Advertisement

Beyond the Basics: Improving Information About Small-Scale Fisheries

  • Melinda AgapitoEmail author
  • Ratana Chuenpagdee
  • Rodolphe Devillers
  • Jennifer Gee
  • Andrew F. Johnson
  • Graham J. Pierce
  • Brice Trouillet
Chapter
Part of the MARE Publication Series book series (MARE, volume 21)

Abstract

Small-scale fisheries require knowledge in decision-making, particularly as they face many of the same issues affecting large-scale, industrial fisheries, such as declining fish stocks, marine habitats degradation, resource use competition, and climate change. There are other characteristics of small-scale fisheries, however, that cause additional challenges. For example, small-scale fisheries target many species that are not usually exploited by their large-scale counterpart. The export values from small-scale fisheries catches are also generally lower than those from large-scale, due partly to the subsistence nature of small-scale fisheries and the relatively high proportion of use directly for household consumption in local communities. Systematic data collection and information systems drawing data from multiple sources, through on-board sampling and market sampling, have been focused mostly on large-scale fisheries and the economic contribution of small-scale fisheries may not justify investment in the ‘machinery’ of modern fishery science. In this chapter, we briefly review approaches and models used in assessing large-scale fisheries as part of the modern fisheries management and discuss their applicability to small-scale fisheries. Next, we present four examples of initiatives that aim to improve information about small-scale fisheries through: (i) national-level fisheries statistics; (ii) information crowdsourcing; (iii) effort estimation; and, (iv) integration of fishers’ knowledge in marine spatial planning. The chapter concludes with recommendations about ways forward.

Keywords

Information system ISSF FAO statistics Crowdsourcing Fishing effort Transdisciplinarity 

