Reviews in Fisheries Science Aquaculture 22 1 1-15 - Batista Et Al - Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries PDF

This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford]
On: 02 January 2014, At: 08:39

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs21
Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and

Future Directions
a
Vandick S. Batista , Nidia N. Fabr , Ana C. M. Malhado & Richard J. Ladle
a b
Institute of Biological and Health Sciences , Federal University of Alagoas , Macei ,

Alagoas , Brazil
b
School of Geography and the Environment , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK

Published online: 02 Jan 2014.
To cite this article: Vandick S. Batista , Nidia N. Fabr , Ana C. M. Malhado & Richard J. Ladle (2014) Tropical Artisanal
Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and Future Directions, Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 22:1, 1-15
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2013.822463
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 22(1):115, 2014

C Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 2330-8249 print / 2330-8257 online
DOI: 10.1080/10641262.2013.822463
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries:

Challenges and Future Directions
1 ANA C. M. MALHADO,1
VANDICK S. BATISTA,1 NIDIA N. FABRE,
1,2
and RICHARD J. LADLE
1
Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceio, Alagoas, Brazil
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Artisanal fisheries occur all over the tropics and provide an important source of protein and income for many coastal
communities. However, varied types and magnitudes of anthropogenic impacts threaten the environmental, economic, and
socio-cultural sustainability of this poorly studied fishing practice. This article reviews the scattered literature on tropical
artisanal coastal fisheries, identifying key challenges to ensure future sustainability. Despite huge data shortfalls, there is
considerable evidence that artisanal fisheries have a significant influence on the distribution and abundance of target and
by-catch species, in addition to wider impacts on biodiversity, biomass, assemblage structure, community dynamics, and
ecosystem functioning. Despite these immediate and considerable threats, regulation and management of artisanal fisheries
are problematic. Local communities in the coastal tropics are frequently very poor, and families frequently rely on fishing
for food security and income. Ensuring social and environmental sustainability therefore entails models of governance that
are able to adaptively manage these complex socio-ecological systems. Such models are being developed, but it is unclear
whether there are sufficient resources and technical capacity to widely implement them before the widespread collapse of
fisheries with potentially serious consequences for the communities that rely on them.
Keywords
socio-ecological systems, co-management, resilience, small-scale fishing, baselines
INTRODUCTION
sary (http://www.fao.org/fi/glossary/) defines artisanal fisheries

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

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

Hawkins and Roberts (2004) as that pursued by small-scale
fishers using traditional methods (p. 216) and by Ruttenberg
(2001) as small-scale fishing, using simple technology such as
hand lines and hand nets (p. 1692). In reality, it is inappropriate
to make a clear distinction between small-scale fishing and artisanal fishing (FAO, 2012) or between small-scale/artisanal fishing and industrial/large-scale fishing practices (Chuenpagdee
Address correspondence to Ana C. M. Malhado, Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Av. Lourival Melo
Mota, s/n, Tabuleiro do Martins, Maceio, AL, 57072-900, Brazil. E-mail:
anaclaudiamalhado@gmail.com
V. S. BATISTA ET AL.
Figure 1 Definition of artisanal fishing based on technical investment and size

of the fishing unit (boat/enterprise). Shaded area indicates the main focus of
studies in this review. Black dots indicate examples: 1small wooden skiff
containing one or two fishers using small seine nets within the inshore reef; the
most common form of artisanal on the northeastern coast of Brazil; 2fiberglass
boat with outboard motor (50100 HP) used for trolling artificial lures/live baits
with nylon handlines, characteristic of fishers in the southern Caribbean islands;
3industrial-scale trawling using a fully crewed boat and the latest fish finding
technology, typical of the developed world and rapidly industrializing nations
(after FAO, 2012).
et al., 2008; Carvalho et al., 2011). Rather, different fishing

practices can be thought of as occupying points on a continuum
of increasing scale and levels of artisanality (Figure 1). Even this
is an over-simplification, since many artisanal fishers are keen
to take advantage of the latest materials and are by no means adverse to incorporating modern technology (if it is inexpensive),
such as mobile phones along with more traditional methods
to improve fishing performance (Salia et al., 2011; Sreekumar,
2011). Likewise, larger crafts are not necessarily engaged in
industrial/large-scale fisheries (e.g., Chacko, 1998).
Due to the differences in fishing methods and the smaller
scale of exploitation, the ecological characteristics of the fish
species exploited by artisanal fishers are typically different
from those exploited by industrial/large-scale fishing. Specifically, species caught by tropical artisanal fishers tend to be
more sedentary and typically include a much higher diversity of
species, including many that attain small adult sizes. This pattern of exploitation reflects the biological characteristics of most
tropical coastal ecosystems, which are highly diverse in comparison with highly productive off-shore temperate fisheries.
For example, in tropical northeastern Brazil, artisanal fishers
exploit up to 386 fish species (Haimovici and Klippel, 1999).
The small-scale, spatially structured nature of artisanal fisheries
with its focus on sedentary stocks has led to them being referred
to as S-fisheries by some authors (Orensanz et al., 2005).
Moreover, despite no precise delineation between
artisanal/small-scale fishing and industrial/large-scale fishing,
most authors agree that there exists a characteristic dualism in
which most fishers or fishing operators fall into distinct groups
on the basis of both the scale of the operation and the level
of technology utilized, employment generation, and degree of
Figure 2 Relationship between yield and species diversity (after Regier and
Henderson, 1973).
investment (Carvalho et al., 2011). The close concordance in official definitions of artisanal/small-scale fisheries (Chuenpagdee
et al., 2006) also suggests that the commonalities are sufficient
to make a synthetic review of artisanal fishing meaningful. Ultimately, and in the absence of constraints on economic development, the scale of the fisheries may be closely related to type of
fisheries resource being exploited. Thus, industrial/large-scale
fisheries can only exist (in the long-term) where there is sufficient biomass of the target species and where the economics
of extraction are sufficiently favorable. Since yield is frequently
inversely related to species diversity (Regier and Henderson,
1973; Figure 2), industrial fishing tends to predominate in temperate latitudes and pelagic fisheries, while artisanal fisheries
predominate in the species-rich inshore waters of tropical coastlines.
In summary, artisanal fishing is typically defined in relation
to the focus of the fishing/economic units, type of fishing activity, level of use and cost of technology utilized, and eventual
market or uses of the catch. It should be noted that there are many
related terms such as subsistence or benefit-aimed fisheries
(Guillemot et al., 2009) that are often used interchangeably
with the more frequently used artisanal or small-scale fisheries.
Nevertheless (and despite the fuzziness of existing definitions),
the ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural consequences of
artisanal fishing (shaded area of Figure 1) have become a major focus of research over recent decades, resulting in a large
amount of literature scattered across a diverse array of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This review aims to draw upon these
disparate information sources to provide a synthetic review of
tropical artisanal coastal fisheries, highlighting important historical trends and identifying key challenges to ensure future
sustainability.
Why Focus on Tropical Coastal Fisheries?

