletarget species analysis of fisheries. In developing coastal states where it is already difficult to implementadequate data collection for single species, obtaining scientifically-valid datain support of fisheries management, following an ecosystem approach, couldpose major problems. Costs of building and maintaining data collection and analysis systems forentire marine ecosystems and their users (i.e. artisanal and industrial fishers,eco-tourists and non-consumptive users) are likely to be substantial. Information costs may need to be paid for by the multiple users of theecosystem in order to meet the basic requirements for implementing anoperational EAF. Managing fisheries, while taking into account limited knowledge anduncertainties on biotic, abiotic and human components, will require thedevelopment of adequate monitoring approaches. The focus cannot be exclusively on biological monitoring but should alsoinclude the human dynamics involving institutional, economic and socialdimensions.Data and indicators for an ecosystem approach to fisheriesThe complexities of managing fisheries within an ecosystem framework willrequire the best science available and sustained input of fishers who have valuableempirical knowledge of the marine ecosystem with which they interact. In thetransition from single species management approaches to EAF, while there willremain an inevitable focus on collecting basic data for the economically mostimportant species, fisheries assessments should also monitor: (i) changes inthe abundance of their prey and predators through appropriate survey-basedindicators; (ii) changes in those environmental factors of importance to their lifehistories; and (iii) social, economic and institutional considerations that bear onthe goals of management, and affect its chances of success.This broadening of management raises some practical research questions tobe considered in managing small-scale fisheries with a scope that goes beyond

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 415the stock assessment of target species. For example: What are the critical habitatrequirements for targeted marine resources and at what life stage and to what areasof restricted habitat do they apply? What is the variable extent and status of suchcritical habitats and how are these impacted by multiple human activities? Whatare the use and non-use values of the ecosystem where species are harvested bysmall-scale boats? How should the costs of ecosystem monitoring and surveillancebe distributed among users and coastal states? These and other related questionscould be addressed in the future to enhance the importance of ecosystemconsiderations in the management of coastal small-scale fisheries.A fundamental step in the process of extending beyond the single speciesapproach to fisheries management is that of building an operational and usefulsystem of indicators and corresponding reference points. In order for fisheryindicators to become more meaningful, they should explicitly account for changesin the ecosystem in which they occur, which can arise from such causes as climatechanges, overfishing, environmental degradation due to human activities, orthe destruction of critical habitats. Pikitch et al. (2004) note in particular that“...we need to develop community and system level standards, reference pointsand control rules similar to single species decision criteria”.It should be pointed out, however, as indicated by Sainsbury and Sumaila(2003), that before specifying indicators and reference points, there are twobasic questions to answer: (i) Is there a need for explicit reference points for theecosystem, such as food web dynamics, ecological community structure andbiodiversity, or are species-based reference points sufficient? (ii) If ecosystemreference points are needed, should they be based on properties of the undisturbedcoastal ecosystem? There seems to be an additional question: How to proceed inthe absence of baseline studies of early stages of coastal development? The latter isa common situation in many LAC countries.Spatial dimensions in an ecosystem approachIn managing fisheries cost effectively and in a way that maintains the integrity ofcoastal ecosystems, countries in the LAC region may have to incorporate spatialstructure and dynamic environmental processes to properly account for changesin habitat and ecosystem function in the context of dynamic change.Small-scale fishers respond spatially to resource distribution when allocating theirfishing activity over space and time. This should be accounted for when assessinghow small-scale fisheries are targeting species where seasonality in the spatialdistribution of the resource is relevant, and when targeting sedentary resources withheterogeneous spatial distributions. In this respect, fishery indicators should bedisaggregated over space and time to provide meaningful information to decisionmakers.To progressively move in the direction of spatial management of fisheries,issues like the setting of an MPA with respect to source and sink areas would needto be considered (Ríos et al., 2007; Seijo and Caddy, 2008).

416Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean3. CONCLUDING REMARKSCoastal fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean are remarkably diverse. Asa result, there can be no “one size fits all” answer to the specifics of assessment ormanagement. Instead, it is crucial to seek out broadly-applicable frameworks andapproaches. Therein lies the importance of moving toward innovative governancesystems, effective institutions, integrated assessment frameworks and broad-basedecosystem approaches, as described in this chapter.Along with their diversity, coastal fisheries are also inherently complex. Indeveloping frameworks and approaches for effective assessment and managementof small-scale fisheries, we must acknowledge the human, ecological andtechnological interdependencies present in the multiple use of coastal ecosystems.This will often require expanding beyond single species thinking into multispeciesand multifleet approaches (Van den Bergh et al., 2007). It is also important totake into account fisher decision-making in small-scale fisheries, the complexitiesof which include flexible switching of target species that may occur seasonallyby artisanal fleets as a function of species availability (catch rates) and markets/demand. A third key source of complexity in coastal fisheries is spatialheterogeneity – this suggests the need to pay attention to spatially-explicitmanagement, such as through seasonally-closed areas or permanently closed areas(marine protected areas) in areas of particular sensitivity, such as nursery groundsand critical habitats.In seeking new directions to cope with the above-noted diversity and complexityin coastal fisheries, it was noted in Chapter 14, and emphasized throughout thischapter, that there is a need to broaden the perspective on management. Thisincludes suitable governance frameworks (including development of alternativemanagement schemes), more comprehensive fisheries assessments, as well as aframework for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries that is specifically relevantto small-scale fisheries management. These moves require incorporating social,economic and livelihood considerations and paying attention to capacity-buildingneeds.Suitable frameworks and approaches for assessment and management mustfocus on coping under conditions of uncertainty, through a systematic processover time. This could be envisioned as including several major steps, such as thefollowing:(i) Define fisheries management questions in the context of the multiple usersof the marine ecosystem, and of relevant ecological and technologicalinterdependencies among species, habitats and fisheries within theecosystem.(ii) Determine suitable performance variables (biological/ecological, economic,social, cultural and institutional) as well as corresponding performanceindicators and their limit and target reference points.(iii) Identify alternative management, co-management or communitymanagement strategies for the fishery within a coastal ecosystem context.

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 417(iv) Design, adapt or select a suitable assessment framework within whichto evaluate management alternatives; this may range from intuitiveapproaches through to dynamic models of ecologically and technologicallyinterdependent fishery systems along with suitable collection of data toestimate model parameters.(v) Identify the key sources of uncertainty and risk (including, where possible,states of nature in uncertain and sensitive parameters, and probabilitiesrelating to these) and apply decision criteria that take uncertainties intoaccount.This process should be adapted and made as simple as possible to facilitate datacollection systems and management frameworks that can progressively deal withthe added complexities of decision-making implied by new governance systemsand ecosystem approaches.Attention to effective governance and healthy ecosystems, as highlighted inthis chapter, is urgently needed in many coastal fisheries of the LAC region,facing a combination of difficult problems including depleted stocks, degradedcoastal habitats, excessive catching capacity, a shortage of local livelihoodalternatives, and a lack of empowerment among fishers and fishing communitiesto participate in management decision-making. As noted earlier, there is nomagic answer to this set of challenges. However, as pointed out in a number ofcontributions in this document, there are some promising mitigating strategies tothe overexploitation syndrome in coastal fisheries. Among those raised herein,related either to governance or to ecosystem well-being, are management measuressuch as: (i) community and co-management approaches; (ii) self-regulation andself-policing; (iii) increased use of habitat-friendly fishing methods and selectivegear, to protect the ecosystem that sustains the fishery; and (iv) a systematicplanning approach to capacity management, aiming to ensure a desirable ‘mix’ inthe fishery. In combination, such measures have various implications; for example,capacity management in a multispecies fishery might favour maintaining small- tomedium-sized multipurpose vessels, which would more easily allow for flexibleswitching among target species, reducing the incentive to fish depleted species andthus giving the stocks time to recover.Whatever the particular management interventions – the choice of which willbe context-specific – adoption of suitable policy frameworks and approaches, asoutlined in this chapter, is crucial. These provide pathways that build on existingsuccess stories, providing positive directions toward a future of sustainable andresilient coastal fisheries across LAC.REFERENCESAgüero M. & Claverí M. 2007. Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en AméricaLatina: una síntesis de estudios de caso. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesqueroen América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO Documento Técnico dePesca 461. pp. 61–72.

418Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanBené Ch. & Tewfik A. 2001. Fishing effort allocation and fishermen’s decision makingprocess in a multispecies small-scale fishery: Analysis of the conch and lobsterfishery in Turk and Caicos Island. Hum. Eco., 29(2): 157–186.Berkes F. (ed). 1989. Common property resources: ecology and community-basedsustainable development. Belhaven Press, London.Cabrera J.L. & Defeo O. 2001. Daily bio-economic analysis in a multispecific artisanalfishery in Yucatán, Mexico. Aquat. Liv. Res., 14: 19–28.Caddy J.F. 2007. Marine habitat and cover: their importance for productive coastalfishery resources. UNESCO, Paris.Caddy J.F. & Seijo J.C. 2005. This is more difficult than we thought! The responsibilityof scientists, managers and stakeholders to mitigate the unsustainability of marinefisheries. Phil. Trans. R. Soc., 360: 59–75.Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2001. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis inco-management and experimental practices. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish., 11: 1–30.Castilla J.C. & Gelcich S. 2008. Management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas) asa driver for self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. In Case studiesin fisheries self-governance. Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida.FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 504. pp. 441–451. Rome, FAO.CeDePesca. 2005. The imperative of recognizing artisanal fishworkers’ fishing accessrights. www.cedepesca.org.ar/Chacón A., Araya H., Váquez R., Brenes R.A., Marín B.E., Palacios J.A., Soto R.,Mejía-Arana F., Shimazu Y. & Hiramatsu K. 2007. Estadísticas pesqueras delGolfo de Nicoya, Costa Rica, 1994-2005. INCOPESCA-UNA-JICA. Costa Rica.Chakallal B., Mahon R., McConney P., Nurse L. & Oderson D. 2007. Governanceof fisheries and other living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean. Fish. Res.,87: 92–99.Charles A. 2001. Sustainable fishery systems. Blackwell Science. UK.Charles A. 2002. Use rights and responsible fisheries: limiting access and harvestingthrough rights-based management. In A Fishery manager’s guidebook. Managementmeasures and their application. Edited by K. Cochrane. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper. No. 424. Rome, FAO.Charles A. 2004. Rights-based fishery management: A focus on use rights. In Whogets the fish? Proceedings of the New England Workshop on Rights-Based FisheriesManagement Approaches. Edited by M.E. Petruny-Parker, K.M. Castro, M.L.Schwartz, L.G. Skrobe and B. Somers. Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett,Rhode Island, USA.Chuenpagdee R. & Jentoft S. 2007. Step zero for fisheries co-management: Whatprecedes implementation? Mar. Pol., 31(6): 657–668.Chuenpagdee R., Morgan L., Maxwell S., Norse E. & Pauly D. 2003. Shifting gears:assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in United States waters. Front Ecol.Environ., 1(10): 517–524.Chuenpagdee R., Liguori L., Palomares M.L.D. & Pauly D. 2006. Bottom-up, globalestimates of small-scale fisheries catches. Fish. Cen. Res. Rep., 14(8). (Available atwww.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/).