References

  1. Ackoff R (1989) From data to wisdom. J Applies Syst Anal 16:3–9Google Scholar
  2. Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B (eds) (2006) Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs. In: Sociologie de la traduction. Presses des Mines, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Alfaro-Shigueto J, Mangel JC, Pajuelo M et al (2010) Where small can have a large impact: structure and characterization of small-scale fisheries in Peru. Fish Res 106:8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FISHRES.2010.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartholomew DC, Mangel JC, Alfaro-Shigueto J et al (2018) Remote electronic monitoring as a potential alternative to on-board observers in small-scale fisheries. Biol Conserv 219:35–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2018.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Béné C, Friend RM (2009) Water, poverty and inland fisheries: lessons from Africa and Asia. Water Int 34:47–61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060802677838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett NJ, Govan H, Satterfield T (2015) Ocean grabbing. Mar Policy 57:61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2015.03.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fisheries investigations series 2 marine fisheries no.19. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In Status of marine fish stocks. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, fisheriesGoogle Scholar
  8. Boucquey N, Fairbanks L, St. Martin K et al (2016) The ontological politics of marine spatial planning: assembling the ocean and shaping the capacities of “community” and “environment”. Geoforum 75:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2016.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F et al (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2013.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bravo de Laguna J (1989) Managing an international multispecies fishery: the Saharan trawl fishery for cephalopods. In: Caddy JF (ed) Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. Wiley, New York, pp 591–612Google Scholar
  11. Caddy J (1983) The cephalopod: factors relevant to their population dynamics and to the assessment and management of stock. In: Advances in assessment of world cephalopod resources. Fisheries technical paper no. 231. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp 416–452Google Scholar
  12. Callon M (2006) What does it mean to say that economics is performative? CSI working papers series 005Google Scholar
  13. Choi B, Pak A (2006) Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 29:351–364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chuenpagdee R, Pauly D (2004) Small is beautiful? A database approach for global assessment of small-scale fisheries. In: Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress, May 2–6, 2004. Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Chuenpagdee R, Rocklin D, Bishop D et al (2017) The global information system on small-scale fisheries (ISSF): a crowdsourced knowledge platform. Mar Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2017.06.018
  16. Cigliano JA, Meyer R, Ballard HL et al (2015) Making marine and coastal citizen science matter. Ocean Coast Manag 115:77–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2015.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de la Torre-Castro M, Di Carlo G, Jiddawi NS (2014) Seagrass importance for a small-scale fishery in the tropics: the need for seascape management. Mar Pollut Bull 83:398–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2014.03.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Degnbol D, Wilson DC (2008) Spatial planning on the North Sea: a case of cross-scale linkages. Mar Policy 32:189–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2007.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Douvere F (2008) The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar Policy 32:762–771.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2008.03.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2015) Status of marine fish stocks. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  21. Fairclough DV, Brown JI, Carlish BJ et al (2015) Breathing life into fisheries stock assessments with citizen science. Sci Rep 4:7249.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2015a) Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  23. FAO (2015b) Fisheries and Aquaculture topics. Fisheries statistics and information. In: Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  24. FAO (2017) Improving our knowledge on small-scale fisheries: data needs and methodologies – Workshop proceedings. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings 56. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. FAO-EASTMED (2018) Scientific and institutional cooperation to support responsible fisheries in the Eastern Mediterranean. http://www.faoeastmed.org/. Accessed 3 Mar 2018
  26. FAO-UN (2018) Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF). http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16034/en. Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  27. Finley C (2011) Fish unlimited: how maximum sustained yield failed fishermen. Solut J 2:77–81Google Scholar
  28. Finley C, Oreskes N (2013) Maximum sustained yield: a policy disguised as science. ICES J Mar Sci 70:245–250.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Flyvberg B (1998) Rationality and power: democracy in practice. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Gee J, Bacher K (2017) Gender in aquaculture and fisheries: engendering security in fisheries and aquaculture. Asian Fish Sci Spec Issue 30S:277–290Google Scholar
  31. Gomez-Muñoz VM (1990) A model to estimate catches from a short fishery statistics survey. Bull Mar Sci 46:719–722Google Scholar
  32. Gras M, Roel BA, Coppin F et al (2014) A two-stage biomass model to assess the English Channel cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.) stock. ICES J Mar Sci 71:2457–2468.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guillemot N, Léopold M, Cuif M et al (2009) Characterization and management of informal fisheries confronted with socio-economic changes in New Caledonia (South Pacific). Fish Res 98:51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FISHRES.2009.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guyader O, Berthou P, Koutsikopoulos C et al (2013) Small scale fisheries in Europe: a comparative analysis based on a selection of case studies. Fish Res 140:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FISHRES.2012.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haggan N, Neis B, Baird I (eds) (2007) Fishers’ knowledge in fisheries science and management. UNESCO Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Hilborn R, Walters CJ (1992) Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hind EJ (2015) A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers’ knowledge research: a challenge to established fisheries science. ICES J Mar Sci 72:341–358.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hinz H, Murray LG, Lambert GI et al (2013) Confidentiality over fishing effort data threatens science and management progress. Fish Fish 14:110–117.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00475.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. HM Government (2014) East inshore and east offshore marine plans. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Holt S (2011) Maximum sustainable yield: the worst idea in fisheries management. In: Breaching blue. https://breachingtheblue.com/2011/10/03/maximum-sustainable-yield-the-worst-idea-in-fisheries-management/
  41. Hughes T (2011) The future of marine governance. Solut J 2:18–20Google Scholar
  42. ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) (2010) Report of the Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History (WGCEPH), 9–11 March 2010, Sukarrieta, Spain. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF:09. ICES, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  43. ICES (2014) Report of the Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History (WGCEPH), 16–19 June 2014, Lisbon, Portugal.ICES CM 2014/SSGEF:02. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  44. ICSF (2016) New, but long overdue. Samudara Report No. 72Google Scholar
  45. IOC-UNESCO, EC-DGMARE (2017) 2nd international conference on marine/maritime spatial planning, 15–17 March 2017, Paris, France; IOC. Workshop reportGoogle Scholar