Artisanal fishing is practiced all over the world but is especially important in the coastal tropics (Allison and Ellis,
2001) due to high population densities in these areas and the
vol. 22 1 2014
TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES
reliance of many communities on natural resources as a source of

income and food. Here, Cheunpagdee et al. (2006) is followed
in defining coastal fisheries as those that deploy gear from shore
out to either 50 km in distance or from shore to 200 m in depth.
The simpler and cheaper technology typically employed by artisanal fishers (see above) means that most fisheries of this type
are considerably closer to the shore and shallower than the upper
limits of this definition.
Precise information on the number and economic contribution of artisanal fishing in the coastal tropics is very difficult
to obtain (see Bene, 2006, for a discussion of the various estimates). Most estimates are likely to undershoot due to the
large number of seasonal or occasional fishers who do not
show up in official statistics (FAO, 2004). At the broadest scale,
Chuenpagdee et al. (2006) estimated that there are at least 12
million small-scale fishers worldwide (as compared to 500,000
full-time crew on larger fishing vessels), most of whom reside
in the tropics. Using a broader definition, the FAO estimated
that in 2002 about 135 million people are directly or indirectly
employed in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture (marine and
freshwater) (FAO, 2004).
Small-scale artisanal fishing clearly plays an important role
in the economies of tropical coastal regions but is arguably
even more important in the context of food security and health,
as almost all small-scale fisheries catches are used for human
consumption, as compared to only 57% of large-scale fishing
catches (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Due to the low costs of artisanal fishing, it is often one of the only ways that the rural poor
can gain access to high protein food (Kawarazuka and Bene,
2011). Recent estimates suggest that 4060% of marine fish
production in Brazil comes from artisanal fisheries (Begossi,
2006). The average level of health (e.g., fertility, child mortality, adult mortality) of artisanal fishing communities in many
developing world countries is no better than equivalent agricultural communities and, in the case of women, may even be
worse (Tietze et al., 2002).
Fishing also has strong cultural associations in many tropical
coastal communities and is frequently an important part of cultural identity rather than an option of last resort for the coastal
poor. Thus, the behavior of artisanal fishers cannot be solely
interpreted in terms of economic rationalism. Rather, decisions
about when and where to fish and what species to fish are influenced by a complex interplay of socioeconomic, cultural, and
historical influences (Bene and Tewfik, 2001). In some ways,
this makes the management of artisanal fishing more problematic since policies and mechanisms to improve governance and
management of fisheries resources need to be particularly sensitive to local factors.
Another reason to be concerned about the future of tropical coastal artisanal fisheries is the increasing pressure on
coastal communities through population growth and demographic shifts. Small and Nicholls (2003) estimated that 1.2
109 people live within 100 km of the coast at densities that are
three times higher than the average global density; in the major-
ity of the worlds countries, this represents 80100% of the population. Moreover, between 1992 and 2002, the global coastal
population rose by 56% due to both population growth and
migration. If current demographic trends continueas seems
likelythe human pressure on coastal zones (and the natural
resources they provide) is predicted to increase dramatically
over the coming decades (Martnez et al., 2007). Even so, it is
important to distinguish between general trends in the demographics of coastal populations and changes in artisanal fishing
communities. Tietze et al. (2002) observed that the number of
coastal fishers was actually declining or stagnating in four out
of the six tropical developing countries they studied. Moreover,
many fishers within these communities were turning, in part or
in full, to other livelihood opportunities due to a combination of
declining resource quality, competition with industrial fishers,
and changes in the governance of fish stocks.
Finally, coastal artisanal fishing merits academic attention
because of its potential influence on fish populations (see below). Although the conservation and sustainable exploitation
literature has, understandably, focused on industrial-scale fishing, it is becoming increasingly clear that artisanal fishing can
also have profound consequences on fish populations, biomass,
and community structure (Coblentz, 1997; Ruttenberg, 2001;
Espino-Barr et al., 2002; Hawkins and Roberts, 2004; Campbell and Pardede, 2006; Goetze et al., 2011). Such evidence
goes against the view of many fisheries and marine protected
area (MPA) managers that artisanal fishing is somehow more
benign. Indeed, artisanal fishing is often permitted within the
boundaries of marine parks and other forms of MPAs (Grandcourt et al., 1999; Hawkins et al., 1999; Granek and Brown,
2005).
Even if the effect of artisanal fishing on fish population or
communities is relatively minor within a given area, the combined effects of artisanal fishing activities in the tropics are
enormous given the large proportion of the coastal population
involved in fishing (see above). Thus, it is in the context of
increasing pressures on coastal tropical environments and fisheries, demographic shifts in coastal populations, and the social
challenges of poverty alleviation and health in the developed
world that the diverse and often scattered literature on artisanal
fishing is reviewed, while acknowledging that one of the major
challenges of assessing artisanal fisheries is the paucity and low
quality of much data due to the illegal/unregulated/unreported
nature of some artisanal fisheries.
For the reasons given above, the present review is restricted
to tropical coastal fisheries, where fishing pressure is often most
intense and where enforcement of regulations is often weakest.
First, a brief synopsis of the main characteristics of fishing and
fishers in these regions is given, followed by a review of the
evidence for the ecological and social consequences of artisanal
fishing. Finally, the management options are assessed, highlighting successful strategies and identifying major challenges
and unifying themes for improving the governance of artisanal
tropical fisheries.
vol. 22 1 2014
Characteristics of Artisanal Fishing in the Coastal Tropics

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

rise of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and similar governance frameworks centered on local
groups and communities, there has been a renewed interest in
the economic, social, and cultural dynamics of artisanal fishers (St. Martin, 2001; Kronen, 2004; Guillemot et al., 2009).
Moreover, there has also been an acknowledgement of the important role played by other actors (indigenous groups, NGOs,
scientists, local and national government, consumers, etc.) in the
governance of artisanal fisheries and the pressing need to build
more sophisticated and socially realistic bottom-up management structures that explicitly incorporate the complex social,
economic and geographic drivers underlying fishing behaviors.
Literature Survey
Nine hundred fifty-six articles that were retrieved from Web
of Science were analyzed on 26 February 2012 using the following search string: ((artisanal fishing OR artisanal fisheries)
OR (small-scale fishing OR small-scale fisheries)). From
this list, conference reports, temperate studies and articles that
were primarily concerned with freshwater fisheries were excluded, leaving a total of 235 journal papers with a focus on
tropical coastal artisanal fisheries. It should be noted that while
this sample is not exhaustive and should not be considered as an
estimate of the volume of research in this area, it should be relatively representative of research in this area. In this context, the
papers were categorized in order to identify broad geographic
and thematic trends in the literature.
From each paper, the geographic location of the study was
recorded (ranging from small reefs to archipelagos or group
of countries such as the Caribbean region). In total, 62.2% of
studies used continental study areas and 37.8% were from islands. Perhaps surprisingly, given its traditionally low research
capacity and infrastructure, Africa was the continent with the
most published studies (32.6%), followed by Asia (23.9%) and
South America (18.3%). Preliminary analysis suggests that the
high frequency of studies in Africa may be a consequence of
the large number of European and North American researchers
collecting data there. Likewise, tropical oceanic islands may
be particularly attractive research sites for scientists from the
northern hemisphere. At the country level, Brazil, Philippines,
Kenya, India, and Tanzania, respectively, were the most studied
countries (Table 1). The majority of studies were broadly characterized as relating to coastal ecosystems (56.7%), while reefs
were the focus of 21.7% of studies, and 11.1% of articles were
on artisanal fishing in pelagic ecosystems.
As anticipated the thematic focus of articles varied immensely, incorporating studies of ecology, social science, development, economics, history, and politics among others. Unsurprisingly, fisheries assessment and management were the major
thematic areas (18.4% and 14.2%, respectively). Other themes
that were well represented (39% of articles in the sample) were
socio-economic analysis of artisanal fisheries, socio-ecological
vol. 22 1 2014
Table 1 Worldwide distribution of artisanal fisheries research for: (a) major

regions of the world, (b) countries with the biggest number of studies, and (c)
major ecosystem of analyses
(a) Region of the world

Africa
Asia
Central America
North America
Oceania
South America
(b) Countries
Brazil
Philippines
Kenya
India
Tanzania
Indonesia
Ghana
Mexico
Nigeria
Malaysia
Peru
(c) Ecosystems
Coastal
Reefs
Marine
Estuary
Lagoon
Inland
Others (e.g., mangroves, mud
flats, seagrass, etc.)
Number of papers
Proportion (%)
75
55
33
8
17
42
32.6
23.9
14.3
3.5
7.4
18.3
24
15
12
10
9
8
7
7
7
6
6
10.3
6.4
5.1
4.3
3.8
3.4
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.6
2.6
102
39
20
5
4
3
7
56.7
21.7
11.1
2.8
2.2
1.7
3.9
studies of fishing communities, by-catch, livelihood impacts on

communities, impacts on fish populations, stock assessment,
co-management, and policy analysis.
IMPACTS ON POPULATIONS AND COMMUNITIES

Studies of the impact of artisanal fishing on specific fish
populations are less prominent than in the commercial fishing
research literature. This is mainly because artisanal fisheries
are frequently multi-gear with low rates of discard, leading to
fishing pressure on a wide range of species and where stock
approaches are therefore inadequate or unviable. Indeed, the
breadth of species taken by artisanal fishers and their lack of
specialization mean that they will frequently and rapidly shift
their exploitation patterns in relation to changes in abundance
of fish species. Such tracking of local resources may provide
some respite for low abundance species but may also impede
population recovery since even low abundance species are exploited to a certain extent. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus that artisanal fishing (combined with industrial fishing)
has had serious consequences on the biomass and assemblage
structure of tropical marine ecosystems (Pauly, 1979); Blaber
(2009) estimated that fish biomass is now <10% of baseline

estimates in tropical Asian countries.
Many target species are exploited by both artisanal and industrial fleets, making it difficult to tease apart impacts. For
example, artisanal fishers may reduce recruitment to the stocks
of older fish exploited further offshore by industrial fishers,
while offshore fishing may reduce the inshore stocks of (typically) juvenile fish targeted by artisanal fishing (Pauly, 1979).
As with assemblage structure (see below), the clearest evidence
for the negative effects of artisanal fishing on populations of
target species comes from comparisons between areas where
fishing is restricted and unrestricted areas. For example, Watson
and Ormond (1994) observed significant decreases in population density of commercially important species of lethrinids,
lutjanids, and serranids on Kenyan reefs where only artisanal
fishing is permitted as compared to equivalent no-take areas.
In the Caribbean, Stallings (2009) also observed the disappearance of several large-bodied fishes in highly exploited areas.
Interestingly, they also recorded increases in smaller serranids,
sea urchins and a butterfly fish, probably as a consequence of
a decrease in predation associated with the removal of larger
species.
Other indicators of the impact of artisanal fishing on populations are shifts in size and weight distributions. Specifically,
since large individuals are frequently targeted and are more
heavily exploited, areas of high fishing pressure tend to contain
smaller individuals, as has been observed in studies across a
range of taxa (Diele et al., 2005; Gobert et al., 2005; Aswani
and Sabetian, 2010). For example, a recent study in the Solomon
Islands demonstrated a clear trend of increasing abundance and
average size of parrotfish in areas with stronger forms of customary management (Aswani and Sabetian, 2010). More generally,
areas with reduced size distributions and low catch per unit effort
are, ipso facto, considered to be suffering from over-exploitation
(Guard and Mgaya, 2002).
It is not only target species that are affected by artisanal fishing. The issue of by-catch has long been recognized as a problem
for commercial fisheries (Hall et al., 2000; Lewison et al., 2004)
and has recently started to be assessed in the context of artisanal
fisheries (Soykan et al., 2008). This historical lack of attention is
possibly because, of the four general categories of discard (marketable species too small or otherwise prohibited, species for
which no market exists, species-specific fleet sectors discarding another fisheries target species, and non-fishery by-catch
species), only non-fishery by-catch, such as marine mammals,
turtles, and birds, is strongly associated with artisanal fishing
practices. The development of effective solutions to the problems of artisanal fisheries by-catch is currently being held back
by a general lack of data. Moreover, the data that do exist paint a
worrying picture; it was recently estimated that small-scale fisheries in Peru accounted for the annual capture of 5,900 endangered South Pacific loggerhead turtles (Alfaro-Shigueto et al.,
2011). Moreover, the problem may be widespread throughout
the tropics. A recent questionnaire survey of >6,100 fishers in
7 developing world countries suggests that by-catch of turtles,
vol. 22 1 2014
cetaceans, and sireneans may already be at unsustainable levels

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

ASPECTS
Artisanal fisheries in the tropics are typically associated with
human communities in rural areas but may also be practiced
fishers from more urban settings (McGoodwin, 2001). Many
of these communities suffer from high levels of poverty, and
consequently, any attempt to manage artisanal fisheries faces a
fundamental dilemma: how to reduce over-exploitation of fish
stocks and promote sustainability while at the same time addressing basic human needs and providing livelihoods (Emmerson, 1980). There are no simple solutions to this dilemma, and
it is not uncommon for different actors to promote radically different management strategies for artisanal fisheries depending
upon their social/environmental priorities. Moreover, the artisanal fishers themselves are by no means passive actors within
this process, and there is a constant transfer of technological
and ecological knowledge from older to younger fishermen in
addition to beliefs and taboos related to resource conservation
(e.g., Colding and Folke, 2001; Begossi et al., 2004). It is also

interesting to note that research on tropical artisanal fisheries
has had a much greater focus on social and economic themes
than the literature on industrial/temperate fisheries.
Fishing for Survival: Subsistence Fishing

The characteristics and definitions of subsistence fishing vary
according to the motivations of the fishers and their relationship
with surrounding markets (Schumann and Macinko, 2007). The
standard definition is a local, non-commercial, primarily nonrecreational activity focused on fishing for direct consumption
of the fishers and dependents (Berkes, 1990). It should be noted
that this definition does not specify the degree of dependency
on fishing yield. Thus, it includes both fishers for who are supplementing their diet and those with no access to other sources
of protein. This is an important issue, since total dependence
on fishing for protein requirements can put huge pressure on
fisheries. For example, annual per capita fish consumption for
Caribbean was approximately 62 g per day (Coblentz, 1997),
varies from 13 to 110.7 kg in Pacific Island countries (Bell et al.,
2009), and is a staggering 550 g per day in rural communities
in Amazonia (Batista et al., 1998; Fabre and Gonzales, 1998).
Thus, the social and health implications of limitations on catches
for subsistence fishers without alternative sources of protein will
be far more severe than those with access to other food types or
alternative livelihoods. Given the above constraints, the imposition of stricter fishing regulations or a decrease in yield due to
other factors (collapse of stocks, increase in number of fishers,
etc.) may result in emigration to urban centers, switching to
other less regulated forms of fishing, or, at worst, a significant
reduction in protein with the associated health consequences.
Another major barrier to developing and implementing policy aimed at subsistence fishers is that this sector is poorly
monitored compared to more commercially orientated forms of
artisanal fishing (Zeller et al., 2006); even when it is monitored, under-reported landings are common (Jacquet et al.,
2010). Thus, the true extent and impact of subsistence fishing
is poorly known, compromising the development and implementation of policies to help this most marginalized segment of
artisanal fishers. It is common to find a negative relationship between human population size and fish abundance, as was found
in the Caribbean region (Stallings, 2009), but without including social or economic variables. Moreover, there is evidence
that subsistence fishers are least likely to stop fishing when
stocks begin to decline. A recent study in East Africa, which
has a high proportion of subsistence fishing, demonstrated that
fishers were more likely to indicate that they would stop fishing
under falling yields if they were from wealthier families and had
alternative livelihood options (Cinner et al., 2009). Thus, many
subsistence fishers in the coastal tropics are caught in a poverty
trap, unable to switch to alternative forms of subsistence or
income generation. Extending this logic, any approaches designed to reduce fishing pressure may need to first focus on
vol. 22 1 2014
diversifying livelihood opportunities and generating alternative

forms of income generation.
Fishing for Income and Profit

Artisanal fishing is responsible for approximately 90% of all
fishing jobs worldwide and provides critical income for millions
of families. However, as outlined above, there are no clear distinctions between those who fish for subsistence and those who
fish for income. Moreover, even where fishing is the main livelihood activity within the household, it rarely accounts for the
entire cash income; Ninnes (2004) reported that only 4055%
of the income of coastal fishing households in Mozambique and
Tanzania was generated by fishing activities. Similarly, Wielgus
et al. (2010) estimated 49% of artisanal catches were used for
subsistence purposes in Colombia. Nevertheless, fishing has an
almost unique status among income generating activities within
tropical coastal communities because it is one of the few reliable ways to instantly generate casha kind of bank in the
water (Bene, 2006).
The heavy reliance of many families on artisanal fishing to
generate income for buying food and essential services is an
important focus of contemporary debates and has prompted numerous calls for the rapid diversification of livelihoods within
artisanal fishing communities (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Perry
and Sumaila, 2007). Not only does diversification provide an
enhanced level of income (Degen et al., 2010), it considerably increases the resilience of communities to environmental
change, reduces resource conflict, and takes some of the pressure off fish stocks (Fulanda et al., 2011). However, promoting
diversification is by no means simple, and opportunities to exploit alternative income sources are both geographically and
culturally variable (Kronen et al., 2010). Moreover, where fishing plays an important cultural role, there may be considerable
resistance to the adoption of alternative livelihood activities.
MANAGEMENT
Sustainability Objectives
Sustainability of fish stocks is the general, if elusive, objective of contemporary fisheries management (Pauly et al., 2002).
The origin of the concept of sustainability, or sustainable development, is relatively new. Sustainable development was first
described by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World
Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987,
p. 43). Many alternative definitions have subsequently been proposed, most of which are based on the idea of the triple bottom
line (TBL) conceptthe splitting of sustainability into environmental, social, and economic factors. It should be noted that
the TBL is also a simplification and that additional sustain-
ability components (e.g., cultural sustainability) are frequently

incorporated into contemporary sustainability assessment (Pope
et al., 2004).
The objectives and assessment of sustainability is somewhat
different as applied to temperate industrial fisheries and tropical artisanal fisheries. In the former, the traditional approach
to sustainability has been to focus on environmental and, especially, economic sustainability components. Commercial fisheries managers and policy makers have typically focused on the
accurate determination of sustainable stock levels for a small
number of target species using concepts, such as maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or sometimes maximum economic yield
(MEY; Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Murawski, 2000).
Approaches to sustainability in tropical artisanal fisheries
have been broader and less focused on target setting and assessment of population parameters (Hilborn and Walters, 1992;
Berkes et al., 2001). Stock management of artisanal fisheriesif
it occursis typically subsumed within broader ecosystem
management approaches (Mathew, 2003; Crowder et al., 2008;
McClanahan and Cinner, 2008). There are several reasons for
this. First, artisanal fishers typically capture a much wider diversity of fish species, complicating stock assessment and target
setting measures (Mathew, 2003). Second, there is an enormous
lack of resources for fish population assessment and research in
many tropical areas, and historical records are frequently nonexistent. Finally, fishing is frequently an integral and traditional
part of the fabric of local communities, and fishers may make up
a sizeable proportion of the population of tropical coastal communities (Crowder et al., 2008). Thus, sustainability approaches
to fisheries that focus on environmental and economic components of sustainability need to be modified heavily to incorporate
livelihood issues and to acknowledge long-held cultural practices and societal norms.
Clear objectives are fundamental to fisheries management
(Hilborn, 2007) at both industrial (Hilborn and Walters, 1992)
and artisanal (Berkes et al., 2001) ends of the spectrum of fishing practices. Objectives depend on the profile of users and
managers of the fishery resources, their interests, expectations,
and the characteristics of the fisheries culture of stakeholders
involved. In artisanal fisheries, sustainability objectives are typically focused on food security issues (Bene et al., 2007), maintaining traditional ways of life (e.g., Berkes, 1990), and protecting livelihoods (Pomeroy, 1994). However, the existence
of multiple and often poorly defined objectives, a lack of target setting, and a focus on development objectives (as opposed
to environmental sustainability) means that exploitation rates
in artisanal fisheries can vary enormously according to factors
such as market demands (Caviglia-Harris et al., 2003), availability of fishing power technologies (Defeo and Castilla, 1998;
Bald et al., 2006), availability of alternative activities, income
sources, and local culture (McGoodwin, 2001; Kronen et al.,
2010).
More generally, the lack of any sort of regulation or management in probably the majority of artisanal fisheries in the coastal
tropics means that, initially, management objectives may need
vol. 22 1 2014
to be stripped down to basic priorities. This is exactly what has

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

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

there may be insufficient interest or engagement of the local
stakeholder community in the management of the resource to
create strong and democratic local organizations (Brown, 2002).
If the participatory process is externally imposed and local stakeholders do not fully buy in to the initiative, then the process
may break down when the initiative finishes or financial support
is withdrawn. Finally, insufficient time may be given for the
creation of local organizations and stakeholder groups and/or
refinement of the participatory process.
Nevertheless, co-management appears the most appropriate
framework for managing artisanal fisheries in the tropics, and
considerable progress has been made in identifying both local
and universal factors that facilitate successful co-management.
Among the most important of these factors is how the comanagement process is initiated and who leads it. Implementation is necessarily different in contrasting cultures and institutional settings and success or failure of co-management
is therefore heavily context dependent (Hill and Hupe, 2002).
Chuenpagdee and Jentoft (2007) clearly demonstrated the importance of understanding local context in their review of coglobal management initiatives. They concluded that (1) the preimplementation period is of critical importance and may last
several years; (2) practitioners must be aware of how the implementation of co-management may interfere with on-going social system processes that need to be balanced and sustained (p.
667); and (3) the support of government agencies is often essential for successful implementation. Indeed, there is often a legal
vacuum that surrounds co-management initiativessomething
that only the state can fill.
The necessity for a clear legal framework within which
community-based management initiatives can flourish demonstrates the continued importance of local or national government
in the governance of artisanal fisheries. It also indicates the false
dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up management systems. Of course, legal frameworks can also have a customary
basis, and traditional systems of marine tenure may also have
an important role in the management of some artisanal fisheries
(see discussion in Dahl, 1988).
Interventions
As indicated above, there are numerous approaches to the
management of artisanal fisheries that incorporate elements of
both top-down and bottom-up approaches to management. Perhaps the most emblematic intervention is the creation of exclusion and sustainable use zones, normally created within the
context of an MPA (Roberts and Polunin, 1991). A good example is the development of marine extractive reserves (MERs) in
Brazil, defined as community-based, site-specific, multi-use,
land and sea resource management approach based on claims
of culturally distinct groups with longstanding livelihood ties
to artisan-scale production territories (Cordell, 2003). One
of the most innovative aspects of MERs is the requirement that
vol. 22 1 2014
local fishers formally ask for their establishment in addition

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

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

One of the greatest challenges in artisanal fisheries research
in the tropics is the enormous shortfalls in data, from basic
information on fishing pressure and the demography of artisanal fishers (cf., Bene, 2006) to the detailed socio-demographic
and cultural research (e.g., Parsram, 2010) that is required to
plan genuinely sustainable co-management initiatives, including risks related to the activity (e.g., Quinn and Kojis, 2012;
Salas et al., 2012). Perhaps most critical is the lack of accurate,
geo-referenced estimates of fishing pressure in coastal zone areas (e.g., Shivlani and Koeneke, 2011), although these may be
somewhat mitigated by the use of indirect indicators such as
population size or coastline length (Stewart et al., 2010). The
lack of historical information is also a considerable challenge for
fisheries managers in the tropics. Given that even low levels of
artisanal fishing can significantly affect slow-growing, late maturing fish species and that artisanal fishing has been practiced
across the coastal tropics for centuries or millennia, it is very
difficult to assess genuine baselines (Pinnegar and Engelhard,
2008). This situation has been exacerbated in many areas that
have undergone a huge increase in fishing pressure over recent
decades, further shifting the baseline for stock assessment.
As a social group, artisanal fishers are relatively understudied
and, in the context of management, are often treated as more or
less static elements within the system. In reality, artisanal fishers
are highly heterogenous with diverse social and economic priorities driving complex behavioral dynamics in relation to the
fisheries resource. Such dynamics largely dictate the flexibility
and responsiveness of fishing tactics and strategies in response
to changes in resource abundance, environmental conditions,
and market or regulatory constraints (Salas and Gaertner, 2004).
vol. 22 1 2014
10
Understanding the behavior and decision-making processes of

artisanal fishers is therefore essential for the development of
more sophisticated, realistic, and responsive management systems. Closely related, and possibly of greater immediate importance, is collecting data on fishing effort (rather than simply
yield), as this provides critical information for assessing sustainability in the broader context and for assessing environmental
impacts (Stewart et al., 2010).
Recent decades have seen clear shifts in governance philosophy in artisanal fisheries, from the ad hoc implementation of
(often unenforceable) gear and catch regulations to approaches
based on co-management and adaptive ecosystem management.
These approaches hold great promise, but need to be carefully
adjusted to the local context, which is a time-consuming and potentially expensive exercise that requires robust data on both the
local fishing communities and ecological data on target species
and ecosystems (Fabre et al., 2012). Moreover, effective comanagement requires strong local institutions and decentralized
government (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997; Kaplan and McCay,
2004), conditions that are not always met in tropical countries.
There are also considerable risks associated with failure, as
each failed initiative makes it harder to establish the levels of
trust and cooperation that are essential ingredients of successful management systems (Brockington et al., 2008). This fact
alone suggests that the socioeconomic and cultural conditions
that provide a back-drop for successful governance systems
need to be in place before more traditional interventions are
implemented (Figure 3). Moreover, the consequences of any
interventions (social or ecological) need to be carefully moni-
tored, and the governance structure should be sufficiently flexible to allow adaptive change and modifications to suit local
conditions.
Developing management models that successfully negotiate
social, cultural, economic, and environmental barriers is neither
simple nor rapid, and successful case studies in the tropics are
at a premium. One promising candidate is the sustainable open
system (SOS) approach (Figure 4) developed for rural Amazonian fishing communities (Ribeiro and Fabre, 2003; Fabre
et al., 2012). The SOS approach has five overlapping and integrated phases: (1) the community self-identifies the geographic
extent of the management; (2) long-term studies (several years)
are conducted to identify the temporal and spatial dynamics
of extractive practices and norms of use; (3) territories, microhabitats, frequencies of use, and other measures of exploitation
are mapped in order to identify key areas and periods of resource
use conflict; (4) observed norms of practice are reified and codified into an legally binding agreement of integrated use, tightly
linking the inhabitants of management units into a partnership
with governmental and non-governmental organizations; and (5)
monitoring and evaluation based on both self-assessment and
external assessment are performed. SOS appears to be working
and has the potential to be implemented in other artisanal fishing
communities. However, SOS and similar models are no quick
fix; researchers, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and community groups needed eight years to implement
the full program (Fabre et al., 2012).
Ultimately, the greatest challenge for the creation of socially
and environmentally sustainable artisanal fisheries in tropical
Figure 3 Hypothetical decision framework for developing management strategies for tropical artisanal fisheries stressing the importance of creating alternative
livelihood opportunities as an important precursor to species and ecosystem-based management approaches.
vol. 22 1 2014
11
Figure 4 Schematic representation of SOS methodology for the co-management of artisanal fisheries in Amazonia, including the major steps, activities, and
socio-economic drivers.
coastal areas is probably the lack of time. Fisheries researchers

and managers were relatively slow to realize the importance
of artisanal fishing, both ecologically and socially. The resulting data shortfalls limit the effectiveness of prioritization and
monitoring strategies. There is also a lack of cross-cultural and
transnational studies, analyzing how artisanal fisheries and their
governance differ geographically as a result of regional sociocultural characteristics. In this context, it would be immensely
valuable to create a global database of management actions
taken and their impacts on coastal fisheries, fishers, and community livelihoods; such an evidence-based approach has been
adopted with great success in the field of biodiversity conservation (Sutherland et al., 2004).
Finally, the most effective potential solutions (e.g., comanagement, diverse stakeholder involvement, adaptive ecosystem management) are time consuming and difficult to implement; there are no short-cuts in the painstaking process of
collecting data, constructing informal and formal organizations, and building much needed trust among interested parties (Gruber, 2010). Successful, locally tailored governance
models exist (see above), but it is doubtful if the political
will and resources exist to apply these where they are most
needed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the referees for their comments on the manuscript. This study was partially funded by
the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq), the Alagoas
Research Foundation (FAPEAL), and the Coordination for Enhancement of Higher Education Personal (CAPES).
REFERENCES
Alfaro-Shigueto, J., J. C. Mangel, F. Bernedo, P. H. Dutton, J. A.
Seminoff, and B. J. Godley 2011. Small-scale fisheries of Peru:
A major sink for marine turtles in the Pacific. J. Appl. Ecol., 48:
14321440 (2011).
Allison, E. H., and F. Ellis. The livelihood approach and management
of small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy, 25: 377388 (2001).
Aswani, S., and A. Sabetian. Implications of Urbanization for Artisanal
Parrotfish Fisheries in the Western Solomon Islands. Conserv. Biol.,
24: 520530 (2010).
Bald, J., A. Borja, and I. Muxika. A system dynamics model for the
management of the gooseneck barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) in the
marine reserve of Gaztelugatxe (Northern Spain). Ecol. Model., 194:
306315 (2006).
vol. 22 1 2014
12
Batista, V.S., A. J. I. Silva, C. E. C. Freitas, and D. Freire-Brasil.

Characterization of the fishery in riverine communities in the LowSolimoes/High-Amazon region. Fisher. Manag. Ecol., 5: 101117
(1998).
Begossi, A. Temporal stability in fishing spots: Conservation and comanagement in Brazilian artisanal coastal fisheries. Ecol. Soc., 11.
Available from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art5/
(2006).
Begossi, A., N. Hanazaki, and R. M. Ramos 2004. Food chain and the
reasons for fish food taboos among Amazonian and Atlantic Forest
fishers (Brazil). Ecol. Appl., 14: 13341343 (2004).
Bell, J. D., M. Kronen, A. Vunisea, W. Nash, G. Keeble, A. Demmke,
S. Ponifex, and S. Andrefouet. Planning the use of fish for food
security in the Pacific. Mar. Policy., 33: 6476 (2009).
Bene, C. Small-scale fisheries: Assesssing their contribution to rural
livlihoods in developing countries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1008.
Rome: FAO (2006).
Bene, C., G. Macfadyen, and E. H. Allison. Increasing the contribution
of small scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 481. Rome: FAO (2007).
Bene, C., and A. Tewfik. Fishing effort allocation and fishermens decision making process in a multi-species small-scale fishery: Analysis
of the conch and lobster fishery in Turks and Caicos Islands. Hum.
Ecol., 29: 157186 (2001).
Berkes, F. Native subsistence fisheriesa synthesis of harvest studies
in Canada. Arctic, 43: 3542 (1990).
Berkes, F. Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons from
small-scale fisheries. Environments, 31: 519 (2003).
Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. Mcconney, R. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy.
Managing small-scale fisheries alternative directions and methods.
Ottawa: IDRC (2001).
Blaber, S. J. M. Relationships between tropical coastal habitats and (offshore) fisheries, pp. 533564. In: Ecological Connectivity among
Tropical Coastal Ecosystems (Nagelkerken, I., Ed.). Dordrecht:
Springer (2009).
Brockington, D., R. Duffy, and J. Igoe. Nature Unbound: Conservation,
Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas, Chapter 5. London:
Earthscan (2008).
Brown, K. Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr. J.,
168: 617 (2002).
Campbell, S. J., and S. T. Pardede. Reef fish structure and cascading
effects in response to artisanal fishing pressure. Fish. Res., 79: 7583
(2006).
Carvalho, N., G. Edwards-Jones, and E. Isidro. Defining scale in fisheries: Small versus large-scale fishing operations in the Azores. Fish.
Res., 109: 360369 (2011).
Caviglia-Harris, J. L., J. R. Kahn, and T. Green. Demand-side policies
for environmental protection and sustainable usage of renewable
resources. Ecol. Econ., 45: 119132 (2003).
Chacko, T. Artisanal Fishing along the Alleppey Coast, Southwest
India. Hum. Devel., 57: 6062 (1998).
Christie, P., and A. T. White. Trends in development of coastal area
management in tropical countries: From central to community orientation. Coast. Manage., 25: 155181 (1997).
Chuenpagdee, R., and S. Jentoft. Step zero for fisheries comanagement: What precedes implementation. Mar. Policy, 31:
657668 (2007).
Chuenpagdee, R., L. Liguori, M. L. D. Palomares, and D. Pauly.
Bottom-up, global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries
catches. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia Canada

(2006).
Chuenpagdee, R., J. Nielsen, J. J. Dodson, K. Friedland, T. R. Hamon,
J. Musick, and E. Verspoor. Small is beautiful? A database approach
for global assessment of small-scale fisheries: Preliminary results
and hypotheses, pp. 587595. In: Reconciling Fisheries with Conservation: Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress (Nielson, J. Ed.), Vancouver, 36 May 2004. Bethesda, MD: American
Fisheries Society (2008).
Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. Mcclanahan. Socioeconomic factors
that affect artisanal fishers readiness to exit a declining fishery.
Conserv. Biol., 23: 124130 (2009).
Coblentz, B. E. Subsistence consumption of coral reef fish suggests
non-sustainable extraction. Conserv. Biol., 11: 559561 (1997).
Cochrane, K. L., N. L. Andrew, and A. M. Parma. Primary fisheries
management: A minimum requirement for provision of sustainable
human benefits in small-scale fisheries. Fish Fisher., 12: 275288
(2011).
Colding, J., and C. Folke. Social taboos: invisible systems of local
resource management and biological conservation. Ecol. Appl., 11:
584600 (2001).
Cooke, B., and U. Kothari. Participation: The New Tyranny? London:
Zed Books (2001).
Cordell, J. Brazils Coastal Marine Extractive Reserves (MER) Initiative: Protected Area Management: Capacity Building, Social Policy and Technical Assistance. Rio de Janeiro: The Ford Foundation/IBAMA/CNPT (2003).
Crowder, L. B., E. L. Hazen, N. Avissar, R. Bjorkland, C. Latanich,
and M. B. Ogburn. The impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems
and the transition to ecosystem-based management. Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Evol. Syst., 39: 259268 (2008).
Dahl, C. Traditional marine tenure: A basis for artisanal fisheries management. Mar. Policy, 12: 4048 (1988).
de Boer, W. F., A. M. P. Van Schie, D. F. Jocene, A. B. P. Mabote,
and A. Guissamulo. The impact of artisanal fishery on a tropical
intertidal benthic fish community. Environ. Biol. Fish., 61: 213229
(2001).
Defeo, O., and J. C. Castilla. Harvesting and economic patterns in the
artisanal Octopus mimus (Cephalopoda) fishery in a northern Chile
cove. Fish. Res., 38: 121130 (1998).
Degen, A. A., J. Hoorweg, and B. C. C. Wangila 2010. Fish traders in
artisanal fisheries on the Kenyan coast. J. Enterpris. Commun., 4:
296311 (2010).
Diegues, A. C. Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in
Brazil. Chennai: I.C.S.F (2008).
Diele, K., V. Koch, and U. Saint-Paul 2005. Population structure, catch
composition and CPUE of the artisanally harvested mangrove crab
Ucides cordatus (Ocypodidae) in the Caete estuary, North Brazil:
Indications for overfishing? Aquat. Living Resour., 18: 169178
(2005).
Emmerson, D. K. Rethinking artisanal fisheries development:
Western concepts, Asian experiences. Washington: World Bank
(1980).
Espino-Barr, E., A. Ruiz-Luna, and A. Garcia-Boa. Changes in tropical
fish assemblages associated with small-scale fisheries: a case study
in the Pacific off central Mexico. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 12: 393401
(2002).
FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: United Nations Fisheries and Agriculture Organization (2004).
vol. 22 1 2014

FAO. Small-scale and artisanal fisheries. Available from http://www.
fao.org/fishery/topic/14753/en (2012)
Fabre, N., V. Da Silva Batista, M. De Albuquerque Ribeiro, and R.
Ladle 2012. A new framework for natural resource management in
Amazonia. Ambio, 41: 302308 (2012).
Fabre, N. N., and J. C. A. Gonzales. Recursos cticos no Alto Amazonas
e sua importancia para as populaco es ribeirinhas. Bol. Mus. Paraense
Emlio Goeldi, 14: 1955 (1998).
Fox, H. E., P. J. Mous, J. S. Pet, A. H. Muljadi, and R. L. Caldwell.
Experimental assessment of coral reef rehabilitation following blast
fishing. Conserv. Biol., 19: 98107 (2005).
Fulanda, B., J. Ohtomi, E. Mueni, and E. Kimani 2011. Fishery trends,
resource-use and management system in the Ungwana Bay fishery
Kenya. Ocean Coast. Manage., 54: 401414 (2011).
Gobert, B., P. Berthou, E. Lopez, P. Lespagnol, M. D. O. Turcios, C.
Macabiau, and P. Portillo 2005. Early stages of snappergrouper
exploitation in the Caribbean (Bay Islands, Honduras). Fish. Res.,
73: 159169 (2005).
Goetze, J., T. Langlois, D. Egli, and E. Harvey. Evidence of artisanal
fishing impacts and depth refuge in assemblages of Fijian reef fish.
Coral Reefs, 30: 507517 (2011).
Grandcourt, E., R. Rajaonarison, L. Rene De Roland, and C. Andrianarivo. Status and management of the marine protected areas
in Madagascar. International Coral Reef Action Network Eastern
African Component (ICRAN PROJECT) UNEP/FAO (1999).
Granek, E. F., and M. A. Brown. Co-management approach to marine conservation in Moheli, Comoros Islands. Conserv. Biol., 19:
17241732 (2005).
Gruber, J. S. Key principles of community-based natural resource
management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective
approaches for managing the commons. Env. Manage., 45: 5266
(2010).
Guard, M., and Y. D. Mgaya. The artisanal fishery for Octopus cyanea
gray in Tanzania. Ambio, 31: 528536 (2002).
Guillemot, N., M. Leopold, M. Cuif, and P. Chabanet. Characterization and management of informal fisheries confronted with socioeconomic changes in New Caledonia (South Pacific). Fish. Res., 98:
5161 (2009).
Guzman, H. M., and G. Jacome. Artisan fishery of Cayos Cochinos
Biological Reserve, Honduras. Rev. Biol. Trop., 46: 151163 (1998).
Haimovici, M., and S. Klippel. Diagnostico da biodiversidade dos
peixes teleosteos demersais marinhos e estuarinos do Brasil. Rio
Grande: Fundaca o Universidade Federal de Rio Grande (1999).
Hall, M. A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals. By-catch: Problems
and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 41: 204219 (2000).
Hawkins, J. P., and C. M. Roberts. Effects of artisanal fishing on
Caribbean coral reefs. Conserv. Biol., 18: 215226 (2004).
Hawkins, J. P., C. M. Roberts, T. Vant Hof, K. De Meyer, J. Tratalos,
and C. Aldam. Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean
coral and fish communities. Conserv. Biol., 13: 888897 (1999).
Hilborn, R. Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives.
Mar. Policy, 31: 153158 (2007).
Hilborn, R., and C. J. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment:
Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. New York: Chapman and Hall
(1992).
Hill, M., and P. Hupe. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice, Chapter 8. London: Sage Publications (2002).
Jacquet, J. L., and D. Pauly. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns
in an era of collapsing fisheries. Mar. Policy., 31: 308313 (2007).
13
Jacquet, J., and D. Pauly. Funding priorities: Big barriers to small-scale

fisheries. Conserv. Biol., 22: 832835 (2008).
Jacquet, J., H. Fox, H. Motta, A. Ngusaru, and D. Zeller. Few data but
many fish: Marine small scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and
Tanzania. Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 32: 197206 (2010).
Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems, pp. 201352. In: Advances in Marine Biology (Blaxter, A. J.
S. J. H. S., and P. A. Tyler, Eds.). London: Academic Press (1998).
Jennings, S., and N. V. C. Polunin. Impacts of predator depletion by
fishing on the biomass and diversity of non-target reef fish communities. Coral Reefs, 16: 7182 (1997).
Kaplan, I. M., and B. J. Mccay. Cooperative research, co-management
and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Mar.
Policy, 28: 257258 (2004).
Kawarazuka, N., and C. Bene. The potential role of small fish species
in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries:
Building evidence. Public Health Nutr., 14: 19271938 (2011).
Kronen, M. Fishing for fortunes?: A socio-economic assessment of
Tongas artisanal fisheries. Fish. Res., 70: 121134 (2004).
Kronen, M., A. Vunisea, F. Magron, and B. McArdle. Socio-economic
drivers and indicators for artisanal coastal fisheries in Pacific island countries and territories and their use for fisheries management
strategies. Mar. Policy, 34: 11351143 (2010).
Lewison, R. L., L. B. Crowder, A. J. Read, and S. A. Freeman. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends
Ecol. Evol., 19: 598604 (2004).
Mangel, J. C., J. Alfaro-Shigueto, K. Van Waerebeek, C. Caceres, S.
Bearhop, M. J. Witt, and B. J. Godley. Small cetacean captures in
Peruvian artisanal fisheries: High despite protective legislation. Biol.
Conserv., 143: 136143 (2010).
Mangi, S. C., and C. M. Roberts. Quantifying the environmental impacts of artisanal fishing gear on Kenyas coral reef ecosystems.
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52: 16461660 (2006).
and G. G. Marcovaldi. Marine turtles of Brazil: The
Marcovaldi, M. A.,
history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biol. Conserv.,
91: 3541 (1999).
Martnez, M. L., A. Intralawan, G. Vazquez, O. Perez-Maqueo, P.
Sutton, and R. Landgrave. The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol. Econ., 63: 254272
(2007).
Mathew, S. Small-scale fisheries perspectives on an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management, pp. 47464. In: Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson,
Eds.). Rome: FAO (2003).
McClanahan, T., J. Castilla, A. White, and O. Defeo. Healing smallscale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Rev.
Fish Biol. Fisher., 19: 3347 (2009).
McClanahan, T. R., and J. E. Cinner. A framework for adaptive gear
and ecosystem-based management in the artisanal coral reef fishery
of Papua New Guinea. Aquat. Conserv., 18: 493507 (2008).
McClanahan, T. R., and S. C. Mangi. Gear-based management of a
tropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capture
size. Fish. Manage. Ecol., 11: 5160 (2004).
McGoodwin, J. R. Understanding the cultures of fishing communities:
A key to fisheries management and food security. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper 401. Rome: FAO (2001).
Miller, M. W., D. B. Mcclellan, J. W. Wiener, and B. Stoffle. Apparent
rapid fisheries escalation at a remote Caribbean island. Environ.
Conserv., 34: 9294 (2007).
vol. 22 1 2014
14
Moore, J. E., T. M. Cox, R. L. Lewison, A. J. Read, R. Bjorkland,

S. L. Mcdonald, L. B. Crowder, E. Aruna, I. Ayissi, P. Espeut, C.
Joynson-Hicks, N. Pilcher, C. N. S. Poonian, B. Solarin, and J.
Kiszka. An interview-based approach to assess marine mammal and
sea turtle captures in artisanal fisheries. Biol. Conserv., 143: 795805
(2010).
Murawski, S. A. Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57: 649658 (2000).
Nedelec, C., and J. Prado. Definition and classification of fishing gear
categories. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 222, Revision 1.
Rome: FAO (1990).
Nielsen, J. R., and T. Vedsmand. User participation and institutional
change in fisheries management: A viable alternative to the failures
of top-down driven control? Ocean Coast. Manage., 42: 1937
(1999).
Ninnes, C. Improving the collection, analysis and dissemination of information in small-scale fisheries. Bangkok: FAO, Advisory Committee on Fisheries ResearchWorking Party on Small-Scale Fisheries (2004).
Orensanz, J. M., A. M. Parma, G. Jerez, N. Barahona, M. Montecinos,
and I. Elias. What are the key elements for the sustainability of
S-fisheries? Insights from South America. Bull. Mar. Sci., 76:
527556 (2005).
Parsram, K. People, issues, and networks in Small-scale fisheries in
the Eastern Caribbean. Proc. 62nd Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 62:
128136 (2010).
Pauly, D. Theory and Management of Tropical Multi-species Stocks: A
Review, with Emphasis on the Southeast Asian Demersal Fisheries.
Manila: ICLARM (1979).
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C.
J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. Towards sustainability in world
fisheries. Nature, 418: 689695 (2002).
Perry, R. I., and U. R. Sumaila. Marine ecosystem variability and
human community responses: The example of Ghana, West Africa.
Mar. Policy, 31: 125134 (2007).
Pikitch, E. K., C. Santora, E. A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D. O.
Conover, P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E. D.
Houde, J. Link, P. A. Livingston, M. Mangel, M. K. Mcallister, J.
Pope, and K. J. Sainsbury. Ecosystem-based fishery management.
Science, 305: 346347 (2004).
Pinnegar, J., and G. Engelhard. The shifting baseline phenomenon:
A global perspective. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 18: 116 (2008).
Pomeroy, R. S. Community management and common property of
coastal fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, methods and
experiencesintroduction, pp. 111. In: Community Management
and Common Property of Coastal Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific:
Concepts, Methods and Experiences (Pomeroy, R. S., Ed.). Manila:
ICLARM (1994).
Pomeroy, R. S., and F. Berkes. Two to tango: The role of government
in fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy, 21: 465480 (1997).
Pomeroy, R. S., P. Mcconney, and R. Mahon. Comparative analysis
of coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean. Ocean Coast.
Manage., 47: 429447 (2004).
Pope, J., D. Annandale, and A. Morrison-Saunders. Conceptualising
sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 24: 595616
(2004).
Quinn, N.J., and B.L. Kojis. Occupational hazards of artisanal fishers
in the US Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Instit., 64:
135141 (2012).
Ramofafia, C., I. Lane, and C. Oengpepa. Customary marine tenure

in Solomon islands: A shifting paradigm for management of sea
cucumbers in artisanal fisheries, pp. 259260. In: Advances in Sea
Cucumber Aquaculture and Management (Lovatelli, A., C. Conand,
S. Purcell, S. Uthicke, J. F. Hamel, and A. Mercier, Eds.). Rome:
FAO (2004).
Razafindrakoto, Y., N. Andrianarivelo, S. Cerchio, I. Rasoamananto,
and H. Rosenbaum. Preliminary assessment of cetacean incidental mortality in artisanal fisheries in Anakao, Southwestern Region
of Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci., 7: 175184
(2008).
Regier, H. A., and H. F. Henderson. Towards a Broad Ecological Model
of Fish Communities and Fisheries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 102:
5672 (1973).
Rhodes, K., and M. Tupper. A preliminary market-based analysis of the
Pohnpei, Micronesia, grouper (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) fishery
reveals unsustainable fishing practices. Coral Reefs, 26: 335344
(2007).
Ribeiro, M. O. A., and N. N. Fabre. Sustainable Open Systems: Environmental Management Alternative in Amazonia. Manaus: EDUA
publications (2003).
Roberts, C. M., and N. V. C. Polunin. Are marine reserves effective
in management of reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 1: 6591
(1991).
Rueda, M., and O. Defeo. Linking fishery management and conservation in a tropical estuarine lagoon: Biological and physical effects
of an artisanal fishing gear. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 56: 935942
(2003).
Russ, G. R. Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fishery
management tools, pp. 421433. In: Coral Reef Fishers: Dynamics
and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem (Sale, P. F., Ed.). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press (2002).
Ruttenberg, B. I. Effects of artisanal fishing on marine communities in
the Galapagos Islands. Conserv. Biol., 15: 16911699 (2001).
Salas, S., J. Euan-Avila,

E. Coronado, L. Palomo-Cortes, and L. A.
Munoz. Analisis sobre Riesgos y Accidentes en Pesqueras Artesanales en el Sureste de Mexico. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst.,
64: 294301. (2012).
Salas, S., and D. Gaertner. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: Management implications. Fish Fisher., 5: 153167 (2004).
Salia, M., N. N. N. Nsowah-Nuamah, and W. F. Steel. Effects of mobile phone use on artisanal fishing market efficiency and livelihoods in Ghana. Electron. J. Inform. Syst. Devel. Count., 47: 126
(2011).
Schumann, S., and S. Macinko. Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy:
Whats in a word? Mar. Policy, 31: 706718 (2007).
Shivlani, M., and R. Koeneke. Spatial characterization of artisanal
fisheries in Puerto Rico: Geographic information systems (GIS) approach for assessing the regional effort and landings. Proc. 63rd
Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 63: 6066 (2011).
Small, C., and R. J. Nicholls. A global analysis of human settlement in
coastal zones. J. Coast. Res., 19: 584599 (2003).
Soykan, C. U., J. E. Moore, R. Zydelis, L. B. Crowder, C. Safina, and
R. L. Lewison. Why study bycatch? An introduction to the Theme
Section on fisheries bycatch. Endang. Spec. Res., 5: 91102 (2008).
Sreekumar, T. T. Mobile phones and the cultural ecology of fishing in
Kerala, India. Info. Soc., 27: 172180 (2011).
St. Martin, K. Making space for community resource management in
fisheries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 91: 122142 (2001).
vol. 22 1 2014

Stallings C. D. Fishery-independent data reveal negative effect of human population density on Caribbean predatory fish communities.
PLoS ONE, 4: e5333 (2009).
Stewart, K. R., R. L. Lewison, D. C. Dunn, R. H. Bjorkland, S. Kelez,
P. N. Halpin, and L. B. Crowder. Characterizing fishing effort and
spatial extent of coastal fisheries. PLoS ONE, 5: e14451 (2010).
Sutherland, W. J., A. S. Pullin, P. M. Dolman, and T. M. Knight.
The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends. Ecol. Evol., 19:
305308 (2004).
Tietze, U., G. Groenewold, and A. Marcoux. Demographic change in
coastal fishing communities and its implications for the coastal environment. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 403. Rome: FAO (2002).
Troeng, S., and E. Rankin. Long-term conservation efforts contribute
to positive green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero,
Costa Rica. Biol. Cons., 121: 111116 (2005).
Tsehaye, I., M. A. M. Machiels, and L. A. J. Nagelkerke. Rapid shifts in
catch composition in the artisanal Red Sea reef fisheries of Eritrea.
Fish. Res., 86: 5868 (2007).
Watson, M., and R. F. G. Ormond. Effect of an artisanal fishery on the
fish and urchin populations of a Kenyan coral reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser., 109: 115129 (1994).
15
Wells, S. Dynamite fishing in northern Tanzaniapervasive, problematic and yet preventable. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 58: 2023
(2009).
White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi. The need for
community-based coral reef management, pp. 118. In: Collaborative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons
from Experience (White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi,
Eds.). West Hartford: Kumarian Press (1994).
Wielgus, J., D. Zeller, D. Caicedo-Herrera, and R. Sumaila. Estimation
of fisheries removals and primary economic impact of the smallscale and industrial marine fisheries in Colombia. Mar. Policy, 34:
506513 (2010).
Wilson, D. C., J. R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol. The Fisheries Comanagement Experience: Challenges and Prospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers (2003).
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
Our Common Future, p. 43. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(1987).
Zeller, D., S. Booth, P. Craig, and D. Pauly. Reconstruction of coral
reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 19502002. Coral Reefs,
25: 144152 (2006).
vol. 22 1 2014

Reviews in Fisheries Science Aquaculture 22 1 1-15 - Batista Et Al - Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Reviews in Fisheries Science Aquaculture 22 1 1-15 - Batista Et Al - Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford]

On: 02 January 2014, At: 08:39

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries: Challenges and

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

Institute of Biological and Health Sciences , Federal University of Alagoas , Macei ,

School of Geography and the Environment , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 22(1):115, 2014

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries:

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

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

[T]raditional fisheries involving fishing households (as opposed

This definition is rendered somewhat more succinctly by

Figure 1 Definition of artisanal fishing based on technical investment and size

et al., 2008; Carvalho et al., 2011). Rather, different fishing

Why Focus on Tropical Coastal Fisheries?

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES

reliance of many communities on natural resources as a source of

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Characteristics of Artisanal Fishing in the Coastal Tropics

cultural preferences within a community. Nevertheless, with the

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES

Table 1 Worldwide distribution of artisanal fisheries research for: (a) major

(a) Region of the world

studies of fishing communities, by-catch, livelihood impacts on

IMPACTS ON POPULATIONS AND COMMUNITIES

(2009) estimated that fish biomass is now <10% of baseline

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

cetaceans, and sireneans may already be at unsustainable levels

SOCIO-ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, AND POLITICAL

(e.g., Colding and Folke, 2001; Begossi et al., 2004). It is also

Fishing for Survival: Subsistence Fishing

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES

diversifying livelihood opportunities and generating alternative

Fishing for Income and Profit

ability components (e.g., cultural sustainability) are frequently

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

to be stripped down to basic priorities. This is exactly what has

Top Down Versus Bottom Up

there are many and competing vested interests involved. Fourth,

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES

local fishers formally ask for their establishment in addition

levels of community support is by no means easy, especially for

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Understanding the behavior and decision-making processes of

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES

coastal areas is probably the lack of time. Fisheries researchers

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Batista, V.S., A. J. I. Silva, C. E. C. Freitas, and D. Freire-Brasil.

catches. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia Canada

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES

Jacquet, J., and D. Pauly. Funding priorities: Big barriers to small-scale

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Moore, J. E., T. M. Cox, R. L. Lewison, A. J. Read, R. Bjorkland,