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 419Cochrane K.L., Augustyn C.J., Cockcroft A.C., David J.H.M., Griffiths M.H.,Groeneveld J.C., Lipinski M.R., Smales M.J., Smith C.D. & Tarr R.J.Q. 2004. Anecosystem approach to fisheries in the Southern Benguela context. Afr. J. mar. Sci.,26: 9–35.Costanza R., Andrade F., Antunes P., van den Belt M., Boersma D., Boesch D.F.,Catarino F., Hanna S., Limburg K., Low B., Molitor M., Pereira J.G., Rayner S.,Santos R., Wilson J. & Young M. 1998. Principles for sustainable governance of theoceans. Science, 281: 198–199.De Young C., Charles A. & Hjort A. 2008. Human dimensions of the ecosystemapproach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 489. Rome, FAO.Ehrhardt N. & Deleveaux V. 2007. The Bahamas’ Nassau grouper (Epinephelusstriatus) fishery – two assessment methods applied to a data-deficient coastalpopulation. Fish. Res., 87(1): 17–27.FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome, FAO.FAO. 2000. Informe del taller sobre manejo y asignación de recursos pesqueros apescadores artesanales en América Latina, Valparaíso, Chile, April 25–28, 2000.Rome.FAO. 2001. Report of the Reykjavik conference on responsible fisheries in the marineecosystem. Fish. Rep., 658. Rome.FAO. 2003. Fisheries Management 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAOTechnical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 4. Rome.FAO. 2006. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome.FAO. 2008. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome. 176p.Froese R. 2004. Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish andFisheries, 5: 86–91.García S.M., Allison E.H., Andrew N.J., Néné C., Bianchi G., de Graaf G.J.,Kolikoski D., Mahon R. & Orensan J.M. 2008. Towards integrated assessment andadvice in small-scale fisheries: principles and processes. FAO Fisheries and AquaticTechnical Paper. No. 515. Rome, FAO.Hilborn R. & Peterman R.M. 1996. The development of scientific advice withincomplete information in the context of the precautionary approach. In Theprecautionary approach to fisheries. Part 2: scientific papers. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper. No. 350/2, pp. 77–101.Jentoft S. 2007. Beyond fisheries management: The Phronetic dimension. Mar. Pol.,30(6): 671–680.Jaureguizar A., Menni R., Lasta C. & Guerrero R. 2006. Fish assemblages of theNorthern Argentine Coastal System: spatial patterns and their temporal variations.Fish. Oceanogr., 15(4): 326–344.Kooiman J., Bavinck M., Jentoft S. & Pullin R. (eds). 2005. Fish for life. Interactivegovernance for fisheries. MARE Publ. Series No. 3. Amsterdam University Press.Amsterdam.McConney P. & Baldeo R. 2007. Lessons in co-management from beach seine andlobster fisheries in Grenada. Fish. Res., 87: 77–85.

420Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanNational Research Council, Committee on Ecosystem Management for SustainableMarine Fisheries. 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press.Washington, DC.OECD. 2006. Financial support to fisheries. Implications for sustainable development.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris, France.Pikitch E.K., Santora C., Babcock E.A., Bakun A., Bonfil R., Conover D.O.,Dayton P., Doukakis P., Fluharty D., Heneman B., Houde E.D., Link J.,Livingston P.A., Mangel M., McAllister M.K., Pope J. & Sainsbury K.J. 2004.Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science, 305: 346–347.Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collectiveaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Ostrom E. & Hess C. 2007. Private and common property rights. Working paper SeriesSSRN-id1304699.pdf . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1304699Ríos-Lara V., Salas S., Bello-Pineda J. & Peniche-Ayora I. 2007. Distribution patternsof spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). Fish. Res., 87(1): 35–45.Rueda M. 2007. Evaluating the selective performance of the encircling gillnet used intropical estuarine fisheries from Colombia. Fish. Res., 87(1): 28–34.Sainsbury K. & Sumaila U.R. 2003. Incorporating ecosystem objectives intomanagement of sustainable marine fisheries, including ‘best practice’ referencepoints and use of marine protected areas. In Responsible Fisheries in the MarineEcosystem. Edited by M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson. CABI Publishing, Rome.pp. 343–361.Salas S. & Charles A. 2008. Are small-scale fishers profit maximizers?: Exploringfishing performance of small-scale fishers and factors determining catch rates. Proc.Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 60: 117–124.Salas S., Sumaila R.U. & Pitcher T. 2004. Short-term decisions of small-scale fisheriesselecting alternative target species: a choice model. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 61(3):374–383.Salas S., Chuenpagdee R., Seijo J.C. & Charles, A. 2007. Challenges in the assessmentand management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish.Res., 87: 5–16.Schmid A.A. 1987. Property, power and public choice. Praeger, New York.Schmid A.A. 2004. Conflict and cooperation: Institutional and behavioural economics.Oxford: Blackwell.Schelling T.C. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehaviour. W.W. Norton and Company,New York.Seijo J.C. 1993. Individual transferable grounds in a community managed artisanalfishery. Mar. Res. Econ., 8: 78–81.Seijo J.C. 2007. Considerations for management of metapopulations in small-scalefisheries of the Mesoamerican barrier reef ecosystem. Fish. Res., 87: 86–91.Seijo J.C. & Caddy J.F. 2008. Port location for inshore fleets affects the sustainabilityof coastal source-sink resources: implications for spatial management ofmetapopulations. Fish. Res., 91(2–3): 336–348.

Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 421Sosa-Cordero E., Liceaga-Correa M.A. & Seijo J.C. 2008. The Punta Allen lobsterfishery current status and recent trends. In Case studies in fisheries self-governance.Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida. FAO Fisheries Technical PaperNo. 504. pp. 149–162.Sutinen J. 1999. What works well and why: evidence from fishery managementexperience in OECD countries. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56(6): 1051–1058.Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Hoekstra J., Imeson R., Nunes P.A.L.D. & de BlaeijA.T. 2007. Bio-economic modelling and valuation of exploited marine ecosystems.Springer, the Netherlands.Ward T., Tarte D., Hegerl E. & Short K. 2002. Policy proposals and operationalguidance for ecosystem based management of marine capture fisheries. WWFAustralia.

42316. Concluding thoughts: coastalfisheries of Latin America andthe CaribbeanAnthony Charles*, Silvia Salas, Juan Carlos Seijo and Ratana ChuenpagdeeCharles, A., Salas, S., Seijo, J.C. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2011. Concluding thoughts: coastalfisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles andJ.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries andAquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 423–426.This document has sought to accomplish three goals: (1) to highlight the diversenature of coastal fisheries in the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region;(2) to examine how these fisheries are currently assessed and managed; and (3)to explore future directions – in policy, management and assessment – that canimprove the state of LAC fisheries. The first two of these goals have been metlargely thanks to the impressive work of colleagues in twelve LAC countries,spread out across the region. The authors of our ‘country chapters’ have workedover the past several years to produce a body of material that together paintsa picture of the wide range of coastal fisheries found in the region. This set ofchapters in the document at the same time provides a strong base for the integratedanalysis of fishery assessment and management in the region in Chapter 14 – ananalysis which, to our knowledge, is a first for the region. Finally, the third goal ofthe document, to examine options for the future of LAC coastal fisheries, was met,we hope, in the discussions of Chapter 15, which focuses on linking global trendsin fishery thinking with the specific realities of the LAC region.The focus on coastal fisheries has represented another unique feature of thisdocument. Throughout the document, such fisheries have included three mainsubtypes: subsistence fisheries, traditional fisheries (artisanal), and advancedartisanal (or semi-industrial) fisheries. While there are always differences inperspective – between analysts as well as among countries – over what constituteseach of these subtypes, the key distinction we have sought to make here is betweencoastal fisheries on the one hand and industrial or recreational fisheries on the otherhand. Thus, while some coastal fisheries may involve more capital-intensive fleetsthan might be typically seen as ‘small scale’, there is, in many cases, a reasonableequivalency of coastal and small-scale fisheries. The importance of focusing on* Contact information: Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. E-mail: tony.charles@smu.ca

424Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeansuch fisheries has been increasingly highlighted on a global scale – for example,through FAO’s Small-Scale Fisheries Conference (2008) and the forthcomingWorld Small-Scale Fisheries Congress (2010).A key rationale for this focus on ‘coastal’ and small-scale fisheries lies in theirtypically close connections to coastal communities, and thus the crucial role theyplay in supporting community well-being and household livelihoods along thecoasts of the LAC region. In Chapter 1, it was noted that “The major contributionto the region’s total landings comes from pelagic species landed by the industrialfisheries”, so in terms of quantities alone, coastal fisheries are not typically thebiggest contributors. But the value added that comes from these fisheries goesfar beyond the size of landings or of GDP figures. This reality calls out for newor enlarged measures of fishery contributions – ones that involve livelihoods,regional economic development, community welfare, and so on – if we are toproperly understand the value of coastal fisheries globally.As noted at the outset, the fishery information presented in this publicationis certainly not exhaustive, since it reflects but a sample of the region’s fisheries.However, the twelve countries included provide reasonable geographical coverageof Latin America and the Caribbean, including each of the main subregions: The Caribbean islands (Barbados, Cuba, Grenada, Puerto Rico, DominicanRepublic, Trinidad and Tobago); North and Central America (Mexico, Costa Rica); and South America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay).Furthermore, as described in Chapter 14, our analyses indicate that thecoverage herein does indeed reflect many issues and challenges shared by fisheriesmore widely in the region, especially regarding assessment and management. Theoverall state of coastal fisheries in the LAC region was described in Chapter 1,while Chapter 14 describes the broad features of coastal fisheries globally and theparticular characteristics of such fisheries in each of the twelve countries coveredin the document. Chapter 14 then summarizes both the fishery data available ineach country (from catch and effort data through to institutional and benefit/costinformation), as well as the management methods (from catch limits and accessrights to gear restrictions and closed areas). There are clear indications of whichforms of data, and which management approaches, tend to be most prevalent inthe region – and which are less uncommon or even rare. A synthesis is providedof these results, including the extent to which each subregion (Caribbean, CentralAmerica and South America) has the four main forms of information discussed(basic fishery data, bio-ecological, socio-cultural and economic).In exploring future directions for LAC coastal fisheries, Chapter 14 drew onthe above analysis to highlight five specific fishery assessment and managementapproaches to improve the state of these fisheries:

Concluding thoughts: coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 4251. Comprehensive fisheries assessment.2. Building capacity for fishery data collection, assessment and management.3. Incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerations.4. Adopting alternative management schemes.5. Promoting equity, rights and self-regulation.Options for implementing each of these approaches in a coastal fisheriescontext were discussed in Chapter 14, while Chapter 15 moved to a broader policyanalysis, noting that the five themes above all fit into two major policy frameworksbeing advocated globally as essential to the future of fisheries: Development of new innovations in fishery governance and institutionaldesign. Adoption of an ecosystem approach to fisheries.Chapter 15 explored these two major frameworks in some detail, withemphasis on how they can be effectively applied in the context of coastal fisheriesmanagement, particularly in the LAC region. It was noted that taking the rightmoves toward implementing these approaches, within an appropriate context,would increase the likelihood of success in efforts to improve the conditions ofcoastal fisheries across Latin America and the Caribbean.A recurring theme in this document has been the reality that effectiveassessment and management of small-scale fisheries – and the success of movesto meet governance and ecosystem challenges – must acknowledge the human,ecological and technological interdependencies present in the various uses ofcoastal ecosystems. This requires an appreciation of the goals, the motivations andthe decision-making patterns of coastal fishers and communities.As a concrete example of this, consider the switching behaviour that fisherscommonly practice among target species along the coast – often seasonally as aresult of species availability, catch rates and markets. Such behaviour needs to betaken into account in analysis of these fisheries, as well as in management actions.From a policy perspective, it may be important (i) to allow fishers to changetarget species in relation to abundance and demand, to avoid the incentive to fishdepleted species, and thereby give the stocks time to recover; and (ii) to encouragethe fleets made up of small- to medium-sized multipurpose vessels that are capableof such flexible switching among species. It is also important to ensure that coastalecosystems are kept healthy. Thus it is important that while encouraging switchingbehaviour, there is avoidance of unselective fishing gears and/or habitat-unfriendlygear. Finally, there may be a need to build bio-ecological safeguards as mechanismsto cope with the complexities of human activity on the coast – such as seasonalclosures, technical measures to avoid capture of unwanted or protected species,and permanently closed areas (marine protected areas) in areas of particularsensitivity such as nursery grounds and critical habitats.Such situations highlight the complex nature both of human uses along thecoast and of coastal ecosystems. There is undoubtedly a challenge to be faced

426Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbeanin the assessment and management of coastal fisheries, given that complexitiessuch as these arise typically in situations where there are also major limitationson data availability – a reality that has been emphasized in Chapter 14 as well asthroughout the country chapters of this publication.Fortunately, however, the challenge is not insurmountable. Shifts in thedirections summarized above – including appropriate governance arrangementsand an ecosystem approach – can work successfully for the coastal fisheries ofLatin America and the Caribbean, as well as those elsewhere, by drawing on akey strength – the capabilities of coastal fishers and coastal communities. Theirenergy, experience and local knowledge base make fishers and communities crucialpartners in assessment and management, through participatory research anddata collection, as well as community-based and co-management arrangements.This partnership with scientists and managers can help overcome the range ofshortcomings in ‘official’ data sources and in conventional fisheries management.In small-scale fisheries around the world, and specifically in the LAC region, ifgovernmental policy places value on (and shows respect for) the integrity andwell-being of coastal fishers, communities and ecosystems, this will go a long wayto ensuring the health of these coastal systems into the future.

427List of contributorsArgentinaClaudia CarozzaInés ElíasEdgardo E. Di GiácomoMiguel S. IslaJ.M. (Lobo) OrensanzAna María ParmaRaúl C. PereiroRaquel Perier M.Ricardo G. PerrottaUMaría E. RéClaudio RuarteInstituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo PesqueroCentro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquerías “Almirante Storni”Secretaría de Promoción Económica y FiscalCentro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)Centro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)Universidad del Trabajo del Uruguay (UTU)Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquerías “Almirante Storni”Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo PesqueroCentro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo PesqueroPatrick McConneyCentre for Resource Management and EnvironmentalStudies, University of the West IndiesBarbadosBrazilDaniela Coswig KalikoskiAntonio Carlos DieguesMarcelo VasconcellosAnthony CharlesRatana ChuenpagdeeUniversidad Federal de Río GrandeUniversidade Estadual de Sao Paulo (usp)Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG)Saint Mary´s UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandCanadaColombiaCosta RicaCubaDominicanRepublicClaudia Stella BeltránJacobo BlancoJuan Carlos NarváezMario RuedaEfraín VitoliaConsultora IndependienteUniversidad del MagdalenaUniversidad del MagdalenaInstituto de investigaciones Marinas y CosterasInstituto de investigaciones Marinas y CosterasAngel Herrera-Ulloa Universidad Nacional de Costa RicaGuillermo Oro-Marcos Instituto Nacional de AprendizajeJosé Palacios-Villegas Universidad Nacional de Costa RicaLuis Villalobos-Chacón Universidad Nacional de Costa RicaRigoberto Viquez-Portuguéz Universidad Nacional de Costa RicaRegla DuthitLuis FontRafael PugaMireya SosaServando V. ValleLiliana BetancourtAlejandro HerreraPatricia LamelasAlba MeloMiguel SilvaCentro de Investigaciones PesquerasCentro de Investigaciones PesquerasCentro de Investigaciones PesquerasCentro de Investigaciones PesquerasCentro de Investigaciones PesquerasPrograma EcoMarPrograma EcoMarCentro para la Conservación y el Ecodesarrollo de la Bahíade Samaná y su Entorno

428Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanRoland BaldeoFisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and FisheriesGrenadaMexicoPuertoRicoPorfirio Álvarez-TorresEnrique Arcos-HuitrónFrancisco Arreguín-SánchezAntonio Díaz-de-LeónPablo del Monte-LunaJosé Ignacio FernándezLuís G. López-LemusGermán PonceSilvia SalasJuan Carlos SeijoDavid J. DieDaniel Matos-CaraballoManoj ShivlaniMónica Valle-EsquivelSecretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales(SEMARNAT)Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPNCentro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPNSecretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales(SEMARNAT)Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales(SEMARNAT)Instituto Nacional de la Pesca-SAGARPASecretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales(SEMARNAT)Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPNCINVESTAV del IPNUniversidad Marista de MéridaCooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies,Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,University of MiamiPuerto Rico Department of Natural and EnvironmentalResourcesCooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies,Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,University of MiamiMRAG Americas, Inc., St. Petersburg, FloridaTrinidadandTobagoUruguayChristine Chan A. ShingLara FerreiraElizabeth MohammedSuzuette SoomaiLouanna MartinAnita de ÁlavaOmar DefeoSebastián HortaPablo PuigMinistry of Food Production, Land and Marine AffairsMinistry of Food Production, Land and Marine AffairsMinistry of Food Production, Land and Marine AffairsMinistry of Food Production, Land and Marine AffairsMinistry of Food Production, Land and Marine AffairsUNDECIMAR, Facultad de CienciasUNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias and DINARAUNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias and DINARADINARA

429Editors’ profileDr Silvia Salas is a professor at the Yucatán research centre of the Centro deInvestigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV) in Mexico. She has workedon various projects relating to bio-economic analysis and assessment of fisheriesin Canada and Mexico, and has taught courses on fisheries biology and fisheriesbio-economics in Mexico and Costa Rica. She is engaged in connecting research tomanagement, ranging from coastal community initiatives to general managementprogrammes, and by participating in advisory committees of governmentalagencies in Mexico. She is a member of the advisory scientific board for the FAOWECAF region, and has participated as an expert in several scientific meetingsorganized by FAO. She has worked as a consultant for the National Commissionof Fisheries in Mexico and the main oil company in Mexico, looking at differenttypes of impacts of anthropogenic activities on fisheries. Her current researchinvolves bio-economic analysis of small-scale fisheries, evaluation of fishingstrategies of fishers, dynamics of fishing fleets and implications for management,as well as evaluation of perceptions concerning the use and management of coastalresources.Dr Ratana Chuenpagdee is Canada Research Chair in Natural ResourceSustainability and Community Development at Memorial University ofNewfoundland, Canada. Her research emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches tofisheries and coastal ecosystems management, focusing particularly on small-scalefisheries, marine protected areas, community-based management, food securityand fisheries governance. Dr Chuenpagdee has developed two tools for integratedcoastal management, i.e. the ‘damage schedule approach’ for non-monetaryvaluation of natural resources and the ‘Coastal Transects Analysis Model’(CTAM), an online visualization and interactive decision-support software.As a member of the Fisheries Governance Network based in Amsterdam, theNetherlands, she has contributed to the production of the book Fish for Life aswell as to the practitioner handbook Interactive Fisheries Governance: A Guide toBetter Practice. Dr Chuenpagdee is also co-director of the Coastal DevelopmentCentre in Thailand, which serves as a secretariat for the Coastal Zone Asia-PacificAssociation and is responsible for the organization of its biennial conferences.Dr Juan Carlos Seijo is a professor of Fisheries Bio-economics at the Schoolof Natural Resources, Marista University of Mérida, Mexico, where he wasuniversity president from 1996 to 2004. His academic work has been published inscientific journals that include Marine Resource Economics, Journal of AquacultureEconomics and Management, Fisheries Research, Marine and Freshwater Research,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, among others. He is author andco-author of three documents in his field of specialization, and is currentlyworking on spatial modelling and management of marine fisheries, and risk anduncertainty in fisheries associated to climate change. He has taught specializedcourses in fisheries bio-economics in Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Taiwan Provinceof China, Colombia, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Panama, Trinidad and

430Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the CaribbeanTobago, Costa Rica, Cuba and Guatemala, and has participated in a number ofinternational expert consultations. He is currently Chairman of the ScientificAdvisory Group of WECAFC (Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission ofFAO), Board Member of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics andTrade (IIFET) and President Elect of the North American Association of FisheriesEconomists (NAAFE).Dr Anthony Charles is a professor of Management Science and EnvironmentalStudies at Saint Mary’s University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, wherehe focuses on interdisciplinary research in fisheries and coastal management.Dr Charles’ work ranges from fishery policy analysis, to socio-economic studies,to bio-economic modelling of fishery and aquaculture systems. Current researchinterests include community-based fishery management, integrated fishery andmarine indicators, and analysis of sustainability approaches in fisheries. He isthe author and co-author on a range of publications, including the documents:Sustainable Fishery Systems (Blackwell Science), Integrated Fish Farming (CRCLewis) and Community Fisheries Management Handbook (Gorsebrook ResearchInstitute). Dr Charles has a longstanding interest and involvement in fishery,aquaculture and coastal projects in developing regions, notably Latin America andthe Caribbean. He has worked as a visiting scientist with FAO, as a consultantwith FAO and OECD, as director of Canada’s Ocean Management ResearchNetwork, and as an adviser to community fishery organizations and to FirstNations in Atlantic Canada. Dr Charles has received a Pew Fellowship in MarineConservation and a Gulf of Maine Visionary Award in recognition of his work.From left to right: Anthony Charles, Silvia Salas,Ratana Chuenpagdee, Juan Carlos Seijo.

This state-of-the-knowledge document examines the assessment and managementof coastal small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean (which areinherently interdisciplinary and integrated in approach), covering biological,socio-economic and policy aspects. It includes an introductory overview chapter, aset of 12 chapters each examining fisheries of a particular country, and two majorconceptual and analytical synthesis chapters. The country chapters cover the mainsubregions of Latin America and the Caribbean: the Caribbean Islands (specificallyBarbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago),Central America (Costa Rica, Mexico) and South America (Argentina, Brazil,Colombia, Uruguay). The analysis in the document contributes to a betterunderstanding of these coastal fisheries, of the information available on them, ofthe gaps that exist in fisheries assessment and of trends in fisheries management.Through its knowledge sharing, the document will lead to more effectiveapproaches to managing coastal fisheries in the region, as well as identification ofpriorities for information collection and research – thus leading to moresustainable fisheries across Latin America and the Caribbean.

Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?