  46. Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (eds) (2015) Interactive governance for small-scale fisheries: global reflections. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  47. Jentoft S, Knol M (2014) Marine spatial planning: risk or opportunity for fisheries in the North Sea? Marit Stud 2014 13:1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2212-9790-13-1
  48. Johnson AF, Moreno-Báez M, Giron-Nava A et al (2017) A spatial method to calculate small-scale fisheries effort in data poor scenarios. PLoS One 12:4.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kannen A (2014) Challenges for marine spatial planning in the context of multiple sea uses, policy arenas and actors based on experiences from the German North Sea. Reg Environ Chang 14:2139–2150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0349-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries an update. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization fisheries technical paper 470. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  51. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M et al (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mingers J (2015) Helping business schools engage with real problems: the contribution of critical realism and systems thinking. Eur J Oper Res 242:316–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2014.10.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mintzberg H (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning. Harv Bus Rev:107–114Google Scholar
  54. Otero J, Álvarez–Salgado XA, González AF et al (2008) Bottom-up control of Octopus vulgaris abundance in a wind-driven upwelling ecosystem (NE Atlantic). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 362:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pauly D (2006) Major trends in small-scale fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries and some implications for the social sciences. Mari Stud 4:7–22Google Scholar
  56. Pauly D (2018) A vision for marine fisheries in a global blue economy. Mar Policy 87:371–374.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2017.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pauly D, Zeller D (2016) Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nat Commun 7:10244.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pierce GJ, Guerra A (1994) Stock assessment methods used for cephalopod fisheries. Fish Res 21:255–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(94)90108-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pierce GJ, Valavanis VD, Guerra A et al (2008) A review of cephalopod – environment interactions in European Seas. Hydrobiologia 612:49–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9141-4_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pierce GJ, Allcock L, Bruno I et al (2010) Cephalopod biology and fisheries in Europe. Cooperative research report 303. International council for the exploration of the SeaGoogle Scholar
  61. Pinello D, Gee J, Dimech M (2017) Handbook for fisheries socio-economic sample survey – principles and practice. FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper no. 613. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  62. Pita CB, Pereira J, Lourenço S et al (2015) The traditional small-scale octopus fishery in Portugal: framing its governability. In: Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (eds) Interactive governance for small-scale fisheries: global reflections. Springer, Cham, pp 117–134Google Scholar
  63. Qiu W, Jones PJS (2013) The emerging policy landscape for marine spatial planning in Europe. Mar Policy 39:182–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2012.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ramírez JG, Lleonart J, Coll M et al (2017) Improving stock assessment and management advice for data-poor small-scale fisheries through participatory monitoring. Fish Res 190:71–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FISHRES.2017.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rocha F, Otero J, Outeiral R et al (2006) Modelling small-scale coastal fisheries of Galicia (NW Spain) based on data obtained from fisheries: the case of Sepia officinalis. Sci Mar 70:593–601.  https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2006.70n4593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rocklin D (2016a) Small-scale fisheries of the world. In: Chuenpagdee R, Rocklin D (eds) State-of-the-Art in small-scale fisheries. TBTI Publication Series, St. John’s, p 8Google Scholar
  67. Rocklin D (2016b) Who’s who in small-scale fisheries. In: Chuenpagdee R, Rocklin D (eds) Small-scale fisheries of the world. TBTI Publication Series, St. John’s, p 8Google Scholar
  68. Rodhouse PGK, Pierce GJ, Nichols OC et al (2014) Environmental effects on cephalopod population dynamics. Adv Mar Biol 67:99–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800287-2.00002-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Royer J, Pierce GJ, Foucher E, Robin JP (2006) The English Channel stock of Sepia officinalis: modelling variability in abundance and impact of the fishery. Fish Res 78:96–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FISHRES.2005.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Silva L, Sobrino I, Ramos F (2002) Reproductive biology of the common octopus, Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in the Gulf of Cádiz (SW Spain). Bull Mar Sci 71:837–850Google Scholar
  71. Sobrino I, Silva L, Bellido J, Ramos F (2002) Rainfall, river discharges and sea temperature as factors affecting abundance of two coastal benthic cephalopod species in the Gulf of Cádiz (SW Spain). Bull Mar Sci 71:851–865Google Scholar
  72. Stewart KR, Lewison RL, Dunn DC et al (2010) Characterizing fishing effort and spatial extent of coastal fisheries. PLoS One 5:e14451.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stop Illegal Fishing (2016) How drones are being used in the fight against poachers. https://stopillegalfishing.com/press-links/drones-used-fight-poachers/. Accessed 14 Apr 2018
  74. Swyngedouw E (2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: in search of a democratic politics of environmental production. Int J Urban Reg Res 33:601–620.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00859.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tafon RV (2018) Taking power to sea: towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning. Environ Plan C Polit Space 36:258–273.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417707527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thompson D, FAO (1988) The world’s two marine fishing industries – how they compare. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 11:17Google Scholar
  77. United Nations (2015) Rethinking poverty: report on the world social situation 2010 social perspective on development. https://www.un.org/development/desa/socialperspectiveondevelopment/2015/08/20/rethinking-poverty-report-on-the-world-social-situation-2010/. Accessed 17 Jan 2018
  78. Waluda CM, Trathan PN, Elvidge CD et al (2002) Throwing light on straddling stocks of Illex argentinus: assessing fishing intensity with satellite imagery. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:592–596.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f02-049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Whatmore SJ (2009) Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Prog Hum Geogr 33:587–598.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509339841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wolff M (2015) From sea sharing to sea sparing – is there a paradigm shift in ocean management? Ocean Coast Manag 116:58–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2015.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. World Bank, FAO, WorldFish Center (2012) Hidden harvest: the global contribution of capture fisheries. Report No. 66469-GLB. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melinda Agapito
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ratana Chuenpagdee
    • 1
  • Rodolphe Devillers
    • 1
  • Jennifer Gee
    • 2
  • Andrew F. Johnson
    • 3
  • Graham J. Pierce
    • 4
  • Brice Trouillet
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of GeographyMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United NationsRomeItaly
  3. 3.Marine Biology Research DivisionScripps Institution of OceanographySan DiegoUSA
  4. 4.Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Marinos, Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (CSIC)VigoSpain
  5. 5.Université de Nantes, CNRS, UMR LETGNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations