FAO

ISSN 2070-7010
FISHERIES AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL
PAPER

544

Coastal fisheries of
Latin America and
the Caribbean
Cover photos and credits (from top left clockwise):
Fishing boat with bottom nets for hoki in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina (courtesy of Miguel S. Isla); landing products in
Holbox, Quintana Roo, Mexico (courtesy of Mizue Oe); artisanal boat operating in Santa Marta, Colombia (courtesy
of Mario Rueda); artisanal fisher fishing octopus in Yucatán, Mexico (courtesy of Manuel Solis); lobster boat with
traps in Cuba (Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras de Cuba); artisanal boat operating in Santa Marta, Colombia
(courtesy of Mario Rueda).
Coastal fisheries of
FAO
FISHERIES AND
AQUACULTURE
TECHNICAL

Latin America and PAPER

the Caribbean 544

Edited by

Silvia Salas
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados Unidad Mérida
Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico

Ratana Chuenpagdee
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada

Anthony Charles
Saint Mary’s University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Juan Carlos Seijo

Universidad Marista de Mérida
Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2011
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its
                  
whether or not these have been patterned, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The word “countries” appearing in the text refers to countries, territories and areas without
distinction.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not
      

The designations employed and the presentation of material in the map(s) do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO concerning the legal or
constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of
frontiers.

ISBN 978-92-5-106722-2

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this
information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon
request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational
purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO
copyright materials, and all other queries concerning rights and licences, should be
addressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and
  !   " # $%# &   $%  
Viale Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2011
Dedication

This document is dedicated to the memory of our colleague and friend

Bisessar Chakalall, former Fishery Officer in the Subregional Office for
the Caribbean (SLC) and Secretary to the Western Central Atlantic Fishery
Commission (WECAFC). Bisessar was an extraordinary human being who
gave testimony to the values he believed in. He was brilliant and humble;
dynamic and parsimonious; structured and spontaneous. He was an honest,
generous and committed person. He had profound interest in understanding
others, their culture and context, and a genuine interest in improving the
well-being of fishing communities. Bisessar knew when to listen and when
to speak out with his ideas and suggestions. He conducted himself with the
passion and wisdom to intelligently explore life in all its dimensions. Bisessar
was an excellent and unique friend. His human legacy remains in our hearts
and minds.
 iii

Preparation of this document

The idea of preparing a state-of-the-art document examining the assessment

and management of coastal fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean
grew naturally out of the CoastFish conference of 2004 (see www.mda.
cinvestav.mx/eventos/Coastfish/english/welcome). This interdisciplinary
conference, held in Mérida, Mexico, brought together individuals from
many different institutions and organizations across the region, covering a
wide range of perspectives, in order to contribute to a better understanding
of coastal small-scale fisheries. The focus was on fishery assessment and
management, taking into account biological, socio-economic and policy
issues, aiming to examine the extent of information available for different
countries and to identify the gaps in knowledge and management. The goal
ultimately was to use this understanding to determine desirable directions
for future fishery research, as well as governance and management
approaches to moving towards sustainable fisheries in the region. This goal
remains valid for this document as well.
This document has been prepared as an initiative of the editors – S. Salas,
R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo – in cooperation with a strong
set of authors writing about coastal fisheries in twelve countries across Latin
America and the Caribbean. Writing and compilation of the document were
supported by the European Union through the project Integrating Multiple
Demands on Coastal Zones with Emphasis on Aquatic Ecosystems and
Fisheries (INCOFISH). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) coordinated the final proofreading, publishing and
distribution. References in this document follow international bibliographic
standards rather than FAO house style.
iv

Abstract

The importance of fisheries for coastal communities and livelihoods in Latin

America and the Caribbean (LAC) is well documented. This is particularly
the case for ‘coastal fisheries’, including subsistence, traditional (artisanal) and
advanced artisanal (or semi-industrial) varieties. There are, however, major gaps
in knowledge about these fisheries, and major challenges in their assessment
and management. Therein lies the key theme of this document, which seeks to
contribute to a better understanding of coastal fisheries in the LAC region, as well
as to generate discussion about ways to move towards sustainable fisheries. The
document includes three main components. First, an introductory chapter provides
an overview of general trends in the fisheries of the LAC countries, as well as
some of the key challenges they are facing in terms of sustainability. Second, a set
of twelve chapters each reporting on the coastal fisheries of one country in Latin
America and the Caribbean, collectively covering fisheries of each main subregion:
the Caribbean islands (Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Puerto
Rico, Trinidad and Tobago), North and Central America (Costa Rica, Mexico) and
South America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay). All these country-specific
chapters follow an integrated approach, to the extent possible, covering aspects
ranging from the biological to the socio-economic. Third, the final component of
the document contains a synthesis of information from the countries examined, an
analysis of the main issues and challenges faced by the various fisheries, an outline
of policy directions to improve fisheries management systems in the LAC region,
identification of routes toward more integrated approaches for coastal fisheries
management, and recommendations for ‘ways forward’ in dealing with fishery
assessment and governance issues in the region.

Salas, S.; Chuenpagdee, R.; Charles, A.; Seijo, J.C. (eds).

Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. 2011. 430p.
 v

Contents

Dedication
Preparation of this document iii
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements vii
Preface viii

1. Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean:

issues and trends 1
Silvia Salas, Ratana Chuenpagdee, Anthony Charles and Juan Carlos Seijo

2. Coastal fisheries of Argentina 13

Inés Elías, Claudia Carozza, Edgardo E. Di Giácomo, Miguel S. Isla,
J.M. (Lobo) Orensanz, Ana María Parma, Raúl C. Pereiro,
M. Raquel Perier, <Ricardo G. Perrotta, María E. Ré and Claudio Ruarte

3. Coastal fisheries of Barbados 49

Patrick McConney

4. Coastal fisheries of Brazil 73

Marcelo Vasconcellos, Antonio Carlos Diegues and
Daniela Coswig Kalikoski

5. Coastal fisheries of Colombia 117

Mario Rueda, Jacobo Blanco, Juan Carlos Narváez, Efraín Viloria and
Claudia Stella Beltrán.

6. Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 137

Ángel Herrera-Ulloa, Luis Villalobos-Chacón, José Palacios-Villegas,
Rigoberto Viquez-Portuguéz and Guillermo Oro-Marcos

7. Coastal fisheries of Cuba 155

Servando V. Valle, Mireya Sosa, Rafael Puga, Luis Font and Regla Duthit

8. Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 175

Alejandro Herrera, Liliana Betancourt, Miguel Silva, Patricia Lamelas
and Alba Melo

9. Coastal fisheries of Grenada 219

Roland Baldeo

10. Coastal fisheries of Mexico 231

José Ignacio Fernández, Porfirio Álvarez-Torres, Francisco
Arreguín-Sánchez, Luís G. López-Lemus, Germán Ponce, Antonio
Díaz-de-León, Enrique Arcos-Huitrón and Pablo del Monte-Luna
vi

11. Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 285

Mónica Valle-Esquivel, Manoj Shivlani, Daniel Matos-Caraballo and
David J. Die

12. Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 315

Elizabeth Mohammed, Lara Ferreira, Suzuette Soomai, Louanna Martin
and Christine Chan A. Shing

13. Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 357

Omar Defeo, Pablo Puig, Sebastián Horta and Anita de Álava

14. Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America

and the Caribbean: underlying patterns and trends 385
Ratana Chuenpagdee, Silvia Salas, Anthony Charles and
Juan Carlos Seijo

15. Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America

and the Caribbean: effective governance and healthy
ecosystems 403
Juan Carlos Seijo, Anthony Charles, Ratana Chuenpagdee and Silvia Salas

16. Concluding thoughts: coastal fisheries of Latin America and

the Caribbean 423
Anthony Charles, Silvia Salas, Juan Carlos Seijo and Ratana Chuenpagdee

List of contributors 427

Editors’ profile 429

 vii

Acknowledgements

This document is a product of collaboration among a wide range of scientists and

researchers in Latin America and the Caribbean, who share common interests and
concerns about coastal fisheries and the well-being of coastal communities in the
region. We want to thank first the authors of the country-specific chapters in this
document, who have continued to believe in the project of this document, and
made strong efforts to gather the available information about coastal fisheries in
their respective countries. Most of the contributors presented their initial results
at the CoastFish conference. We are also grateful to conference participants
who contributed to the discussion on existing assessment tools and management
approaches – highlights of this discussion are included in this volume.
The document could have not been produced without funding from the
European Union through the project Integrating Multiple Demands on Coastal
Zones with Emphasis on Aquatic Ecosystems and Fisheries (INCOFISH) (Project
No. INCO 003739). We also thank the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) for support at the publication stage. We thank Drs Rainer
Froese and Silvia Opitz (INCOFISH), Dr Cornelia Naun (European Union), and
Dr Kevern Cochrane (FAO) for their strong support and encouragement.
We are grateful to Kathryn Goetting, Carlos Zapata Araujo, Miguel A.
Cabrera and Patricia González for their help with the translation, formatting and
editing. Much appreciated as well are the patient efforts of Kevern Cochrane and
Johanne Fischer at FAO in guiding the document through to publication, and of
Maria Giannini and Michèle S. Kautenberger-Longo, also at FAO, for excellent
proofreading and formatting. Finally, Anthony Charles acknowledges financial
support from a research grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, and Ratana Chuenpagdee is grateful for financial support from
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada
Research Chairs Program.
viii

Preface

Along the coasts of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), fisheries are
inherently complex – notably as a result of the heterogeneity of gears, boats and
species, as well as the diversity of geophysical, bio-ecological and socio-economic
characteristics. Coastal fishers in the region are especially vulnerable to the impacts
of fisheries declines, given their livelihood and income dependence on local
resources. Meanwhile, only limited technical and financial support exists for the
assessment and management of coastal fisheries.
As a result, while the importance of coastal fisheries in the LAC region is clear,
their assessment is highly challenging. Limitations in the knowledge base for
coastal fisheries have become more and more evident. Within the environments in
which coastal small-scale fisheries operate, data are typically lacking or relatively
less available and, in particular, quantitative information is relatively sparse. For
instance, while information about fisheries landings has regularly been gathered
at a national level and aggregated to regional and global levels by international
organizations like FAO, there is often no distinction made between landings from
small-scale fisheries and from larger-scale commercial ventures. There are also
gaps in knowledge about the various management methods used in the region.
The shortfall between the information available and that needed for proper
understanding of coastal fisheries makes it difficult to determine management
schemes that can best fit the context of such fisheries.
We hope that this document represents a significant contribution to filling some
of the many information gaps on fishery assessment and management in LAC
coastal fisheries. Over the years, there have been remarkably few examinations
of fisheries in the region, and certainly not many taking an integrated and broad-
based perspective. This document can be seen as complementing past publications,
such as those of FAO and the World Bank, among others, while also providing an
integrated approach to examining fisheries of the region. We hope readers will find
the volume useful, and that it might contribute both to increasing the attention
paid to coastal small-scale fisheries across Latin America and the Caribbean and
to identifying the ingredients for their successful management and their long-term
sustainability.

The editors
 1

1. Coastal fisheries of Latin

America and the Caribbean
region: issues and trends
Silvia Salas,* Ratana Chuenpagdee, Anthony Charles and Juan Carlos Seijo

Salas, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Charles, A. and Seijo, J.C. (eds). 2011. Coastal fisheries of Latin
America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles
and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 1–12.

1. Introduction 1
2. Major trends in coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 3
3. Factors affecting sustainability of LAC coastal fisheries 6
3.1 Fisheries complexities 7
3.2 Growing demand for scarce resources 7
3.3 Different incentives 8
3.4 Stock fluctuations 8
3.5 Lack of governance structures 9
4. Concluding remarks 9
References 10

1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of fisheries for coastal communities in Latin America and the
Caribbean (LAC) has been highlighted in many forums and reports, including
those of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
and other development agencies such as the World Bank and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Coastal and small-
scale fishers often have considerable livelihood and income dependency on local
resources – making them highly vulnerable to negative trends in the fisheries,
such as declining catches and degrading habitats, and particularly to the risk of
downturns and collapse (Staples et al., 2004; World Bank, 2004; Bené et al., 2007).

* Contact information: Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados, Unidad Mérida. Mérida,

Yucatán, Mexico. E-mail: ssalas@mda.cinvestav.mx
2 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

These realities reinforce the importance of understanding, assessing and

effectively managing coastal fisheries. This is the key theme of the document –
to examine the various approaches and challenges arising in the assessment and
management of coastal fisheries within the LAC region. For the purpose of this
document, the term ‘coastal fisheries’ refers to three main types: subsistence
fisheries, traditional fisheries (artisanal), and advanced artisanal (or semi-industrial)
fisheries. The adaptability of fishers, which enables them to switch gears and
target species, makes it difficult in some cases to differentiate among these three
types, but broadly the main distinction made here is between coastal fisheries and
industrial or recreational fisheries. Coastal fisheries tend to share certain features,
such as high mobility of fishers, transboundary issues related to shared resources,
high competition among user groups, seasonal use of resources, and multiple
livelihoods (Beltran, 2005; Agüero and Claverí, 2007; Salas et al., 2007; Chakalall
et al., 2007).
This volume strives to contribute to a better understanding of coastal fisheries
in the region, in terms of their assessment and management, as well as to generate
discussion about ways to move towards sustainable fisheries in the region. The
heart of the document is a set of twelve chapters each reporting on the coastal
fisheries of one country in the LAC region. Specifically, these ‘country chapters’
include information on the fisheries of each of the main subregions of Latin
America and the Caribbean: the Caribbean islands (Barbados, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago), North and Central
America (Costa Rica, Mexico) and South America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia,
Uruguay).
The twelve countries included in the document provide reasonable geographical
coverage, but the information presented herein is certainly not exhaustive. The
heterogeneity and complexity of coastal fisheries in the LAC region is clear,
given its large number of countries and their diverse geophysical, bio-ecological
and socio-economic characteristics. Accordingly, this document reflects only a
sampling of the region’s fisheries – but it does highlight many issues and challenges
shared by fisheries in the region, especially regarding assessment and management.
It also provides an analytical discussion and directions for future fishery research
and management.
The document is organized into three main sections. In this introductory
chapter we provide an overview of the general trends in the fisheries of the
LAC countries as well as some of the key challenges they are facing in terms of
sustainability.
Following this is the set of 12 ‘country chapters’ described above, which present
a range of contexts, and discuss common problems as well as particularities that
illustrate the complexity of the fisheries in the region. All the country-specific
chapters follow the same format, to the extent possible, in terms of content, ranging
from biological to socio-economic information. The focus of each one varies,
however, depending on key characteristics of the fisheries in the corresponding
country, and the range of disciplines and specialization of the authors. Each also
Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 3

reflects the existing availability of information and the authors’ judgements of

issues that need to be discussed in order to improve assessment and management
of coastal fisheries in the LAC region.
The final part of the document contains conceptual and analytical chapters, as
well as concluding remarks. A synthesis of information from the twelve country
chapters and an analysis of the main issues and challenges faced by each fishery
are presented in Chapter 14. Then Chapter 15 outlines policy directions to
improve fisheries management systems in the LAC region, and suggests how to
move towards a more integrated approach to coastal fisheries management. The
final chapter consolidates the lessons learned from discussions in the document,
and provides recommendations for the ways forward in dealing with assessment
and governance issues.

2. MAJOR TRENDS IN COASTAL FISHERIES OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE

CARIBBEAN
Catch trends of the twelve countries covered in this document, as well as other
key countries in the LAC region, show important fluctuations in the last five
decades (Figure 1). Landings increased from 1960 to 1970 before dropping
sharply; the recovery was gradual until it reached a peak in 1994. One of the main
contributors of Latin America has been Peru, with close to 60% of landings. In
addition to Peru, major contributors to the LAC region’s fisheries are Chile,
Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Countries
from the Caribbean islands, despite small landings, receive important foreign
exchange from their catches (Agüero and Claverí, 2007; Salas et al., 2007).

FIGURE 1
Total landing trends of main countries that operate in the Latin America and Caribbean region

21 000
tonnes)

18 000
tonnes)

15 000
(thousand
Landings (thousand

12 000
9 000
Landings

6 000
3 000

0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Year
Source: Sea Around Us project database; www.seaaroundus.org.
4 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

The major contribution to the region’s total landings comes from pelagic
species landed by industrial fisheries. For example, the fluctuations in landings,
such as the sharp rises in 1970, 1994 and 2000 and the declines in 1972, 1983 and
1994 were due largely to fluctuations on landings from purse seine fisheries in
Peru and Chile. Also, high squid landings in these two countries in recent years
contributed significantly to the total increase. Similar to Peru and Chile, catches
from Mexico come mainly from purse seines (about 42% in 2004). On the other
hand, in Argentina and Brazil, the majority of the landings come from trawling
(about 72% and 50% of total country landings in 2004, respectively).
If we focus on coastal landings, by excluding from the data catches from gears
operating mostly in offshore areas (i.e. bottom trawls, midwater trawls and purse
seines), the contributions from Peru and Chile are reduced from 84% to about
44% of the total within our reference group of 14 countries. While this does not
change the top five countries in Table 1, in terms of total landings, the importance
of coastal fisheries becomes evident in countries like the Dominican Republic,
Grenada, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad and Tobago, in each of which landings from
gears used mostly in coastal waters exceed 50% of the total landings for that
country (Table 1). Peru and Chile, on the other hand, provide far less of their
catches from coastal fisheries, with landings from this sector contributing only
about 2% and 9% respectively to the total for each country. Incidentally, these
proportions are the lowest among the LAC countries examined here.
Mexico and most countries in Central America have fleets both on the Pacific
and Caribbean coasts, and they are highly dependent on coastal fisheries, especially
as a source of jobs and food. Reports by FAO (2000) for these countries indicate
that catches appear to be higher on the Pacific than on the Caribbean coasts in most
cases. In the latter, a lower volume seems to be compensated for by the capture of
profitable species like conch, lobster and shrimp, among others, which contribute
significant foreign currency to these countries. Total export of catches in the LAC
region (excluding aquaculture) by the year 2001 was close to US$7 million; five
countries made up 73% of this contribution (Agüero and Claverí, 2007).
Accurate figures on fishing effort in coastal fisheries of the LAC region are
generally not available, and when they do exist there is typically a shortage of
consistent information. Even though catch records began in the 1950s in some
countries, information on fishing effort started to be collected much later. Such
data are important in the evaluation of fishing capacity and labour capacity
relative to catch trends. In general, the number of people involved in fishing and
fish farming has more than doubled in the last three decades (FAO, 2006a; Salas
et al., 2007), with many of these people entering the coastal fisheries industry. In
contrast to global trends (Figure 1), it is evident when evaluating landings only
from coastal fisheries that between the early 1970s and the mid-1990s there was
an increasing trend in catches in South America, with a declining trend after this
period (Figure 2). In the Caribbean, the trend has been generally upward for three
decades, afterward a sharp decline has changed the general trend.
Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 5

TABLE 1
Catches for those countries included in this document plus Peru and Chile in 2004. Total
landings integrate catches from all gears1 and landings from ‘coastal gears’2 include all
gears except bottom trawl, mid-water trawl and purse seines

% of coastal
Total landings % of total landings Landings from
landings in
Country for all gears of all listed ‘coastal gears’
total for the
(‘000 tonnes) countries only (tonnes)
country
Peru 9 611.94 52.68 151.27 1.57

Chile 5 317.31 29.14 492.18 9.26

Mexico 1 286.57 7.06 134.60 10.46

Argentina 945.94 5.18 187.36 19.81

Brazil 746.21 4.09 130.66 17.51

Colombia 124.95 0.68 13.82 11.06

Uruguay 122.98 0.67 15.38 12.51

Cuba 36.14 0.20 16.21 44.85

Costa Rica 20.85 0.11 3.64 17.46

Dominican Republic 14.22 0.08 7.28 51.20

Trinidad and Tobago1 10.03 0.06 5.10 50.84

Puerto Rico 6.12 0.03 3.50 57.18

Barbados1 2.14 0.01 0.92 43.00

Grenada1 2.03 0.01 1.80 89.00

Source: 1 FAO (2004: http://www.fao.org/fishery/geoinfo/en); 2 data from Sea Around Us, 2004 (www.Seaaroundus.org)
adapting FAO data.

As in other parts of the world, the expansion in catches in the LAC region has
been due to technological development and an increase in the size of the fleet,
an expansion of the fishery workforce, exploration of new fishing grounds, and
related impacts of government financial transfers (FAO, 2006a; OECD, 2006;
Gréboval, 2007). In the last decade, in many of these countries the most important
resources are considered to be at their maximum level of exploitation (World
Bank, 2004; FAO, 2006b; Agüero and Claverí, 2007). Despite this situation, the
status of many fisheries in the region is poorly known. Agüero (1992) states that
one of the problems these countries face has been the lack of consistency in the
way catches have been recorded and fisheries analysed. Fisheries institutes in
many of these countries were created in the 1960s to conduct research, but they
have not achieved sufficient technical capacity (human and logistic) due to limited
financial support (Agüero and Claverí, 2007).
6 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 2
Landing trends of coastal fisheries by area from main countries that operate in
Latin America and the Caribbean

Source: Sea Around Us project database (www.seaaroundus.org).

3. FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY OF LAC COASTAL FISHERIES

Many factors have contributed to the unsustainability of fisheries, and these
in turn have led to excess capacity (Gréboval, 2002; Swan and Gréboval, 2004;
Gréboval, 2007). These factors include: (i) a lack of solid governance structures;
(ii) fishery complexities, incomplete knowledge and the associated uncertainties;
(iii) inadequate incentives and subsidies that stimulate overcapacity; (iv) stock
fluctuations due to natural causes; (v) growing demand for limited fish resources;
and (vi) poverty and a lack of alternatives for coastal development. These factors
are examined below as well as throughout the document.
Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 7

3.1 Fisheries complexities

Scientific literature and public media have extensively reported problems that
fisheries in many areas of the world are facing. While it is generally known that
overexploitation, habitat degradation and unintended catches and discards are
common causes of such crises, their effects on the ecosystem and the economy of
the nations involved, especially in the context of coastal fisheries, are not always
properly addressed. This is due mainly to the complexity of these fisheries, which
makes assessment and management difficult (Cochrane, 1999; Mahon et al.,
2008, 2009). For instance, many coastal fishers switch among alternative fishery
resources using various fishing gears throughout the year, making it difficult to
determine fishing effort. Some fishers engage in other occupations such as tourism,
salt mining or aquaculture to supplement their fisheries income. As coastal areas
around the world continue to attract migrants, conflicts between various uses of
coastal resources accelerate and consequently affect the livelihoods of the coastal
communities. Balancing between uses and conservation in coastal areas has thus
become more challenging, especially when information to foster comprehensive
understanding of those fisheries is insufficient.

3.2 Growing demand for scarce resources

In the last few decades the increase in food consumption has been oriented to
protein intake in many countries, especially in Europe and Asia. This trend has
been favoured by an improvement in food technology which has provided added
value to diverse products including those coming from the sea. According to FAO,
the per capita consumption of fish in the world has increased from 9 kg in 1961 to
16.5 kg in 2003 (FAO, 2006b). Even though consumption in developing nations is
lower than that of developed nations, the market still offers incentives to enter the
fishing industry. The increase in tourism in coastal areas also keeps up the demand
for marine products.
An increase in coastal population has resulted in steeper competition for
a reduced level of resources. At the same time, degradation of habitats from
the expansion of different activities along the coast has had an impact on the
corresponding ecosystems, on their resources, and on the people depending on
them.
The sharp rise in fisheries production outlined above has been caused by
many factors, including uncontrolled capacity in the industry, technological
improvements, an increase in demand for seafood, and a lack of governance. A
general pattern of overcapacity and resource degradation has been reported in
countries from the LAC region (Ehrhardt, 2007; Ormaza, 2007; Salas et al., 2007;
Vasconcellos et al., 2007; Wosnitza et al., 2007). It is important to note that while
some general patterns can be observed in the whole LAC region, the situation in
each country is context specific, and an understanding of the issues and challenges
faced in each location, taking into account particular geopolitical conditions, could
provide useful insights for the whole region (Agüero and Claverí, 2007; Chakalall
et al., 2007). This, we hope, will be one key outcome of this document.
8 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

3.3 Different incentives

One of the factors promoting growth of the fishing industry is the intervention of
government through different types of financial transfers. Government financial
transfers (GFT) are defined by the OECD (2006) as “the monetary value of
government interventions associated with fisheries policies” and include market
price support, untaxed resource rent, negative subsidies, as well as infrastructure
expenditure. Unfortunately, limited information exists on financial transfers
applied in the LAC countries and their impacts; most of the interventions reported
in the country chapters of this document have to do with subsidies.
Indeed, the issue of subsidies in coastal fisheries is discussed in seven of
the fisheries chapters (Argentina, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica,
Grenada, Brazil and Barbados). Among the subsidies reported are: (i) grants for
the construction of new vessels, traps, aggregating devices, etc.; (ii) grants for the
modernization of the fleets; (iii) preferential credits; and (iv) reduced prices for
purchased inputs (e.g. fuel, bait and ice). The impact of subsidies on sustainability
depends on the dynamics of fleet capacity and effort of both small-scale as well as
industrial vessels. To the extent that subsidies reduce operating costs in fisheries,
this tends to artificially generate profits that further stimulate fishing capacity
growth, lower biomass levels and raise competition.

3.4 Stock fluctuations

Clearly, independent of fishing activity, stocks will fluctuate in the short and
long run due to natural causes. For pelagic resources, major stock fluctuations
occurred even prior to human exploitation (Soutar and Isaacs, 1974). These
fluctuations have been best documented in relation to the El Niño-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) climatic phenomenon, especially as it affects the production
of small pelagic fishes in the eastern Pacific (e.g. Lluch-Belda et al., 1989), but
also as it impacts other resources and other geographic areas. Similar climatic
forcing factors have been affecting marine production systems on the global
level (Kawasaki, 1992; Klyashtorin, 2001), and long-term fluctuations will be
reinforced by climate change (Kelly, 1983). Thus, although ‘decadal’ periodicities
are frequently mentioned in the fisheries literature (e.g. Zwanenberg et al., 2002),
Klyashtorin (2001) suggests that natural cycles in productivity of around 50 to 60
years duration are likely to be dominant.
Coastal fishery resources are also vulnerable to other human activities that may
affect critical habitats and/or biological and biophysical processes (e.g. Spalding
and Kramer, 2004). With respect to the latter, the long-term role of environmental
change in fisheries has become easier to observe in recent years now that fisheries
data series more commonly exceed a half century in duration. However, our ability
to discriminate between natural environmental changes, the effects of fishing, and
the impact of other human activities remains poor.
Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 9

3.5 Lack of governance structures

According to Kooiman et al. (2005), governance is beyond government and broader
than management in that it involves problem solving, creation of opportunities,
and interactions. Mahon et al. (2008) advocate an interactive fisheries governance
perspective, which involves a dynamic and complex fish chain, leading from the
resource and its supporting ecosystem to the global marketplace and the local
consumer. The dynamics of this chain need to be balanced as the system responds
to a variety of stimuli.
Interactions within complex fisheries systems in many cases have been
ignored when fisheries resources are examined in an isolated manner and public
participation in problem solving and creating opportunities are discouraged
(Castilla and Defeo, 2005; Charles, 2001; Garcia and Charles, 2008; Mahon et al.,
2008). Given the current context and the high diversity that characterize coastal
fisheries in LAC, alternative forms of governance are required, particularly to
develop local institutions that help increase social capital and develop strategies
suitable to the social, economic and political contexts faced by the corresponding
fisher groups. For example, many chapters throughout the document place special
emphasis on the need for collective access rights for fishing communities in order
to promote co-management. This approach highlights resource use and access
among the challenges fisheries face in the move towards good governance.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
As fishing pressure has imposed significant problems on fisheries and their
managers across most LAC countries, various degrees of response, in terms of
fishery management and assessment, have been developed. However, many gaps
still exist in the understanding of the issues, as will be discussed in the different
country chapters. These gaps arise as a result of some key limitations.
First, with regard to assessment, the limited qualitative and quantitative
information on coastal and small-scale fisheries is evident. In many countries,
official statistics make no distinction between landings from small-scale fisheries
and from larger-scale commercial ventures. Although landings from these two
sectors can be distinguished based on gear use in some cases (as attempted in
Table 1), there is generally a lack of permanent programmes to monitor catches
from these fisheries. Problems associated with evaluation are also common,
exacerbated by limited financial support for research.
Second, the ‘management tool-kit’ appropriate for small-scale fisheries is
much less developed than that for large-scale fisheries, and transferability of
management approaches from the latter to the former is highly questionable
given the major differences both in the characteristics of these fisheries and in
their importance to fishing households. Even if these tools were transferable, an
important management limitation – the lack of human and economic resources –
remains a key challenge (FAO, 2000; Salas et al., 2007; Mahon et al., 2008).
10 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

These problems are discussed in a number of the chapters, and a summary

of trends in adoption and use of the various assessment and management tools
is presented in Chapter 14. This compilation of information serves three goals.
First, an overview of the fisheries in terms of their biological, social and economic
assessment provides insights for management purposes. Second, the document
aims to identify research gaps in coastal fisheries, to provide guidance on priorities
for research themes, approaches and tools. In this regard, it becomes clear that
to achieve a sufficient understanding of fishery complexities, an emphasis on
multidisciplinary research – incorporating the bio-ecological and socio-economic
processes of fisheries – is critical. Third, we see from this analysis that from a
management perspective, the complex characteristics of coastal fisheries demand
a shift away from conventional approaches, towards a system that enables local
organizations to adapt to both the current context inside the LAC region and to
global trends.

REFERENCES
Agüero M. 1992. La pesca artesanal en América Latina: una visión panorámica. In
Contribuciones para el estudio de la pesca artesanal en América Latina. Edited
by M. Agüero. ICLARM Conference Proceedings Contribution No. 835, Manila
Philippines. pp. 1–27.
Agüero M. & Claverí M. 2007. Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en América
Latina: una síntesis de estudios de caso. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero
en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca, 461.
Roma. FAO. pp. 61–72.
Beltran C. 2005. Evaluación de la pesca de pequeña escala y aspectos de ordenación
en cinco países seleccionados de América Latina: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá,
Colombia y Ecuador. Períodos, 1997–2005. FAO Circular de Pesca No 957/2, FAO
Naciones Unidas, Roma.
Bené C., Macfayden G. & Allison E.H. 2007. Increasing the contribution of small-
scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper. No. 481. Rome, FAO.
Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2005. Paradigm shifts needed for world fisheries. Science,
309: 1324–1325.
Chakalall B., Mahon R., McConney P., Nurse L. & Oderson D. 2007. Governance
of fisheries and other living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean. Fish. Res., 87:
92–99.
Charles A. 2001. Sustainable Fishery Systems. Oxford, UK. Blackwell Science.
Cochrane K.L. 1999. Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing
complexity of fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56: 917–926.
Ehrhardt N.M. 2007 Evaluación y administración de la capacidad de pesca de
acuerdo a criterios de pesca sustentable aplicable a especies anuales: las pesquerías
de camarón en Guatemala y Nicaragua como un ejemplo. In Capacidad de pesca y
manejo pesquero en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc.
Téc. Pesca, 461. Roma, FAO. pp. 117–150.
Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean region: issues and trends 11

FAO. 2000. Informe del taller sobre manejo y asignación de recursos pesqueros a
pescadores artesanales en América Latina, Valparaíso, Chile, 25–28 de Abril del
2000. Rome.
FAO. 2006a. Informe de la consulta de expertos sobre los procesos de regulación del
acceso a la pesca y la sostenibilidad de las pesquerías en pequeña escala en América
Latina. Lima, Peru, 9–12 de mayo. Informe de Pesca No 803. Rome.
FAO. 2006b. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA). Rome.
García S.M. & Charles A. 2008. Fishery systems and linkages: implications for science
and governance. Ocean Coast. Manag., 51: 505–527.
Gréboval D. (comp.). 2002. Report and documentation of the International Workshop
on Factors Contributing to Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries.
Bangkok, Thailand, 4–8 February 2002. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 672. Rome,
FAO.
Gréboval D.F. 2007. Ordenación de la capacidad pesquera: panorama general. In
Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M.
Agüero FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca, 461. Roma, FAO. pp. 3–17
Kawasaki T. 1992. Mechanisms governing fluctuations in pelagic fish populations. In
Benguela trophic functioning. Edited by A. Paine et al. South Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 12:
321–333.
Kelly P.M. 1983. Climatic change: past lessons and future prospects. In FAO Fisheries
Report, No. 291, (FIRM/R291). Rome, FAO. 3: 557–1224.
Klyashtorin L.B. 2001. Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial
catches: the possibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 410.
Rome, FAO.
Kooiman J., Bavinck M., Jentoft S. & Pullin R. (Eds). 2005. Fish for life. Interactive
governance for fisheries. MARE Publ. Series No. 3. Amsterdam, Amsterdam
University Press.
Lluch-Belda D., Crawford R., Kawasaki T., MacCall A., Parrish R., Schwartzlose R.
& Smith P. 1989. World-wide fluctuations of sardine and anchovy stock. The
regime problem. South Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 8:, 195–205.
Mahon R., McConney P. & Roy R.N. 2008. Governing fisheries as complex systems.
Mar. Pol., 32(1): 104–112.
Mahon R., Fanning L. & McConney P. 2009. A governance perspective on the large
marine ecosystem approach. Mar. Pol., 33: 317–321.
OECD. 2006. Financial support to fisheries. Implications for sustainable development.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris, France.
Ormaza F. 2007. Factores sinérgicos y ambientales determinantes en la excesiva
capacidad de pesca e ineficiencias de la gestión: la pesquería de camarón de Ecuador.
In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by
M. Agüero. FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca, 461. Roma, FAO. pp. 205–255.
Salas S., Chuenpagdee R., Seijo J.C. & Charles A. 2007. Challenges in the assessment
and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish.
Res., 87: 5–16.
12 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Soutar A. & Isaacs J.D. 1974. Abundance of pelagic fish during the 19th and 20th
centuries as recorded in anaerobic sediment off the Californias. Fish. Bull. (US), 72:
257–273.
Spalding M. & Kramer P. 2004. The Caribbean. In Defying Ocean’s End. An agenda
for action. Edited by L. Glover and S.A. Earle. Washington DC, USA, Island Press.
pp. 7–42.
Staples D., Satia B. & Gardiner P.R. 2004. A research agenda for small-scale fisheries.
FAO/RAP Publication/FIPL/C10009. Rome, FAO.
Swan J. & Gréboval D. 2004. Report and Documentation of the International
Workshop on the Implementation of International Fisheries Instruments and
Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries. Mauritius, 3–7
February 2003. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 700, Rome, FAO.
Vasconcellos M., Kolikoski D.C., Haimovici M. & Abdallah P.R. 2007. Capacidad
excesiva del esfuerzo pesquero en el sistema estuarino-costero del sur de Brasil:
efectos y perspectivas para su gestión. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero
en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca 461.
Roma, FAO. pp. 275–308.
World Bank. 2004. Saving fish and fishers. Toward sustainable and equitable
governance of the global fishing sector. The World Bank. Agriculture and Rural
Development Department. Report No. 29090_GLB.
Wosnitza-Mendo C., Mendo J. & Guevara-Carrasco R. 2007. Políticas de gestión
para la reducción excesiva de esfuerzo pesquero en Peru: el caso de la pesquería de
la merluza. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en América Latina y el Caribe.
Edited by M. Agüero. FAO, Doc. Téc. Pesca 461. Roma, FAO. pp. 343–371.
Zwanenberg K.C.T., Bowen D., Bundy A., Drinkwater K., Frank K., O’Boyle R.,
Sameoto D. & Sinclair M. 2002. Decadal changes in the Scotian shelf large
marine ecosystem. In Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic. Edited by
K. Sherman and H.R. Skjoldal. Elsevier Science, B.V. pp. 105–150.
 13

2. Coastal fisheries of Argentina

Inés Elías*, Claudia Carozza, Edgardo E. Di Giácomo, Miguel S. Isla, J. M. (Lobo)
Orensanz, Ana María Parma, Raúl C. Pereiro, M. Raquel Perier, <Ricardo
G. Perrotta, María E. Ré and Claudio Ruarte

Elías, I., Carozza, C., Di Giácomo, E.E., Isla, M.S., Orensanz, J.M. (Lobo), Parma, A.M.,
Pereiro, R.C., Perier, M.R., <Perrotta, R.G., Ré, M.E. and Ruarte, C. 2011. Coastal fisheries
of Argentina. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of
Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544.
Rome, FAO. pp. 13–48.

1. Introduction 14
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 16
2.1 Coastal shellfish gathering 21
2.2 Beach seining 26
2.3 Gill and tangle nets deployed in the intertidal zone 26
2.4 Bottom tangle nets and tide-intersecting nets deployed from boats 27
2.5 Beam trawling 28
2.6 Commercial diving 29
2.7 Bottom longlining 30
2.8 The ‘lampara’ (hand-thrown seine) fishery 31
2.9 Trap fisheries 31
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 31
3.1 Description of fishers 31
3.2 Social and economical aspects 33
4. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 35
4.1 Community organization 35
4.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectors 36
4.3 Integrated management of the coastal zone and marine conservation 37
5. Assessment of fisheries 38
6. Fishery management and planning 39
7. Research and education 41
Acknowledgements 42
References 43

* Contact information: Centro Nacional Patagónico (CENPAT-CONICET). Puerto Madryn,

Chubut, Argentina. E-mail: elias@cenpat.edu.ar
14 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

1. INTRODUCTION
Over centuries the coasts of Argentina were inhabited by aboriginal peoples that,
mostly towards the south, harvested marine resources. The archaeological record
shows evidence of consumption of mammals, amphibians, molluscs and fishes
along Patagonian shores. The gathering methods and knowledge of these early
fishers were not, however, incorporated by the colonial society, contrary to what
was the case in Peru and Chile, which became leading countries with regard to
artisanal fishing activities. It is perhaps because of this, together with prevalent
policies that prioritized agriculture and husbandry, that fishing and fishers are
perceived as exotic (Mateo Oviedo, 2003).
Over recent decades, because of the loss of employment opportunities in
traditional sectors of the economy and in industrial fisheries, as well as population
growth in coastal areas, groups of artisanal fishers have sprouted in many areas
where they did not operate before. Small-scale fishing is becoming a permanent
way of life for many of these new fishers.
The first difficulty encountered while trying to describe and analyse the
artisanal sector is its definition. A comparative look at how ‘artisanal fisheries’ are
defined indicates that recurrent criteria are: size of the boats, gross tonnage, fishing
gear and socio-economic considerations. Fishing operations that are considered
‘artisanal’ in some countries do not qualify as such in others. The same happens
even within Argentina, a country with an extended coastline and divergent
regional realities.
An economical anthropology perspective singles out additional factors that
help the characterization: property of the means of production, production of
merchandise, management of economical activities, division of labour, degree of
association, etc. (García-Allut, 2002).
As used in Argentina, the term ‘artisanal’ encompasses a wide spectrum, from
coastal gathering to inshore fleets. This chapter deals with coastal gatherers,
beach seiners and boats of variable dimensions ranging, according to García-Allut
(2002), from ‘strictly artisanal’ to ‘semi-industrial’.
Argentina, located at the southern end of the Americas, has one of the largest
shelf areas in the world (about 1 million km2) and an extended coastline (4 000 km).
The eastern and western boundaries of the shelf are, respectively, the continental
slope and the coastline (Figure 1). The northern and southern boundaries are
jurisdictional. Resources harvested by small-scale and artisanal fishers are shared
with other jurisdictions: to the north with Uruguay in the Argentine-Uruguayan
Common Fishing Zone between the two countries (ZCPAU), and to the south
with Chile.
These settings imply that, geographically, Argentina is a maritime country
yet, because of the way its population is distributed, it is effectively a continental
country. Four provinces out of five with a maritime border (the exception being
Buenos Aires) conform the Patagonian region, where coastal urban settlements are
far apart from each other (Figure 1). This configuration highlights the significance
of gulfs, bays and estuaries in the development of coastal activities.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 15

FIGURE 1
The main fishing harbours on the continental coast of Argentina
(indicated by black dots)

Water masses above the continental shelf are characterized by the mixing
between water of subantarctic origin, flowing in mostly between the
Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas and Tierra del Fuego, and waters diluted by
continental runoff and originating in the Magellan Strait. These water masses of
mixed origin are altered by heat interchange with the atmosphere (Piola and Rivas,
1997).
Balech (1986) showed that by late September or October the water of
northern origin flows south, off Buenos Aires Province and westward of the
Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas Current, reaching as far south as Valdés Peninsula
(42º south latitude) by mid- or late-December. This phenomenon is very important
because of its effect on coastal fisheries (Balech, 1986; Perrotta et al., 2001).
In the Patagonian region, between 42º and 47º south latitude, a series of
frontal systems of variable intensity develop towards late spring (late November)
16 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

and during the summer (December–February), favouring the establishment of

spawning grounds with good conditions for the development of the eggs and
larvae of several fish species (Sánchez and Ciechomski, 1995; Ehrlich et al., 2000).
The northern end of Patagonia (41º to 43º south latitude) has three gulfs that
harbour fishing activities of regional significance: San Matías (shared by the Río
Negro and Chubut Provinces) and San José and Nuevo (Chubut Province). The
three are shaped as extensive basins deeper than the adjacent shelf (Rivas and Beier,
1990). Waters are more saline than in the adjacent shelf, and temperature variation
is comparatively high. San José Gulf is the smallest of these three and its high
productivity was highlighted by Charpy-Roubaud et al. (1978).

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIES

Argentina is, by its Constitution, a representative and federal republic formed by
23 provinces and a federal district, all autonomous states endowed with political
and administrative powers. The Argentina Constitution establishes executive,
legislative and judiciary branches and does not contain specific language relative to
fisheries or maritime jurisdictions, but assigns to the legislature and the executive
authority regarding treaties, navigation, customs and ports.
Several agencies in the federal administration have a say in fishing-related
subjects: the National Service of Agricultural Quality and Health (SENASA,
within the Ministry of Economy and Production) certifies processing plants; the
Undersecretary of Fisheries (within the Secretary of Agriculture, Husbandry and
Fishing) elaborates and coordinates the execution of policies for the promotion and
regulation of fishing activities; and the Prefectura Naval (the coast guard) keeps
track of the vessel registry, cares for the security of navigation, grants credentials
to crews (deckhands, skippers, divers, etc.) and patrols the coastal zone.
The Federal Fishing Act of 1998 (Ley Federal de Pesca, No. 24922) states
that living aquatic resources from lakes and rivers, gulfs and inshore areas (from
the coastline to 12 nautical miles offshore) are under provincial jurisdiction.
Outside this boundary, waters within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the
continental shelf are in the federal domain (Article 4). The Act establishes that
the application authority at the national level is the Undersecretary of Fisheries,
and that a Federal Fisheries Council defines national fishing policy and research
priorities. The Council is integrated by a representative from each maritime
province, the Undersecretary of Fisheries, and delegates from the Undersecretary
of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the federal executive.
In addition, Act 20645 of 1974 establishes a common fishing zone with
Uruguay. Regulations adopted for coastal resources and some pelagic resources
within this zone must be discussed in the ambit of two bi-national commissions,
the Joint Technical Commission for the Maritime Front (CTMFM) and the
Managing Commission for the La Plata River (CARP).
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 17

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

TABLE 1
Composition of the inshore fleet of Argentina, by harbour

Number of registered boats in the Annual catch

Harbour inshore fleet
(from north to (average) in
Province
Rada/Ría Coastal recent years
south)1 (tonnes)
(semi-industrial) (industrial)2
General Lavalle Buenos Aires 19 3 4 147
Mar del Plata Buenos Aires 68 48 81 852
Quequén Buenos Aires 12 7 21 416
Bahía Blanca Buenos Aires 10 5 19 000
San Antonio Oeste Río Negro 4 6 10 610
Puerto Madryn Chubut – 1 1 805
Rawson Chubut 26 22 10 642
Caleta Córdova Chubut 7 1 3 781
Caleta Olivia Santa Cruz 16 4 8 279
San Julián Santa Cruz – 5 28
Ushuaia Tierra del Fuego 3 2 191
Source: from Lasta et al., 2001.
1 See Figure 1.
2 This fleet is not included in our review.

TABLE 2
Summary of information on artisanal fisheries of Argentina

Number
Type of Target Region/ Annual
Gear Boats of fishing Crew
fisheries resources province landings1
units
Coastal Blue and San José Hand N/A Largest Family Not recorded
shellfish ribbed Gulf concentra- groups
gathering mussels, tion in the
snails, clams community
of El Riacho,
Chubut
(25 permit
holders)

Blue mussels, Beagle Hand N/A Few, exact Not recorded

clams, Channel number
limpets, unknown
snails

Coastal Tehuelche Río Negro Short gaffs N/A Unknown Family 21 tonnes
octopus octopus and groups recorded in Río
gathering Chubut Negro in 2003.
(pulpeo) Not recorded in
Chubut; in 2002
one processing
plant (Harengus
S.A) bought 17
tonnes

Red octopus Chubut, Long gaffs N/A 20–30 in Individuals Not recorded
north of the main
Santa Cruz producing
area
(Camarones)
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 19

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
Number
Type of Target Region/ Annual
Gear Boats of fishing Crew
fisheries resources province landings1
units
Intertidal Silversides, Coves Gillnets and N/A, Unknown 3 Not recorded
gill and Patagonian ('rías') and tangle nets occasionally
tangle nets blenny, bays, of assisted by
leatherjack, Santa Cruz rowboats
Patagonian and the
cod Atlantic
coast of
Tierra del
Fuego
Beach Silversides, San Matías Beach seines 3–5 m 4–5 in San 2–3 San Matías:
seining Patagonian and San rowboats Matías. About 24.6 tonnes of
blenny, José Gulfs, (fibreglass, 50 permit silversides and
flounders Atlantic plastic or holders in San 14.6 tonnes
coast of wood) José/Nuevo of Patagonian
Tierra del Gulfs blenny were
Fuego recorded in 2003

Chubut: one
processing
plant (Harengus
S.A.) bought
ca. 180 tonnes
of silversides
and 1 tonne
of Patagonian
blenny in 2003
Demersal White Partido de Bottom gill Inflatable Unknown 1–2 Not recorded
artisanal croaker, La Costa and tangle or semi-
fishery leatherjack, (Buenos nets rigid
employing stripped Aires boats with
powered weakfish, Province) outboard
boats Brazilian motors,
codling, up to 7 m
smoothhound long
shark
Hoki, kinclip, Beagle Bottom Artisanal Number 1–2 Not recorded
Patagonian Channel tangle nets boats, less of tangle
cod, southern (Tierra del (100–120 than 10 m nets varies
hake Fuego) mm annually from
stretched 20 to 200
mesh)

Stiletto and Bahía Passive Boats About 130 1–3 45 tonnes of

Argentine Blanca, bottom nets with inner boats Argentine shrimp
shrimp, tope Ing. White, intersecting engines (up and 40 tonnes of
shark, white Monte tidal to 16 m), stiletto shrimp
croaker, Hermoso currents, boats with recorded in 2002
stripped (Buenos with 30 mm outboard
whitefish Aires mesh in the motors (up
Province) cod-end; to 7 m),
tangle nets, rowboats
handlines (up to 6 m)
Stiletto and Rawson Beam trawl, Boats up to About 20 3–4
Argentine (Chubut 4 m wide 10 m, made boats
shrimp Province) beam of wood,
iron or
fibreglass
20 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
Number
Type of Target Region/ Annual
Gear Boats of fishing Crew
fisheries resources province landings1
units
Commercial Scallops, blue San Matías Air Boats up 8 boats in San 3–4 1 241 tonnes
diving and ribbed and San compressors to 7 m Matías; 20 in recorded in San
mussels, José Gulfs and hookah (average), San José Matías in 2001;
clams, snails with 700 tonnes
outboard (600 tonnes
motors; of scallops)
some with recorded in San
echo- José in 2003
sounder,
radio and
minimal
safety
devices
Blue and Beagle Same as 5 boats 3–4 85 tonnes of sea
ribbed Channel above urchin reported
mussels, in 1996 (usually
sea urchin, less than 1
ascidians tonne); 7 tonnes
of mussels
reported in 1999
Artisanal Hake, tope San Matías Longlines, Boats with 22 boats in 3 1 032 tonnes
longlining shark, cock and Nuevo 2 000-3 000 outboard San Matías; 5 recorded in 2003
fish, seven- Gulfs hooks each motors, less in Nuevo Gulf in San Matías
gilled shark, than 10 m in 2002 Gulf; 34 tonnes
rays, rockfish, in Nuevo Gulf in
sandperch 2001 and 2002
(experimental
fishery)
Semi- Mackerel, Mar del ‘Lampara’, ‘Rada/ría’ The ‘rada/ Up to 10 900 tonnes of
industrial anchovy Plata a hand- inshore ría’ inshore anchovy and
pelagic thrown fleet; boats fleet has 166 100 tonnes of
fishery purse seine 10–18 registered mackerel landed
boats in 2003
Mostly
wooden
boats, 50
years old
on average.
Equipped
with rafts,
radio, radar
and echo-
sounder
Trap fishery Red porgy, Mar del Large basket Same as 7 boats 2–5 No data
utilizing sandperch, Plata traps above
inshore rockfish,
powered wreckfish Quequén
boats
Canal
Beagle
Kinclip, Beagle Iron-made
southern Channel traps
hake,
Patagonian
cod, sharks,
rays
King crab, Beagle Truncated Boats up 12 boats in 2 32 tonnes of king
false king Channel cone traps to 15 m, 1994–2000, crab in 1994;
crab, octopus (1.2–1.5 m with 205 hp down to 6 in
(occasional high, 1.6 engines 2000–2004 392 tonnes of
bycatch) m basal false king crab
diameter) in 1996

1 In most cases landings are either not recorded or grossly under-reported. Some figures (whether
total or partial) are presented, however, to give the reader a rough idea of the dimension of the
fishery.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 21

2.1 Coastal shellfish gathering

Coastal gathering of shellfish along the seashores occurs at low tide, by hand
or with the help of handheld devices, with regional variations that are related to
the specific resources harvested. Species most commonly found in the catch of
commercial fisheries are summarized in Table 3.

TABLE 3
Main species caught in the artisanal fisheries of Argentina

Common Common 1
Scientific name Gear Province
Spanish name English name

Bivalve molluscs

Aequipecten tehuelchus Vieira tehuelche Tehuelche scallop Commercial diving RN, Ch

Coastal gathering;
Ameghinomya antigua Almeja rayada Etched clam Ch
commercial diving
Coastal gathering;
Amiantis purpurata Almeja púrpura Purple clam RN
commercial diving
Coastal gathering; RN, Ch, SC,
Aulacomya ater Cholga Ribbed mussel
commercial diving TdF

Donax hanleyanus Berberecho Beach clam Coastal gathering BA

Eurhomalea exalbida Almeja blanca White clam Coastal gathering TdF

Mesodesma mactroides Almeja amarilla Yellow clam Coastal gathering BA

Mulinia edulis Almeja marrón Brown clam Coastal gathering TdF

Coastal gathering;
Mytilus edulis chilensis Mejillón Blue mussel TdF
commercial diving
Coastal gathering;
Mytilus edulis platensis Mejillón Blue mussel RN, Ch
commercial diving

Panopea abbreviata Almeja panopea Geoduck Commercial diving RN, Ch

Gastropod molluscs

Adelomelon ancilla Piquilhue Piquilhue voluta Coastal gathering TdF

Buccinanops globosum Caracolillo Beach snail Coastal gathering Ch

Coastal gathering;
Buccinanops gradatum Caracol picante Hot snail Ch
commercial diving
Fissurella oriens, Patinigera
Lapas Limpets Coastal gathering TdF
deaurata, P. magellanica
Coastal gathering;
Odontocymbiola magellanica Caracol rojo Red volute Ch
commercial diving

Zidona dufresnei Caracol tigre Tiger volute Commercial diving RN

Cephalopod molluscs
Pulpo Colorado o Coastal gathering; RN, Ch,
Enteroctopus megalocyathus Red octopus
dormilón commercial diving SC
Beach seine
Loligo gahi, L. sanpaulensis Calamarete Longfin squid Ch
(n.targ.)2
Tehuelche
Octopus tehuelchus Pulpito Coastal gathering RN, Ch
octopus
22 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)

Common Common 1
Scientific name Gear Province
Spanish name English name
Crustaceans
Tide-intersecting
Artemesia longinaris Camarón Stiletto shrimp BA, Ch
nets; beach seine
Southern king
Lithodes santolla Centolla Traps TdF
crab
Cangrejo Beach seine
Ovalipes trimaculatus Ch
nadador, pancora (n.targ.)
Paralomis granulosa Centollón False king crab Traps TdF
Beach seine
Platyxanthus patagonicus Cangrejo buey Rock crab Ch
(n.targ.)
Argentine Tide-intersecting
Pleoticus muelleri Langostino BA
shrimp nets

Echinoderms
Chilean sea
Loxechinus albus Erizo Commercial diving TdF
urchin

Tunicates
Pyura chilensis Piure Ascidian Commercial diving TdF

Chondrichthies3
Longline (n.targ.);
Callorhinchus callorhynchus Gallo Cock fish beach seine RN, Ch
(n.targ.)
Dasyatis sp., Myliobatis sp. Chuchos Sting rays Longline (n.targ.) RN, Ch
Longline (n.targ.);
Dipturus chilensis,
Rayas Rays beach seine RN, Ch
Sympterygia bonapartii
(discard)
Tide-intersecting
Cazón, cazón nets; longline;
Galeorhinus galeus Tope shark BA; Ch
vitamínico beach seine
(n.targ.)
Patagonian Tangle nets; tide-
Mustelus schmitti Gatuzo BA, Ch
smoothhound intersecting nets
Seven-gilled
Notorhynchus cepedianus Gatopardo Longline (n.targ.) RN, Ch
shark
Squalus acanthias Espineto Spiny dogfish Longline (n.targ.) RN

Osteichthies
Traps, longline BA, RN,
Acanthistius brasilianus Mero Rockfish
(n.targ.) Ch
Stripped
Cynoscion guatacupa Pescadilla de red Tangle nets BA
weakfish
Patagonian Gill and tangle RN, Ch,
Eleginops maclovinus Róbalo
blenny nets; beach seine SC, TdF
Lampara; beach
Engraulis anchoita Anchoíta Anchovy BA, Ch
seine (n.targ.)
Longline (n.targ.), RN,Ch,
Genypterus blacodes Abadejo Pink cuskeel
Traps TdF
Beach seine;
Macruronus magellanicus Merluza de cola Hoki TdF
tangle nets
Gill and tangle
Merluccius australis Merluza austral Southern hake SC, TdF
nets; beach seine
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 23

TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)

Common Common 1
Scientific name Gear Province
Spanish name English name
Merluccius hubbsi Merluza Argentine hake Longline RN, Ch

Micropogonias furnieri Corvina rubia White croaker Tangle nets BA

Beach seine
Mugil platanus Lisa Mullet Ch
(n.targ.)
Pre-hispanic
Notothenia (s.l.) spp. Nototenias Notothenias beach seine Ch , TdF
(discard)
RN, Ch,
Odontesthes spp. (4 species) Pejerreyes Silversides Beach seine
SC, TdF
Manila, pejerrey Gill and tangle RN, Ch,
Odontesthes smitti Manila silverside
cola amarilla nets SC, TdF
Beach seine
Oncopterus darwini Lenguado Flounder Ch
(discard)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Trucha arco iris Steelhead Sport SC

Pagrus pagrus Besugo Red porgy Traps BA

Tide-intersecting
nets; longline BA, RN,
Paralichthys spp. Lenguados Flounders
(n.targ.); beach Ch
seine (discard)
Parona Gill and tangle
Parona signata Palometa SC, TdF
leatherjack nets; beach seines
Tide-intersecting
Brazilian
Percophis brasiliensis Pez palo nets; beach seine BA, Ch
flathead
(n.targ.)

Polyprion americanus Chernia Wreckfish Traps BA

Beach seine
Pomatomus saltatriz Anchoa de banco Blue fish Ch
(n.targ.)
Traps; longline BA, RN,
Pseudopercis semifasciata Salmón de mar Sandperch
(n.targ.) Ch
Gill and tangle
Salilota Australis Bacalao criollo Patagonian cod SC, TdF
nets
Salmo trutta Trucha marrón Brown trout Sport SC
Lampara; beach
Scomber japonicus Caballa Chub mackerel BA, Ch
seine (n.targ.)
Beach seine
Seriolella porosa Savorín Silver warehou RN, Ch
(n.targ.)
Beach seine
Stromateus brasiliensis Pampanito Butterfish RN, Ch
(discard)
Beach seine
Trachurus lathami Jurel Horse mackerel Ch
(n.targ.)

Urophycis brasiliensis Brótola Brazilian codling Tangle nets BA

1 Provinces listed are those for which a fishery (large or small) has been reported. Many species occur
also in provinces for which a fishery has not been recorded. BA: Buenos Aires; RN: Río Negro;
Ch: Chubut; SC: Santa Cruz; TdF: Tierra del Fuego.
2 Non-target (n.targ.) species are generally kept and marketed, and may fetch a high price (even higher
than target species).
3 Names of fishes follow Cousseau and Perrotta (2000).
24 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Bivalves and gastropods: In Buenos Aires Province, bivalves are shovelled

along exposed sandy beaches. Traditionally, this fishery targeted primarily the
yellow clam* (almeja amarilla), but because the populations collapsed, the fishery
now targets beach clams (berberechos). However, the yellow clam sustained a
significant fishery that started in the 1940s, with landings reaching a maximum
of 1 073 tonnes in 1953 (Dadón, 2001, 2002). When catches declined because of
a dramatic increase in effort, the fishery was closed in 1956. It reopened with a
45-tonne quota in 1957, and closed again for ten years in 1958, and it has remained
closed to a commercial fishery ever since. A daily bag limit (2 kg/person) has been
allowed for personal consumption, as clams are valued by tourists. Although
recreational gathering is the only harvesting that has been allowed for decades,
the yellow clam populations have continued to decline. This is due to a variety
of reasons, including growing pressure from recreational harvesters and illegal
commercial fishing. In addition, the destruction of habitat caused by the extraction
of sand for construction, circulation of vehicles along the beaches, and an ever-
expanding urban development has compounded the pressure on this species. After
a mass mortality event decimated most populations in 1995, a complete closure was
put in place in 1996, including the bag limit for personal consumption. Although
illegal, harvesting continues to be a common activity during the summers and the
mass mortality did not affect stocks of berberecho (Dadón, 1999), whose size even
increased after 1998. As a result, it has been increasingly targeted recreationally
but also commercially. This fishery is not regulated and catch is not monitored.
Although not illegal, most of the catch is marketed through informal conduits.
The daily catch is frozen and sold in bulk.
In Chubut Province, many families of coastal gatherers harvest molluscs in
the intertidal zone (Figure 2), mostly in San José Gulf. They target blue mussels
(mejillón), etched clams (almeja rayada), ribbed mussels (cholga), volute (caracol),
and beach and hot snails (caracoles). In the case of clams, harvesters can recognize
the holes left by the siphons at the surface, and use 2- or 3-prong forks; small snails
are concentrated using bait. The shellfish catch is collected in handheld mesh bags
(chinguillos) with an approximate capacity of 40 kg. Once a team has filled 10 to
20 chinguillos, these are transported ashore, 1 to 3 km across tidelands. The catch
is transported by truck to processing plants, fish shops or restaurants in Puerto
Madryn and Trelew. The activity is seasonal (autumn and winter), generally
constrained by the onset of the red tide season (Santa Ana, 2004).
Gastropods and bivalves are also gathered in scattered locations of Santa Cruz
and Tierra del Fuego Provinces. In the latter there is a small catch of blue mussels,
etched clams, white clams, brown clams, limpets (lapas) and voluta snails. The
activity is seasonally constrained by the development of red tides, usually during
the summer. The product is marketed locally, fresh and unprocessed.

* Correspondence between scientific names and common Spanish and English names are summarized
in Table 3. English names are used throughout text; the first time that the name is used, the Spanish
name is quoted in parentheses. Fish common names follow Cousseau and Perrotta (2000) in most
instances.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 25

FIGURE 2
Artisanal gathering of intertidal mussels (Mytilus edulis platensis) in El Riacho,
San José Gulf, Chubut Province

(Photo by Javier Rodriguez)

Small octopus: In Chubut and Río Negro Provinces, the intertidal gathering
of a small-sized octopus species (Tehuelche octopus or pulpito) is a popular
recreational activity. Octopus is also harvested commercially (pulpeo), being a
complement to gathering of bivalves and gastropods. In San Matías Gulf, pulpeo
has been a traditional seasonal occupation for low-income labourers who establish
camps along the seashore during the summers. Pulperos (octopus harvesters)
use a gaff built of a 6 mm iron rod, 30 to 40 cm long. The tip is sharpened and
curved with a precise angle. Octopus is removed from crevices and holes and the
success of the pulperos is strongly determined by experience. Traditional gatherers
are very careful not to damage the substrate when extracting octopus, because
newcomers will not establish themselves in damaged refuges. Commercial harvest
is seasonal, extending from late spring (November–December) to early autumn
(March–April), peaking by mid to late summer. In Río Negro Province, catch
records go back to 1953 (Iribarne, 1990, 1991); the maximum recorded catch was
307 tonnes in 1967. The annual catch has been 20 to 40 tonnes in recent years. The
fishery is not regulated or monitored in Chubut Province. One fisher (Cándida
Vargas*, personal communication) reported that she and her family collect up to
15 tonnes in San José Gulf during a single season. Intermediaries (acopiadores or
acarreadores) have played a significant role in this fishery and processing plants
also buy octopus occasionally. Ré (1998a, 1998b) observed that fishing pressure
goes down when pulpeo ceases to be lucrative. When this occurs, immigration from
the subtidal zone appears to replenish the intertidal segment of the population.

* Mrs Cándida Vargas is the daughter of pulperos and a pulpera herself. She lives with her extended
family (husband, 10 children, and grandchildren) in Playa Larralde, San José Gulf.
26 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Red octopus (dormilón): Red octopus is caught in San José Gulf, the Camarones
area, Comodoro Rivadavia (all in Chubut Province), Caleta Olivia (Santa Cruz
Province), and other scattered locations. As in the small octopus fishery, fishers
(all male) use a gaff; however, this gaff is stronger (8 mm iron rod) and longer
(1–1.2 m) (Ré, 1998b). In the Camarones area (the main producing zone), fishing
takes place during winter and spring tides. Landings from this area started to be
commercialized in 1995–1997 due to the abundance and increased demand of
octopus (Cinti and Soria, 2003). This is the most significant artisanal fishery in
the Camarones area in terms of people involved and catch landed. Although it
appears to have great potential, the present catch is relatively small due to poor
accessibility. Cinti and Soria (2003) estimated a total catch of 9 tonnes for the 2002
season; there are no official records and the fishery is unregulated. Red octopus is
sold gutted (fresh or frozen) in fish stores of provincial coastal cities.

2.2 Beach seining

Beach seining is practiced in San Matías Gulf (Río Negro Province), along
the coasts of Chubut Province, and on the Atlantic coast of Tierra del Fuego,
always in a very narrow (30–50 m from the water edge) and shallow (up to
4–10 m depth) area (Figure 3). Teams are formed by two to four fishers that
generally use a row boat and a 70 to 100 m long net that is folded on the stern
and deployed forming a semi-circle, one end tied to land with a piece of rope.
Seines are occasionally operated without the help of a boat, in which case the net
is deployed perpendicular to the shoreline. Two fishers pull the net in parallel,
one walking into the water and the other ashore. Fishing takes place all year long,
although operations are constrained by meteorological conditions. Resources
targeted are markedly seasonal, particularly silversides (pejerreyes), which are
migratory. Adults are caught mostly during the autumn and spring, when they
form reproductive aggregations and juveniles during spring and summer (Elías
et al., 1991; Ré and Berón, 1999). This is mostly a small-scale, artisanal commercial
fishery, but there is also a small recreational component. Only four or five families
are presently active in this traditional fishery in San Matías Gulf, where it peaked
during the 1950s. Maximum recorded catch of silversides was 376 tonnes in 1956
(Perier, 1994). The catch is sold fresh in San Antonio Oeste, door-to-door or to
restaurants, as is also the case in Tierra del Fuego. Fishers from Chubut Province
also sell to plants that process silversides and Patagonian blennies (róbalos) in a
variety of forms (fresh, frozen, smoked and canned). Catch records are fragmented
and the fishery is not regulated.

2.3 Gill and tangle nets deployed in the intertidal zone

This fishery operates inside estuaries and bays of Santa Cruz Province and the
Atlantic coast of Tierra del Fuego. Most fishers operate directly from the beach,
tracking the tides: the net is deployed during a low tide and the catch is retrieved
during the next low tide. The mesh used in Tierra del Fuego for large species
is 100 to 120 mm (stretched) (Isla, 2001). This activity is generally seasonal,
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 27

taking place between October and April. It can be categorized as a small-scale,

artisanal, opportunistic, multispecies fishery. Species targeted include silversides,
Patagonian blenny, parona leatherjack (palometa), southern hake (merluza austral)
and Patagonian cod (bacalao criollo). Fish is generally sold fresh. Silversides are
filleted, and large Patagonian blennies are sold whole or gutted. In Santa Cruz
there are in situ inspections to control the gear utilized, and quality controls of
processing and marketing (Pereiro, 2001). Although there are no official records,
landings and the length of the fishing season have declined in Tierra del Fuego
over recent years.

FIGURE 3
Beach seining used in Río Negro, Chubut and Tierra del Fuego Provinces
(fishing gear in operation)

2.4 Bottom tangle nets and tide-intersecting nets deployed from boats
A fishery operating along the northern maritime coast of Buenos Aires
Province (Partido de la Costa) employs inflatable or semi-rigid boats with
outboard motors (Figure 4). The gear consists of tangle nets deployed up
to 1 to 2 miles (1.6–3.2 km) offshore. Species caught include white croaker
(corvina), leatherjack and, to a lesser extent, stripped weakfish (pescadilla de
red), Brazilian codling (brótola) and Patagonian smoothhound shark (gatuzo)
(Lasta et al., 2001; Lagos, 2001). This fishery grew rapidly towards the end of
the 1990s, providing significant labour opportunities in the region. Marketing
takes place mostly during the summer, coincidentally, with the peak of tourism
(Lagos, 2001). There are no official catch records. Regulations include the use
of two pieces of net, 50 m long each, 28 to 30 cm mesh size (stretched), and
legal size limits for most species.
28 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 4
Boats and trailers (catres) in San Bernardo Beach, illustrative of the artisanal fleet
from Partido de La Costa, Buenos Aires Province

(Photo from Lagos, 2001)

In the region of Bahía Blanca (Buenos Aires Province) operates a fishery with
a relatively long tradition, going back to the 1940s. The main gear consists of
stationary nets that intercept tidal flows. The fleet is based in Ing. White, Puerto
Rosales and Monte Hermoso, all close to the city of Bahía Blanca. Hulls are made
of wood, plastic or fibreglass and are up to 16 m long. Approximately 40% have
inner engines; the rest are split between boats with outboard motors (up to 7.7 m
long) and rowboats (up to 6 m). Fishing trips do not last longer than 3 to 12 hours.
The catch includes stiletto shrimp (camarón), Argentine shrimp (langostino),
flounders (lenguados), Patagonian smoothhound, and Brazilian flathead (pez
palo). In addition, tope shark (cazón) is caught with tangle nets, and white croaker
and stripped weakfish with handlines (Izzo et al., 1999). Annual landings are
below 300 tonnes. Starting in 1999, fishers have been required to report catches
through a catch slip programme.
In the Beagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego), small boats (10 m; Figure 5) are used
to catch hoki (merluza de cola) with stationary tide-intersecting nets. This fishery
is not regulated. Iron-made traps are used to catch small amounts of kinclip
(abadejo), Patagonian cod, sharks and rays.

2.5 Beam trawling

Initially, only one boat operated beam-trawled for stiletto shrimp in Rawson Harbor,
Chubut Province. However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, more than
25 artisanal boats (less than 10 m long as defined in provincial legislation) have
requested fishing permits (Soutric and Caille, 2005). Beam trawls with a 4 m long
beam (locally known as raño) were traditionally used in Mar del Plata, where they
have been virtually abandoned (beam trawlers were 9–18 m long) (Lasta et al., 2001).
The main targets of the beam trawl fishery are stiletto and Argentine shrimp.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 29

FIGURE 5
A 10-m-long boat fishing with bottom nets for hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) in
the Beagle Channel, Tierra del Fuego Province

2.6 Commercial diving

Commercial diving takes place in the San Matías and San José Gulfs and in the
Beagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego). A typical commercial diving team operates a
boat approximately 7 m long with an outboard motor (40 to 120 hp), equipped
with an air compressor and hookahs (Figure 6). Teams are composed of two or
three divers, a deckhand and a skipper. Divers search the sea bed for shellfish,
usually bivalves, which are placed in handheld mesh bags known as salabardos.
The catch is stockpiled on the deck in bags with a capacity of 40 kg or more
(Ciocco, 1995).

FIGURE 6
Boat from the commercial diving fleet that operates in San José Gulf, Chubut
Province. Boats are pulled out of the water using tractors and trailers. Bags in the
background are filled with scallops (Aequipecten tehuelchus)
30 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

San Matías and San José Gulfs: The activity is sporadic in San Matías Gulf (Río
Negro Province), depending on prices and availability of resources within the
range of operation of the divers (down to 30 m). Target species are blue mussels,
scallops (vieiras), ribbed mussels, voluta snails, purple clams and geoducks (almeja
panopea). In the adjacent San José Gulf (Chubut Province), the main targets are
scallops; mussels, clams and snails are of lesser significance. These are selective
fisheries, with virtually no bycatch. A total of 1 241 tonnes were recorded in San
Matías Gulf in 2001 and 600 tonnes of scallop in San José Gulf in 2003. Bivalve
meats are processed in plants located in San Antonio Oeste, Puerto Madryn and
Trelew. In the case of scallops, only the adductor muscles are packed for export.
Beagle Channel: In the Beagle Channel small volumes of sea urchin (erizo) and
ascidians (piure) are harvested in addition to blue and ribbed mussels. The annual
sea urchin catch used to be less than 1 tonne, but in 1996 rose to 85.4 tonnes due to
participation of Chilean divers. The shellfish catch is processed in plants certified
by SENASA or sold fresh, locally. The fishery is regularly monitored for red
tide toxins, and closed by the provincial health authority when a safety threshold
is surpassed. In 1990, there were 36 active fishers (annual catch was 31 tonnes),
which dropped to 32 in 1992 (annual catch 1.7 tonnes) (Isla, 2001).

2.7 Bottom longlining

During the period 1994–1998 a team from CENPAT conducted a research and
development project to explore the prospects of bottom longlining in Chubut
Province as an alternative to commercial diving for bivalves during the seasonal
closures of that fishery. Artisanal fishers contributed boats and crews. In 2000,
some of the latter requested experimental permits to longline for tope shark.
Nuevo Gulf tope shark fishery: This experimental fishery was monitored by
CENPAT, operating only in Nuevo Gulf. Boats deployed approximately 2 000
hooks baited with anchovy at depths ranging from 40 to 120 m, and had an action
radius of 24 km. A total of 34 tonnes (80% elasmobranches) were caught during
the 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 seasons, with no bycatch discarded. Since then, this
fishery has been very irregular (Elías, 2002).
San Matías Gulf hake fishery: In 1996 a longline fishery targeting hake
boomed in San Matías Gulf (Río Negro Province), triggered by demand in the
Spanish market. In its initial phase the fleet was artisanal, composed of boats less
than 10 m long powered by an outboard motor, with a 15 nautical mile radius
of operation. Anchovy (anchoita) was used as bait. The size of boats increased
in 1997 (12–25 m), using 6 000 to 10 000 hooks and there were two even larger
boats (25 m), operating 10 000 to 15 000 hooks. The size of the fleet peaked in
1998, when it reached 66 boats and the maximum annual catch was approximately
3 900 tonnes. The fishery collapsed in 2001 due to a drop in price. Some boats
were converted for shell fishing. The fishery started to gradually recover in 2002,
and in 2003 landings reached 1 032 tonnes. During the heyday of the fishery the
catch was exported by plane to Spain, fresh and gutted.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 31

Besides tope shark and hake, species caught in the two regions include seven-
gilled shark (gatopardo), dogfish, rays (rayas), stingrays (chuchos), cockfish (gallo),
rockfish (mero), sandperch (salmón de mar), kinclip and flounders.

2.8 The ‘lampara’ (hand-thrown seine) fishery

This net is used to fish for anchovy (September to November) and mackerel
(caballa, October to January) in the Mar del Plata area, within the 50 m isobath.
The net is thrown from the bow and maneuvered on the weather side. In the case
of mackerel, the lampara is thrown on a site that is baited with anchovy heads and
other fish discards (Izzo and Boccanfuso, 1993). In 2003, anchovy and mackerel
landings were, respectively, 900 tonnes and 100 tonnes. Anchovy is canned or
salted; mackerel is sold fresh, frozen or canned.

2.9 Trap fisheries

Rocky-reef finfish trap fishery: In the Mar del Plata area, traps (nasas) are used
to capture finfish species from rocky reefs, like red porgy (besugo), sandperch,
rockfish and wreckfish (chernia).
King crab fishery of Tierra del Fuego: A locally significant and traditional
trap fishery targets southern king crab (centolla) in the Beagle Channel (Tierra
del Fuego). Traps of conical design are deployed in lines of 10 units, using meat
discards as bait. Traps are soaked for at least two to three days, then tended and
deployed again (Boschi et al., 1984). Another lithodid crab, the false king crab
(centollón) is also caught, but its quality is comparatively lower. In spite of this,
it has become a significant alternative, considering the sharp decline of king crab
stocks and subsequent restrictive regulations. Catches of false king crab have
increased in recent years, reaching a historical maximum of 362 tonnes in 1996.
Octopus (occasionally sold) is caught as bycatch.
The fishery is seasonal, operating between January and October. Artisanal
fishers and their families process and sell the catch fresh in Ushuaia or Rio Grande,
and eventually to processing plants. Presently, the plants also export king crab and
false king crab. They own a fleet of larger and better equipped vessels, manned by
crews of two or three people that are employees of the plant. This ‘industrial’ fleet
soaks 800 traps, while the artisanal fleet soaks only 100 to 150 (Lovrich, 1997).
Resources are shared with Chile, but no data are available for the Chilean
sector of the channel since 1983. There is no formal collaboration or exchange of
information between agencies from the two countries.

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

3.1 Description of fishers
Coastal gatherers and beach seiners: In Río Negro Province gatherers are mostly
pulperos that move to the coast during the summer months. Once the harvest
(zafra) is over, most of them return to San Antonio where they work temporary
jobs (changas). In the past they used to build huts made out of brush branches,
cardboard and other scrap materials (enramadas) in their temporary summer
32 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

camps. Enramadas, used both for habitation and to hold the octopus catch, are
now being replaced by small cinder block houses. Intermediaries (acarreadores
or acopiadores) concentrate and market the catch in most cases, often paying the
fishers in kind. As a result, pulperos survive the summer but end up penniless.
Pulperos that live in urban areas (San Antonio Oeste, Puerto Madryn) sell the
catch directly to consumers and fish shops, fresh or pickled (escabeche). In Chubut
Province most families of gatherers live in El Riacho and Larralde, small rural
fishing villages where wood stoves are used for cooking and heating. Water is in
short supply everywhere along the coast.
In Tierra del Fuego there are only a few coastal gatherers. They depend on
welfare or temporary jobs during the red tide season (Pascual et al., 2002). In 1994,
Ré and Berón (1999) counted 69 beach seiners in Chubut Province; 61 of them
were owners of their fishing gear. Considering that teams are generally composed
of two persons, the number of people involved directly in this fishery was at least
120. Of these 54% were exclusively artisanal fishers and 8% alternated between
beach seining and jobs as deckhands in the industrial fleet.
Gatherers and beach seiners constitute the lowest income group of fishers,
often living in precarious conditions. The illiteracy rate is highest in Río Negro
Province. Flamanc (1999) pointed out that in Puerto Madryn there are two
subgroups: older fishers, which are more sedentary and often live near the coast,
and younger, more mobile fishers that alternate with low paying jobs. There are
no official figures of the number of fishers in this group, but it is estimated to be
approximately 440 in the whole country (100 in Río Negro, 200 in Chubut, 100 in
Santa Cruz and 40 in Tierra del Fuego).
Fishers that work from small (strictly artisanal) boats: This group is very
heterogeneous. In general, their income is higher than that of workers with
their qualifications in other sectors of the economy. Included here are fishers
that operate in the north of Buenos Aires Province (Partido de la Costa) using
inflatable or semi-rigid boats, commercial divers from San Matías and San José
Gulfs, and some of the boats that operate from Rawson (Chubut Province) or in
the Beagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego Province).
Fishers from Partido de la Costa are relatively young (36 years old on average)
and not very experienced: only 25% come from fishing families. In general, they
alternate between fishing and other jobs.
Flamanc (1999) found that in Puerto Madryn (Chubut Province) younger
fishers (28 years on average) are commercial divers. This is a mostly urban group
of fishers that go to the coast to fish but reside in the city (not all are homeowners),
have a perception very different from that of coastal gatherers, and show concern
for the sustainability of the resources that they depend on. Santa Ana (2001)
conducted an interview survey in the region of Puerto Madryn, identifying 98
active fishers. This was a very dynamic group, with members alternating often
between different occupations. A later interview of team leaders showed that 75%
heads of household have an average time of 14 years in the fishery; fishing is the
sole source of income for 63% and the main source for the remainder. Among
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 33

boats in the fleet 68% showed signs of decay and 13% were definitely precarious
(Elías et al., 2001). A few boat owners do not participate physically in the fishing
operations, which is inconsistent with recent provincial legislation (Law 4725
of 2001), and are not considered here as artisanal fishers. Artisanal fishers from
Puerto Madryn do not have access to welfare or retirement programmes. Most
fishers have only an elementary school education level. The number of fishers in
this group is around 660 for the entire country (300 in Buenos Aires Province,
200 in Río Negro, 130 in Chubut and 30 in Tierra del Fuego).
Fishers that work in the rada/ría fleet: This group has the highest income level,
although it is presently affected by a generalized crisis related to the decline or
collapse of many resources of the Argentine shelf. Fishers in this group can be
generally defined as middle class. Children have access to all educational levels.
Hierarchies in the working place are minimal (Errazti and Bertolotti, 1998). In most
cases, the skipper works side by side with the deckhands. Education level is generally
at the elementary level for deckhands and tertiary for skippers and engineers. There
are approximately 166 registered boats in this sector, with an average crew of 4,
making the total number of active fishers between 600 and 700.

3.2 Social and economical aspects

Access to credit
In contrast with the industrial sector, which has been heavily subsidized, the
artisanal sector has very limited access to credit and subsidies (Godelman et al.,
1999). The situation is better in Río Negro and Tierra del Fuego Provinces,
where provincial states have granted subsidies for the construction of municipal
processing plants and the purchase of boats. This assistance, however, has not been
accompanied by orientation or strengthening of fishers’ organizations, and so was
not successful in reverting the vulnerability of this sector. It must be emphasized
that artisanal fishing is not a subsistence activity in Argentina, where even the
poorest fishers are commercially-oriented. However, society perceives artisanal
fishery as an activity with a low status.

Women participating in artisanal fisheries

Women’s presence is generally related to processing and marketing. Female
participation in fishing activities is limited, being most significant among the
coastal gatherers of San Matías and San José Gulfs, where only a few have worked
as deckhands. In the case of the inshore fleet, virtually no women go to sea. A few
women participate actively in the fishers’ association of Puerto Madryn. Marta
Piñeiro, wife of an artisanal fisher (personal communication), noted that women
are marginalized twice: once for being women and again because of the occupation
of their husbands.
Pascual et al. (2002) conducted a socio-economic diagnostic survey of
women’s participation in fisheries of the Patagonian provinces. They interviewed
251 women belonging to six groups: workers from processing plants (59%);
fishers (5%, including aquaculturists); pulperas (8%); processers of artisanal
34 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

products (preserves and souvenirs, 12%), professionals (plant managers, health-

related controllers, administrators, engineers, scientists, 12%); and merchants
(owners of fish stores or thematic restaurants, 4%). The average age of the women
interviewed was 36 years old; age was highest among pulperas (47 years old)
and plant workers (44 years old). Gatherers and pulperas stop working at age
60, because “at an advanced age it is difficult to walk over the rocky intertidal”.
Professionals are mostly young, as management agencies and research centres from
Patagonia are generally of recent creation, at least as compared to Buenos Aires
Province. The average age of recruitment for pulperas is 23, but some are recruited
as early as 5 years old. About 68% work full-time in fisheries-related jobs, 21%
are temporary, 8% seasonal and 3% occasional. With regards to education, 3%
are illiterate, 21% did not complete elementary education, 12% completed high
school, and 13% went through tertiary or college education. Pulperas are the
most vulnerable sector: 20% have no education and 20% are illiterate. The survey
concluded that the female segment of the fishing-related population is eager to
receive some form of education or training.

Fisheries origins and traditions

Fishing peoples using canoes inhabited the Magellanic region, including Beagle
Channel. As indicated earlier, the fishing traditions of prehispanic peoples were
lost during the colonial period. Archaeological research conducted around Valdés
Peninsula (Chubut Province) shows that 3 200 years ago hunters-gatherers already
roamed the coast, occasionally moving inland in search for freshwater (Gómez-
Otero, 1996). Shellfish gathering was likely conducted during the low tides, or
following storm-induced strandings of subtidal bivalves. The finding of a wooden
fishing hook suggests that there was some finfishing in deep tidal pools (Gómez-
Otero, 1996).
Octopus gathering (pulpeo) had its origins on the west coast of San Matías
Gulf (Río Negro Province) during the 1940s. Since then, knowledge has been
transferred from parents to children. The community of El Riacho (Chubut
Province) was started during the 1960s by pulperos from San Matías Gulf (Santa
Ana, 2004), and later joined during the 1990s by some families without previous
experience.
Fishing traditions were brought to the country by European immigrants
around the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century. Many of them settled
in El Tigre and La Boca, on the shores of La Plata River near Buenos Aires. Mar
del Plata gained gradually in relative importance with the advent of railroads
(1886), largely as it became a major destination of tourists and vacationers during
the summer season. The inshore fishery developed to supply fresh fish (silversides,
white croaker, flounders) to this population. A similar pattern followed later in
Necochea, San Antonio Oeste and Puerto Madryn.
As late as the 1940s, fishing boats operated only within sight of the coast, never
venturing beyond. The catch was sufficient to satisfy the local demand. Starting
in 1943, longlining for tope shark rapidly developed in the area of Mar del Plata,
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 35

paving the way for a transformation of the fishing fleet, which started targeting
anchovy and mackerel. When the tope shark fishery declined in Mar de Plata, the
fleet gradually moved to other ports: Monte Hermoso, Puerto Madryn, Rawson,
and Comodoro Rivadavia (Mateo Oviedo, 2003). Small groups of fishers settled
in these communities, but many moved to other activities after the decline of the
tope shark fishery.
Commercial diving for shellfish originated in San José Gulf during the early
1970s (Ciocco, 1995). A scallop dredge fishery had boomed and collapsed in the
adjacent San Matías Gulf between 1968 and 1972, and there was concern about the
same happening here. Commercial diving was then envisioned as an environment-
friendly alternative to dredging, and developed by a team of divers with experience
in diving for mussels in Uruguay (Santiago Picallo, personal communication).
Commercial diving has operated continuously ever since, incorporating new
divers from other parts of the country and from Chile. Artisanal fishing was
started in Tierra del Fuego by immigrant skippers, many of Chilean origin.

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

4.1 Community organization
The level of organization of the fishers increases with their socio-economic status.
There were attempts to create cooperatives for low-income fishers in Buenos
Aires, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego Provinces, but these were short lived. In
San Antonio Oeste there is an association (APASAO) that groups commercial
divers and longliners. Artisanal fishers are best organized in the area of Puerto
Madryn (Chubut Province), where the local association (APAPM) integrates
fishers from all sectors. Marta Piñeiro, an active member of this organization,
believes that the scarcity of organizations like APAPM makes it difficult for
fishers along the extensive Argentine coastline to unite to improve their living
conditions. Increasingly, pressure from the markets fosters competition, giving
significance to fishers’ qualifications in catching, processing and marketing.
The first Gathering of Artisanal Fishers of Chubut took place in Puerto
Madryn in 1999, bringing together 35 fishers (coastal gatherers, beach seiners and
commercial divers). This was the first formal event involving fishers and scientists
(Elías and Pereiro, 1999). From these beginnings there have been consistent efforts
from different sectors (municipal government, scientists, universities and non-
governmental organizations [NGOs]) to accompany the organization of fishers
as a requisite for the sustainability of local artisanal fisheries. Interinstitutional
interactions proved positive, bringing some successes. A facility close to the beach
of Puerto Madryn served both as a restaurant that sold products prepared by
fishers’ wives and to educate the general public. The association put together its
own web page (www.apamadryn.com) and an informative bulletin is published
and distributed.
Organizations from Buenos Aires Province include the Chamber of Artisanal
Fishers of Monte Hermoso and Pehuencó, and the Chamber of Fishers from
Partido de La Costa. Rada/ría fishers are organized at the level of different
36 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

harbours, like the Society of Skippers of Mar del Plata, the Chamber of Fishers of
Bahía Blanca, and the Chamber of Fishers of the Inshore Fleet of Rawson.
The First National Gathering on Policies for Coastal Fisheries (artisanal and
small scale) was held in Mar del Plata in 2000, and the second in Puerto Madryn
in 2001. Both were attended by fishers from all over the country, as well as
members of the coast guard, business owners and scientists. This was a forum
for the discussion of many important subjects: management, conservation of
coastal environments, and socio-economic aspects of fisheries development. The
National Federation of Artisanal Fishers was founded during the first gathering,
with a commitment to gain areas of exclusive access for artisanal fishers and small-
scale fleets, consolidate the social and juridical organization in every harbour,
promote the creation of cooperatives, work towards the solution of well-being
and educational problems, and lobby for controls on the large industrial fleets
responsible for the collapse of most major resources (Perrotta et al., 2000).
The Federation was ratified during the second gathering, but never gained real
momentum. Both gatherings made it evident that there were significant differences
in the goals and priorities of artisanal and semi-industrial fishers, which made it
difficult to consolidate the organization.
Participation of fishers’ organizations in monitoring and management are
at best incipient in most fisheries, with the artisanal fishery of Puerto Madryn
(Chubut Province) leading the way. Several NGOs in the country are involved
with marine conservation (e.g. Fundación Vida Silvestre, Fundación Patagonia
Natural, Fauna Silvestre, etc.), but only one is exclusively related to fisheries: the
Center for the Development of National Fisheries (CeDePesca). Many of these
NGOs have helped with the organization of workshops and other events to
discuss problems related to artisanal fisheries, but have not been involved in the
discussion of management.

4.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectors

Most of the Argentina coast is sparsely populated. The long coastal zone of
Patagonia (15° latitude) has only 21 human settlements and a total population of
790 000; the number of artisanal or small-scale fishers is comparatively modest.
Perhaps for this reason conflicts with other uses of the coastal zone, while existent,
are not generally significant.
Conflicts between industrial and small-scale fisheries: During recurrent crises in
the hake fishery, the industrial fleet based in Mar del Plata has redirected effort to
pelagic and demersal resources from the coastal zone, which has been a source of
conflict with small-scale fleets (Lasta et al., 2000; Garciarena et al., 2002).
Conflicts between recreational and artisanal fishers: In the rías of Santa Cruz
Province artisanal fishers occasionally compete with sport fishers targeting brown
trout (Salmo trutta) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Conflict between
artisanal and recreational gatherers of shellfish (mostly mussels) was frequent in
the zone of El Riacho. Artisanal fishers pay for a permit and are regulated, while
recreational fishers are not. Artisanal fishers also complain because recreational
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 37

fishers use destructive practices (shovels, unselective mussel gathering, overturning

of rocks, etc.). This situation led to an experiment with territorial use communal
rights (Santa Ana, 2004). In the Beagle Channel (Tierra del Fuego), recreational
boats occasionally accidentally cut off the buoys that mark trap lines.
Conflicts with landowners: A common conflict along the coasts of Patagonia is
created by landowners cutting the access to the seashore to artisanal fisheries that
pull their boats over land. The reason is recurrent complaints by landowners about
fishers killing sheep for consumption.

4.3 Integrated management of the coastal zone and marine conservation

Only recently has there been a concern about integrated coastal management,
mostly through Global Environment Facility (GEF) projects funded by the
World Bank through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (e.g.
Integrated Management Plan for the Patagonian Coastal Zone, and Environmental
Protection of the La Plata River and its Maritime Front). The National Under-
Secretary of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development is elaborating a
National Strategy for Biodiversity, according to the United Nations Convention
on Biodiversity (UNCED). To date, the protection of coastal habitats has relied
mostly on a number of protected areas that represent only 0.59% of the coastal
zone. In most cases there is some level of economic activity, those related to
tourism/recreation being the most frequent. In many cases (San Antonio Bay,
Valdés Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego) those coexist with other activities. Artisanal
fishers operate within the boundaries of the following protected areas.
Buenos Aires Province: Natural Integrated Reserves (RNIs; Samborombón
Bay, Mar Chiquita Lagoon) are established to protect nature as a whole, allowing
only scientific exploration in restricted sectors. Natural Reserves with a Specific
Objective (RNODs) are conceived to protect the soil, biota and natural features;
human activity is allowed but regulated. Natural Multiple Use Reserves (NMUR;
Bahía Blanca, Bahía Verde, Bahía Falsa) are oriented towards research and to
experiments on the rational and sustainable use of natural resources. Focus is on
the ecosystem rather than on individual species.
Río Negro Province: The Natural Protected Area of San Antonio Bay includes
the open coastal zone adjacent to (and under the influence of) the bay. This area
has ecological, fishing, tourism and historical significance. To date there is no
management plan in place. Fishing and tourism, and to a lesser extent a deep water
harbour, are activities compatible with each other, sustaining the local economy.
A plan for the production of sodium carbonate (Solvay method), soon to start
operating, brings into question the future sustainability of this ecosystem.
Chubut Province: The Natural Protected Area of Valdés Peninsula was created
with the objective of promoting sustainable activities compatible with conservation,
like tourism, commercial diving, artisanal aquaculture and husbandry. Access to
the area is restricted and management plans are under development for several
activities.
38 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Santa Cruz Province: The Bahía Laura Natural Reserve is a nominally

intangible reserve created to protect marine birds and mammals and subtidal kelp
forests. There is, however, no control. Some beach seining for silversides takes
place within its boundaries. The National Park Monte León* and the Area for
Scientific Use of Deseada Island are under special protection because of large bird
breeding colonies. Some beach seiners and mussel gatherers operate within their
boundaries.
Tierra del Fuego Province: The Reserve of the Atlantic Coast of Tierra del Fuego
is part of a hemispheric network for the protection of coastal birds. It harbours
many colonies of marine birds and mammals, as well as populations of introduced
beavers. Economic activities within its boundaries include sheep ranching, oil/
gas exploitation and sand/gravel mining. Artisanal fishers catch silversides and
Patagonian blenny using beach seine. There are plans to extend the boundaries of
the reserve to incorporate the adjacent sea. The National Park of Tierra del Fuego
includes kelp forests and colonies of birds and mammals. Economic activities
include tourism and the king crab fishery. The National Park Administration
is considering the extension of the park to incorporate the adjacent sea. There
are projects for other protected areas that include the adjacent sea, including the
Provincial Reserve of Isla de los Estados and a protected sector in the southeast of
the Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Península Mitre).

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
Quantitative assessments have been conducted only for a handful of resources:
Coastal demersal fishes, Buenos Aires Province: Biologically Acceptable Catches
(BAC) of white croaker and stripped weakfish were determined by INIDEP using
a Schaefer’s dynamic biomass model (Ruarte and Aubone, 2003; Carozza et al.,
2004). Reference points considered for the management of this fishery include:
maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum biomass (Bopt) and replacement catch
(CR). An indicator of the state of the resource and the fishery is the proportion of
the current biomass relative to carrying capacity (K) and to Bopt. A risk analysis
(Monte Carlo simulation) was conducted in the case of white croaker, considering
the probability that next year biomass is above current biomass for different levels
of catch. For other species (flathead, flounders, rockfish, red porgy, sharks and
rays), the analysis suggested precautionary harvest levels are based on the average
catch over the preceding decade and/or direct biomass estimates (survey data),
because there is not enough biological data to be used in assessment models.
Pelagic fishes: Biomass of anchovy and mackerel has been assessed with hydro-
acoustic surveys conducted by INIDEP, and BACs have been determined with
production models (Perrotta et al., 2003; Hansen and Garciarena, 2004a, 2004b).
Hake, San Matías Gulf: Occasional snapshot assessments have been based on
survey data (area swept). Thompson-Bell’s yield-per-recruit analysis was applied
using bio-economic data (González and Morsán, 1998, 1999). Assessments are
conducted by the provincial institute.
* Created by National Law number 25.945 in 2004.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 39

Yellow clam, Buenos Aires Province: Stocks of yellow clam from exposed
sandy beaches of Buenos Aires Province were assessed during the 1960s through
extensive snapshot surveys and monthly sampling of a fix station (Olivier and
Penchaszadeh, 1968a, 1968b). As described earlier, stocks are now collapsed.
Purple clam, San Matías Gulf: The purple clam stock of San Matías Gulf, which
is found only in a 21-km2 stretch of subtidal sandy bottom, has been composed
almost exclusively by 2-year classes (1979–1980) over the last 25 years. Abundance
was assessed for the first time in 1994 by means of a diving survey, following a
systematic sampling design (quadrants dug on a fix grid), and using geo-statistical
methods (Morsán, 2003); estimated biomass was around 53 000 tonnes. A recent
survey showed no significant change, perhaps reflecting compensation between
growth rate and mortality (Morsán, personal communication).
Scallops, San José Gulf: Tehuelche scallop stocks of San José Gulf were assessed
in 1995–1996 and 2001–2005 by means of diving surveys (Ciocco et al., 1996, 2001a,
2001b, 2002, 2003), conducted by scientists from CENPAT, with participation of
commercial divers through the local association of artisanal fishers (APAPM).
Scallops were counted by trained divers along transects perpendicular to the shore.
The basic survey design was systematic and incorporated an adaptive component.
The earlier surveys provided the evidence that substantiate claims of overfishing
and a 3-year closure (Ciocco and Orensanz, 1997). Since 2000, sampling surveys
have provided the rationale for setting annual total allowable catches (TACs) by
the provincial fisheries agency (Cinti et al., 2003; Orensanz et al., 2006).
Mussels, San José Gulf: Between 2001 and 2004, mussel beds of El Riacho
were assessed twice a year (before and after the harvest season) with scientific
supervision from CENPAT (Santa Ana, 2004; Santa Ana et al., 2003a, 2003b).
The field protocol was designed to be simple, so that it can be conducted with the
assistance of coastal gatherers. The design consists of a regular grid, combining
quadrants and a photo survey. Results were used in a participatory context to
propose management regulations.

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

Buenos Aires Province: Fisheries are open access, and in many cases there is not
even a fishing slip programme for monitoring. There is a nominal regulatory
framework (e.g. restrictions on effort, gear regulations, size limits).
Río Negro Province: Fisheries are managed by the provincial fisheries agency
with technical support from the Institute of Marine Biology and Fisheries
‘Almirante Storni’, located in San Antonio Oeste. Official catch statistics have been
recorded since the 1960s, and were refined in 1979, when a fishing slip programme
(filled by the skippers) was implemented. During the mid-1990s, when longlining
was introduced, the provincial fishing authority designed a programme for
reconverting trawlers to longliners. Although the initiative was partially accepted
by some companies, trawling is still prevalent nowadays. Currently only the hake
fishery is regulated and catch appears to be at a sustainable level. Other fisheries
40 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

are not managed. However, a new provincial fishing act is being considered, which
would introduce an individual transferable quota (ITQ) system.
Chubut Province: The provincial fisheries authority is based in Rawson,
with delegations in Puerto Madryn and Comodoro Rivadavia. The regulatory
framework is prolific, but limited in the specifics by frequent changes in political
direction (Santa Ana, 2004). There are three types of individual permits: (i) coastal
shellfish gathering and beach seining; (ii) motorized boats operating beam trawls
and longlines; and (iii) motorized boats authorized also for commercial diving.
In 2001, a provincial artisanal fisheries act (No. 4725) defined four fishing
zones: (i) Puerto Madryn, from 42º south latitude, northern provincial boundary,
to Punta Ninfas (43º south latitude); (ii) Rawson, from Punta Ninfas to Punta
Atlas (44º 08' south latitude); (iii) Camarones, from Punta Atlas to Punta Esquerra
(45º 04' south latitude); and (iv) Comodoro Rivadavia (from Punta Esquerra to
46º south latitude, the southern provincial boundary). The law, which has not
been fully implemented, also introduced a provincial registry of artisanal fishers.
The provincial fisheries agency has the authority to establish temporal and spatial
closures, quotas, size limits, etc. It is also in charge of enforcement. Fisheries
are monitored through ‘transit slips’, which permit-holders must fill to report
catch by species, fishing area and destination of the product. Monitoring and
enforcement, however, have been and continue to be inefficient. The only artisanal
fishery in the province that is regulated with a TAC is the scallop fishery of San
José Gulf, for which there is a long history of research and management (Ciocco,
1995). Scientific support for management has been provided over the years by
CENPAT. The provincial Ministry of Health monitors red tides produced by
seasonal blooms of Alexandrium tamarense (Gayoso, 2001); mollusc fisheries are
closed (usually during the spring) when allowable thresholds are surpassed.
Under open access the commercial diving fishery of San José Gulf grew to
more than 30 teams during the early 1990s (Parma et al., 2001). The scallop
stock collapsed and the fishery was closed for three years (1996–1998) (Ciocco
and Orensanz, 1997; Ciocco et al., 2005). In 2000, the industrial hake fishery
(backbone of the Argentine industrial fishery) experienced a severe crisis. Requests
of artisanal fishing permits by displaced fishers increased. Faced with a complex
situation, the provincial fisheries agency formed a technical committee as an ambit
to discuss the management of commercial diving, and eventually of other fisheries.
Parties included technical staff from the agency, scientists from CENPAT, and
leaders of organized artisanal fishers. In 2004, the committee incorporated
representatives of the provincial tourism agency and the autonomous regulatory
board of Valdés Peninsula, which has been designated as part of Humanity’s
Natural Heritage by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). The technical committee’s mission is to elaborate
management plans for the artisanal fisheries of the Puerto Madryn region. This
is, effectively, the first effective co-management experiment in the context of
Argentine artisanal fisheries. So far, the committee has been instrumental in
implementing a limited entry programme for commercial diving and territorial
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 41

use rights for the community of gatherers of El Riacho (Santa Ana, 2004). The
latter became dysfunctional in 2005. The main reason is that the provincial
administration cannot legally delegate management authority, as required by the
effective implementation of a Territorial User Rights Fishery (TURF) system. At
the same time, however, it has been incapable to exercise the authority retained
because of the weakness in its enforcement capability.
Santa Cruz Province: Fisheries are regulated by a provincial agency with
headquarters in Río Gallegos and delegations in coastal towns. The legal
framework for management is provided by a provincial act (No. 1464 of 1982).
Artisanal fisheries are open access; fishers need only to register with the provincial
administration to get a permit. Regulations aim at a balance between artisanal
(commercial) and incipient recreational fisheries, which are considered strategic
for the development of tourism and conservation. Artisanal fisheries may pose
some risks for marine wildlife, including the Magellan penguin (Spheniscus
magellanicus) and Commerson’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus comersoni). Controls
consist of in situ enforcement of fishing gear and quality controls over processing
and marketing. Scientific/technical support is provided by an institute based in Río
Gallegos. Stocks are not assessed. Pereiro (2001) made recommendations towards
a strategic management plan, including elementary assessments and enforcement.
Tierra del Fuego Province: Artisanal fisheries are managed by a provincial
agency, which grants fishing permits, under a legal framework that includes
several provincial laws and written regulations. Fisheries are open access. In the
case of the lithodid crab fishery, there used to be an effort quota of 1 000 traps
for Beagle Channel. This regulation needs to be reconsidered. There are no
forms of traditional management, nor is there a strategic plan for development.
Enforcement is conducted by inspectors of the provincial agency, eventually with
the collaboration of the coast guard (Prefectura Marítima) or the navy. Only
lithodid crab stocks are monitored by means of periodical surveys (conducted
jointly with INIDEP), which provide the scientific support for regulations. As
an example, a TAC of 200 tonnes was introduced in 1999 (renewed in 2000) for
false king crab in the most heavily fished sector of Beagle Channel. There is a
monitoring programme for red tides, and mollusc fisheries are closed seasonally
when safety threshold are surpassed.

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Most artisanal fisheries are not monitored. Catch and effort are recorded in a few
cases, based on fishing slips. There are no observer programmes implemented
for artisanal or small-scale fisheries of the Patagonian provinces and there are no
specific training programmes oriented to small-scale or artisanal fishers.
Buenos Aires Province: INIDEP uses three sources of data: (i) fishing slips
for catch and effort data; (ii) biological port sampling of most important species
landed in Mar del Plata; and (iii) surveys directed to the assessment of coastal
resources (demersal and pelagic) and their environment. The observer programme
is limited to the industrial fleets, with the exception of anchovy and mackerel.
42 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Specific studies have been conducted on the latter with participation of the rada/
ría fleet since 1983. Both in INIDEP and the National University of Mar del Plata
there are research teams studying a number of subjects pertaining to artisanal or
coastal fisheries (see list of references). CeDePesca has organized courses oriented
to fishers with the collaboration of scientists and several institutions. Subjects
included biological sampling for recreational fishers, fish handling on board, and
fisheries control and monitoring.
Río Negro Province: Most of the scientific and technical support is provided
by the Institute of Marine Biology and Fisheries ‘Almirante Storni’ (San Antonio
Oeste), which depends jointly from the provincial government and the National
University of the Comahue. The institute offers a three-year tertiary degree
programme for fishery technicians.
Chubut Province: The commercial diving fishery of San José Gulf has a long
tradition of associated research. In Chubut, there is also significant documentation
of coastal gathering, beach seining and longlining (see references). Most of the
scientific/technical support for management has been provided by CENPAT.
Since 2000, management-oriented research and training (fishers, undergraduate
and graduate students, enforcement personnel of the provincial agency) have been
substantially supported by the Pew Fellows in Marine Conservation Programme.
The AVINA Foundation (non-profit organization focused on sustainable
development in Latin America) and a GEF project play a significant role in
providing support to an incipient co-management system. Many students from the
National University of Patagonia (with branches in Comodoro Rivadavia, Trelew
and Puerto Madryn) do internships or complete their theses on subjects related to
artisanal fisheries or aquaculture. In Puerto Madryn there are two fisheries-related
training programmes, one at the high school (Municipal School of Fisheries),
and the other at the tertiary level (Fisheries Engineering, National Technological
University). A three-month participatory training project for fishers and members
of their families was conducted in Puerto Madryn in 2000. The subjects had been
requested by fishers themselves during the first national gathering: biology of
fishery resources, and handling of fishery products on-board.
Santa Cruz Province: The provincial fisheries agency monitors gear used
by artisanal and recreational fishers. Some studies have been conducted on the
biology of the most significant species, as well as cost-benefit analysis for present
and projected fisheries.
Tierra del Fuego Province: CADIC has contributed significant scientific
support for management, primarily in the case of lithodid crabs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We appreciate the support from Néstor Eduardo Barrientos (President, Chamber
of Aquaculturists and Artisanal Fishers of Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego), for
collaboration in the completion of this chapter. José Dadón (Nacional University
of Buenos Aires), Graciela Sarsa (provincial fisheries agency of Chubut) and
Ernesto Godelman (CeDePesca) provided valuable information.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 43

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

Ciocco N.F., De Garín N., Díaz M.A., Vera R., Mazzanti R., Monsalve M.A.,
Herrera G., Sollazo S., Serdá A., Díaz D., Signorelli C., López J., Ascorti J.,
Díaz R., Bazterrica M.C., Escati G. & Real L. 2001b. Relevamiento de bancos
de moluscos bivalvos de interés marisquero en el Golfo San José. Resultados de
la campaña Sanjo/01. Convenio Provincia del Chubut-CENPAT-CONICET,
LAPEMAR, Informe No 11.
Ciocco N.F., De Garín N., Díaz M.A., Vera R., Serdá A., Sollazo S., Agüero-
Brunt A.F., De Francesco L., Ascorti J., Bregonzi-Castillo D. & Real L. 2002.
Relevamiento de bancos de moluscos bivalvos de interés marisquero en el Golfo
San José: resultados de la campaña Sanjo/02. Convenio Provincia del Chubut-
CENPAT-CONICET, LAPEMAR, Informe No. 13.
Ciocco N.F., De Garín N., Díaz M.A., Vera R., Ortiz N., Ascorti J., Real L., Loto L.
& Bazterrica M.C. 2003. Relevamiento de bancos de moluscos bivalvos de interés
marisquero en el Golfo San José: resultados de la campaña Convenio Provincia del
Chubut- CENPAT, LAPEMAR, Informe No 15.
Ciocco N.F., Lasta M.L., Narvarte M., Bremec C., Bogazzi E., Valero J. &
Orensanz J.M. 2005. Argentina. In Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture,
Second Edition. Edited by S. Shumway. Elsevier Publ. pp. 1251–1292.
Cousseau M.B. & Perrotta R.G. 2000. Peces marinos de Argentina. Biología,
distribución, pesca. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero
(INIDEP), Mar del Plata, Argentina.
Dadón J.R. 1999. Cambios poblacionales en la pesquería de berberecho (Donax
hanleyanus) en el noreste de la provincia de Buenos Aires (Argentina). XIV
Simposio Científico-Tecnológico, Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente Marítimo,
Montevideo (abstract).
Dadón J.R. 2001. Long-term population changes of an endangered species: The
yellow clam (Mesodesma mactroides) in the northeastern marine sandy beaches
of Argentina. International Workshop on Beaches–What Future? Florence, Italy
(abstract).
Dadón J.R. 2002. La situación actual de la almeja amarilla. Comunidad Pesquera,
(CeDePesca, Mar del Plata, Argentina) Año II, No. 7.
Ehrlich M.D., Martos P., Madirolas A. & Sánchez R.P. 2000. Causes of spawning
variability of anchovy and hake on the Patagonian shelf. ICES, CM, 2000/V: 6.
Elías I. 2002. Sobre la sustentabilidad de la pesca artesanal en Puerto Madryn.
Comunidad Pesquera (CeDePesca), Mar del Plata, Argentina. Año II, No. 7.
Elías I. & Pereiro R.C. (eds). 1999. I Encuentro Provincial de Pescadores Artesanales
de Puerto Madryn. Conclusiones y Recomendaciones (Mimeo).
Elías I., Ré M.E. & Gosztonyi A.E. 1991. Observaciones preliminares sobre el
crecimiento del pejerrey “manila” Odontesthes smitti en el Golfo Nuevo, Chubut,
Argentina. Rev. Biol. Mar., (Valparaíso) 26: 49-60.
Elías I., Biagetti D., Mota E. & Aquino W. 2001. Pesca artesanal y economía social de
mercado (Unpublished MS).
Errazti E., & Bertolotti, M.I. 1998. Flota costera: descripción de las principales
características en la región bonaerense. Frente Marítimo, 17: 63-70.
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 45

Flamanc N. 1999. Un front pionner en Patagonie Argentine: Puerto Madryn. Tésis de

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

Iribarne O.O. 1991. Intertidal harvest of the Patagonian octopus Octopus tehuelchus
(D´Orbigny). Fish. Res., 12: 375–390.
Isla M.S. 2001. Pesca marítima en Tierra del Fuego, con especial énfasis en la pesca costera
y artesanal. Informe a la Subsecretaría de Planeamiento de la provincia de Tierra del
Fuego. (Unpublished Ms.).
Izzo A. & Boccanfuso J. 1993. Características de la red de cerco “tipo lampara” y
algunos comentarios sobre la flota que la utiliza en la pesca de caballa. In Estudio
biológico y pesquero de la caballa (Scomber japonicus Houttuyn, 1782). Edited by
R.G. Perrotta. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP,
Mar del Plata). pp. 45–52.
Izzo A., Bartozzetti J.D. & Salvini L.A. 1999. Relevamiento de la flota pesquera
artesanal de la ría de Bahía Blanca y Monte Hermoso. Instituto Nacional de
Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar del Plata), Informe Técnico
Interno No. 42.
Lagos, N. 2001. Características de la pesca artesanal en el Partido de la Costa (Cabo San
Antonio) y perfil socieconómico de la actividad. Undergraduate Thesis. Universidad
Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina.
Lasta C., Carozza C. & Ruarte C. 2001. Flota costera argentina: antecedentes y
situación actual. In El Mar Argentino y sus recursos pesqueros, vol 3. Edited by
M.I. Bertolotti, G. Verazay and R. Akselman. Publicaciones Especiales INIDEP,
Mar del Plata. pp. 89–106.
Lasta C., Carozza C., Suquelle P., Bremec C., Errazti E., Perrotta R., Bertelo C.
& Bocanfusso J. 2000. Característica y dinámica de la explotación de corvina rubia
(Micropogonias furnieri) durante la zafra invernal. Años, 1995 y, 1997. Instituto
Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar del Plata), Informe
Técnico No. 36.
Lovrich G.A. 1997. La pesquería mixta de centollas Lithodes santolla y Paralomis
granulosa (Anomura: Lithodidae) en Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Inv. Mar.
(Valparaíso), 25: 41–57.
Mateo-Oviedo J.A. 2003. De espaldas al mar. La pesca en el Atlántico sur (siglos
XIX and XX). Doctoral Thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institut Universitari
d’Història Jaume Vicens i Vives, Barcelona (Spain).
Morsán E.M. 2003. Spatial analysis and abundance estimation of the southernmost
population of purple clam, Amiantis purpurata in Patagonia (Argentina). J.Mar.
Biol. Assoc. UK, 83: 1073-1082.
Olivier S.R. & Penchaszadeh P.E. 1968a. Evaluación de los efectivos de almeja
amarilla (Mesodesma mactroides Desh., 1854) en las costas de la provincia de Buenos
Aires. Proyecto Desarrollo Pesquero (FAO), Servicio de Información Técnica,
Publicación No. 8.
Olivier S.R. & Penchaszadeh P.E. 1968b. Efectivos de almeja amarilla (Mesodesma
mactroides Desh., 1854) en las costas de la provincia de Buenos Aires- Pautas para su
explotación racional. Proyecto Desarrollo Pesquero (FAO), Servicio de Información
Técnica 8 (suppl.)
Coastal fisheries of Argentina 47

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

Rivas A.L. & Beier E.J. 1990. Temperature and salinity fields in the north patagonic
gulfs. Oceanologica Acta, 13: 15–20.
Ruarte C. & Aubone A. 2003. La pescadilla de red (Cynoscion guatucupa), análisis
de su explotación y sugerencias de manejo para el año 2003. Instituto Nacional de
Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP, Mar del Plata), Informe Técnico
Interno No. 16/2003.
Sánchez R.P. & Ciechomski J.D. 1995. Spawing and nursery grounds of pelagic fish
species in the sea-shelf off Argentina and adjacent areas. Sci. Mar., 59: 455–478.
Santa Ana C. 2001. Relevamiento del sector pesquero artesanal en los Golfos Nuevo,
San José y sur del San Matías. Pew Fellows in Marine Conservation Programme/
CENPAT (Puerto Madryn). ACCESS data base and associated documents.
Santa Ana C. 2004. Los derechos de uso territorial (DUTs) como alternativa para el
manejo sustentable de recursos pesqueros: el caso de la comunidad de recolectores de
costa de El Riacho (Golfo San José, Argentina). Undergraduate thesis, Universidad
Nacional de la Patagonia, Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
Santa Ana C., Orensanz J.M., Parma A.M. & Sarsa G. 2003a. Área de Evaluación de
El Riacho (Golfo San José): balance de un año de seguimiento (mayo 2002 - mayo
2003). Equipo Técnico Asesor para el Manejo de la Pesca Artesanal (CENPAT,
DGIMPyPC, APAPM), Provincia del Chubut, Documento Técnico No. 5.
Santa Ana C., Parma A.M. & Orensanz J.M. 2003b. Evaluación de los bancos de
mejillón del Área de Evaluación de El Riacho 2002-2003. Equipo Técnico Asesor
para el Manejo de la Pesca Artesanal (CENPAT, DGIMPyPC, APAPM), Provincia
del Chubut, Documento Técnico No. 6.
Soutric M. & Caille G. 2005. La pesquería artesanal de camarón de Bahía Engaño,
Patagonia, Argentina. Consolidación e Implementación del Plan de Manejo
Integrado de la Zona Costera Patagónica-Fundación Patagonia Natural, Informe
Técnico.
 49

3. Coastal fisheries of Barbados

Patrick McConney*

McConney, P. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Barbados. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles

and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 49–71.

1. Introduction 49
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 50
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 61
4. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 63
4.1 Community organizations 63
4.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectors 65
5. Assessment of fisheries 66
6. Fishery management and planning 67
7. Research and education 69
8. Issues and challenges 70
Acknowledgements 71
References 71

1. INTRODUCTION
Barbados is the most eastern of the Caribbean islands, entirely surrounded by
the Atlantic Ocean, and located at latitude 13°10' north by longitude 59°35' west.
The mainly low relief and coralline island has a total land area of about 432 km2
encompassed by a coastline 95 km long. The island shelf is small, only 320 km2,
and deep water is found close to shore. The oceanic surface waters are relatively
low in nutrients, thermally stable and of low productivity. Surface currents off
Barbados are complex but generally directed towards the northwest, sometimes
bringing water lenses of lower salinity containing debris from the Amazon and
Orinoco Rivers of South America. Closer to shore, systems of gyres and eddies
tend to entrain and shed near-shore water for periods that vary according to a
number of factors (Figure 1).

* Contact information: Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University of
the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados. E-mail: patrick.mcconney@cavehill.uwi.edu
50 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 1
Location of Barbados and oceanographic features

Source: Mahon, 1996.

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY

There are four major coastal fisheries in Barbados: shallow-shelf reef fishery;
deep-slope and bank reef fishery; coastal pelagic fishery; and sea egg fishery.
The fisheries for conch and lobster are not included since these are minor, and
the sea turtle fishery is closed indefinitely. Also not included are the fisheries for
flyingfish (mainly Hirundichthys affinis) and dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus).
While these are classified as coastal in comparison to the oceanic pelagics (e.g.
large tunas, swordfish and wahoo), they are mainly part of a multispecies offshore
fishery. The four fisheries in this profile are coastal on the basis of their proximity
to shore. They occur in a narrow band generally within 2 km from shore around
the entire island except for a small area of deep reef about 7 km offshore to the
south. Figure 2 shows the main fish landing areas.
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 51

FIGURE 2
Barbados fish landing sites

Source: Fisheries Division, 2001.

Tables 1–4, extracted from the 2004–2006 fisheries management plan (FMP)
for Barbados (Fisheries Division, 2004), provide detailed descriptions of each
fishery. Table 5 and Table 6 provide visions for the fisheries, barriers to sustainable
management, and strategies for overcoming the barriers. The FMP can be
described as management objective driven (MOD) rather than stock assessment
driven (SAD) (Mahon, 1997; Berkes et al., 2001).
52 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 1
The shallow-shelf reef fishery

Location This fishery occurs on near shore coral reefs.

Hinds (Serranidae); Parrotfishes (Scaridae); Grunts (Haemulidae); Surgeonfishes

Target species (Acanthuridae); Triggerfishes (Balistidae).

Squirrelfishes (Holocentridae) and other reef fish species; Lobsters (Palinuridae);

Bycatch Moray eels (Muraenidae).

Distribution: seagrass beds (juveniles); coral reefs (adults).

Growth: up to 50 cm (many species).
Ecology
Life span: 4-6 years (most species).
Reproduction: varies by species, but most broadcast eggs into the plankton.

Vessel type: mainly small, open, outboard-powered boats (moses) are used.
Fishing gear and methods: fishing is most intense during the period July–October
when pelagics are scarce, but reef fishes are captured year-round at some sites.
Mainly fished using traps of various shapes (Z , A, S, and rectangular) and of various
Fishing sizes. S-traps and rectangular traps are not common. Z-traps are prevalent on the
methods south coast, and A-traps on the west. Hexagonal wire mesh 1.25 inch (3.18 cm)
is most commonly used to make traps, and the 1 inch (2.5 cm) mesh previously
in limited use has been illegal since 1998. These mesh sizes retain juveniles of
several species. The traps are often baited with macerated fish or black sea urchins
(Diadema antillarum) and hauled every 2–3 days. Reef fishes are also taken by traps
and handlines fished at various depths down to about 50 m.

Economic importance: economic links to tourism are perhaps as important as

dollar value of food fishery.
Employment: important to part-time fishers year-round and full-time fishers
Economics upon conclusion of flyingfish season.
Catch and effort trends: estimated annual landings of reef fish ranged from 14–
60 metric tonnes for 1990–2003. Information on effort is available as numbers of
vessels and numbers of trap fisheries registered with the Fisheries Division.

Areas of reef are believed to be overfished, particularly on the south and west
coasts, where fishers have reported reduced catch per unit effort and fish size.
Resource
status The potential yield is unknown due to lack of accurate local catch and effort data
over time, or reasonable estimates of production extrapolated from similarly
fished and ecologically comparable reef areas elsewhere.

Presence of large fish satisfies both fisheries for food, and non-food (recreation
and tourism), developments.
Aquarium fish export trade for particular (often non-food) species if populations
Opportunities are carefully managed under the existing regulations.
Marine reserves and protected areas serving recreational and tourism purposes
may act as population reservoirs for adjacent fished areas.

Increased exploitation is not recommended.

Low fish populations due to habitat degradation and overfishing of diminished
Constraints stocks in some areas.
User and use conflicts with tourism and coastal recreation.
Approaches require difficult trade-offs (e.g. between food and non-food use).
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 53

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Catch and effort statistics routinely collected at primary and secondary landing
Present data sites. Statistics only occasionally collected at tertiary landing sites. This is a major
collection problem when assessing this fishery as a substantial portion of the catch is landed
at tertiary sites.

Fisheries Act:
Use of dynamite, poisons and noxious substances is prohibited.
Fisheries (Management) Regulations:
Minimum mesh size 1.25 inches (3.18 cm) in traps.
Current
legislation Trap fitted with escape panel of approved size and design to reduce ghost
fishing.
Trap marked for identification in an approved manner.
Prohibition of trammel and any other entangling nets.
Fishing is prohibited in no-take marine reserves.

Management Island shelf for juveniles and adults; distribution may be wider for early life stages
unit(s) due to egg and larval drift in ocean and coastal currents.

Increase minimum mesh sizes in traps.

Implement a permit system for the use of spear guns.
Prohibit SCUBA-assisted spearfishing, to reduce effort and depth range of
Possible harvest.
additional Co-management arrangements in the context of integrated coastal area
management management. This requires an integrated, participatory approach to reef fish
measures management, involving all of the stakeholders and most of the management
approaches above to deal with the complex issues surrounding this fishery.
Essential for marine protected areas.
For these approaches to succeed, habitat protection through the Coastal Zone
Management Unit (CZMU) and associated agencies is essential.
54 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 2
The deep-slope and bank reef fishery

Snappers (Lutjanidae), mainly queen snapper (Etelis oculatus), silk snapper (Lutjanus
Target species vivanus), and vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens).

Bycatch Unidentified groupers (Serranidae); large jacks (Carangidae) etc.

Distribution: juveniles prefer shallow waters; adults deeper waters.

Growth: greater than 100 cm in length (most species); slow-growing.

Ecology Life span: long-lived.

Reproduction: groupers may form large spawning aggregations; several species are
hermaphroditic; eggs presumed planktonic.

Vessel type: dayboats (fishing launches) are used.

Fishing gear and methods: mainly fished by handlines which target queen snapper
Fishing methods and vermilion snapper. Traps target silk snapper and some vermilion snapper. Most of
the catch is taken from July to October when the availability of large pelagics declines.
Each vessel may have crews of several fishers each tending a line.

Economic importance: unknown. Preliminary assessment of fishery shows potential for

increased investment in harvest.

Employment: most significant during the period when pelagics are scarce (July–
Economics October).

Catch and effort trends: annual estimated catches between 1990 and 1999 ranged
from around 20 to 60 tonnes (Source: Fisheries Division). No clear trends. No
information is available on effort.
The resource may be fully exploited in some areas, but not in others. Potential yield
estimates for the Barbados shelf range from 18 to 80 tonnes per year (Source: FAO
Resource status Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 313). A precautionary approach is
warranted since some species are extremely vulnerable to overexploitation due to
their life history and ecology.
t
High demand local market exists for high-priced luxury product.
Opportunities
t
Unfished and not fully exploited areas are believed to exist.

t
Resource easily overfished, so management of capacity is essential.

Constraints t
Present harvest methods are difficult and labour intensive.
t
Requires investment in fishing equipment to increase yield.

Catch and effort statistics routinely collected at primary and secondary landing sites.
Present data Statistics only occasionally collected at tertiary landing sites. This is a major problem
collection when assessing this fishery as a substantial portion of the catch is landed at tertiary
sites.

Fisheries Act:
Use of dynamite, poisons and noxious substances is prohibited.
Fisheries (Management) Regulations:
Minimum mesh size 1.25 inches (3.18 cm) in traps.
Trap fitted with escape panel of approved size and design to reduce ghost fishing.
Current legislation
Trap marked for identification in an approved manner.
Prohibition of trammel and any other entangling nets.
Declaring closed areas and seasons for species and fishing methods.
Coastal Zone Management Act.
Fishing is prohibited in no-take marine reserves.

Separate stocks may exist on the Barbados shelf given its relative isolation from other
Management unit(s) island shelves.

Possible additional
management Same as for shallow-shelf reef fisheries.
measures
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 55

TABLE 3
The coastal pelagic fishery
Jacks (Carangidae); herrings (Clupeidae); silversides (Atherinidae);
anchovies (Engraulidae); ballyhoo (Hemiramphus spp.) – 2 species; robins
Target species or scads (Decapterus spp.); barracuda (Sphynaena spp.); garfish – 3 species;
small tunas and the young of large tuna such as yellowfin, may also be
caught.

Bycatch Juvenile shallow-shelf reef fish.

Distribution: mainly fished within 2 km from shore.
Growth: little information available. Varies with species.
Ecology Life span: little information available. Varies with species.
Reproduction: jacks probably spawn offshore throughout the year; most
species may have planktonic early life history stages.
Vessel type: both 'moses' and dayboats are used.
Fishing gear and methods: mainly caught by three different methods:
Fishing methods boat seines, cast nets, and trolling. Fishing in the vicinity of reefs may
result in undesirably high bycatches of juvenile reef fish which are
discarded.
Economic importance: a considerable quantity is used as bait for other
fisheries although some are used as food.
Employment: not yet quantified.
Economics
Catch and effort trends: annual estimated catches of jacks and small
tunas from 1990–1999 ranged from about 8 to 40 tonnes (Source:
Fisheries Division). No information is available on effort.
Not yet assessed. Lack of information precludes the estimation of
Resource status potential yield. Qualitative reports on abundance from fishers are
inconclusive.
Opportunities Possible expansion of baitfish fishery.
Constraints Harvest sector conflicts with other coastal users.
Catch and effort statistics routinely collected at primary and secondary
Present data landing sites. Statistics only occasionally collected at tertiary landing
collection sites. This is a major problem when assessing this fishery as a substantial
portion of the catch is landed at tertiary sites.
Fisheries Act:

t
Use of dynamite, poisons and noxious substances is prohibited.

Fisheries (Management) Regulations:
t
Minimum mesh size for seines 1.50 inches (3.81 cm).
Current legislation
t
Prohibition of trammel and any other entangling nets.
t
Declaring closed areas and seasons for species and fishing methods.
t
Coastal Zone Management Act.
t
Fishing will be prohibited in no-take marine reserves.
Island shelf for juveniles and adults, but distribution may be wider for
Management unit(s) early life stages due to egg and larval drift.
t
Permit cast netting in the marine reserve, but improve monitoring and
surveillance to ensure other fishing is not also taking place.
t
Prohibit seining and cast netting near reefs.
Possible additional t
Research and data collection, particularly through co-management
management arrangements.
measures t
Protect fish habitat through integrated coastal zone management.
t
Given an overlap of issues, it may be prudent to incorporate this fishery
into the integrated coastal area management approach suggested for
the shallow-shelf reef fishery.
56 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 4
The sea egg fishery

Target species White sea urchin or sea egg (Tripneustes ventricosus).

Bycatch None

Distribution: adults live on sea grass beds and coral rubble. Juveniles appear
to settle in same areas as adults. The sea urchin is particularly vulnerable
to overfishing because it occurs close to shore, is virtually immobile, and is
harvested for its gonads. Natural or man-made changes in marine habitats
are concerns.
Ecology Growth: varies according to environmental conditions. Gonads ripen
seasonally.
Life span: 2–3 years (maximum).
Reproduction: sexually mature by one year; eggs and larvae are planktonic
for several weeks.

Vessel type: when vessels are used, the launch is common, but the 'moses'
is also used. The occasional ice-boat is observed. Alternatively, fishers who
swim out to the sea urchin ground will often carry a floating log from which
bags of harvested urchins will be suspended until returning to shore.
Fishing methods
Fishing gear and methods: sea urchins are harvested close to shore by skin
divers using mask, snorkel and fins and by SCUBA divers. The sea urchins
are removed from the bottom by hand or metal scraper and are collected
in a net bag.

Economic importance: revenue from the sea urchin fishery is an important

part of some fisher’s income. Significant inter-annual variation in stock size
occurs such that catch size is limited mainly by stock size at low abundances
but is effectively only limited by fishing effort at high stock abundances.
While researchers differ on their estimates of the mean income per fisher
from the sea egg harvest (largely due to differences in estimates of effort),
there is little doubt that, when abundant, Barbadian sea eggs are the basis
Economics of a very valuable fishery.
Employment: it is estimated that over 300 fisher-divers (part-time and full-
time) are involved in this fishery. In addition, many other people crack,
clean and sell sea eggs.
Catch and effort trends: no regularly recorded landings statistics are
available. Catch and effort fluctuate with highly variable abundance. No
clear trends.

High demand has led to overexploitation of the resource and the stock was
considered to be in a collapsed state for most of the period between the
mid-1980s to 2000. During this period two multiyear harvesting moratoria
Resource status (1987–1989 and 1998–2001) were implemented to allow the depleted stocks
to recover. Sea eggs returned in abundance in 2001 and stock levels had
remained relatively high in 2002 but with some decline in 2003.

Market exists for high-priced luxury products, high demand.

Opportunities
Low harvest and post-harvest investment required.

Seasonal, unpredictable abundance.

Low populations due to overfishing and possible habitat degradation.
Constraints
Absence of community organization to facilitate co-management by area.
Failure at the attempt to sustain an island-wide fisherfolk divers association.
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 57

TABLE 4 (CONTINUED)

Fishers, in collaboration with the Fisheries Division and BARNUFO, conduct

Present data annual stock abundance surveys just prior to the commencement of the
collection fishing season, and the results are used in part to determine the length and
timing of the fishing season.

The designation of annual fishing seasons has been used as a management

tool for the fishery since 1879.
Moratorium from 1987 to 1989 when harvesting sea eggs was not
allowed.
Since 1989, closed season, from 1 January to 31 August. During the open
season from 1 September to 31 December it was against the law to:
- Leave the shell or offal of sea eggs on any bank or in shallow water.
- Wilfully or wantonly destroy or injure any sea egg.
(However, due to inadequate enforcement and absence of social sanctions,
illegal harvesting often started as early as July.)
Fisheries (Management) Regulations:

Current Provision for closed seasons and areas.

management Prohibition of harvest with the assistance of SCUBA.
Illegal to have, sell, expose for sale or purchase sea eggs during the closed
season unless the sea eggs were obtained with the permission of the Chief
Fisheries Officer.
Cannot wantonly injure or destroy any sea eggs.
Fisheries (Sea Eggs Closed Season) Notices:
Closed season from 1 August 1998 to 31 July 2001.
In 2001, the closed season was extended to 31 August and harvesting was
permitted from 1 October to 30 November.
In 2002, harvesting was initially permitted from 1–31 September but the
open season later extended to 31 October.
In 2003, harvesting was permitted from 15 September to 15 October.

Management A discrete stock probably exists on the Barbados shelf given its relative
unit(s) isolation from other island shelves.

Co-management measures to be subsequently considered include:

Licensing harvesters.
Possible additional
Closed seasons.
management
measures Setting total allowable catches.
Improved monitoring and management information systems involving
harvesters.
58 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 5
Visions for coastal fisheries

Vision 1: Coastal fish resources are sustainably utilized and managed

Barrier Strategies
Degradation and destruction Work with CZMU and stakeholders to implement, enforce and
of coastal habitats monitor coastal zone management legislation.

Work with fishers and government agencies to develop strategies

to stop the use of dynamite and noxious substances in fishing.

Monitor the use of spear guns and fishing gear and publicize their
detrimental effects to the fishery.

Discourage cast netting or seining on or near reefs.

Research the need for seasonal closure of seine fishery.

Strict control of fishing by permit in marine protected areas.

Promote measures that will prevent pollution of the near shore

marine environments.

Increase public information on coastal habitat conservation.

Encourage stakeholders and the public to get involved in marine

environmental awareness and conservation activities (i.e. brochures,
videos, TV programmes).
Overfishing due to high
Publicize the fishery regulations.
mortality of juvenile and
adult reef fish occurs
Work with stakeholders to enforce existing gear regulations.

Monitor compliance with regulations.

Set up mechanisms for registering and marking fishing gear.

Research feasibility of further gear and vessel restrictions.

Assess the need for additional management measures.

Inadequate fishery Review and improve sampling scheme for catches and map their
information and statistics locations.
are available for planning Work with fishers to develop better means of measuring fishing
and management effort on reefs.

Improve the collection of biological, economic and social data.

Collaborate on data collection with fishers and students.

Conduct stock assessments.
Collate existing information and data, and use the results to
inform further research and produce user-friendly material for
stakeholders.
Work closely with the UWI and fishers to collect necessary scientific
information on all local fisheries.
The institutional Explore possible institutional arrangements in collaboration with
arrangements for all stakeholders in data collection, implementation, management,
managing this fishery monitoring, and decision-making.
have not been fully
developed Implement the preferred arrangement(s) as pilot projects for trial,
and evaluate to improve.
Shortage of trained staff Provide suitable training for staff where possible and continue
lobbying for additional appropriately trained staff.
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 59

TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)

Vision 2: Coastal conflicts that impair fisheries management are reduced

or absent
Barrier Strategies
Conflicts among Formally integrate fishing into coastal zone planning and
stakeholders in the coastal management.
zone
Establish and maintain means for fishers and other coastal zone
users to meaningfully participate in planning and management.

Not enough attention is Conduct more research on stakeholder analysis and solutions to
paid to development of conflicts.
sustainable solutions to
Use GIS and facilitation to help identify and develop solutions.
conflicts

Economic linkages with Research and develop linkages that provide more economic
tourism are not optimized opportunities for fishers in tourism-related activities on the
for fishers inshore reefs.

TABLE 6
Vision of the sea egg fishery

Vision 3: Optimum annual harvests that earn maximum economic

benefits while conserving the resource

Barrier Strategies
Stocks usually low, highly
Maintain stocks at a level which can sustain fishing.
variable, and extremely
vulnerable to overfishing
Improve co-management for monitoring and harvest.

Eliminate illegal fishing during the closed season/moratorium.

Poor track record Find more innovative ways to enforce fishery regulations.
of compliance with
and enforcement of Public education on sea egg conservation and management.
conservation regulations
Implement a 'coast watch' type of public surveillance system.
Inadequate fishery Improve estimation of catch and effort.
information and statistics
for planning and Collect more biological, economic, and social data.
management
Improve collaboration on data collection and monitoring with
fishers.

Conduct more stock assessments in collaboration with university.

Possible habitat
CZMU to implement legislation for coastal zone management.
degradation and
destruction and water Collaborate closely with CZMU and environmental agencies on
pollution habitat surveys, pollution, etc.

The institutional Explore possible institutional arrangements in collaboration with

arrangements for all stakeholders. The formation of a sea egg management council
managing this fishery comprising representatives of the sea egg fishing communities,
have not been fully government, and scientists is recommended.
developed Implement the preferred arrangement(s) as pilot projects for trial,
and evaluate to improve.
60 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

For ease of reference, each subplan follows the same format. The location,
target species or species group, and bycatch are described before the ecology,
fishing methods and economics of the fisheries. A general statement on resource
status is given in the absence of quantitative reference points. Likewise, the
opportunities and constraints appear as qualitative observations. Data collection
and current legislation are described, as well as the resource management units (i.e.
scale of management) and possible additional management measures. The FMPs
are primarily means of communicating key concepts and information to diverse
fisheries stakeholders and are, therefore, written mainly in non-technical language.
A brief general description of all the fisheries is made below.
All four fisheries are small-scale commercial fisheries, but some fish are retained
for home consumption and distribution to personal networks (from observation,
not >10% of total catch). Some of the shallow and deep reef fishing is recreational,
including a limited amount of tournament fishing. The sea egg fishery is highly
seasonal by management regulations, although much illegal fishing takes place in
all months once the resource is relatively abundant. The other fisheries tend to be
more active from around June to October, which is the low season for the main
offshore pelagic fisheries. Catches from all of the fisheries are primarily marketed
fresh (the fish usually whole or only gutted; the urchins as roe), but small
portions are processed mainly to be sold frozen in local supermarkets. Estimated
annual fish landings from the coastal fisheries (Table 7) contain larger amounts of
unknown errors and uncertainties than found in statistics for the pelagic fisheries.

TABLE 7
Provisional estimated fish landings (2001–2004)
Provisional annual total estimated landings
Fish species or species group (tonnes)
2001 2002 2003 2004
Flyingfish 1 673.1 1 590.4 1 912.3 1 185.6

Dolphinfish 574.4 552.8 458.1 454.7

Large tunas 150.7 114.0 162.0 191.8

Billfish 70.7 43.9 68.2 61.8

Kingfish (wahoo) 23.6 40.6 31.9 42.3

Shark 9.5 9.1 8.1 8.4

Swordfish 14.3 7.8 16.1 19.0

Snappers* 20.0 12.4 15.4 5.8

Carangids* 11.2 9.6 25.6 32.0

Small tunas* 1.2 2.4 1.6 1.3

Unspecified * 109.0 89.3 96.2 130.6

Total 2 657.7 2 472.3 2 795.5 2 133.2

*Includes catches from coastal fisheries (Source: Fisheries Division of the Barbados Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development).
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 61

The fishing activity in each fishery is described in Tables 1–4, including vessels,
gear and methods. In general, these fisheries tend to involve the smaller categories
of vessel in the fishing fleet, particularly outboard powered ‘moses’ (dinghies)
and dayboats (half-decked launches) (Figures 3a and 3b). A Fisheries Division
publication (Willoughby and Leslie, 2000) provides detailed descriptions of
fishing methods and fishing gear specifications.

FIGURE 3a
“Moses” open inshore fishing vessel

(Photo: Fisheries Division)

FIGURE 3b
Dayboat midrange vessel

(Photo: Fisheries Division)

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The fishing industry labour force is described in the 2004–2006 fisheries
management plan (Fisheries Division, 2004). There are about 2 200 people
involved in fish harvest (80% full-time) and up to an additional 3 800 in fisheries-
related activities. This is based on fisher registration and rough estimation, and
62 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

constitutes about 2% of the total population. The primary stakeholders of the

harvest sector are fishers and boat owners. Fishers comprise 63% and boat
owners account for 37%. About 40% of boat owners are also active fishers. The
coastal fisheries are particularly fluid in terms of labour entry and exit, with a
large number of opportunistic and occasional fishers who are normally engaged
in other occupations, including construction, tourism, the civil service and law
enforcement. Defining the labour force in these fisheries is difficult.
As noted above, women do not participate much in harvesting; however,
women are in the majority in the post-harvest sector. They account for 63% of
the post-harvest primary stakeholders. The majority of fish vendors (60%), fish
boners (77%) and fish scalers (70%) are female. Although males account for only
37% of the post-harvest primary stakeholders, they are in the majority among
the processors (100%), exporters (100%), hawkers (62%), and skinners (51%).
Of the four coastal fisheries, the work of women is most obvious in the sea egg
industry of urchins, where women participate in groups by processing the product
on beaches and selling it directly to consumers. In the other fisheries women are
found mainly as vendors, but reef and small pelagic fishes are often sold directly
by fishers to consumers.
Coastal fishers are usually Barbadians, and only Barbadian citizens or
firms can legally own local commercial fishing vessels under the Fisheries Act.
Fishers are mobile within the coastal waters, and fishing areas are not closely
linked to particular adjacent communities except for limitations in the range
of vessels or preference to have fishing gear close by, especially in the trap
fisheries. There is relatively little territoriality, especially when resources such
as sea urchins are abundant. The sea egg fishery has been documented and
regulated for over 100 years. All of the fisheries have strong traditions and
have been relatively slow to modernize. For example, traps and deep handlines
are still mainly hauled without mechanical assistance.
Social and economic data disaggregated by fishery are scarce. The Fisheries
Division recently undertook a drive to have all fishers registered, and this should
improve the quantity and quality of information available. Some data already
appear in the current fisheries management plan.
Overall, across all fisheries, males account for 99% of the fishers and 91% of
the boat owners. Males in the age group 45–49 years are in the majority among
both harvesters and boat owners. Stakeholders in the age group 50–59 years are in
the majority among post-harvest stakeholders. Most males are 40–44 years of age
while most females are between 45 and 49 years old. Men tend to enter the fishing
industry between the ages of 15 and 19 years, while women enter later, between
20 and 24 years of age.
The most comprehensive socio-economic descriptions are of the sea urchin
fishery, most recently summarized in Mahon et al. (2003) and McConney et al.
(2003a). Historically, the annual sea egg fishing season is timely for fishers as it
comes when the season for flyingfish and the other large pelagics, such as dolphin,
is over. In addition, the beginning of the season also coincides with the last weeks
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 63

of the school summer holidays. Hundreds of Barbadians, including women and

children, become involved in some aspect of the sea egg fishery. In 1948 the
industry was described as employing “almost every available fisherman and their
families”. Estimates of the numbers of people seasonally involved have ranged
from nearly 1 000 in the mid-1950s to just over 200 at present. No other fishery
in Barbados so thoroughly engages people of all ages, both sexes and of several
other occupations as fully and intensely as the sea urchin fishery. The traditional
roles for the women and children are the processing and sale of the sea eggs on
shore. Persons are described by the tasks to which they are assigned (i.e. ‘divers’,
‘breakers’ and ‘vendors’). There used to be sharper distinctions between these
categories of workers in the fishery than there are today. It is said that diving for
sea eggs often introduces boys to fishing, so the fishery may play an important
role in the supply of new labour into the industry.
The sea urchin fishery is the most lucrative of the four in this profile, especially
due to the high earning rate within the short open season. This is estimated at
US$2 000 to US$5 000 per harvester, earned over approximately two months
(McConney et al., 2003a). The trap fisheries have a longer season of about seven
months that is not regulated by law, but by fishing preferences. Incomes of up
to US$7 500 have been estimated as being possible from the deep reef fishery
(Prescod, 1991), but will be less on average for the inshore reefs. There have been
no earnings studies for the coastal pelagic fishery.

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

4.1 Community organizations
Fisherfolk organizations generally include fishers and boat owners, while a few
also include fish vendors in their membership, but not fish processors. About five
registered groups are currently active, meaning that they have constitutionally
elected executives and some regular activities for the benefit of their members
(Table 8).
The secondary producer organization, the Barbados National Union of
Fisherfolk Organizations (BARNUFO), was instrumental in facilitating the
participation of a wide cross-section of the fishing industry in the formulation of
the 2001–2003 Fisheries Management Plan, and represented the industry to a lesser
extent in formulating the 2004–2006 plan. The latter was done mainly through
membership on the government’s Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) that is
established under the Fisheries Act to advise the minister responsible for fisheries
on a broad range of topics.
Among the primary fisherfolk groups, the Oistins Fisherfolk Organization
has been attempting to introduce local area management adjacent to their landing
site on the south coast (Hoggarth, 2005). The Weston Fisherfolk Organization
sought to ensure that legal fish traps were not tampered with by others on the
west coast. The Barbados Fisherfolk Divers Association was established to
participate mainly in the management of the sea urchin fishery but was short-
lived (Mahon et al., 2003).
64 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 8
Fishing industry organizations in Barbados

Fishing industry organization Registration date

Barbados Fishing Cooperative Society Limited* 18 Feb. 1986

Oistins Fisherfolk Association* 4 Nov. 1997

Weston Fisherfolk Association* 29 Jan. 1998

Sand Pit Fisherfolk Association* 6 Feb. 1998

Northern Fisherfolk Association 20 Mar. 1998

Paynes Bay Fisherfolk Association 4 May 1998

Speightstown Fisherfolk Association 20 May 1998

Tent Bay Fisherfolk Association 12 Jun. 1998

Pelican Fisherfolk Association 24 Jul. 1998

Pile Bay Fisherfolk Association 18 Nov., 1998

Conset Bay Seamoss Group 17 Dec. 1998

Barbados Fisherfolk Divers Association 5 Mar. 1999

Barbados National Union of Fisherfolk Organizations* 26 Mar. 1999

Mount Standfast Marine Preservation Association 12 May 1999

* Fisherfolk organizations currently active (adapted from Fisheries Division, 2001).

Due to the ribbon pattern of coastal settlement, and absence of deep embayments
or other defining coastal features, there are few easily recognizable spatial fishing
communities in Barbados. There is no system of local government (i.e. at the
community level), and therefore the primary organizations described above also
come closest to the means of providing community representation in management.
In the context of communities of interest, the FAC has members including a fisher,
boat owner, fish vendor and fish processor. However, these people are appointed
for their individual expertise and do not provide representation except in cases
where their views are consistent with the majority of others in the same fishery
occupation.
At present, the main non-governmental organization with an interest in fisheries
is the Barbados Marine Trust. Formed in May 2000, the Trust is interested in
all aspects of marine management and conservation, particularly in coastal and
nearshore areas. The Barbados Game Fishing Association (BGFA) is the sole body
comprising recreational fishers, and tournament anglers in particular, but most of its
attention is on pelagic fishing. Although perhaps not your typical non-governmental
organization, the University of the West Indies (UWI) has had a long history of
involvement in researching and facilitating the community aspects of participation
in fisheries management. To a lesser extent, the Caribbean Conservation Association
(CCA), a regional non-governmental organization (NGO), has also contributed in
recent times, particularly to the sea urchin fishery.
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 65

4.2 Interactions between fishers and other sectors

The 2001–2003 Fisheries Management Plan (Fisheries Division, 2001) sets out
general examples of positive and negative intersectoral interactions with fisheries
(Figure 4).

FIGURE 4
Positive and negative intersectoral interactions

Adapted from Fisheries Division, 2001.

Documented conflicts in coastal fisheries have mainly been between trap

fishers and other users of inshore reefs, particularly recreational divers and
watersports operators. In broad context, this is over the consumptive versus non-
consumptive use of reef fish. Conflicts also occur between coastal fishing vessels
in the approaches to the harbour and large vessels entering or leaving port. Coastal
land is highly sought after and valuable, especially for tourism. There has been
shrinkage of the unused coastal areas that are suitable for boatyards, causing some
conflict over boatyard space and with the occupants of adjacent properties.
Implementation plans for coastal fisheries management (Fisheries Division,
2004) point to the need to strengthen or establish institutions for conflict
management since tension is expected to increase as coastal development
(particularly for tourism) proceeds. It has been suggested to use a geographic
information system (GIS) as a tool in conflict management, but this has not yet
been implemented.
Barbados has a very progressive Coastal Zone Management Act (1998) and
planning system which states that specific fisheries management plans have
66 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

precedence and seeks to incorporate fisheries into coastal management as set

out in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Based on detailed
diagnostic assessments, the coastal zone management plans outline desirable uses
and management of defined segments of the coast. Implementation of these plans
is still in the early stages and public participation is currently being sought.

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
There have been varying levels of assessment in the four coastal fisheries. The most
comprehensive are for the sea urchin fishery, followed by the reef fisheries, and with
relatively little assessment of the coastal pelagic fishery. Most of the assessments
have been focused on ecology and stock assessment. The sea urchin fishery has
included social, economic, institutional and uncertainty aspects. All of the numerical
estimates and indices produced for the fisheries are perceived as being approximate
and, as shown in Tables 1–4, none of them are used explicitly for management, such
as in setting target or reference points (Caddy and Mahon, 1995).
Only in the sea urchin fishery has there been much attention to traditional and
local knowledge, including harvesting practices that are relevant to conservation
and community-based management. A fair amount has been written on the latter,
partly in the vein of how it may not be appropriate for Barbados due to settlement
pattern and cultural norms about property rights (Mahon et al., 2003; McConney
et al., 2003a). Figures 5 and 6 were produced by the Fisheries Division through
collaborative surveys with fishers.

FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6
Distribution of sea urchin harvesters Distribution of sea urchin resources

Source: Fisheries Division. Source: Fisheries Division.

Coastal fisheries of Barbados 67

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

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

r
Grants to fishing industry organizations for approved projects.

r
Free accommodation for umbrella fisherfolk organization.
These are relatively small subsidies that benefit mainly the harvest sector, and
particularly the more capital intensive offshore fisheries through the duty and tax
concessions. There had been a rebate on gasoline fuel used to power the outboard
engines used by much of the coastal fleet. However, this subsidy was removed
as a cost-saving measure, and to reduce financial abuse, rather than for fisheries
conservation reasons.
Although the fisheries management plans are in place for three years before
reviewing and updating, the sections on vision are expected to be enduring and
strategic, with a time horizon of around 10 years. Each fishery or fishery group
has a vision as shown in Tables 5 and 6. There are also vision components for the
harvest and post-harvest sectors (Fisheries Division, 2004):
Vision of the harvest sector:
r
Trained and well-informed fishers and fisherfolk organizations playing an
active and vital role in the sustainable management of the fisheries resources
and in quality assurance of seafood.
r
Well-maintained and designed vessels complying with national legislation
and standards for design, construction, safety at sea, and hygienic storage
and handling of fish.
r
Fishers using responsible fishing practices and not engaged in activities
that undermine the effectiveness of any accepted national, regional or
international fisheries management measures.
r
Modern and appropriate infrastructure that supports the loading of supplies,
sanitary offloading of catch, and construction or repair of vessels.
r
Fishers supporting and benefiting from social services which contribute to
their well-being in times of need.
r
Local and regional fisheries stakeholders working together to manage
national and shared fisheries resources.

Vision of the post-harvest sector:

r
Trained fishers, informed fisherfolk organizations and other stakeholders
playing an active role in fish quality assurance, food safety and small
business enterprises.
r
Adequate national seafood legislation and standards with systems and
procedures in place to ensure compliance.
r
Individuals and agencies producing and marketing quality value-added
seafood products.
Fisheries enforcement and voluntary compliance are weak in almost all
respects. The four coastal fisheries are difficult to monitor. The data collection
system, and most monitoring, is concentrated at the fish markets and main landing
sites that serve the offshore pelagic fisheries. While there is some monitoring
at other beaches and minor landing sites, accurate information on catches and
effort are scarce. The regulations on gear specifications and fishing seasons are
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 69

not enforced; neither the fisheries authority nor the marine enforcement agencies
have adequate capacity, and fishing violations are not priority for attention.
Coast Guard operations annually yield only a handful of arrests and even fewer
successful prosecutions. Most of this enforcement activity concerns harvesting sea
eggs out of season (McConney and Pena, 2004).
Although there has not yet been a formal and structured or quantitative
evaluation of fisheries management in Barbados, and particularly an evaluation of
the performance of the plans and their implementation, there have been informal
reviews. These have occurred mainly at the Fisheries Advisory Committee, which
is mandated under the Fisheries Act to advise the minister responsible for fisheries
on a wide range of management and development issues (McConney et al., 2003b).
In summary, fisheries management has only been partially successful. There has
been some success at creating policy and laws that reflect the intention of ensuring
responsible fisheries, such as with Barbados becoming party to the international
instruments identified earlier. Less progress has been made in implementing
operational aspects of the management plans. This includes the poor enforcement
of fisheries management regulations.

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Data and statistics on all four fisheries are collected by the Fisheries Division. At
the fish markets, or primary landing sites, officers of the Markets Division are
the daily data collectors. There is daily data collection by employees of the
Fisheries Division stationed at the secondary landing sites and sampling by
roving collectors at the tertiary sites. The data collected are catch and effort.
Recent recorded landings of snappers and reef fish are provided in Figure 7.

FIGURE 7
Recorded landings of snappers and reef fish in Barbados
70 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Most of the coastal fishery research has taken place in the sea urchin fishery,
followed by the two reef fisheries, with the least on the coastal pelagics. This order
reflects their social and economic importance. For all except the coastal pelagics
there has been biological, ecological, social and economic research, but the volume
of work on the sea urchin fishery far outweighs the others. Key references are
listed at the end of this paper.
Limited quantities of conservation brochures have been produced by the
Fisheries Division based on the fisheries management regulations. For the
sea urchin fishery there are also television spots that urge conservation and
compliance. There are no educational or vocational programmes aimed at
promoting alternative occupations in the fishing industry or aimed at facilitating
exit from fishing by training for occupational mobility.

8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Due to the dominance of the offshore pelagic fisheries, economically, socially,
politically and otherwise, the coastal fisheries of Barbados have been relatively
neglected, except for sea urchins and the interest of mainly academic researchers
in shallow shelf reef fish. The quantity and quality of information on these
fisheries is generally poor and inadequate for management except in the most
precautionary sense. However, there has been recent renewed interest in these
four coastal fisheries. The fisheries management authority is aware of the need to
demonstrate effective management at the national scale while tackling the regional
management required for the offshore pelagic fisheries.
Taking into account its limited organizational capacity, the Fisheries Division
is considering contracting studies on aspects of fisheries, many of which can be
done as graduate student projects or short-term consultancies. The seine fishery
is expected to be documented. There is interest in the oral histories of fishers who
harvested deep snapper banks that seem to have been depleted or are perhaps
not known by younger fishers. The management plans call for increasing the
minimum mesh size in fish traps, especially to rehabilitate the shallow shelf reef
fishery. The fisheries management regulations were recently reviewed and not
found to be either enforced or complied with. The fisheries authority and fisher
organizations are to collaborate in promoting the existing regulations.
Due to organizational capacity constraints and other factors, it is not expected
that these fisheries will receive much attention in terms of formal stock assessment.
However, the authority is aware of alternative directions for small-scale fisheries
(Berkes et al., 2001). These fisheries have been identified as potential candidates
for co-management arrangements, and it is anticipated that fisher groups will be
interested in management objective driven (MOD) approaches. In this way, it is
hoped that communication, compliance and capacity may improve.
Coastal fisheries of Barbados 71

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The accuracy of information provided and the opinions expressed are the
responsibility of the author alone, who thanks the Fisheries Division for access
to its records.

REFERENCES
Berkes F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R. & Pomeroy R. 2001. Managing Small-
scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. International Development
Research Centre, Canada.
Caddy J.F. & Mahon R. 1995. Reference points for fisheries management. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 347. FAO, Rome.
Fisheries Division. 2001. Barbados fisheries management plan 2001-2003. Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development.
Fisheries Division. 2004. Barbados fisheries management plan 2004-2006. Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development.
Hoggarth D.D. 2005. Lessons from a shaky start for the Oistins Fisheries
Co-Management Pilot Project (OFCoMP) in Barbados. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.
Inst., 56: 1–16.
Mahon R. 1996. Fisheries of small island states and their oceanographic research and
information needs. In Small islands: Marine science and sustainable development.
Edited by G. Maul. Coastal and Estuarine Studies, 51: 298–322.
Mahon R. 1997. Does fisheries science serve the needs of managers of small stocks in
developing countries? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 54: 2207–2213.
Mahon R., Almerigi S., McConney P., Parker C. & Brewster L. 2003. Participatory
methodology used for sea urchin co-management in Barbados. Ocean Coast.
Manag., 46: 1–25.
McConney P., Mahon R. & Parker C. 2003a. Barbados case study: the sea egg fishery.
Caribbean Coastal Co-management Guidelines Project. Caribbean Conservation
Association, Barbados.
McConney P., Mahon R. & Oxenford H. 2003b. Barbados case study: the Fisheries
Advisory Committee. Caribbean Coastal Co-management Guidelines Project.
Caribbean Conservation Association, Barbados.
Prescod S. 1991. The snapper fishery of Barbados: present status and a preliminary
assessment of the potential for expansion. CERMES ES500 Project Report No. 29.
UWI, Barbados.
Willoughby S. & Leslie D. 2000. Fishing gear of Barbados. Fisheries Division,
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.
 73

4. Coastal fisheries of Brazil

MARCELO VASCONCELLOS*, ANTONIO CARLOS DIEGUES AND DANIELA COSWIG KALIKOSKI

Vasconcellos, M., Diegues, A.C. and Kalikoski, D.C. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Brazil. In S.
Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the
Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 73–116.

1. Introduction 74
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 76
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 81
3.1 Characteristics of fishers 81
3.2 Social and economic aspects 84
3.3 Education level of fishers 86
3.4 Fish marketing and processing 87
4. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 87
4.1 Community organization 87
4.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectors 88
5. Assessment of fisheries 92
5.1 North 92
5.2 Northeast 94
5.3 Southeast 96
5.4 South 96
5.5 Other considerations: assessment of ecosystem processes,
bio-economic analysis and uncertainties 99
6. Fishery management and planning 99
6.1 Fisheries management 99
6.2 Coastal management 107
7. Research and education 110
8. Issues and challenges 112
Acknowledgements 113
References 113

* Contact information: Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG).

E-mail: marcelovasconcellos@furg.br
74 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

1. INTRODUCTION
Coastal fisheries have been receiving an increasing level of attention from
governmental and academic institutions in Brazil in recent years. The reasons for
this are many, but the most important are: the general failure of governmental
policies for the development of the fisheries sector, which have been focused almost
exclusively on industrial fisheries; the growing recognition of the importance of
artisanal fishers who, without support from the government, continue to supply
local and regional markets; the innumerable pressures that artisanal fishing
communities have been suffering, owing to the expansion of the interests of the
real-estate and tourism sectors and environmental degradation – factors that often
force the fishers to move to cities, having lost their land; the coverage given to
these conflicts by the press; the recent political liberalization in Brazil after the
military regime (1964 to 1984), which allowed the marginalized and forgotten
groups of society to express themselves more freely, especially in defence of their
rights and aspirations in the Constituent National Assembly; the work carried out
by non-governmental organizations, in particular, the Catholic Church, through
the activities of the Fisheries’ Pastoral mainly in the north and northeastern states;
and the birth of the National Movement of Fishers (MONAPE) in 1989.
The development of artisanal fisheries faces many challenges due to the lack of
policies, strategies and concrete experiences that can support sustainable fisheries
production, better organization and improvement of the livelihood of fishing
communities. There has been a continuous worsening of the problems affecting
the production of artisanal fisheries owing to the depletion of fisheries resources,
environmental degradation of coastal areas, and ultimately to the ineffectiveness
of governmental strategies in overcoming the obstacles that impede the sustained
development of the artisanal fishing communities along the Brazilian coast. The
overall lack of information about these fisheries is a subsidiary problem that gives
low political visibility to the sector and thus helps perpetuate its status. This chapter
aims to provide a broad perspective of the status of artisanal coastal fisheries in
Brazil, and to put forward some alternative strategies for the development of the
sector. In describing these types of fisheries, we opted to concentrate as much as
possible on general regional characteristics, but also highlight special features of
relevance to particular fisheries when necessary.
Artisanal fishers are organized into a number of fishing communities settled
along the coast and in small coastal towns in Brazil. Artisanal fishing is conducted in
a variety of coastal ecosystems. The characteristics of habitats, fauna, productivity
and oceanography of these ecosystems greatly influence the way fishing activities
are developed. On a broad scale, the Brazilian coastline can be divided into five
large ecosystems with distinct environmental characteristics of importance to
capture fisheries (Matssura, 1995; Figure 1).
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 75

FIGURE 1
Major marine coastal ecosystems of Brazil

Biological production is high in the north, as a result of the continental runoff

from the Amazon River (Teixeira and Tundisi, 1967). The wide continental shelf
and the rich benthic community favoured the development of industrial trawling
activities in this region, mostly for shrimps and large catfishes. The northeast and
east regions present oligotrophic conditions due to the influence of tropical waters
from the Brazil Current. Rocky bottoms and a mostly narrow continental shelf
induced the development of hook-and-line and longline fisheries for rockfishes,
sharks and tunas. In the southeast, primary production is mainly driven by seasonal
upwelling of nutrient-rich, cold subtropical waters pumped by alongshore winds
and by cyclonic vortexes originating from the Brazil Current (Bakun and Parrish,
1990; Matsuura, 1995). The southern part of the Brazilian coast is under the influence
of the Subtropical Convergence between the southward and northward Brazil and
Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas currents. The confluence of water masses and the
high volume of continental runoff provide physical and chemical conditions for high
biological production on the shelf (Seeliger et al., 1997). Trawling is the main type
76 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

of fishing activity in the southeastern and southern regions, although the presence
of highly abundant pelagic stocks, mainly sardine, in the southeast has also led to
the development of an important purse seine fishery since 1950.
Within each of these major ecosystems, there is a variety of inshore and coastal
ecosystems where diverse communities of artisanal fishers live and work. Coral
reefs, mangroves, estuaries and coastal lagoons are particularly important coastal
ecosystems. Coral reefs occur along 3 000 km of the northeast and east coasts
and off oceanic islands. Mangroves extend almost along the entire coast of Brazil,
from Oiapoque (Amapá) to Laguna (Santa Catarina), occupying an area of about
25 000 km2. The most extensive areas of mangrove are associated with the mouth
of the Amazon River in the north of Brazil. Coastal lagoons are found in the
southern, southeastern and northeastern regions, and are especially important in
the states of Alagoas, Rio de Janeiro, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. The
Patos lagoon, located in Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil, is recognized as one
of the most important centres for artisanal fisheries in Brazil.

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIES

Two main fish production systems co-exist in Brazil: industrial and artisanal
fisheries. Industrial fisheries are defined as fish harvesting undertaken by large
boats that belong to a fishing company. Social and technical division of labour is
high, and production is sold to processing companies and large markets. Industrial
fisheries concentrate their harvesting on high market value species such as lobster,
shrimp and tuna, or highly abundant stocks such as sardine.
There is a continuing debate on the definition of the term ‘artisanal fisheries’.
The Superintendence for the Development of Fisheries (SUDEPE, which was the
governmental agency for fisheries development from 1967 to 1988) defined the
artisanal fishery as the fishery carried out by boats with less than 20 tonnes of
capacity. This definition is clearly unsatisfactory considering that some industrial
fishing boats also fall into this category. As a result, statistics on the production of
artisanal fisheries are not accurate.
In this study coastal artisanal fishers are defined as independent fish harvesters
whose livelihood is based on fishing, on a part or full-time basis, using labour and
knowledge-intensive fishing techniques, and employing family or community
labour, often on a sharing basis, for harvesting in coastal habitats. The fish caught
are normally sold in the local market, usually through middlemen, although some
is for home consumption. The artisanal fisheries sector has a longstanding tradition
in Brazil. Before the governmental incentives to develop industrial fisheries in
1967, artisanal fisheries accounted for more than 80% of the fish production in
the country. Today it is responsible for approximately 54% of the total marine
landings of about 516 000 tonnes (Figure 2).
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 77

FIGURE 2
Landings by main types of marine fisheries

Source: IBGE, IBAMA, CEPENE, Freire, 2003.

The available information on the artisanal coastal fisheries operating in each

region along the coast is summarized in Table 1. Fishing activities in the north,
northeast and east coasts of Brazil are predominantly small-scale – the sector
accounts for more than 90% of total landings in these regions. Industrial fisheries
account for most of the fisheries production, with artisanal fisheries representing
34% and 8% of the total landings in the southeast and south, respectively, in
recent years.
In the north, artisanal fisheries are concentrated in the estuary of the Amazon
River, other smaller estuaries, bays and shallow coastal waters and in the extensive
mangrove areas that cover the coast. Coastal fishers use small- (<8 m) to medium-
sized (8–14 m) wooden boats and employ various types of gillnets, longlines and
fish weirs to catch catfish, weakfish, mullets, sharks and mackerel, among other
species of fish. Gillnets and hook-and-line are used for hard bottom species
such as groupers and snappers as well as mackerel on offshore reefs and banks.
Trawling is also used to catch shrimp in coastal areas. The capture of freshwater
species is common during the rainy season when the shelf is strongly influenced
by the runoff from the Amazon River. The fisheries inside the estuary use small
boats and canoes, with rows, sail or small engines, and employ gillnets, hook-
and-line and fish weirs to catch catfish, mullets, weakfish and freshwater species.
In the mangrove areas, the main activity is the manual collection of crabs (Ucides
cordatus).
Artisanal fisheries in the northeast are based on small- to medium-sized boats
(most of them <12 m long) using sail or small engines, canoes using oars or sail,
and sail rafts. There is a large diversity of species and fishing gear/methods used
in coastal fisheries in the northeast. Lessa et al. (2004) identified, for instance, at
78 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

least 16 types of gear used by small-scale fishers in Pernambuco, one of the states
of the northeast region. In general, gillnets, longlines and hook-and-line are used
in coastal and offshore waters to catch snappers, groupers, mackerel, sardines,
pompanos, tunas and dolphinfish. Lobsters are captured mostly with gillnets
(caçoeiras) and by diving. Shrimp trawling is conducted in certain areas close to
the mouth of estuaries. Gillnets, trammel nets, cast nets, manual trawling and traps
are employed closer to shore and inside estuaries and coastal lagoons to capture
anchovies, mullets, needle-fish, and shrimps, among other species. The manual
collection of crabs and molluscs in mangrove areas is particularly important
throughout the region.
On the east coast, particularly in the state of Espirito Santo, Martins and
Doxsey (2006) identified the following types of fisheries of small- and medium-
size scale: an offshore hook-and-line and longline fishery, based on boats of 8 to
15 m long with engines, targeting reef associated and pelagic species; a hook-and-
line fishery, based on boats of 6 to 8 m long with engines, targeting specifically the
triggerfish (Balistes capriscus); a coastal fishery with hook-and-line and gillnets,
based on small boats with oars, catching mostly Sciaenidae fish; a fishery targeting
tunas and other large pelagics around oil drilling platforms based on well-
equipped, medium-sized boats; shrimp fisheries based on trawling boats of 7 to
10 m long; and lobster fisheries based on small boats, using oars or small engines,
and employing gillnets and diving. Mangrove areas in estuaries are also important
for the manual collection of crabs.
In the state of Rio de Janeiro, on the southeast coast, the most important
artisanal fisheries utilize gear such as hook-and-line, gillnet, beach seine, shrimp
trawls and manual collection of shell/crab. One of the most traditional activities is
the beach seine fishery based on large canoes and seine nets to encircle migrating
schools of bluefish, mullets and bonitos (Silva, 2002). Shrimp are caught in the
coastal lagoons using fixed nets, manual trawling and cast nets. Small purse seiners
also participate in the sardine fishery in coastal waters. In the state of São Paulo,
one of the most important and traditional fisheries is the engraulid Anchoviella
lepidendostole fishery. This fishery occurs mainly in estuaries and is carried out
with wooden canoes, 4 to 5 m long, using oars or small engines, and employs
trawling nets and other types of gear (Gasalla and Tomas, 1998). In the state
of Paraná, fishing activities are predominantly small-scale (Andriguetto-Filho
et al., 2006). Important fishing activities in the region are the trawl fishery for
marine shrimp along the coast and in estuaries, the gillnet fishery for sharks and
demersal fishes (mostly Sciaenidae), and the estuarine fisheries for juvenile shrimp,
engraulids and mullets. The manual collection of crabs and molluscs is also
significant. Further south, in the state of Santa Catarina, beach seining for coastal
fishes, estuarine fisheries for shrimps with fixed nets and trawling, gillnet fisheries
for croaker, weakfish and flatfish, and jigging (zangarilho) for squid are important
artisanal fishing activities (Sunye and Morison, 2006).
 TABLE 1
Characteristics of artisanal fishing activities in Brazil

Number Average
Gear type Type and size of boats Main targeted species
of boats crew size
North
Manual collection; Wooden canoes and boats, 10 265a 2–3 Crab (Ucides cordatus); catfish (Ariidae); weakfish (Cynoscion spp.); shrimp
Gillnet; Fish weirs; <8 m, using oars, sail or small (Penaeidae); sardines (Clupeidae); mackerel, (Scomberomorus spp.); croaker
Hook-and-line; Longline; engines (Micropogonias furnieri); mullet (Mugil spp.).
Coastal fisheries of Brazil

Trawling
Wooden boats, 8–15 m, using 3 358b up to 10 Mackerel, (Scomberomorus spp.); weakfish (Cynoscion spp.); catfish (Ariidae);
sail and/or engine snappers (Lutjanidae); sharks; sardines, (Clupeidae); shrimp, (Penaeidae); crab
(Ucides cordatus).

Northeast
Gillnets; Trammel nets; Wooden canoes, 3 to 9 m, 10 480 2–3 Needle-fish (Hemiramphus spp.); snappers (Lutjanidae); groupers (Serranidae);
Cast nets; Beach seine; using oars or sail tunas (Thunnus spp.); dolphinfish, (Coryphaena hippurus); mackerel (Scomberomorus
Trawling; Hook-and- spp.); pompano (Carangidae); anchovies (Engraulididae); sardines, (Clupeidae);
line; Longline; Diving; Rafts and other small sail 5 603 2–3 mullets (Mugil, spp.); lobsters (Panulirus spp.); shrimps (Penaeidae); crab (Ucides
Manual collection boats, <11 m cordatus); oysters and mussels.
Medium-sized wooden boats, 6 003 3–5
<5 m, using engines

East
Hook-and-line; Longline Wooden boats, 8 to 15 m, 372 5–6 Snappers (Lutjanidae); groupers (Serranidae); dolphinfish, (Coryphaena hippurus).
with engines
Hook-and-line Wooden boats, 6 to 8 m, with 402 3–4 Trigger fish (Balistes capriscus); other demersal fish (Sparidae, Pomadasydae and
engines Haemulidae).
Hook-and-line; Gillnet Small (< 8 m) wooden boats, 725 2–3 Coastal demersal fish, Sciaenidae.
using oars
Trolling; Hook-and-line Medium-sized wooden boats 170 6 Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares); dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus); billfishes
with engines (Seriola spp.; Acantocybium spp.).
Otter trawling Wooden boats, 7 to 10 m, 248 2–3 Shrimps (Penaeidae).
with engines
Gillnet; Diving Small wooden boats, using 186 2 Lobsters (Panulirus spp.).
oars or engines
79
 80

TABLE 1 (CONTINED)

Number Average
Gear type Type and size of boats Main targeted species
of boats crew size

Southeast
Trawling nets Wooden canoes, 4 to 5 m, no data no data Anchovy (Anchoviella lepindostole).
using oars or small engines

Beach seining Large wooden canoes 65 2–3c Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix); mullets (Mugil spp.); bonitos, (Acantocybium spp.).

Gillnet; Trawling; Fixed Wooden boats, 6 to 14 m, no data no data Shrimps (Penaeidae); juvenile anchovies (Engraulididae); croaker (Micropogonias
nets; Beach seining; using oars or engines furnieiri); weakfish (Cynoscion spp.); squids (Loligo spp.); flatfish (Paralichthys
Hook-and-line; Jigging; spp.); mullets (Mugil spp.); crabs and molluscs.
Manual collection

South
Gillnet; Fixed nets; Wooden boats, < 10 m, no data 2–3 Croaker (Micropogonias furnieri); mullets (Mugil spp.); sharks; flatfish
Trawling; Manual using engines (Paralichthys spp.); shrimps (Penaeidae).
trawling

Gillnet; Hook-and-line Wooden boats, 12 to 15 m, no data 6–8 Demersal fishes (Sciaenidae); bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).
using engines

Sources: Reis et al., 1994; Gasalla & Tomás, 1998; CEPENE, 2007; BDT, 2002; Pinto da Silva, 2004; Almeida et al., 2006; Isaac et al., 2006a.
a Based on data for the states of Para (4 475 boats) and Maranhão (5 790 boats).
b Based on data for the states of Para (1 502 boats) and Maranhão (1 856 boats).

c According to Pinto da Silva (2004) there are 150 fishers in the beach seine fishery of Arraial do Cabo; crew size was derived from this number and number of canoes.
Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 81

Finally, in southern Brazil, artisanal fisheries operate mostly in coastal lagoons,

estuaries and shallow coastal waters using wooden boats, most of them less than
10 m long and under 20 gross tonnes. The main artisanal fishing activities are the
gillnet fisheries for croaker, mullets and flatfish, and the fishery for shrimps with
fixed nets and trawling (D’Incao, 1991; Reis et al., 1994; Kalikoski et al., 2002). A
medium-scale commercial fishery operates in coastal waters (Reis et al., 1994). The
fleet is composed of wooden boats, 12 to 15 m long, with more powerful engines,
and targets demersal fishes (mostly Sciaenidae) and also pelagic species such as the
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) using gillnets and hook-and-line.

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

3.1 Characteristics of fishers
Fishing and mollusc harvesting were important activities for indigenous people
before the arrival of the Portuguese colonisers in the sixteenth century. In
several areas of the coast there are shell middens (sambaquis), demonstrating that
indigenous people fed on molluscs and fish for several centuries. Jean de Léry, a
French Calvinist who visited Brazil in early 1500, described fishing techniques
used by coastal Indians, such as bone hooks and small nets made of fibres found
in the forests as well as canoes and rafts (jangadas) made of floating logs. Fishing
was also important along the Amazonian rivers and Indians used fish as their basic
source of protein.
Until the end of slavery in 1888, fishing activities in the northeast were
undertaken mainly by African slaves. Small farmers also used part of their time
for fishing along the coast. Coastal fish species, such as mullet, were the basis for
protein consumption in coastal farms, towns and villages. The social upper classes,
however, imported salted cod from Portugal (Silva, 1997a).
A variety of human cultures based on fisheries are found along the coast. In the
south region, between Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, live the descendants
of the Azoreans and Portuguese that settled in the region in the seventeenth
century. The first European generations were both peasants and fishers, but since
the late 1940s they have concentrated mainly on fishing. The caiçaras, who live
between Paraná and the state of Rio de Janeiro, are descendants of the Indians,
Portuguese colonizers and African slaves. They practice small-scale agriculture
associated with artisanal fishing. The jangadeiros (raft-fishers) live in the northeast
coast, from Bahia to Fortaleza, and they depend almost exclusively on artisanal
fishing, using the jangada (a raft with sails) that is very suitable for the type of sea,
wind and sandy coast of the area.
The cultural background and the environmental setting favoured the
development of different relationships with the sea. Small farmer-fishers combined
fishing with agricultural activities in the provinces of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.
In the northeast region, coastal communities have developed a long tradition of
coastal fishing, separated from agriculture. Cultural factors, as well as the shape
of the continental shelf, could be responsible for the different relationships
between agricultural and fishing activities. The continental shelf is narrower in the
82 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

northeast than in the southeast, and thus most of the fish species in the northeast
live in rocky habitats further from the coast. These factors require fishers with
good navigational skills and fishing knowledge. The sandy coast in the northeast
also inhibited intensive agricultural activities and therefore the artisanal fishers in
this area have a strong tradition of dealing with the open sea. Most of the fishing
activity in this area was carried out within a system involving a petty mode of
production, where some of the harvested fish was used for subsistence and some
as a commodity.
Coastal legislation has contributed to (but also interfered negatively with)
the development of traditional sea tenure. Since the middle of the last century a
stretch of 33 m of land measured from the 1833 highest tide belongs to the State
(called Terras de Marinha). This area cannot be privately owned and no permanent
construction can be made in this area without State permission. Small-scale fishers,
although they have no legal entitlement, occupy these areas. They have customary
rights of occupancy (posse) to live in those areas, where they build their thatched
roof houses. The same right (posse) is transferred to the nearby coastal waters
when they occupy a place in the estuaries and lagoons to build their fish weirs
(cercos).
The State, through the Navy, also tried to control artisanal fishers through
forced services. As a result, rebellions occurred in 1903 in Rio de Janeiro and
Ceará. To control these rebellions, in 1921 the Brazilian Navy created the first
fishers guilds (Colônias de Pescadores). According to the guild regulations, all
fishers should be registered in order to receive permission to fish. In practice, each
coastal municipality had its own guild that regulated the lives of fishers. However,
with the promulgation of the new Brazilian Constitution in 1988, fishers were
given rights to organize their own free associations.
Commercial fishing began to develop more intensively beginning in the
twentieth century, particularly in the southern states, where the Portuguese and
Spanish migrants started to use larger boats for fishing sardine, which was also
used for canning. Industrial fishing further developed after the 1960s with the
support of a large fisheries development programme undertaken by SUDEPE.
Before then, most of the fishing was done by artisanal fishers along the coast and
rivers.
It is extremely difficult to calculate the number of artisanal fishers, considering
that the ‘official’ criteria based on boat size is not accurate. According to data
from the 2000 census, there are about 248 000 fishers on the coast organized
into fishers’ guilds. The northeast has approximately 62% of the total number of
guilds, followed by the southeast with 16%, south with 12% and the north with
10% (data provided by the Confederation of Fishers, 1986). Also, according to
the Confederation there are approximately 288 500 fishers who are not affiliated
with the guilds. Thus, there are approximately 536 000 artisanal coastal fishers in
Brazil.
Data obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)
in the 1970s indicated that around 70% of artisanal fishers lived in coastal/rural
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 83

areas and 30% resided in urban areas. In the north and in the northeast, fishers
lived mainly in rural communities, while in the southeastern and southern regions
they were mainly urban dwellers. Considering that since the 1970s, rural-urban
emigration (which in Brazil is also synonymous with emigration from the interior
to the coast) has been a widespread phenomenon, one can acknowledge that the
degree of urbanization of artisanal fishers is much higher now.
In different regions of Brazil, mainly in the northeast and the north,
women have traditionally participated in fishing activities by harvesting shellfish
(marisqueiras), or fishing along the seashore (pescadeiras). Women also have been
the main labour force in the processing of fish in artisanal and industrial fisheries.
Until the 1988 Constitution, women were not legally permitted to work in
fisheries, which were considered a male activity. SUDEPE only allowed women to
work as harvesters of shellfish or algae. It was only in 1988 that a presidential act
abolished the prohibition on female labour in fisheries. In spite of the legalization
controlling their role, women rarely participate in deep-sea fishing, since fishers
consider that their presence on board a boat will bring bad luck (panema). This
situation is slowly changing and in some states of the north and the northeast
regions some women work with their families in small-scale fishing. There are also
cases of widows who work alone in artisanal fishing boats. Some of these women
are now even presidents of fishers’ guilds; however, these are still isolated cases.
The majority of women work as shellfish harvesters, selling the yield to
increase the domestic income. In some states of the northeast region, such as
Bahia, approximately 20 000 marisqueiras participate actively in earning domestic
income. In states such as Maranhão, northern Brazil, women participate in fishing
‘on foot’ with small shrimp nets. The shrimp is brined, dried and sold by the
women. This activity is also common in other states of Brazil. The activity of
women is also important in some fishing communities where they weave and
darn the fishing nets. In many other communities, women work in small-scale
agriculture, producing yucca flour, which is the basic diet of coastal populations in
many areas. Urban industrial employment is another field where women are active
participants, working in the fish processing industry. In many cases the workforce
is almost entirely female.
The role of women in fishing activities has decreased in some cases due to
technological changes and overexploitation of coastal resources. Women who
take an active part in fishing still maintain their traditional status – their activities
are viewed as ‘support’ in running the household. The majority of the fishers’
guilds maintain the traditional gender division of labour. The ‘double-workday’
of women continues to be thought of as ‘part-time activity’. A woman involved in
the administration of the colônias is still considered a little ‘out of place’.
There are recent trends in the role of women in fisheries, which are worth
mentioning. During the past five years, in the state of Pará, women have attained
more than 10% of the registered members of the guilds. They are also seeking
alternatives to traditional set-ups like the colônias. Several women’s associations
have flourished, providing women the possibility of holding positions of higher
84 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

political/administrative importance. There have been several factors motivating

women to unite and form associations, including the need to generate income
and explore alternative avenues to do so. Government programmes and the
initiatives of non-governmental bodies working with small producer groups
have also influenced these women’s organizations. Groups that already existed in
the community (mostly linked to the Catholic Church, such as Mothers’ Clubs,
Grassroot Ecclesiastical Communities) are enthusiastically supporting these new
associations.
In the colônias where women are admitted, integration occurred naturally. Once
groups are formed, the exchange of ideas and access to new social spaces induced
a reconsideration of traditional roles. These groups tend to follow examples set
by other organizations that have been successful in welcoming women. During
the 1990s, other various organizations supported and strengthened the role of
women in fishing, such as the Fisher’s Pastoral, the National Movement of Fishers
(MONAPE) and several NGOs (i.e. Terramar, supported by the International
Collective in Support of Fishworkers) (Maneschy, 1999).

3.2 Social and economic aspects

Socio-economic data on artisanal coastal fisheries are generally scarce. The
situation deteriorated even more after the termination of SUDEPE in 1989. There
are several reasons for the scarcity of socio-economic information. One cause is
the dispersion of fishing communities along the coast, which makes the task of
collecting information extremely difficult. Another factor that has hampered the
development of programmes to evaluate the socio-economic status of artisanal
fisheries is governmental priority in the industrial sector. This support to
industrial fisheries has been a detriment to the artisanal sector. Among the main
data deficiencies are those concerning economic aspects of the fishery, such as
employment and income level, types of technologies employed, and organizational
aspects of fishing communities. Some small improvements in data availability have
been observed in recent years when governmental welfare programmes began to
collect and disseminate information on the fishers who applied for benefits, such
as the unemployment benefit received by fishers during fishing closures.
In terms of fishers’ productivity, the available data from SUDEPE, Fishers
Confederation and IBGE indicate that productivity increased from 1.49 tonnes
per fisher in 1967 to 1.81 tonnes per fisher in 1986 and decreased to 1.12 tonnes per
fisher in 2000. The decrease in the last 15 years could be caused by the depletion
of coastal resources, as well as other factors, such as the increase in the number
of people participating in the fishery (including, in recent years, non-fishers
that fish as an alternative source of income) and the consequent reduction in the
productivity per individual fisher.
The infrastructure for landing, storage and commercialization of fish is very
precarious. In general, the large ports have no infrastructure to accommodate
landings from artisanal fisheries. In many fishing communities, especially in
the northeast, fish is landed on the beach and from there it enters a long chain
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 85

of dealers until it gets to local/regional markets. The situation seems to be even

worse in fishing communities close to urban centres, because they lack adequate
structures to land and process fish in urban conditions. Past experiences in
the northeast in the construction of fisheries production facilities for landing
and cold-storage associated with cooperatives (funded during the 1980s by the
Inter-American Development Bank [IDB]) did not work satisfactorily. The vast
majority of these facilities ended up in the hands of middlemen. At the same
time, many cooperatives failed because they were formed in a rush, without the
proper evaluation of the administrative capacity of fishing communities and of
market demands. More recent experiences in the northeast with the ‘Pro-Renda’
(a governmental programme that aims to increase the income level of poorer
communities) seem to be more successful than the previous experiences with
cooperatives. The programme is based on strengthening the existing fishers’
guilds, improving techniques to maintain the quality of fish on board using
freezers, and developing new markets for artisanal fisheries production. Fish
marketing, improvement of the quality of fisheries products, and the processes
of intermediation within the market chain continue to be the critical points for
the development of artisanal fisheries and increasing the income levels of artisanal
fishers.
Fishing livelihoods are not homogeneous along the coast. Along the northern
coast, many fishers combine fishing with agriculture. In the northeast, most fishers
depend exclusively on fisheries. Their livelihoods are under threat from the rapid
expansion of shrimp aquaculture, tourism and urban development, as well as from
overfishing of important stocks. Along the southern and southeastern coast, there
are clear signs of depletion of most stocks, as well as environmental degradation
which requires mechanisms of control and regulation. In the past, many fishers
who lived in coastal villages also maintained other activities such as small-scale
agriculture, forestry and handcrafting. With the increasing level of conflict with
industrial fisheries, along with the expansion of urbanization and tourism, many
artisanal fishers have turned to aquaculture or to working in general services in
cities.
The urbanization of artisanal fishers (i.e. the move of fishers from rural to urban
areas) is a phenomenon evident in many states, particularly in the southeastern and
southern regions. Even in the 1970s, approximately 70% of fishers in these regions
lived in or around urban centres. In contrast, in the northern and northeastern
states, most fishers lived in coastal villages while only 44% lived in urban
centres. Although there is a general lack of information, it is probably correct to
assume that today most coastal artisanal fishers live in or close to urban areas,
with the exception of fishing communities in northern Brazil and in the states
of Maranhão and Piaui. According to data available in the IBGE database for
1991, the level of urbanization reaches 22% in certain areas of Maranhão, 48.5%
in Ceará, 62.5% in Paraíba, 70% in Rio de Janeiro, 83.5% in Santa Catarina and
98% in São Paulo. The increasing level of urbanization of artisanal fishers has
many drivers, including mounting economic pressure from the tourism industry
86 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

that led to the appropriation of coastal areas from fishing communities; the shift
from agriculture and other extractive activities; the lack of basic infrastructure to
support fishing activities (e.g. supply of ice and diesel) and the lack of access to
basic social services (e.g. health and education) in coastal villages compared with
urban centres; the proximity to markets in the cities; and the implementation of
environmental conservation units along the coast that expelled many fishers from
their traditional fishing areas. Fishers that have moved to cities are often involved
in urban activities (construction, general services, tourism, etc.) to complement
their earnings during fishing closures.
Fishers’ access to infrastructure and to social services is normally precarious in
coastal communities as well as in urban zones. Table 2 compares some statistics
that characterize the living conditions in certain artisanal fishing communities of
selected coastal states.

TABLE 2
Percentage of households with access to basic services in fishing communities
in selected areas of coastal states

Access to treated Regular collection

Town Sewage system
water of domestic waste

Maranhão <5. 0 7. 0 0. 5

Ceará 7. 0 7. 0 24. 0

Rio de Janeiro 62. 0 3. 0 no data

São Paulo 71. 0 <5. 0 no data

Santa Catarina 52. 0 3. 5 no data

Rio Grande do Sul 68. 0 69. 0 65. 0

Sources: Diegues, 1999; Costa, 2004.

3.3 Education level of fishers

The information provided by fishers that applied for unemployment benefits
in 2003 (Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego) indicates that the illiteracy rate is
44.6% among men and 53.5% among women. Only 9% of men and women have
completed elementary-level education and only approximately 1% completed high
school. These figures indicate that the educational level of fishers is extremely low
and well below the national average. From the same source of data it is estimated
that only 13% of fishers are less than 30 years old, which reveals the difficulty of
recruiting young members of the community into the fishery.
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 87

3.4 Fish marketing and processing

Most of the frozen fish traded in large cities in supermarkets is imported or
is supplied by commercial fishing industries. Artisanal fisheries production is
generally traded in coastal towns and regional centres. Most of the crabs, mussels,
oysters and other shellfish originate from artisanal fisheries, and marketing is
sometimes done through cooperatives. In Santa Catarina (in southern Brazil),
many small-scale fishers are becoming oyster cultivators, partly due to the
decrease in fish stocks. Mussels are also being cultivated by small-scale fishers
along the northern coast of São Paulo.
The network of fish trade in artisanal fishing villages is complex, often involving
middlemen on several levels, from the beach to the neighbouring cities and the
central markets in state capitals. In the Amazonian region, for instance, artisanal
fishers (especially those who live far from the cities) are totally dependent on the
middlemen. In Pará the fish bought by the geleiro is resold to the ‘weigher’, who in
turn sells it to the ‘retailer’ and from there it is sold in the ‘retail market’. Since the
1970s, due to the roadways network development, the traders in the cities, as well
as the fishing companies, send their trucks to the beaches to purchase fish from
artisanal fishers. The fishing companies pay for the fuel of the motorized artisanal
boats in exchange for the exclusive rights to purchase the catch.

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

4.1 Community organization
Artisanal fishers are organized into fishing guilds (colônias de pesca), similar
to the Iberian guilds, created originally by the Brazilian Navy. The objective
for the creation of these guilds was to organize the fishing communities spread
out along the coast into reserves for the Navy. The directors of the colônias are
elected by fishers, who are legal members of the colônias, and the directors in turn
elect the president of the Provincial Federation. The president of the National
Confederation was personally nominated by the agriculture minister, to which the
fishing sector was institutionally attached until 1989.
Before the 1988 Constitution, a majority of the directors of the colônias were
representatives of other social and professional sectors, such as fish traders and
lawyers, who utilized the fishers’ organizations for political purposes. In 1973, a
new statute was established for the colônias, but no substantial changes occurred
as this new law was promulgated during the military regime and there was no
consultation whatsoever with the fishers. In the beginning of the 1980s, for the
first time artisanal fishers of Pernambuco (northeast) organized mass meetings
against the environmental degradation of the rivers and estuaries caused by the
large sugar-cane mills. The movement to redemocratize the country towards
the end of the military dictatorial regime had an important influence on the
democratization of the overall electoral process. This process was stronger in the
northeast, where the Pastoral dos Pescadores (Fishers’ Pastoral) created by the
National Conference of Bishops of Brazil played an important role. After 1986,
the artisanal fishers created the Movimento pela Constituinte da Pesca, which
88 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

enabled artisanal fishers to express their demands in the National Congress for the
first time: free and democratic association, end to fiscal incentives for industrial
fishing, labour rights, recognition of women’s work, development programmes,
and control of environmental degradation, among other demands.
In 1989, with the declaration of the Constitution, the movement phased out,
but MONAPE became operational. The main challenge for MONAPE is the
stimulation of an independent and democratic organization of artisanal fishers,
seeking to maintain the rights earned by the 1988 Constitution and to fight for new
social and labour rights. The MONAPE has organized various national meetings
of its members, also inviting representatives from organizations of fish workers
from neighbouring countries like the Confederación Nacional de Pescadores
Artesanales de Chile (CONAPACH). MONAPE is active only in the northern
regions where it is based, as well as in some states of the northeast. Unfortunately,
MONAPE has not succeeded in establishing itself as a national movement capable
of offering alternatives to the existing institutional framework that is marked
by protectionism and the lack of clear and effective policies favouring artisanal
fishing, as mentioned before.
Before the Constitution of 1988, fishers were only allowed to organize
themselves into traditional colônias whose role was mainly related to social
services. The new Constitution allowed fishers to create their own trade unions;
however, few of these unions were established effectively. In the 1980s the Pastoral
da Pesca, which is linked to the Catholic Church, began working to secure the
rights of other workers (i.e. retirement benefits) to artisanal fishers. Today, fishers
have the right to inscribe themselves as autonomous workers in the National
Institute of Social Security, and pay a contribution until retirement (60 years for
men and 55 years for women). According to the Organic Law of Social Security,
they can apply for retirement on grounds of health problems, health benefits
and maternity allowances. In the regions in which fishing closures are used as
management strategies, fishers that are associated to the colônias and have a licence
from the Ministry of Agriculture receive an allowance (unemployment benefit) to
compensate for the period without fishing.

4.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectors

While the traditional use of the coastal ecosystems by artisanal fisheries has had
little impact on coastal resources, the latest utilization of coastal ecosystems by
urban-industrial activities has intensified the degradation of these environments
considerably. The degradation and contamination of coastal areas has caused
significant negative consequences to the productivity of the sector and the quality
of life in fishing communities.
The most important ecosystem along the coast is the Atlantic Forest that
covered around 1 million km2 at the beginning of the Portuguese settlement. This
forest reaches the coastline in many parts of the country; thus mangroves can be
considered part of this large forest. The Atlantic Forest has a biological diversity as
high as the Amazon Forest, with a large number of endemic species. The forest has
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 89

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

are also on the coast: São Luís (655 000); Natal (606 000); Maceió (626 000);
Vitória (523 000); João Pessoa (695 000); and Florianópolis (254 000). Many of
these coastal cities have a high demographic growth, attracting migrants from the
hinterland and a high percentage of these migrants live in favelas (slum areas in
Salvador, Fortaleza and Rio de Janeiro).

FIGURE 3
Levels of degradation of estuarine ecosystems in Brazil

Source: Diegues, 1999.

Coastal cities are expanding as poor people migrate from the countryside, where
the modernization of Brazilian agriculture has led to an increasing concentration
of productive land in the hands of a small number of landowners and groups, both
national and multinational. With the expulsion of small landowners and peasants
from the countryside, slum areas have been established in large coastal cities. Most
sewage systems are inadequate, resulting in increasing pollution of coastal rivers,
estuaries, lagoons and bays.
As road transportation has the highest priority in Brazil’s transportation
system, many highways have been constructed along the coast. One clear example
is the BR-101 built in the 1970s, which links many coastal capitals. During the
construction process, many beaches and mangrove areas were damaged as the road
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 91

was built along the coast between Santos and Rio de Janeiro. These coastal roads
have also encouraged the construction of villas by tourists, and have displaced
many small-scale fishing villages to inland and to the mangrove areas, resulting in
the destruction of the Atlantic Forest.
Oil exploration and production is an important economic activity along the
Brazilian coast, which started in 1973. The main oil drilling areas along the coast
are in Campos (Rio de Janeiro), Sergipe, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte, Amazon
basin and Recôncavo Baiano. Over 56% of the oil produced in Brazil comes from
marine basins. There are important harbours where oil is brought ashore, the
most important of which is situated in São Sebastião (São Paulo), where tourism,
fisheries, mangroves and other coastal habitats suffer from frequent oil spills in the
area. Coal is also produced in the coastal area of Santa Catarina and Rio Grande
do Sul. Reefs are also exploited for construction, mainly along the northeastern
coast.
Tourism and recreation have become among the most important factors
influencing the use of coastal areas and resources. Around 1.6 million foreign
tourists visit the country annually, in particular the coastal tourist resorts,
generating US$1.55 billion and roughly 1.4 million jobs. In 1992, the Brazilian
Agency for Tourism (EMBRATUR) established a National Plan for Tourism that
created several tourism development centres in coastal areas. In 1991, SUDENE
and EMBRATUR created the Programme for the Development of Tourism
(PRODETUR) and requested a US$1.6 billion loan from the Inter-American
Development Bank. This large programme is directed along the northeastern
coast, involving the construction of large hotels, roads, improvement of airports
and urban infrastructure, such as water and sewage. This programme follows
the intensive use of the coastline, which exists today in Cancún, Mexico. The
ecological and social impacts of this programme have not yet been properly
assessed, but social and ecological groups in the area are reacting against it, since
local communities and the environment suffer the most.
In addition to the increasing degradation of inshore and coastal environments,
overfishing is affecting the large stocks of shrimps, lobsters, catfish and sardines
that are shared between artisanal and industrial fisheries. A recent analysis of
the status of fisheries resources targeted by artisanal fisheries revealed that the
percentage of collapsed stocks increases from north to south, and are in the order
of 3% in the north, 12% in the northeast, 29% in the southeast and 32% in the
south.
Aquaculture is a fast growing activity along the north and northeastern
coast affecting several inshore ecosystems such as mangroves, sand barriers and
lagoons. The highest impact comes from shrimp cultivation, which is starting to
be implemented in the states of Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba, Maranhão
and Pernambuco, resulting in massive destruction of mangroves and associated
ecosystems. Large-scale shrimp cultivation is also affecting the livelihood of
artisanal fishers as they are losing their traditional fishing areas.
92 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
Fisheries assessment research has gone through distinct phases over the years
(Castello and Haimovici, 1991). The first strategy for assessing fish stocks was
implemented in the late 1950s with the establishment of a national system of
fisheries statistics and assessment of industrial fishing fleets. The next stage,
initiated during the 1970s, aimed at surveying and assessing the productive
potential of fish stocks along the coast (Neiva and Moura, 1977). During the
1980s and 1990s, the Environmental Agency (IBAMA) established a system of
technical working groups, Grupos Permanentes de Estudo (GPE), for each of the
main fisheries resources (i.e. shrimps, demersal fishes, sardine, lobsters, snappers
and tunas). The objective of the GPEs was to provide recommendations for both
management and research based on the analysis of biological, technological and
socio-economic information of these major resources. Thus, for most of these
stocks there are estimates of biomass, optimal exploitation rates, and maximum
sustainable yield obtained through the application of assessment models that range
from simple production models to Virtual Population Analysis.
Not much has been done to assess in a systematic and continuous way the status
of the less abundant and diverse fish stocks targeted by artisanal fisheries, in part
because of the lack of data, but also because of a lack of attention from government
agencies. However, some localized research initiatives have been carried out by
universities and research institutes. Tables 3 to 6 and Figure 4 summarize the
available information on the status of stocks targeted by artisanal fisheries in each
of the coastal regions (Vasconcellos et al., 2007); this information is discussed in
the text sections below. The results are based on published assessments of the
status of marine fisheries stocks, analysis of time-series of landings of artisanal
fisheries compiled by Freire (2003) and Vasconcellos et al. (2007) for the period
1980 to 2002, and the list of species that are threatened by extinction, overfished
and threatened by overexploitation included in Annexes I and II of Norm No. 5,
21 May 2004, Ministry of Environment.

5.1 North
Information on the status of stocks of importance for small-scale (or artisanal)
fisheries in north Brazil is scarce. Most of the information available refers to stocks
that are also important to industrial fisheries, such as shrimp, lobster, catfish,
and the southern red snapper (Table 3). The pink shrimp is under intense fishing
pressure, and is probably exploited at its maximum biologically sustainable level,
whereas the stocks of the seabob shrimp could possibly sustain higher catches.
Recent reported landings of lobsters are very close to the predicted maximum
sustainable yield, which indicates that the stock is probably fully exploited. The
stock of catfish shows signs of recovery after being overfished for many years. The
stock of southern red snapper has also recovered from a state of overfishing, but
is now considered under high risk of becoming overfished again. The status of the
stock(s) of the mangrove crab is unknown. Landing statistics indicate a decrease of
about 50% in production since the early 1980s, although it is difficult to ascertain
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 93

if the decrease is due to overfishing, or to the deterioration of the data collection

system for fisheries statistics. All of the above species are listed in Annex II of the
IN No. 5/2004, and are either overexploited or threatened by overexploitation.
The total reported landings of these species for 2002 represents approximately
13% of the small-scale fisheries production in northern Brazil. The exploitation
status of the remaining stocks is unknown. Through the analysis of trends in
fisheries landings by species, Vasconcellos et al. (2007) concluded that there is
a total of 74 small-scale fisheries stocks in the northern region, and that 27%
of these stocks are in a developing stage, 24% are in a mature stage, 41% are in
senescent stage, 4% in recovery and 3% collapsed (Figure 4). Approximately 56%
of the total stocks could possibly sustain higher catches if managed sustainably
in the future, while the remaining 44% (composed of stocks in a senescent or
collapsed stage) are probably overfished.

TABLE 3
Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previously assessed
marine stocks in north Brazil. The relative importance of a species is expressed in tonnes
and as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scale fisheries landings in the
region. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, ‘I’ being species threatened by
extinction and ‘II’ being species that are overexploited or threatened by overexploitation

Small-scale
fisheries landings
Classification IN
Stock Exploitation status (2002)
No. 5/2004

Tonnes %

Pink shrimp Intensively exploited;

II 1 240 0.9
(Farfantepenaeus spp.) decreasing production

Seabob shrimp
Underexploited II 1 235 0.9
(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri)

Catfish
Recovering II 1 923 1.4
(Brachyplatystoma vaillantii)

Lobster (Panulirus spp.) Fully exploited II 1 460 1.1

Southern red snapper

(Lutjanus purpureus) Risk of overfishing II 4 363 3.2

Mangrove crab Unknown; decreasing

II 7 507 5.5
(Ucides cordatus) production

Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.

94 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 4
Development stage of small-scale fisheries stocks in north, northeast, southeast and
south Brazil according to the analysis of trends in reported fisheries landings

North Northeast

collapsed collapsed

recovering recovering

senescent senescent

mature mature

developing developing

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
% stocks % stocks

South Southeast

collapsed collapsed

recovering recovering

senescent senescent

mature mature

developing developing

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
% stocks % stocks

Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.

5.2 Northeast
Very few stocks have been assessed in northeast Brazil (as defined in Vasconcellos
et al., 2007). The northeast region encompasses the northeast and part of the
east biophysical regions in Figure 2. The available information is summarized in
Table 4. Stocks of lobsters are being overfished and show a decreasing trend in
landings since the 1990s. Stocks of the two main Lutjanidae species, the yellowtail
snapper and the vermilion snapper, are either intensively exploited or overfished.
The other important Lutjanidae, Lutjanus jocu and L. vivanus, are considered
fully exploited, whereas L. analis and L. syanagris are moderately overfished.
Landings of groupers show a decreasing trend over time with long-lived species
being overfished, resulting in the targeting of smaller and shorter-lived groupers.
The stocks of mackerel are under moderate levels of exploitation. There are
no assessments of the status of the stock(s) of mangrove crabs. The decrease in
landings of mangrove crabs in most northeastern states is understood as a sign
of overfishing. Likewise, there are no assessments of the status of seabob shrimp
stocks in the northeast, although the trend in landings indicates that the stock(s)
are still moderately exploited with potential for supporting higher yields. Among
the above-mentioned resources there are species considered in threat of extinction,
such as the mutton snapper (L. analis) and the grouper (Mycteroperca tigris),
and species considered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation. These
resources account for about 24% of the total small-scale fisheries landings in 2002.
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 95

The status of the resources accounting for the remaining 76% of the landings is
unknown. An evaluation of the development stage of 253 small-scale fisheries
stocks in the northeast concluded that 16% are in a development stage, 25% can
be considered mature, 40% are in a senescent stage, 6% in recovery and 13%
collapsed (Vasconcellos et al., 2007; Figure 4). Thus, about 47% of stocks could
possibly sustain higher yields while 53% are probably overexploited and require
more restrictive management measures if they are to be fished sustainably.

TABLE 4
Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previously assessed
marine stocks in northeast Brazil. The relative importance of a species is expressed in tonnes
and as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scale fisheries landings in the
region. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, ‘I’ being species threatened by
extinction and ‘II’ being species that are overexploited or threatened by overexploitation

Small-scale fisheries
Exploitation Classification IN landings (2002)
Stock
status No. 5/2004
Tonnes %

Lobsters (Panulirus spp.) Overexploited;

decreasing II 4 604 4.7
production
Yellowtail snapper
(Ocyurus chrysurus) II 2 619 2.7
Overexploited
Vermilion snapper II ? ?
(Rhomboplites aurorubens)

Dog snapper
(Lutjanus jocu)
Fully exploited – 799a 0.8
Silk snapper (L. vivanus)

Mutton snapper
(Lutjanus analis)
Overexploited Ie 1 183b 1.2
Lane snapper (L. synagris)

Groupers (Serranidae) Overexploited Ic, II 1 686c 1.7

Mackerels Moderately
(Scomberomorus spp.) – 3 806d 3.9
exploited

Probably
Mangrove crab overexploited,
(Ucides cordatus) II 2 987 3.1
decreasing
production
Seabob shrimp Moderately
(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri) II 5 547 5.7
exploited

Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.

a Only L. jocu.
b Only L. synagris.
c Only Mycteroperca spp., M. bonaci, Epinephelus spp. and E. itajara. M. tigris is considered threatened

by extinction in some states of the northeast. E. itajara, E. marginatus, E. morio, E. niveatus and
M. bonaci are considered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation.
d Total landings of Scombridae; no specific data.
e Lutjanus analis is considered threatened by extinction in some states of northeast, southeast and

south Brazil.
96 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

5.3 Southeast
Table 5 summarizes the available information about the status of small-scale
fisheries resources exploited in southeast Brazil. As defined in Vasconcellos et al.
(2007), the southeast encompasses the southeast and part of east biophysical
regions defined in Figure 2. Sardine does not show signs of recovery since the
collapse of the stock in the early 1990s. The stock of the broadband anchovy
(Anchoviella lepindentostole) is under intense fishing pressure and the current
level of exploitation is considered unsustainable. The stock of seabob shrimp
presents clear signs of overexploitation with a continuous decrease in landings
since the late 1980s. The three main demersal fish stocks, the white croaker, royal
weakfish and weakfish, are either fully exploited or overexploited. The status
of the grey triggerfish is unknown, but the recent increasing trend in landings
and catch per unit effort (CPUE) indicates that the stock is probably not yet
overfished. The anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) is a potential resource in the region,
which is not commercially exploited yet. With the exception of the anchovies and
the weakfish, all other species are listed in Annex II of IN No. 5/2004, and are
considered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation. The species listed
above account for 53% of the reported small-scale fisheries landings in 2002, with
the grey triggerfish composing 36.1% of this total. The status of the remaining
stocks responsible for 47% of small-scale fisheries production is unknown.
The analysis of the development stage of 191 small-scale fisheries stocks in the
southeast indicated that: 12% are in a development stage, 21% mature, 30% in
a senescent stage, 7% recovering and 29% collapsed (Vasconcellos et al., 2007;
Figure 4). Thus, approximately 60% of the stocks are probably overfished and
unable to support higher yields in the future unless measures to reduce fishing
pressure are applied.

5.4 South
Table 6 synthesizes the available information about the status of small-scale
fisheries resources exploited in south Brazil. Fishing intensity directed to the
stock of white croaker is considered unsustainable. Stock abundance has been
continually decreasing and catches are expected to decrease in the near future.
The stock of the longspine drum is also intensively exploited. The royal weakfish
is overexploited and the current yield is about half of the estimated maximum
sustainable yield. The pink shrimp was intensively exploited for many years by
industrial and artisanal fisheries and shows signs of overexploitation; despite the
high variability in catches, average landings have been decreasing since the 1980s.
Similarly, the stock of seabob shrimp shows a decreasing trend in landings due to
overexploitation. The status of the mullet stocks is unknown, but the decreasing
trend in landings also suggests the species is at biologically unsustainable levels of
exploitation. Stocks of long-lived species of importance to small-scale fisheries,
such as the marine catfish, the black drum and the guitarfish, have collapsed. The
current yield of these species is much lower than the historical peak in landings. The
guitarfish is considered threatened by extinction (IN No. 5/2004) while practically
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 97

all other species are considered overexploited or threatened by overexploitation.

The anchovy appears as a potential stock not presently commercially harvested
in south Brazil. South Brazil provides a better situation with respect to data
availability; however, approximately half of the small-scale fisheries production
comes from stocks with unknown status. An assessment of the development stage
of 142 small-scale fisheries stocks exploited in the region indicated that: 22% are
in a developing stage, 12% mature, 25% in a senescent stage, 8% recovering and
32% collapsed (Vasconcellos et al., 2007). That is, 58% of the stocks harvested
by small-scale fisheries are probably being exploited at unsustainable levels, with
more than half of them currently in a stage of collapse.

TABLE 5
Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previously
assessed marine stocks in southeast Brazil. The relative importance of a species is
expressed in tonnes and as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scale
fisheries landings in the region. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, 'I'
being species threatened by extinction and 'II' being species that are overexploited or
threatened by overexploitation

Small-scale fisheries
Exploitation Classification IN landings (2002)
Stock
status No. 5/2004
Tonnes %

Sardine
Collapsed II 507ª 1.5
(Sardinella brasiliensis)

Broadband anchovy
Overexploited − 1 692b 5.1
(Anchoviella lepindentostole)

White croaker Fully exploited or

II 1 062 3.2
(Micropogonias furnieri) overexploited

Royal weakfish Fully exploited or

II 601 1.8
(Macrodon ancylodon) overexploited

Weakfish Fully exploited or

− 359 1.1
(Cynoscion jamaicensis) overexploited
Moderately
Grey triggerfish
exploited or fully II 12 046 36.1
(Balistes capriscus)
exploited

Anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) Unexploited − − −

Seabob shrimp
Overexploited II 1 405 4.2
(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri)

Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.

a Total landings of Clupeidae.
b Total landings of Engraulididae.
98 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 6
Exploitation status and relative importance to small-scale fisheries of previously
assessed marine stocks in south Brazil. The relative importance of a species is
expressed in tonnes and as a percentage of the species catches to the total small-scale
fisheries landings in the region. Species are classified according to IN No. 5/2004, ‘I’
being species threatened by extinction and ‘II’ being species that are overexploited or
threatened by overexploitation

Small-scale fisheries
Exploitation Classification in No. landings (2002)
Stock
status 5/2004
Tonnes %

White croaker Fully exploited

II 3 324 23.6
(Micropogonias furnieri) or overexploited

Longspine drum Fully exploited

II 472 3.4
(Umbrina canosai) or overexploited

Royal weakfish
Overexploited II 437 3.1
(Macrodon ancylodon)

Mullets
Fully exploited II 441 3.1
(Mugil spp.)

Catfish
Collapsed II 300b 2.1
(Genidens barbus)

Black drum
Collapsed − − −
(Pogonias cromis)

Guitarfish
Collapsed Ia 9 <0.1
(Rhinobatus horkelii)

Anchovy
Unexploited − − −
(Engraulis anchoita)

Pink shrimp
Overexploited II 1 266 8.9
(Farfantepenaeus paulensis)

Seabob shrimp
Overexploited II 1 589 11.3
(Xyphopenaeus kroyeri)
Source: Vasconcellos et al., 2007.
a Considered threatened by extinction in states of southeast and south Brazil.
b Total landings of Ariidae.

According to the analysis of fisheries development stages, the percentage of

collapsed stocks increases from north to south, being 3% in the north, 12% in the
northeast, 29% in the southeast, and 32% in the south. The available information
indicates that small-scale fisheries seem to be less limited by resource scarcity
in the north and northeast, where landings have been increasing in recent years
(Vasconcellos et al., 2007) and a larger proportion of stocks are either in a stage
of development, mature, or recovering from previous overfishing. Nonetheless,
the real situation of the stocks in the north and northeast is more uncertain,
particularly in the northeast, because of the lower quality of fisheries statistics
and the overall predominance of small-scale fisheries in these regions. On the
other hand, the southeast and south regions have been experiencing a marked
decline in landings and present a higher percentage of fisheries in a senescent or
collapsed stage. Consequently, there are no prospects of increasing production in
these regions except through the application of more restrictive fishing measures
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 99

(for both artisanal and industrial fisheries that share the resources), or through the
development of fisheries directed to resources not yet commercially exploited,
such as the anchovy.

5.5 Other considerations: assessment of ecosystem processes, bio-economic

analysis and uncertainties
Ecosystem models have been developed for the Abrolhos Bank (northeast),
southeastern Brazilian Bight (southeast) and southern Brazil shelf ecosystem.
These models are basically used as research tools and at this time have not been
used as tools for supporting decision-making in fisheries management. Bio-
economic models have been applied to industrial sardine and trawling fisheries in
the southeastern Brazilian Bight and probably to other large stocks and fisheries
(e.g. shrimps and lobsters). In general terms, it is not a common practice in fisheries
management in Brazil to take into account uncertainties or to conduct any form
of formal risk assessment when making decisions regarding fisheries regulation.
Contents of regulations are the result of a number of influences, economic,
political and scientific, but very often, and particularly with the phasing-out of
GPEs, these influences are not transparent.

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

6.1 Fisheries management
The management of fisheries in Brazil is mainly the responsibility of the federal
government, which is responsible for assessing the status of the stocks and for setting
and enforcing regulations on the use of aquatic living resources. Governmental
institutional arrangements for regulating fisheries activities have been changing
over the years. The role of the federal government in marine fisheries management
became particularly influential in the mid-1960s with the creation of SUDEPE, an
agency of the Ministry of Agriculture with sole responsibility for the development
and management of fisheries. Later in 1989, fisheries became one of the agendas of
IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of the Environment), a subsidiary of the Ministry of
Environment. The shift of management responsibilities from SUDEPE to IBAMA
was not favourable to artisanal fisheries. As IBAMA focuses its attention mostly
on environmental issues, environmental legislation and law enforcement, there
has been little attention given to the sustained development of artisanal fishing
communities. In 1998, the government shifted a large part of the responsibilities
of the fisheries sector from IBAMA to the Ministry of Agriculture, constituting
the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DPA). The main responsibility
of DPA was to promote and execute programmes and projects to support the
development of the industrial fisheries (its main objective was to promote the
development of the sector and to manage unexploited fisheries resources). On
the other hand, IBAMA was responsible for executing the national policies for
the environment, and particularly for managing endangered and overexploited
species, and encouraging the sharing and decentralization of decisions through
co-management and community-based management initiatives. The development
100 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

policies put forth by these two agencies were not only diverse but opposite and
conflictive in their approach to resource management. According to Dias-Neto
(1999) such a change represented “one of the most anarchical moments in fisheries
management in Brazilian history”. Dias-Neto and Marrul-Filho (2003) highlighted
the three main institutional conflicts created with the division of responsibilities
between IBAMA and DPA. The first one was of a legal nature, related to the
division of competencies in fisheries management, and in the organization and
maintenance of the national system of control and licensing of fishing activities.
The second one was conceptual, since stocks are intrinsically linked in the
marine environment through ecological and/or technological interactions, and in
multispecific fisheries the same fishing activity often targets stocks with different
exploitation levels. Besides, a stock that is considered unexploited at a given
moment could eventually be overfished and, hence, the same species could be
under the responsibility of two different agencies at different moments in time. As
stated by the authors “IBAMA and DPA were trying to divide the indivisible”.
The third conflict was related to the transfer of responsibility from IBAMA to
DPA for the management and control of foreign fleets fishing under joint-venture
arrangement, and the consequent changes in the rules and norms.
In 2003, the fisheries agency was created at ministerial level: the National
Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries (SEAP). SEAP has a broader authority
than the previous agencies. Its priority is the development of the aquaculture
sector, particularly of shrimp cultivation for export, freshwater aquaculture and
industrial fisheries. In spite of official speeches, the artisanal sector is not a top
priority for this new agency.
With the enactment of the Law 11.958 of June 2009, SEAP was transformed
into the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA). The same law put an end
to the division of responsibilities in the management of fish stocks stated above
making mandatory the joint work of MPA and IBAMA/Ministry of Environment
in the design of rules and the governance for sustainable use of resources. This
work is to be carried out under the general coordination of MPA. However this
new institutional arrangement has not yet contributed to the implementation of
policies and measures to revert the critical situation of the main fish stocks.
In terms of property rights, according to the Brazilian Constitution, the
fisheries resources in the coastal zone and in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
are considered common resources under a State property regime (MMA, 2002;
Dias-Neto and Marrul-Filho, 2003). The Constitution also asserts that State and
society should construct the means to collaborate and participate in the process
of decision-making for the sustainable use of environmental resources and in the
formulation of norms and rules to that effect (Dias-Neto and Marrul-Filho, 2003),
which leaves ample scope for the sharing of responsibilities between government
and society in the management of fisheries.
The weakening role of the State in fostering the development of artisanal
fisheries during the last two decades, mainly after the termination of SUDEPE,
contributed to the general lack of organization of the sector. On the other
hand, the institutional void favoured action to social movements and NGOs in
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 101

developing projects and management initiatives for the sustainable management of

fisheries. Many of these initiatives were born out of a crisis that required solutions
and from a process of increasing participation of fishers as new protagonists in
decision-making. The initiatives were developed around five main processes that
are currently legitimized, some of which are promoted by the government (all of
them could be placed within a spectrum of co-management):

1. Within the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC), regulated by

Law 9985/2000.
(a) Areas of Permanent Preservation (APA): defined as “large areas with
a certain degree of human occupation and characterized by physical,
biological, aesthetical or cultural elements of crucial importance for the
quality of life and well-being of human populations, having as main goals to
protect the biological diversity, to regulate the process of human occupation
and to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources”. APAs are managed
by a council constituted by representatives of governmental bodies, NGOs,
community organizations, and the local population through specific
management plans. Example in fisheries: ‘APA dos Corais’, Pernambuco,
northeastern Brazil.
(b) Marine Extractive Reserve (MER): defined as “an area used by traditional
extractive activity populations, whose livelihood is based on extractive
activities but also complemented by subsistence agriculture and animal
production, having as main goals to protect the livelihoods and culture of
these populations and to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources”.
MERs are managed by a deliberative council of organizations and
community representatives through a specific management plan. At the
time of writing this paper there were 13 MERs implemented or in process
of implementation along the Brazilian coast (see section on Coastal Marine
Protected Areas).
(c) Sustainable Development Reserves (SDR): defined as “areas used by
traditional populations, whose existence is based on systems of sustainable
exploitation of natural resources, developed through generations and
adapted to the local ecological conditions, and that have played a key role
in nature conservation and in the maintenance of biological diversity”.
The objectives of the SDRs are “to preserve nature and at the same time to
ensure the necessary conditions and means to sustain and improve the living
conditions and the use of natural resources by traditional populations, as well
as to appreciate and conserve the traditional knowledge-practice systems of
environmental management of these populations”. SDRs are also managed
by a deliberative council of organizations and communities representatives
which is responsible for developing and implementing a management plan
that defines, inter alia, no-take protected areas, buffer zones and corridors,
and areas for sustainable use. The first and most well-known example is the
Mamiraua SDR in the Amazon region.
102 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

2. Other processes
(a) Fishing accords: regulated by Norm No. 29/03 of IBAMA, this instrument
aims to define and legitimize access rules and norms elaborated by the
fishing community to regulate the use of fisheries resources in a given
region. This type of instrument does not involve the expropriation of land
(like the conservation units above) but only some aspects regulating the
exploitation of resources. There are examples of fishing accords in fisheries
in the Amazon floodplain.
(b) Fishing forums: this is an instrument that is not regulated by the government
but created as a result of communities’ initiatives to organize themselves,
and to discuss their problems and seek solutions in partnership with
governmental and non-governmental organizations. Since it is not regulated,
this instrument can be developed in different ways, with various types of
arrangements involving individual stakeholders and institutions. Some
examples are the Forum of Patos Lagoon in southern Brazil, the Forum
Agenda 21 in Ibiraquera, Santa Catarina, and the Forum Terramar in Ceará,
among others.

Coastal marine protected areas

The establishment of protected areas – of the various forms noted above – is one
of the main government policies concerning coastal ecosystem conservation. The
creation of protected areas is under the responsibility of Chico Mendes Institute
for Biodiversity Conservation and the State’s Secretaries for the Environment.
Presently, there are 28 protected areas, covering several coastal and marine
ecosystems, such as coastal and oceanic islands/archipelagos, dunes, mangroves,
lagoons and salt marsh habitats. The management of protected areas has been,
in general, unsuccessful because of the lack of management plans, enforcement,
and technical and financial means and research. The main reason, however, lies in
the way these protected areas were established – without previous consultation
with user groups, particularly traditional populations. According to existing
legislation, these groups must be transferred from the places where protected areas
are established. It is known, however, that in many areas, traditional communities
have used these ecosystems with a low level of environmental impact, and they
deserve to be important allies in the conservation process. Another reason for
the failure of the protected areas management is that they were created mainly by
federal and state agencies. Since local municipalities are excluded from the decision
process, they provide very little support to these important conservation areas.
The Marine Extractive Reserve (MER), described earlier, is a relatively recent
category of protected areas that reflects a new approach. Through MERs, marine
areas are assigned to the exclusive use of a certain number of small-scale fishers.
A management plan is agreed upon by a grassroots institution that assembles the
fishers in the area of the reserve. Some six MERs have been officially established
by the National Council of Traditional Populations (CNPT-IBAMA) and several
others are in the process of being created, particularly in the north and northeast
regions (Figure 5).
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 103

FIGURE 5
Location of marine extractive reserves in Brazil

Source: CNPT/IBAMA.

MERs offer a way to control the highly destructive, still basically unmanaged,
development of the coastal zone, while at the same time reinforcing the resource-
use rights and territorial claims of local communities to the micro-environments of
small-scale fishing. MERs are essentially an effort to modify and extend the concept
of ‘extractive reserves’ – a conservation and sustainable development framework
successfully instituted in western Amazonian forest economies (primarily rubber-
tapper) to coastal aquatic and marine domains of traditional fishing communities
(CNPT*; Cunha, 1992; Diegues, 1999, 2001). By taking into account how both
environment and society benefit from helping coastal communities secure

* Centro Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentado das Populações Tradicionais; http://www.ibama.

gov.br/resex/cnpt.htm
104 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

continuing access to their traditional sea territories and livelihood resources,

the MER is a radical departure from conventional approaches to setting up and
managing marine protected areas. In the past, most marine protected areas (MPAs)
were established opportunistically or, more recently, almost solely on the basis of
biodiversity criteria.
The MER initiative is exceptionally promising; it has the potential to unify and
reconcile elements that all too often are seen as incompatible: traditional culture
heritage and cultural resource preservation needs, sustainable local fisheries,
and conservation of marine biological diversity. Various provisions of national
environmental legislation (namely Law No. 9.985 instituting SNUC; Decree
IBAMA No. 22 / 2-10-92), civil codes, and international treaties to which Brazil
is a signatory (e.g. Articles 8j, 10c, 10d of the Convention on Biological Diversity)
endorse the principles on which collectively held marine extractive reserves are
based. However, it remains to be seen whether protected areas can be implemented
and effectively managed on a scale broad enough to have biologically significant
impacts, as well as questions concerning their social feasibility and economic
viability.
To successfully institute a network of MER sites, CNPT also faces a major
challenge in dealing with federal, state and municipal jurisdictional conflicts,
inconsistent policies and legislation across sectors, and the need for greater
institutional coordination and cooperation in managing marine and aquatic
resources within the environment sector as a whole (Cordell, 2002).

Local experiences in community management

In some areas, fishers and coastal communities are doing their own community-
based management. In Ceará, for instance, local communities are suffering from
the invasion of their beaches by land speculation, tourism and from overfishing of
lobster, mainly by the industrial fleet and by divers coming from a neighbouring
state. Assisted by local NGOs and research institutions, they have proposed a
Coastal Forum, where the various problems are discussed by representatives
of local communities, the tourism sector, the industrial fisheries sector and the
federal, state and municipal governments. Within this forum they have proposed
a management plan for lobster fishing, also in coordination with the industrial
fisheries sector. When IBAMA announced that no funds and boats were available
for surveillance of lobster fishing, the fishers equipped one of their boats in order
to ensure compliance with the rules that regulate that fishery. The fishers who
disobey the regulations are first reprimanded and when they violate the agreed
legislation again, they are taken to a court. In some beaches, the selling of a plot of
land to tourists must be approved by the community council.
In other coastal communities, such as Pirajubaé in Santa Catarina, Mandira-
Cananéia in São Paulo, and Arraial do Cabo in Rio de Janeiro, MERs are being
built in order to ensure access to fisheries resources for the members, and limit
the access to outsiders, mainly to sport fishermen. In most of these initiatives,
there is a strong resource conservation component, and as result they frequently
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 105

succeed in getting the support of government and non-government environmental

organizations. Further south, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, 21 institutions
have created a co-management arrangement (Forum of Patos Lagoon) to seek
local solutions to the main conflicts faced by artisanal fishers, such as the impact
of industrial fisheries, the control of access to outsiders, and the minimization of
conflicts with industrial and port activities on the coast.

Traditional knowledge and traditional fisheries management

The different coastal cultures in Brazil each have a set of knowledge and
management practices associated with the sea and fishing activities. In recent
years, researchers have emphasised the importance of the knowledge produced
and orally transmitted by traditional fishers and the potential role traditional
fishing and related environmental knowledge can play for the development and
implementation of fisheries management in the modern world (Ruddle, 2000;
Cordell, 2000a, 2000b). As Ruddle (2000) points out, traditional knowledge
continues to guide and sustain the management of many traditional, community-
based fishing systems, as well as governing fishing decisions and fishing
strategies.
Various maritime anthropology and ethno-ichthyology studies illustrate the
richness and resilience of artisanal fishing knowledge in Brazil. Silva (1997b)
records the analytical categories of the fishers of Piratininga (Rio de Janeiro)
and Begossi (1997) documents the species nomenclature and criteria for fish
classification system used by fishers on Búzios Island (São Paulo). Cunha (1992)
has described how fishing knowledge operates among artisanal communities and
depicted the know-how of fishers in Paraná and along the Paraíba Coast. Diegues
(2000) explains how traditional knowledge functions in the rocky fishing grounds
of Rio Grande do Norte and Espírito Santo states. Kalikoski and Vasconcellos
(2007) highlight the importance of fishers’ ecological knowledge in the definition
of management rules in the co-management of artisanal fisheries in the Patos
Lagoon, Rio Grande do Sul. Forman (1970), Cordell (1983), Mourão (1971) and
Marques, (2001) have made important contributions to the study of traditional
knowledge in Brazil.
Knowledge of the marine physical environment is extremely important for safe
navigation, for the use of appropriate gear, and for the identification of certain
fish species. This traditional knowledge is not evenly distributed among artisanal
fishers but tends to be concentrated in the hands of boat captains and skippers and
it is transmitted through different ways (Marques, 2001).
The numerous advantageous uses of artisanal sea-tenure systems do not imply
that they present a panacea for overcoming all fisheries management problems.
Fishing may become highly competitive and confrontational in the work setting.
It seems to have an inherent tendency to generate conflict. The act of appropriating
and controlling access to local sea space and resources by no means renders work
environments free of conflicts.
106 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Traditional sea tenure and fisheries management are only now receiving
significant attention from scholars, scientists and fisheries managers in Brazil. One
reason for this lack of interest is that vast areas of the country, such as the Amazon
and the sea, were treated by powerful industrial and urban elites as ‘empty spaces’.
Traditional populations of the Amazon, particularly the Indians and the riverside
populations, were ‘invisible’ until recently. This ‘invisibility’ served the ideological
purpose of the elites wishing to exploit the Amazon, as only ‘uncivilized people’
were living there. The same biased view was applied to artisanal fishers and
their communities. When the Indians and the artisanal fishers started to react to
outsider intrusion, often by force, they became ‘visible’, as did their rich culture
and knowledge of ecosystems and management techniques.
In many cases, traditional sea tenure and traditional management strategies have
been negatively affected and even abandoned as a result of increasing disruption of
fishing communities and impacts of various activities.
First, artisanal fisheries face today strong competition from industrial fisheries
and from the destructive exploitation of the coast. Local fisheries are being
flooded with large industrial boats using inappropriate gear. Social, spatial and
technological competition is ongoing between locals and outsiders. Since 1967,
industrial fishing has been established using tax incentives and suspension of import
fees on fishery technology. These incentives have benefited mainly industrial
groups. The result of this ‘fishery modernization’ has been widespread destruction
of fish habitats, overfishing and marginalization of artisanal fishers. At the same
time, uncontrolled use of land and sea resources reached a critical intensity. Large
chemical and petrochemical plants, nuclear power stations, dredging of harbours,
oil exploitation, coastal mining and tourism have threatened extensive areas along
the Brazilian coast. Urban expansion and tourism have targeted biologically rich
habitats such as mangroves, sand barriers and islands. One of the most affected
ecosystems are the mangroves, from which an estimated two thirds of the fish
caught in Brazil feed or breed during their life cycles.
In addition to these impacts on artisanal fisheries, there has been a dramatic
increase in the demand for fish in the growing urban centres. Some valuable
fish species, such as shrimp and lobsters, are more intensively exploited. When
profitability decreased, most industrial fishing crews started exploiting fish
resources with no respect for existing traditional regulations. In some cases,
artisanal fishers started using the same forbidden fishing gear in order to survive.
Third, traditional sea tenure is threatened as well by erroneous environmental
and aquaculture plans that should benefit artisanal fishers in principle. Government
institutions are encouraging aquaculture; however, traditional extensive aquaculture
systems already used by artisanal fishers are very often not considered. As a result,
in some cases capital owners and outsiders are the only ones who benefit from
these initiatives. The government also promoted the cultivation of species already
managed by artisanal fishers. The adoption of these techniques does not necessarily
lead to an improvement in the well-being of local communities. For instance, the
government planned to introduce mullet cultivation through floating nets (cercos
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 107

flutuantes) instead of supporting the existing technique of the traditional cerco

made of bamboo poles. In fact, floating nets are more capital intensive, less labour
intensive and would disrupt the existing social organization. In the end, the new
technique was eventually rejected by artisanal fishers.
Environmentally protected areas in regions traditionally used by artisanal fishers
are often perceived by them as threats. The well-conserved areas of the Atlantic
Forest and associated coastal system have been used by traditional communities
for centuries. Due to their isolation, as well as to the existing social structure of
these communities, those areas have remained well conserved. However, due to
existing legislation, traditional populations cannot live in the regions that became
protected and have to be transferred to other areas. Highly conflictive situations
are being created in almost all protected areas and local communities resist eviction
from their traditional land. This is the case in the Ecological Station of Juréia,
the Biological Reserve of Guaraqueçaba, the National Park of Lagoa do Peixe,
and other areas. When eviction of traditional people occurs, environmentally
protected areas are more easily invaded by commercial fishing and logging, and
the overall situation becomes even worse.
Instead of using traditional knowledge, some environmental agencies are in
fact destroying a suitable basis for environmental and social planning. The present
situation is gradually changing in favour of traditional communities, particularly
due to the fierce resistance of the traditional people of the Amazon. Rubber-
tappers and Indians succeeded in convincing the federal government to create
extractive reserves through which the traditional use of forest products is ensured.
Other traditional populations of the coastal areas are now requesting the same
treatment granted to the rubber-tappers. Now the concept of extractive reserve
is by law applicable to other ecosystems where local populations live out of
extractive activities, such as oyster and mussel extraction (see section on Coastal
Marine Protected Areas).

6.2 Coastal management

The institution with the highest authority for coastal zone management in Brazil
is the National Programme for Coastal Management (GERCO), which is
administered by the Ministry of the Environment. The conditions set forth in the
programme have to be implemented by each coastal state and municipality. The
programme defines the legal aspects for the management of the Brazilian coastal
zone, and establishes the basis for the development of regional and local policies,
programmes and management plans. Although fisheries are important coastal
resources, GERCO has no mandate over them.

Social movements and institutional arrangements for coastal management

Since the middle of the 1970s, public concern for coastal conservation has gathered
momentum in Brazil. Some of the factors that explain this rising concern are:
(a) The growing awareness of Brazilian society about the ecological importance
of the coastal area and the increasing degradation of coastal ecosystems. The
108 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

earlier positions of the Brazilian Government, which led to the country’s

moniker: ‘Brazil welcomes polluting industries’, has changed since the
Stockholm Conference in 1972. This is due to pressure from non-governmental
organizations, international institutions and mainly because of the growing
awareness of the population concerning environmental issues. In the
1970s, despite the presence of an authoritarian military regime favouring
industrialization at any social or ecological cost, many environmental groups
were created. In the final years of the military regime (until 1984), national
campaigns were organized by environmental movements on issues such as
the destruction of the Amazon and Atlantic Forests, the Pantanal wetlands,
pollution in urban centres (such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro), and
the establishment of nuclear plants along the coast. Hundreds of small
groups blossomed to oppose whale hunting, tree cutting in urban areas and
destruction of national parks. Although many of these groups were formed by
the middle class and were urban biased, they were instrumental in raising the
level of environmental awareness in the country. They succeeded in electing
a few representatives in the state legislatures of the more urbanized states
such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul. In 1986, some
candidates with strong environmental concern were elected to the National
Congress, which developed the 1988 Constitution. For the first time specific
considerations of the conservation of coastal ecosystems were included in the
Constitution.
The “Cadastro Nacional de Instituições Ambientalistas – Ecolista”, a
roster published by the Worldwide Fund for Nature/Mater Natura, indicated
that there were 1 400 Environmental NGOs registered in 2000, from which
296 were created in 1991–1992. Around 60 of them (14.7%) deal exclusively
with coastal/marine ecosystems. If the 504 environmental NGOs dealing
with the Atlantic Forest are added, one could say that roughly 61% of
Brazilian environmental NGOs are, in one way or another, concerned with
the conservation of the various coastal ecosystems. A large proportion of
the environmental NGOs are located in the northeast (30%). Within the
environmental NGOs dealing exclusively with coastal/marine ecosystems,
there are some which address species or ecosystems conservation, such as
SOS Mata Atlântica, Tamar (sea turtles), Peixe-Boi (manatee), Baleia Jubarte
(humpback whales), and the Clube de Observadores de Aves (seabirds in Rio
Grande do Norte). There are also socially oriented environmental NGOs,
which deal specifically with traditional populations and their environments,
such as Terramar, Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, Sociedade Civil São Sebastião
Tem Alma, and Fundação Josué de Castro.
At the societal level, socially oriented environmentalism gained importance
vis-a-vis the traditional environmentalism which was focused mainly on
protection of species. This new environmentalism was able to establish
alliances with other social movements, political parties and local movements.
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 109

(b) The increasing number of public institutions dealing with environment

conservation. By the end of the military regime, there was space for public
discussion and movements concerning environmental issues. Secretariats for
Environment were established in many Brazilian states. At the federal level,
the National Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA) created in 1973 and the
Ministry of the Environment (created in 1992) have been designated as core
agencies for environmental protection.
(c) The importance of the environment was also highlighted by a growing
number of universities and government research centres dealing with coastal
zones and marine ecosystems. Well-known oceanographic institutions,
such as the Oceanographic Institute at the University of São Paulo, the
Oceanography Department at the Federal University of Rio Grande in Rio
Grande do Sul, Labomar in Ceará, Labohidro in Maranhão, and the Schools of
Fisheries Engineering in Pernambuco and Ceará have contributed to increased
knowledge of coastal/marine ecosystems in the northeast. Some other research
institutions linked to universities, such as Nupaub-Research Center on Human
Populations and Wetlands at the University of São Paulo, have also contributed
to increasing the knowledge about the relationship between local communities
and coastal ecosystems.

The role of the State, of non-governmental organizations, and local institutions in

coastal management
Coastal conservation and management became an important issue in Brazil in the
late 1970s and in the 1980s when the impacts of industrialization and urbanization
resulted in a rapid degradation of the coastal environment.
Artisanal fishers started a movement in the northeast against the pollution of
estuaries and rivers caused by the acidic waste of the alcohol-producing distilleries.
It was the starting point for a stronger organization of small-scale fishers,
supported by the Catholic Church and some non-governmental organizations.
This social process indicated the emergence of new identities and social awareness
among coastal communities and artisanal fishing communities. These identity-
building processes often occurred during conflicts that saw these communities
opposed to urban expansion that often resulted in the eviction of artisanal fishers
from their beaches and adjacent coastal waters. In tropical countries, where warm,
sandy, sunny beaches became valuable assets to national and international tourism,
artisanal fishers and their activities are seen as obstacles to a free development of
market forces. Artisanal fishers and local dwellers are resettled into the corner
of their own beaches, which are transformed into tourist resorts. In some other
cases, the establishment of large industrialization projects resulted in high levels
of marine pollution, destruction of valuable habitats, such as mangroves, and
ultimately led to the social disruption of artisanal fishing communities. In many
cases, the social reaction against these processes led to the establishment of new
and politically orientated social movements, such as the National Movement of
Fishers (MONAPE).
110 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

In the late 1970s, government institutions were created at the federal, state
and municipal level to deal with environmental conservation. The first federal
institution was SEMA, created in 1973 and incorporated by the Ministry of
the Environment, and Legal Amazon, created in 1992. In 1989, IBAMA was
created and incorporated into the Ministry of Environment. In 1981, the first
comprehensive national law on the environment was promulgated. The National
Council on the Environment (CONAMA), which is responsible for the main
policies concerning the environment, was created with the participation of
governmental agencies and NGOs. In 1986, CONAMA approved the first
legislation requiring environmental impact analysis for large projects. In 1988,
the Brazilian Constitution declared the Atlantic Forest and its coastal zone as
one of five crucial areas for management and sustainable development. Brazilian
governmental and non-governmental organizations have actively participated
in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development–1992
(UNCED) during the various discussions about coastal/marine environmental
issues that produced Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Also, environmental NGOs such
as the National Forum and MONAPE have participated in drawing up a Fisheries
Treaty, signed by non-governmental organizations during UNCED 1992. Brazil
signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in
November 1982 and ratified it in December 1988. In January 1993, the Brazilian
Congress decreed Law 8.617, on which Brazil defines the 12-mile territorial
sea and the 200-mile economic exclusive zone (EEZ). Among other important
international guidelines, agreements and treaties ratified by Brazil that deal with
coastal/marine conservation and fisheries are the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Information on artisanal fisheries is generally scarce, and the fisheries production
statistics present many limitations. The institution with legal responsibility to
collect and disseminate fisheries statistics is IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography
and Statistics), but in 1990 IBGE’s system of collection was interrupted. Since
1995, IBAMA started compiling and disseminating the data collected by different
institutions in different states. Some projects include: ESTATPESCA developed
by IBAMA’s Center of Fisheries Research and Management for the Northeast
Coast (CEPENE) for the northeastern states and by IBAMA’s Center of Fisheries
Research and Management for the North Coast (CEPENOR) for Pará; the system
of control of landings developed by São Paulo’s Instituto de Pesca, Univali,
IBAMA’s Center of Fisheries Research and Management for the South Coast
(CEPSUL); and IBAMA’s Center of Fisheries Research and Management of
Estuarine and Lagoon Fisheries (CEPERG) in southeastern and southern Brazil.
However, the lack of a standardization of methodologies used in the collection
of statistics is a factor that precludes the comparative assessment of fisheries
production among states. One particular problem with the landings statistics
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 111

in some states is the lack of a more precise classification of fisheries production

by artisanal fishery types, with a tendency to aggregate all artisanal fisheries
production in a single category of boats with less than 20 tonnes of gross tonnage.
One exception is the system of data collection of the project ESTATPESCA,
which provides more detailed information about artisanal fishery production
in the northeastern states. Another important limitation of landings statistics is
the large volume of catches that are not precisely identified. Landed fish is often
classified according to the commercial or common names, which do not allow the
precise identification of the species. This problem occurs due to a combination of
factors: the difficulty in monitoring of fishing in areas of high biodiversity and the
preferential allocation of human and financial resources to the monitoring of large
stocks targeted by industrial fisheries, among other causes. Illegal, unregulated
and unreported fishing is also recognized as a problem that erodes the quality of
fisheries catch statistics and leads to an underestimation of fisheries production
(Isaac et al., 2006b; Peres et al., in press; Vasconcellos et al., in press).
Information on biological and ecological aspects of coastal fisheries resources
is not routinely collected by official agencies. Instead, it is produced by research
projects conducted by universities and research institutes. The same also applies
to socio-economic data. Among the research institutions that routinely carry out
studies about fisheries in coastal areas are: the Oceanographic Institute of the
University of São Paulo, Oceanography Department of the Federal University of
Rio Grande, Univali in Santa Catarina, the Federal Universities of Paraná, Espírito
Santo, Bahia, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte and Pará, the Fisheries Institute
of São Paulo, Labomar in Ceará, Labohidro in Maranhão, and the Schools of
Fisheries Engineering in Pernambuco and Ceará. Some other research institutions
linked to universities, such as NUPAUB-Research Center on Human Populations
and Wetlands of the University of São Paulo, and Nepan-Research Center on
Environmental Research of the University of Campinas, have also cooperated in
increasing the knowledge about the relationships between local communities and
coastal ecosystems. There are also some research network initiatives in the country
that aim to improve the knowledge of coastal processes, fisheries and management
through collaboration among research institutes. It is worth mentioning the
programme Renewable Resources of the EEZ (REVIZEE) conducted by a
consortium of universities and research agencies to improve knowledge about the
oceanography and ecology of fisheries resources in the Brazilian EEZ. The Coastal
Resources of the Millennium Institute (a consortium of universities funded by the
Ministry of Science and Technology) is collecting ecological and socio-economic
data on coastal fisheries of seven states.
In order to coordinate the various governmental research projects on marine
resources, the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources (CIRM) was
created in 1974. CIRM’s main responsibilities are the promotion of research
and the rational management of marine resources. The Commission was formed
by representatives of eight ministries (Navy, Foreign Relations, Agriculture,
Transport, Education, Industry and Commerce, Mines and Energy, and Interior)
112 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

and the Planning Office and the National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development. In 1979, a Secretariat was established (SECIRM) and was chaired
by the Navy. Since 1988, CIRM has implemented various research projects
concerning the marine environment, including the Project Leplac, which aimed to
collect geophysical data to define the limits of the Brazilian EEZ and the REVIZEE
programme, an effort to assess the potential of marine resources according to the
framework established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). In this process, CIRM has established research agreements with the
main oceanographic institutes to collect and evaluate the information.
During most of the 1990s, IBAMA maintained technical working groups on
the main industrial fishery resources (lobsters, shrimps, demersal fish, sardine,
snappers, tunas and catfish). In general, there is more information for these
resources and fisheries than for any other coastal fishery in the country.

8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Historically, artisanal fishers in Brazil have been labelled as inefficient and
unproductive and, consequently, considered as objects of social welfare
programmes. The available information about the sector demystifies this approach
by showing, for instance, that the artisanal fishery is as productive as the industrial
fishery in terms of total landings’ volume. Therefore, the artisanal fishery deserves
at least the same level of attention for development policies as received by the
industrial fishery sector. In fact, it has been argued that the artisanal fishery is more
economically viable and more socially desirable, especially for the exploitation of
coastal ecosystems. This is justified by a number of factors, such as the nature of
the fishery resources available in coastal tropical areas (multispecies and small-
stock sizes), the spatial dispersion of fishing communities, the ample utilization of
materials locally available, the direct supply of fish to local/regional markets, and
the reduced use of fossil fuels.
With a few exceptions, the development of fisheries in Brazil has followed an
unsustainable path for resource exploitation in the different coastal regions. The
causes behind the failures in maintaining resources at biologically sustainable
levels must be properly identified to support the development of policies for
the sector. In this sense, particular attention must be given to the analysis of the
interactions and interferences among the artisanal and industrial sectors. It is
not by coincidence that the situation of stocks is more critical in the areas where
resources are shared between industrial and artisanal fisheries. For instance, in the
south and southeast, the industrial trawling fishery has been pointed out as one
of the main culprits of the overfishing of traditional demersal stocks, because of
intense direct harvest of the stocks, and also due to the bycatch and discards of
juveniles. Similarly, the rapid development of the industrial purse seine fishery for
sardine in the southeast was one of the main reasons behind the collapse of the
stock. Nonetheless, there should also be analysis of the artisanal fishery factors
that contributed to each of the fishery collapses.
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 113

As artisanal fisheries have been decreasing in importance in the south and

southeast and maintaining their predominance in the north and northeast, it is
clear that the strategies for development, management and assessment of fisheries
must be different among these regions. Although conservation policies are
important for all regions, they are particularly required in the south-southeast, due
to the depletion of traditional resources and the decrease in resource availability
to artisanal fishers. Strategies of resource conservation and rebuilding (decrease
in effort, protected areas, etc.) must be balanced by incentives and strategies to
increase fishery profits through the exploitation of alternative resources, the
development of alternative economic livelihoods and other strategies. In fact, the
participation of fishers in small-scale, family-based aquaculture has been increasing
in recent years in these regions. The feasibility and potential of aquaculture as an
alternative to a fishing livelihood is case-specific and needs to be further explored.
In the north and northeast, where the abundance of resources is not yet a
limiting factor for the maintenance of the artisanal fishery, management actions
must also deal with the recovery of stocks that are in trouble, but should aim
particularly to: establish institutional arrangements and strategies to prevent
the increase in fishing capacity to a level beyond the productive capacity of the
coastal resources and ecosystems; minimize and mitigate impacts of other coastal
activities on fisheries; and provide secure access rights to small-scale fishers that
have been threatened or displaced by unplanned coastal development.
There is not only a great diversity of habitats and species used by artisanal
coastal fisheries, but also a variety of cultures of which fishers are part, with
distinct livelihoods and knowledge of resources, the environment, and traditional
forms of resource use accumulated through generations along the Brazilian coast.
This paper is an attempt to illustrate this diversity and hence to serve as a reference
on the bio-physical, socio-economic and cultural context in which fishers are
placed in each region.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the organizers of the CoastFish2004 conference and the
anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions to improve
this chapter. Marcelo Vasconcellos thanks FAO for supporting the preparation of
this document and his participation in the conference.

REFERENCES
Almeida Z.S., Castro A.C.L., Barbosa N., Dias T.R. & Ribeiro D. 2006. Diagnóstico
da pesca no litoral do estado do Maranhão. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici
& J.M. Andrigueto-Filho (Org.) A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início
do século XXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais.
Editora Universitária UFPA, Belém, Brasil. pp. 41–66.
114 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Andriguetto-Filho J.M., Chaves P.T., Santos C. & Liberati S.A. 2006. Diagnóstico
da pesca no estado do Paraná. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici & J.M.
Andrigueto-Filho (Org.) A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século
XXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. Editora
Universitária UFPA, Belém, Brasil. pp. 117–139.
Bakun A. & Parrish R.H. 1990. Comparative studies of coastal pelagic fish
reproductive habitats: the Brazilian sardine (Sardinella aurita). J. Cons. Int. Explor.
Mer., 46: 269-283.
BDT (Banco de Dados Tropical). 2002. Avaliação e ações prioritárias para a
conservação da biodiversidade da zona costeira e marinha. (Available at: http://
www. bdt. fat. org. br).
Begossi A. 1997. Language, knowledge and social change: some ecological aspects. In
A. Diegues (Org.). Tradition and social change in the coastal communities of Brazil.
Nupaub, São Paulo.
Castello J.P. & Haimovici M. 1991. Simpósio da Furg Sobre Pesquisa Pesqueira:
Comentários e Recomendações. Revista Atlântica, Rio Grande, 13(1): 5–9.
CEPENE. 2002. Boletim estatístico da pesca marítima e estuarina do Nordeste do
Brasil. Tamandaré, PE.
Cordell J.C. 1983. Locally managed sea territories in Brazilian coastal fishing. Paper
prepared for FAO Conference on Coastal Lagoon Fisheries. Rome.
Cordell J.C. 2000a. Marginalidade social e apropriação territorial marítima na Bahia.
In Diegue, A. & A. Moreira (org). Espaços e recursos naturais de uso comum,
Nupaub.
Cordell J.C. 2000b. Remaking the waters: the significance of sea tenure-based
protected areas. Third conference on property rights, economics and environment.
International Center for Research on Environmental Issues, Aix-en-Provence,
France.
Cordell J.C. 2002. A project to assist Brazilian agencies, researchers and communities
in developing a system of extractive marine reserves. Nupaub, São Paulo.
Costa A.A. 2004. Em busca de uma estratégia de transição para a sustentabilidade no
sistema ambiental da pesca artesanal no município do Rio Grande/RS – estuário da
Lagoa dos Patos. Tese de Mestrado. Fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande.
Cunha L. 1992. Reserva extrativista para recifes de mangue: uma proposta preliminar
para o etuário de Mamanguape-Paraíba. São Paulo, Nupaub-USP.
Dias-Neto J. 1999. A pesca marinha no Brasil, IBAMA, Brasília.
Dias Neto J. & Marrul-Filho, S. 2003. Síntese da situação da pesca extrativa marinha
no Brasil. IBAMA/DIFAP/CGREP, Brasília.
Diegues A. 1999. Human populations and coastal wetlands: conservation and
management in Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag., 42(2–4): 187-210.
Diegues A. 2000. Navegando pelas montanhas: pesca de marcação e mestrança em
Galinhos, Rio Grande do Norte (Brasil). In Diegues, A. (org.) A Imagem das Águas,
Hucitec/Nupaub-USP, São Paulo.
Diegues A. 2001. Traditional fisheries knowledge and social appropriation of marine
resources in Brazil. Paper presented at Mare Conference, Amsterdam.
Coastal fisheries of Brazil 115

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

Mourão F. 1971. Pescadores do Litoral Sul do Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo. Tese
(Doutoramento), USP.
Neiva G.S. & Moura S.J.C. 1977. Sumário sobre a exploração de recursos marinhos
do litoral brasileiro: situação atual e perspectivas. Programa de Pesquisa e
Desenvolvimento Pesqueiro do Brasil. Série Documentos Ocasionais. Rio de
Janeiro - RJ. 27: 1–48.
Peres M.B., Klippel S., Olavo G., Costa P.A.S. & Martins A.S. [In press.] Estimativas
de desembarque da pesca de linha na costa central do Brasil (estados do Espírito
Santo e Bahia) para um ano padrão (1997–2000). Séries Livros do Museu Nacional,
Rio de Janeiro.
Pinto da Silva P. 2004. From common property to co-management: lessons from
Brazil’s first maritime extractive reserve. Mar. Pol., 28: 419–428.
Reis E.G., Vieira P.C. & Duarte V.S. 1994. Pesca artesanal de teleosteos no estuario da
Lagoa dos Patos e costa do Rio Grande do Sul. Atlantica, Rio Grande 16: 69–86.
Ruddle K. 2000. Systems of knowledge: dialogue, relationships and process. In
Environment, development and sustainability. Edited by A. Begossi and Hens.
Kluwer Acad. Publishers, 2(3–4): 277–304.
Seeliger U., Odebrecht C. & Castello J.P. (eds). 1997. Subtropical convergence
environments. The coast and sea in the southwestern Atlantic. Berlin. Springer,
Vol. 308. p. 197–204.
Silva L.G. 1997a. Social mobilization of fishermen in northern and northeastern
Brazil: tradition and change. In A. Diegues (Org.). Tradition and social change in
the coastal communities of Brazil, São Paulo, NUPAUB-USP.
Silva L.G. 1997b. The classification of living beings among fishermen of Piratininga,
Rio de Janeiro. In A. Diegues (Org.). Tradition and social change in the coastal
communities of Brazil, NUPAUB, São Paulo.
Silva P.S.V.P. 2002. Common property to co-management: social change and
participation in Brazil’s first maritime extractive reserve. Doctoral thesis. London
School of Economics.
Sunye P.S. & Morisson T.C. 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado de
Santa Catarina. In V.J. Isaac, A.S. Martins, M. Haimovici & J.M. Andrigueto-Filho
(Org.).A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: recursos,
tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. Editora Universitária
UFPA, Belém, Brasil. pp. 141–156.
Teixeira C. & Tundisi J. 1967. Primary production and phytoplankton in equatorial
waters. Bull. Mar. Sci., 17(4): 884–891.
Vasconcellos M., Diegues A.C. & Salles R.R. 2007. Limites e possibilidades na gestão
da pesca artesanal costeira. In A.L. Costa (ed.). Nas redes da Pesca Artesanal.
Brasilia: PNUD/IBAMA: 15–83.
Vasconcellos M., Kalikoski D., Haimovici M. & Pitcher T. [In press]. Estimating
unreported catches of the main demersal species from fisheries discards in southern
Brazil. Fisheries Centre Research Report.
 117

5. Coastal fisheries of Colombia

Mario Rueda*, Jacobo Blanco, Juan Carlos Narváez, Efraín Viloria and Claudia
Stella Beltrán

Rueda, M., Blanco, J., Narváez, J.C., Viloria, E. and Beltrán, C.S. 2011. Coastal fisheries of
Colombia. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin
America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome,
FAO. pp. 117–136.

1. Introduction 117
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 118
2.1 Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM) 121
2.2 Technical aspects of the fishing activity in CGSM 122
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 125
3.1 Social and economic aspects of the fishing activity in CGSM 125
4. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 126
5. Assessment of fisheries 127
6. Fishery management and planning 129
7. Research and education 131
References 133

1. INTRODUCTION
Fisheries in Colombia are mainly marine based (80%) including different species
of fishes, molluscs and crustaceans. In 2005, the fisheries and aquaculture sectors
contributed 0.54% to the national gross domestic product (GDP) and 3.86% to
the agricultural sector (FAO, 2005). The value of fishing production during the
last seven years has been around US$143 million per year. Most fishing production
is for human consumption (85%), with 14.5% allocated to process concentrated
foods and 0.5% based on ornamental fish and seed for aquaculture. Direct
employment in the industrial fisheries, artisanal fisheries and aquaculture provided
88 000 jobs (FAO, 2003).
Colombia borders Panama and the Caribbean Sea to the north, the Pacific
Ocean to the west, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Brazil to the
east, and Ecuador and Peru to the south (Figure 1). The country has various

* Contact information: Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras, INVEMAR, Colombia.

E-mail: mrueda@invemar.org.co
118 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

micro-climates according to altitude, and it is divided into 32 departments.

It has 1 141 748 km 2 of surface area, of which 880 376 km 2 are exclusive
economic zone with 2 308 km of coastline (1 760 km in the Caribbean
and 1 480 in the Pacific). Colombia is the only country in South America
that has access to the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, with a marine area of
988 000 km2. In addition, the country accounts for 238 000 hectares of
permanent waterbodies, such as lagoons (FAO, 2005).

FIGURE 1
Colombia’s geographical limits and the exclusive economic zone

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIES

Marine fisheries in the Pacific and Caribbean are industrial and artisanal (or small
scale). By 2005, marine fisheries production was reported at 160 000 tonnes,
with industrial fisheries contributing the most (55%), and the rest coming from
artisanal fisheries (25%) and aquaculture (20%) (FAO, 2005). Fisheries in the
Pacific Ocean make the main contribution to fisheries production (Figure 2), while
in the Caribbean region production is characterized by a high number of species
but small quantities of each. However, the main resources are of high commercial
value (tuna, shrimp, lobster, snail, snappers, groupers and small pelagics).
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 119

FIGURE 2
Colombian industrial and artisanal marine landings for the period 1990–2002
Caribbean Sea Pacific Ocean
140
tonnes)

120
tonnes)
(thousand

100
(thousand

80
LandingsLandings

60

40

20

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Source: INCODER, 2003.

Marine fisheries are mainly conducted by industrial fleets which represent

89% of the total fleet, while artisanal fleets represent 11%. The artisanal fleets are
comprised of small boats with limited range (3–5 miles from shore), employed
by groups of fishers of low socio-economic status distributed along the coast,
targeting mainly shrimp in shallow waters, finfish and small pelagics (FAO,
2005).
Shrimp targeted in shallow waters support an important fishery, although
overexploitation has been reported since the 1980s. In the Pacific, the shrimp
fishery in deep waters is still considered sustainable. The small-scale fishing
of shrimp represents 70% of captures in the Pacific and 5% in the Caribbean
(INCODER, 2003).
Small pelagics like herrings (Ophistonema sp.) are used to produce flour and
fish oil and are also considered sustainable. Finfish fisheries (named locally as
Pesca blanca) include demersal species (snappers and groupers), crevalle jacks and
sharks. The latter already show signs of overexploitation.
The marine small-scale fisheries are operated by fishers from small coastal
communities of the Pacific and Caribbean. These fleets are composed of fibreglass
and wooden boats with outboard engines (15, 40 and 75 hp) or manual propulsion,
depending on the economic capacity and target species of the fishers. The most
important small-scale marine fisheries are: shrimp of shallow waters (Penaeus sp.),
black skipjack (Euthynnus lineatus), snappers (Lutjanus sp.), weakfish (Cynoscion
sp.), dolphinfish (Coryphaena sp.), Pacific sierra (Scomberomorus sp.), barracuda
(Sphyraena sp.), shark (Carcharinus sp.), shells (Anadara sp.), clam (Chione sp.),
lobster (Panulirus sp.) and snail (Strombus sp.).
The majority of small-scale marine fishing units are composed of two or
three fishers who undertake daily trips from the shore up to five nautical miles.
120 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

However, those who own boats with a greater range and who have incorporated
navigation systems like GPS and sonar are able to go fishing for one or two weeks
with a crew of 10 or 15 people. This advanced fishing provides high landings of
high value that are frequently sold to the processing plants.
Nets are the most frequent gears used for shrimp and finfish. They include
chinchorros (beachnets), trasmallos (gillnets) and atarrayas (cast nets), as well as
longlines and shortlines (these last two exclusively used for finfish). Traps and
some nets are used to catch lobster (free skin diving is practiced as well), snail, and
some other fishes and crustaceans.
The inland artisanal fishing is developed in the rivers of the Magdalena, Orinoco
and Amazon basins. Fishers alternate their activity with agriculture, small trade
and construction. Household economies are typically diversified because formal
possibilities of employment are scarce.
Until the mid-1980s inland fisheries were important sources of revenues, food
security and local development for rural communities. Since then, the collapse of
the main fisheries due to water contamination and deforestation became evident,
mainly throughout the Magdalena River, located in the Andean region of the
country. Freshwater fisheries continue to fall in spite of the management measures
implemented 20 years ago. This is due to weaknesses in the fisheries institutional
framework that prevent the advancement of inspections and surveillance duties.
As with marine small-scale fisheries, the system of prices between fishers
and consumers is affected by the intermediary chain. This is primarily due to
the fact that marketing and service centres are away from fisheries locations and
communities, particularly in the Orinoquía and Amazonia regions.
Sport fishing is still not a primary contributor to the economy and fisheries
systems. Thereby, there are no statistical records or management plans for sport
fishing. In Colombia, the annual tournaments of international marine sport fishing
take place in the ports of Bahía Solano (in the Pacific coast) and Cartagena (in
the Caribbean). Regarding inland waters, two competitions in the Meta River
(basin of the Orinoco) and five in the Magdalena and Cauca rivers (basins of the
Magdalena) are organized annually.
During the last 40 years Colombia has had four fishing authorities, all of them
with national jurisdiction, as follows: Instituto Nacional de los Recursos Naturales
Renovables (INDERENA) from 1968 to 1990, National Institute of Fishing and
Aquaculture (INPA) from 1992 to 2003, Colombian Institute of Rural Development
(INCODER) from 2003 to 2007 and Colombian Institute of Agriculture (ICA)
since 2008 until present. All of these have carried out detailed and general analyses
of diverse locations and communities of marine and inland small-scale fishing, as
well as several international cooperation programmes executed during more than
30 years by organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), European Union (EU), Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Development
Research Centre (IDRC), among others. The last changes in the fishing authority
(from INPA and INCODER to ICA) emphasize one of the biggest problems in
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 121

the Colombian fishing industry: the changing institutional framework. As a result

of these changes, there has been a 70% decline in technical positions over time,
which has constrained the fishery and aquaculture research necessary to support
valid management strategies. Currently, the functions of research and management
of fisheries are carried out by the Submanager of Fishing and Aquaculture under
ICA.
Biological, technical, socio-economic and political aspects are common across
the various marine and inland small-scale fisheries of Colombia. In this document,
such aspects are illustrated through a particular case study of a fishing community
from Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM), a brackish waterbody of high
importance in northern Colombia.

2.1 Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM)

The CGSM is an estuarine lagoon located on the Caribbean coast of Colombia.
The ‘Pajarales complex’ (mangrove swamps) forms one of the largest coastal
lagoon systems of the country (Figure 3). This ecosystem constitutes an important
habitat for a wide diversity of fish fauna relevant to small-scale fishing, where there
were around 3 500 artisanal fishers, 2 300 canoes and a catch of 7 700 tonnes of fish
resources in 2000, contributing 35% to the small-scale catches of the Caribbean
for that year (INVEMAR, 2003a).

FIGURE 3
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta and surrounding area
122 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

The small-scale fleets of the CGSM’s communities consist of boats with

outboard engines, and sail and row canoes ranging from 3 to 9 m in length, using
six types of fishing gears. In the past, the aborigines used spears and bows and
arrows to fish. In modern times, cast nets and handlines were the first gears used.
Other more advanced methods have been used since the 1960s with a clear increase
in their fishing power (Restrepo, 1968).
The catch is characterized by a high number of species, particularly gerreids,
ariids and mugilids, but also including clupeoids, sciaenids, carangids, centropomids,
oysters, crabs and snails (Santos-Martínez et al., 1998). Because of its ecological
and social value (as a source of both food and income for rural communities in this
area), the area was declared a Natural Park and Fauna and Flora Sanctuary in 1969,
a Ramsar Wetland in 1998, and a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2000.
During the last five decades, the ecosystem has been progressively deteriorated
due to anthropogenic activities (e.g. road and channel constructions, pollution and
increased fishing pressure). This situation, combined with the poor implementation
of management and conservation schemes, led to a marked decrease in availability
of fishing resources. During the 1990s, the project Proyecto de Rehabilitación de
la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (PRO-CIÉNAGA) aimed at rehabilitating the
system, giving special emphasis to water quality, mangroves and fishery resources
monitoring (Botero and Salzwedel, 1999). However, recent research results show
the high dependence of the system’s hydrology on global climate variations
(INVEMAR, 2002, 2003a), with an ultimate influence on fisheries composition,
distribution and abundance.

2.2 Technical aspects of the fishing activity in CGSM

The CGSM region is a multispecies and multigear fishery, where gear dimensions
depend on the targeted resources, as indicated in Table 1.
The resources targeted in CGSM include: parassi mullet (Mugil incilis); nile
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus); striped mojarra (Eugerres plumieri); chivo mapalé
(Cathorops sp.); tarpon (Tarpon atlanticus); sea catfish (Ariopsis sp.); ladyfish
(Elops saurus); striped mullet (M. liza); whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias
furnieri); yellowfin mojarra (Caquetaia kraussi); moncholo (Hoplias malabaricus);
ground croaker (Bairdiella rhonchus); bocachico (Prochilodus magdalenae); snook
(Centropomus undecimalis, C. ensiferus); blue and red crab (Callinectes sapidus;
C. bocourti); shrimp (Lithopenaeus schmitti, Farfantepenaeus notialis, F. subtilis,
Xiphopenaeus kroyeri); oyster (Crassostrea rhizophorae); and snail (Melongena
melongena). These two last shellfish species, which were representative until 1996,
are now nearly extinct and are absent from current commercial catches.
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 123

TABLE 1
Fleet characteristics and fishing gears employed by fisheries in CGSM

Gear
Size of Number of Average
Species Mode size;
Type canoes (m) canoes crew size
range (m)
Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
Mullet Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Encircling gillnets 270; 250–320b 4–9 65 3
Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
Snook
Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
Tarpon
Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Longline 12; 8–12c 3–7 51 2
Sea catfish
Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
Encircling gillnets 270; 250–320b 4–9 65 3
Ladyfish Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
Trawlnet 180; 135–220b 4–9 11 4
Tilapia Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Encircling gillnets 270; 250–320b 4–9 65 3
Mojarra spp. Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Bocachico
Cast nets 2.5; 2–3a 3–7 251 2
Gillnets 283; 40–1 600b 4–9 148 2
Striped catfish
Cast nets 2. ; 2–3a 3–7 287 2
0.1 x 0.08 x
Crabs Pots 3–7 109 2
0.03d
Shrimps Fyke net 1.5; 1–2b 3–7 515 1

aSize b c d
in depth; size in length; hook number; size in length x width x depth.
Source: Santos-Martínez et al., 1998; INVEMAR, 2003a.

Traditional fisheries in CGSM include around 70 species, although all of

them are not target resources (Table 1). The most important are: Mojarra
blanca (Diapterus rhombeus, Gerres cynereus, Eucinostomus sp.); striped catfish
(Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum); arenca (Triportheus magdalenae); whisker catfish
(Pimelodus clarias, Rhamdia sebae); boconas (Anchovia clupeoides, Cetengraulis
edentulus); and freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium sp.). These non-target species
contribute 2 to 8% to the total catch and they are not discarded, but sold or
kept for fishers’ consumption. Nevertheless, those proportions vary as the
fishing resource’ assemblages change. In addition, environmental perturbations
linked to global climate variability have also affected resource abundance in
recent years (INVEMAR, 2002, 2004). According to information from 2003
124 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

(INVEMAR, 2004), the quantity of active fishers in the area is: 502 fishers with
cast nets; 270 fishers using gillnets; 144 fishers with encircling gillnets; 33 fishers
with trawlnets; 6 fishers with handlines; 90 fishers with longlines; 428 fishers
with pots; and 372 fishers with fyke nets. Figure 4 depicts some examples.

FIGURE 4
Gears for small-scale fisheries in CGSM

Fishing is carried out the whole year. However, certain species like mullets are
caught in higher abundance at the end of the year when they start their spawning
migrations due to the dynamics of the fishery and the high demands of the market.
Besides, freshwater fishes like bocachico, striped catfish and Nile tilapia among
others, are caught during the rainy months when movements from the river to the
lagoon system take place near the end of the year. Most of the fish products are
sold fresh (80%), with the remaining being processed (10%) or consumed by rural
communities (10%), usually as minced, dried and salted fishing products.
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 125

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

3.1 Social and economic aspects of the fishing activity in CGSM
Fishing is carried out by men from the local communities of the CGSM system,
with approximately 70% of the total male population involved in the activity;
however, when there is abundance in catches some fishers come temporarily from
other areas, mainly from towns located about 50 km away from the CGSM.
Men are in charge of fishing, sales of fishing products, maintenance to outboard
motors, and manufacture and repair of fishing gears and wooden boats. Women are
not directly involved in fisheries, but around 183 of them participate in processing
and marketing of dry and salted fish as well as the meat of crab. Basically, women
are in charge of the household, taking care of the children and carrying out some
activities that contribute to the family’s economy. The number of family members,
for an average fishing household, ranges from 4 to 7. Sometimes the house has
only two rooms and one of them is the living room.
Fishers attempt to diversify their economy in a variety of ways. Nearly
600 people work in other occupations, such as the processing and marketing
of fishing products, sales in small stores, agriculture, transportation, livestock
farms, aquaculture and salt extraction. Although artisanal fishers of other marine
and inland areas of Colombia have diversified their activities, the communities
of CGSM have more alternatives than others.
Contrary to most Colombian fishing communities where a high proportion
of the population is illiterate, 82% of the CGSM’s population has some level of
education. However, in most poor rural communities throughout the country,
education levels are lower than in the CGSM, with 16% completing basic
education, 5% finishing high school, and a much lower percentage continuing on
to higher levels of education. Likewise, more children and teenagers go to school
than did their parents 15 or 20 years ago.
Although younger men learn how to fish from their fathers, now most of them
prefer to develop more profitable and less demanding activities that generate a
more permanent income. It is important to highlight that the average income for
small-scale fisheries in CGSM is around US$1 600 family/year, which is below the
poverty line.
Quality of life in fishing communities depends largely on the location. Thus,
towns located nearest to tourist and/or industrial cities have better services and
facilities coverage than the distant palafitte (stilt) villages (Figure 5). This is the
case in CGSM, where rural communities near and over the road between the cities
of Barranquilla and Ciénaga have better conditions than those located within the
lagoon.
Infrastructure conditions in CGSM vary according to the town and service.
Aqueduct facilities are found in 37% of the villages, but only Ciénaga city has
sewer facilities for a portion of the population. Electricity is present in 83% of
the towns, including in the stilt villages through submerged cables. In 33% of the
villages traditional means of communications and/or cellular phones exist. Access
to road transportation occurs in 50% of the cases and the whole population
126 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

has aquatic transport. While houses in villages near the road could eventually
be threatened by flooding, those in palafitte towns are built on poles and stay
above the water level most of the year. People in these communities use canoes as
transportation throughout waterways.
Regarding social services, rural schools depend on the government but they are
insufficient and badly maintained. There are some high schools in Ciénaga city,
10 km from the nearest fishing town. Only a few students can go to university and
when they conclude their education they prefer to stay in the cities than return
to their towns. Health facilities are scarce and people depend on the care services
they can get from hospitals in locations like Ciénaga and Barranquilla cities.
Family planning advice, usually from NGOs, was more frequent a decade ago
than now due to diminishing assistance.

FIGURE 5
Palafitte (stilt) town in the CGSM

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

As outcomes of the PRO-CIÉNAGA project, two large associations were created:
Association of the Community Organizations of the CGSM (ASOCOCIÉNAGA)
and the Association of Artisanal Fishers Pro-defense of the CGSM (GRANPES).
These organizations have about 1 500 members, with the mission of contributing
to the conservation and environmental restoration of the CGSM in order to
improve the life quality of its inhabitants.
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 127

Although these associations have presented their initiatives at the Fishing

Community Assembly for the Fishing Ordinance in the CGSM, their proposals
have not yet been implemented, a primary source of discouragement for members. In
general, although the participation of communities is important during the analysis
of management measures for fisheries or particular areas, this is not a requirement
for the governmental agencies to advance in the management process.
Private organizations, such as ‘Social Foundation’ and ‘Restrepo Barco
Foundation’, have participated in the consolidation of communities in CGSM,
the granting of small credits and project formulation in order to diversify the
economy with other productive activities. Nevertheless, the results obtained are
not good enough to improve family economies.
Because most fishing areas lie within the reach of any fisher with a boat, one
of the conflicts among fishers is between the cast-net fishers and those using more
effective gears, such as gillnets and surrounding nets with small mesh sizes called
boliche (Rueda and Mancera, 1995). Conflicts also arise regarding fishing practices
that may be considered harmful due to sediment disturbance or the burning of
mangroves (the zangarreo fishing gear). In addition, unsafe operations in distant
waters cause disputes between fishers and authorities.
More often, conflicts between fishers and other coastal activities are linked to
the use of waterbodies. In most cases they are related to small-, medium-, and
large-scale livestock farmers and agricultural producers. Agrochemical pollution
from plantations near CGSM often leads to confrontation between farmers and
fishers. Road construction poses another conflict as it disturbs the natural water
exchange with the adjacent sea and the communication within the lagoon system
and also adversely affects the movements, distribution and abundance of the water
supply.
No integrated coastal management effort has ever succeeded, even though
the Environmental Management Plan produced by PRO-CIÉNAGA in 1994
constitutes a solid basis to design and implement an integrated management
approach for the CGSM, considering the numerous economic activities sharing
the resources in the region. However, such a management plan requires the
agreement of the participating actors, and because of political, as well as complex
socio-economic reasons, this has never been accomplished.

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
Taking into account the lack of long time series on catch and effort data, much of
the population assessments of the main commercial organisms have been based on
direct methods (i.e. population size estimation) and the only attempt took place in
the middle of the 1990s. However, severe perturbations suffered by the ecosystem
and its resources in the late 1990s rendered those results out-of-date and seldom
useful for future stock or biomass projections. The utilization of indirect methods,
starting with size frequency, has focused on the estimation of exploitation rates
based on growth and mortality parameters. Beverton and Holt yield models and
biomass per recruit have been applied, aiming to bring fishing mortality and mean
128 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

catch size to optimal levels (Mancera and Mendo, 1995; Rueda and Urban, 1998;
Sánchez et al., 1998; Tíjaro et al., 1998; Rueda and Santos-Martínez, 1999). In
addition, gillnet selectivity experiments were implemented to regulate mesh size
for 10 fish species (Rueda and Santos-Martínez, 1999; Rueda et al., 1997; Rueda
and Defeo, 2003c). Recent selectivity assessments were performed for cast nets and
small trawlnets as a means to detect impacts of fishing on fish stocks during the
monitoring (INVEMAR, 2001; Rueda, 2007).
Yield estimations in the last 10 years have been obtained for about 50 species
of fishes, crustaceans and molluscs, along with related fishery information derived
from monitoring (INVEMAR, 2003a). Both recruitment patterns and values were
estimated for at least five species supporting this fishery (Mancera and Mendo,
1995; Rueda and Urban, 1998; Sánchez et al., 1998; Tíjaro et al., 1998; Rueda and
Santos-Martínez, 1999). Key species biomass and distribution were estimated in
seasonal fishing surveys performed once in the mid-1990s (Rueda, 2001; Rueda
and Defeo, 2001) during high-salinity perturbations in the CGSM and then just
before restoration processes started. However, there have been no updates of those
biomass estimates, which are urgent since the conditions are now quite different
regarding resource populations and the CGSM environment.
Since it has been determined that there is a need for an ecosystem model in
order to have a conceptual picture of the processes taking place in the CGSM
and their effects on resource populations and the fishery, some isolated attempts
have been made to assess fishing impact using an ecosystem approach (Rueda
and Defeo, 2003c) and to model climatic and hydrologic effects on resources
(Blanco et al., 2006; Blanco et al., 2008). However, the complexity of the relations
occurring in a variable environment such as this one have precluded so far the
design of an actual integrated model useful to give management recommendations,
either for environmental or for fishery purposes.
The fishery has been evaluated using bio-economic indicators (i.e. threshold
profits for the boliche, including variable costs and size-at-price data), analyzing
theoretical management scenarios based on direct biomass estimation and fish-
length compositions (Rueda and Defeo, 2003b). More recent estimates, derived
from monitoring data, include variations in fish prices, investment, variable costs
per fishing gear type, income per day, monthly income of fishers, number of jobs
and marketing of fish products (INVEMAR, 2003b). The Fishing Information
System (SIPEIN) software has been re-engineered to allow updated simple bio-
economical analyses in agreement with the present context of the fishery on a
monthly basis (Narváez et al., 2005).
Some works have been conducted on fishery financial analysis and marketing
channels (INVEMAR, 2001). As noted before, the required input exists to analyse
periodically how the cost-benefit balance changes in the fishery. In addition, the
spatial and temporal distribution of some stocks in the CGSM and its influence on
the fishers’ behaviour has been determined (INVEMAR, 2003b; Rueda and Defeo,
2003b). Since certain species depend highly on the hydrological conditions in the
system (i.e. tilapia), forecasting their spatial abundance and distribution demands a
closer analysis.
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 129

Risk and uncertainty analysis of several fishing indicators (i.e. harvestable

and spawning biomass, mean catch size, threshold profit) has been performed,
applying the precautionary approach in order to determine the status of the
fishery and to formulate risk-averse management strategies (Rueda and Defeo,
2001, 2003b; INVEMAR, 2003b).
An example of a fisheries assessment was as a result of the reopening of
the channels connecting the Magdalena River with the CGSM in 1996–1998.
To evaluate the impact of this, abundance data (catch-per-unit effort), species
richness, and economic revenues were compared for the years before and after
the channels were implemented (INVEMAR, 2003b). The high environmental
perturbation caused by El Niño conditions in 1992–1995 and 1997, and later by
La Niña (lowering salinity) in 1999–2000, produced not just a variation in the
overall community but also a change in the fish assemblage, where freshwater
species, once assumed as a sign of ecosystem recovery, were really another
element of perturbation caused by prolonged flooding conditions in those years
(INVEMAR, 2002; Leal-Flórez et al., 2008). After 2001, CGSM environmental
and fishery conditions returned to those that they experienced before the opening
of the channels. Successive changes are indicative of the climatic and environmental
variability experienced in CGSM and ultimately its fisheries.
There was also an examination of the reopening of the channels, since this work
generated high expectations. The resulting impact on the fishery has been assessed
in terms of income per fisher and number of jobs generated by fishing (INVEMAR,
2003b). Reference information to characterize the fishery and the resident fishers
community demographics in the CGSM was acquired by means of a census carried
out by PRO-CIÉNAGA in the early 1990s (Campo and Barroso, 1993).
It is not as simple as just comparing the scenarios before and after the channels
were built, because four scenarios can be discerned, complicating the assessment.
Unfortunately, there are also unavoidable uncertainties caused by political and
social unrest, due to actions of illegal armed groups in the area, disturbing the
extractive activity and the free access to certain fishing zones and leading to forced
displacement and migration of fishers, mostly in 2000–2001 (INVEMAR, 2001).
In recent years, law enforcement conditions have improved, but have not yet
normalized.

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

At the national level, the fisheries management system is regulated by Law 13,
1990. The measures are supported by scientific and technological research, as
well as the precautionary principle. However, there are weaknesses inside the
institutional framework to execute surveillance and control in many regions.
Particularly in CGSM, some management actions based on enforcement of
fish catch sizes and banning of particular fishing gears have been implemented,
although these regulations have not been consistent through time.
Although fisheries legislation does not establish mechanisms to implement global
mandates and initiatives, those accepted by Colombia are adopted by administrative
130 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

acts of ICA, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, or of the Ministry
of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, as appropriate.
In the particular case of CGSM, the environmental authorities presented in
the area (National Parks Office [UAESPNN]; Magdalena Regional Corporation
[CORPAMAG]) have taken control and surveillance of the water conditions
and biological resources within the framework of international agreements as
the Biodiversity Convention. These efforts are clearly not enough, in spite of the
international recognition of the CGSM as a World Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO,
2000) and Ramsar wetland. Although it is important to implement environmental
mandates, those agreements aimed at fisheries need to be implemented in CGSM,
especially the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
At the national level, regulatory and non-regulatory measures are established
for management. The former are associated with the norms (laws, agreements and
resolutions) established to control access to fisheries resources; the latter aim to
train and raise awareness among the users about the need for responsible fishing
and compliance with fisheries regulations (FAO, 2003).
Regulatory measures issued by ICA pertain to fishing fleet control (vessel
number, size and type, and duration of affiliation or lease contracts of foreign
flagged vessels to national companies with fishing permits); allocation of fishing
quotas to permit holders, and a resource fee for artisanal fishers; closures over
the resources and fishing grounds; reserve areas and areas exclusively for artisanal
fisheries; minimum catch sizes; regulation of artisanal fishing gear and methods;
authorization to fish (authorizations, permits, patents, licences, safe-conducts and
concessions); inspection visits to capture, marketing and mobilization sites; and
establishing sanctions and fines for infractions to fisheries regulations. It is important
to highlight that Law 13, 1990 allows open access to subsistence fishers, although
there is not a real differentiation between subsistence and small-scale fishers.
Frequently-used non-regulatory measures include: awareness-raising campaigns
and distribution of information materials about the legislation and regulatory
measures issued periodically; formation of strategic alliances and discussion
meetings with the users, civil and military authorities to design and implement
management activities as well as to issue the respective norms; training courses
on sustainable use and responsible fishing; technical assistance and technology
transfer; and evaluation of national and international conventions, agreements and
norms related to the activity (FAO, 2003).
Because the CGSM is an area for subsistence and small-scale fisheries, its fishers
operate under the regime of open access and the management measures have
serious gaps that allow environmental degradation and resource overexploitation.
Formal management systems have not been implemented even though the ideas,
requirements and traditional knowledge of fishers, as well as scientific and
management knowledge, were combined for several years within an agreement
called ‘Asamblea de Comunidades pesqueras para el Ordenamiento Pesquero de la
CGSM’ (Fishing Communities Assembly for Fishing Management in the CGSM).
However, these have not yet been supported by ICA.
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 131

Even though one of the outcomes of the PRO-CIÉNAGA project was an

Environmental Management Plan for the CGSM (PRO-CIÉNAGA, 1994)
aimed toward management and conservation strategies for fish resources in
the medium term, which could be implemented by ICA, this initiative has
been fruitless so far. There is still no current control or surveillance system for
fishing in the CGSM. There is only monitoring of the fishing activities carried
out during the last 12 years by Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras
(INVEMAR). This monitoring becomes a tool for the periodic assessment of
the fishery and to give management guidelines. Nevertheless, in the absence of
fishing management, there is no related performance evaluation whatsoever.

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Daily catch, effort and size data – by species, fishing gear and zone – have been
recorded for 12 years already in every landing site in the CGSM. In addition,
information about fishing power, prices and variable costs of fishing effort were
collected. This information is based on a random sampling design, with sample
sizes higher than 30% of all active fishing units per gear. Field data are recorded
by native fishers, trained and supervised by INVEMAR, which is currently
the institution gathering, storing and analyzing fishing information at CGSM
using the database SIPEIN (Narváez et al., 2005). Field information about water
conditions and hydrological variations is recorded simultaneously in the lagoon
system, as a means to analyse and interpret resource-environment relationships
(INVEMAR, 2003a).
Research dealing with biology and ecology of the main commercial species
of fish, crustaceans and molluscs has been conducted in the CGSM. From the
biological point of view, reproductive cycles, spawning periods, condition factors,
and mean sizes of sexual maturity have been studied in no less than 20 fish,
crustacean and mollusc species, characterizing this multispecies fishery (Santos-
Martínez and Acero, 1991; Mancera and Mendo, 1995; Bateman, 1998; Rueda and
Santos-Martínez, 1999; Sánchez and Rueda, 1999; Rueda and Defeo, 2003a). Many
cases have shown that environmental variables (e.g. salinity, currents and tides)
affect the reproductive strategy of the species.
Concerning ecological aspects, research has been focused on trophic chains
(Santos-Martínez and Acero, 1991; INVEMAR, 2001), showing that the most
abundant species are those feeding on lower trophic levels, but the fish predator
species are the largest biomass portion (54%).
There are also several papers about community structure (Álvarez and Blanco,
1985; Santos-Martínez and Acero, 1991; Sánchez, 1996; Bateman, 1998; Sánchez
and Rueda, 1999; Rueda and Defeo, 2003a), allowing spatial and temporal
comparisons that show how the structure of fish assemblages shifts seasonally.
Other work addresses the population dynamics of several species (Mancera and
Mendo, 1995; Rueda and Urban, 1998; Sánchez et al., 1998; Tíjaro et al., 1998;
Rueda and Santos-Martínez, 1999; Rueda, 2001). The majority of this research
corresponds to estimation of growth parameters, mortality rates and recruitment
patterns of the resources.
132 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

More scarce are studies of the effects of environmental change on fishery

resources and their habitat preferences (INVEMAR, 2001, 2002; Rueda, 2001).
Nevertheless, recent studies point out the links between those aspects, neglected
in the past, when analysis relied just on fish catch data.
Studies have been carried out on demography and community needs, culture,
lifestyle and organization of fishers in the CGSM (Abello, 1978; Campo and Barroso,
1993; Moscarella and Barragán, 1994; Pinilla, 1999). These communities lack public
facilities such as sewer systems and garbage disposal services. There is research
dealing with the inventories and ownership of boats and fishing gears, as well as
studies of the economically active population (Jiménez, 1983; Santos-Martínez
et al., 1998; INVEMAR, 2001). Others studies have evaluated fishery production
in different times (Restrepo, 1968; Santos-Martínez et al., 1998; INVEMAR, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003b). This information has been periodically reviewed and updated
by INVEMAR.
Fish catches and incomes have varied markedly during the last decade in the
CGSM. Both variables diminished before 1996, as a result of environmental changes
in the lagoon system and strong increases in both salinity values and fishing effort.
Resources like oysters and snails disappeared in 1996. From 1999 to 2000, the CGSM
underwent another fluctuation, and freshwater fish species catches rose up to levels
like those in 1994. However, they dropped again after 2001, when salinity rose once
more, and catch levels remained at nearly one half of those in 1999–2000 (Figure 6).
Nevertheless, even though catches rose between 1999 and 2000, the fishers’ incomes
did not, due to the lower price of freshwater species compared with marine or
estuarine species, and to the fact that large amounts of freshwater fish in the market
kept prices down in those years. There is an apparent recovery of shellfish catches
after 2002, but this corresponds to clam harvests in neighbouring Isla de Salamanca,
and not to the recuperation of the oyster and snail resources.

FIGURE 6
Fish and shellfish landings in CGSM (1994–2004)
Crustaceans
Crustaceans
Molluscs
Crustaceans
Molluscs
Molluscs
Molluscs
Molluscs
Fish
Fish
Fishes
5 000 9 000

4 500 8 000
Shellfish landings (tonnes)
Shellfish landings (tonnes)

Fishes landings ( tonnes)

4 000
7 000
Fish landings (tonnes)

3 500
6 000
3 000
5 000
2 500
4 000
2 000
3 000
1 500
2 000
1 000

500 1 000

0 0
1994 1995 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 133

Other surveys describe the structure of the commercial channels, study the fish
market prices to evaluate the participation of fishers, and examine the revenues
of the fishing activity for the community (Restrepo, 1968; Charris et al., 1994;
INVEMAR, 2001, 2002). Bio-economic aspects of the fishery have recently been
examined using risk and uncertainty analyses of fishing indicators to assess the
status of the fishery (Rueda and Defeo, 2003b).
Currently, there are no educational programmes for fishers in the CGSM.
Nevertheless, it is important to mention the efforts conducted in the 1990s for
the ‘Rehabilitation Project for CGSM-PRO-CIÉNAGA’ (PRO-CIÉNAGA,
1994). Those educational endeavors were not directly aimed to local fishers, but to
build up public awareness of the environmental issues in the CGSM, and how the
local communities could contribute to alleviate these issues through supportive
actions and attitudes. As in other fishing communities of the country, there are no
local vocational schools. However, some NGOs include in their projects training
activities to diversify the occupations and economy of fishing communities, such
as honey production in CGSM. Some initiatives have been focused on providing
practical education to women in order to foster their productive role within the
communities.

REFERENCES
Abello C. 1978. Los asentamientos de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Informe
Final Departamento de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad del Magdalena,
Santa Marta.
Álvarez R. & Blanco J. 1985. Composición de las comunidades ictiofaunísticas de
los complejos lagunares y estuarinos de Bahía de Cartagena, Ciénaga de Tesca y
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. In Fish Community Ecology
in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: Towards an ecosystem integration. Edited by A.
Yáñez-Arancibia. UNAM Press, Mexico.
Bateman N. 1998. Estructura de la comunidad íctica de las lagunas del delta exterior
del río Magdalena, en relación con la reapertura del canal Clarín. BSc Thesis,
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá.
Blanco J.A., Viloria E.A. & Narváez J.C. 2006. ENSO and salinity changes in the
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta coastal lagoon system, Colombian Caribbean.
Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 66: 157–167.
Blanco J.A., Narváez B.J.C. & Viloria E.A. 2008. ENSO and the rise and fall of a
tilapia fishery in northern Colombia. Fish. Res., 88: 100–108.
Botero L. & Salzwedel H. 1999. Rehabilitation of the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta,
a mangrove-estuarine system in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Ocean Coast.
Manag., 42: 243–256.
Campo N. & Barroso C.J. 1993. Descripción de la situación actual de los pueblos
palafíticos. Informe Final, PRO-CIÉNAGA-CORPAMAG, Santa Marta.
Charris A., Peña A. & TorresY. 1994. Comercialización del producto pesquero en la
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Professional thesis, Universidad del Magdalena,
Santa Marta.
134 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FAO. 2003. Resumen informativo sobre la pesca por países – Colombia. (Disponible
en: www.fao.org). Rome.
FAO. 2005. Evolución de la pesca en pequeña escala y aspectos de ordenación en cinco
países seleccionados de América Latina: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá, Colombia
y Ecuador. Período, 1997–2005. Rome.
INCODER. 2003. Boletín de estadísticas pesqueras de Colombia. (Disponible en:
http://www.incoder.gov.co).
INVEMAR. 2000. Monitoreo de las condiciones ambientales y los cambios
estructurales y funcionales de las comunidades vegetales y de los recursos pesqueros
durante la rehabilitación de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta: un enfoque de
manejo adaptativo. Informe final, INVEMAR-BID-MinAmbiente-CORPAMAG-
GTZ- Universidad Nacional-COLCIENCIAS-CIOH-University of Louisiana at
Lafayette. Santa Marta.
INVEMAR. 2001. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros en
Colombia: año 2000. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 6. INVEMAR. Santa
Marta.
INVEMAR. 2002. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros en
Colombia: año 2001. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 7. INVEMAR. Santa
Marta.
INVEMAR. 2003a. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros en
Colombia: año 2002. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 8. INVEMAR. Santa
Marta.
INVEMAR. 2003b. Monitoreo de las condiciones ambientales y los cambios
estructurales y funcionales de las comunidades vegetales y de los recursos pesqueros
durante la rehabilitación de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta: un enfoque de
manejo adaptativo. Informe final 1999-2002, INVEMAR-BID-MinAmbiente-
CORPAMAG-UAESPNN-COLCIENCIAS-CIOH-GTZ-Universidad
Nacional. Santa Marta.
INVEMAR. 2004. Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros en
Colombia: año 2003. Serie de publicaciones periódicas No. 9. INVEMAR. Santa
Marta.
Jiménez J. 1983. Centro de acopio de productos pesqueros. Informe final, Gobernación
del Magdalena, Santa Marta.
Leal-Flórez J., Rueda M. & Wolf M. 2008. Role of the fish Oreochromis niloticus
in the long-term variations of abundance and species composition of the native
ichthyofauna in a Caribean estuary. Bull. Mar. Sci., 82(3): 1–15.
Mancera J.E. & Mendo J. 1995. Population dynamics of the oyster Crassostrea
rhizophorae from the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Fish. Res., 26(1–2): 139–148.
Moscarella V. & Barragán J.J. 1994. Hacia una historia ambiental de la Ciénaga
Grande de Santa Marta. Informe final, PRO-CIÉNAGA-CORPAMAG, Santa
Marta.
Coastal fisheries of Colombia 135

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

Sánchez C. & Rueda M. 1999. Variación de la diversidad y abundancia de especies

ícticas dominantes en el delta del río Magdalena, Colombia. Rev. Biol. Trop., 47:
1067–1079.
Sánchez C., Rueda M. & Santos A. 1998. Dinámica poblacional y pesquería de la lisa
Mugil incilis, en la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. Rev. Acad.
Col. Cienc. Exac. Fís. Nat., 85: 507–517.
Santos-Martínez A. & Acero A. 1991. Fish community of the Ciénaga Grande
de Santa Marta (Colombia). Composition and zoogeography. Ichthyol. Explor.
Freshw., 2(3): 24–263.
Santos A., Vitoria E., Sánchez C., Madera R., Rueda M., Tíjaro R. & Narváez J.
1998. Evaluación de los principales recursos pesqueros de la Ciénaga Grande de
Santa Marta, Costa Caribe colombiana. Informe final Proyecto COLCIENCIAS/
BPIN/INVEMAR. Santa Marta.
Tíjaro R., Rueda M. & Santos A. 1998. Dinámica poblacional del chivo mapalé
Cathorops spixi de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. Bol.
Invest. Mar., 27: 87–102.
UNESCO. 2000. Biosphere reserves: The Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. www.
unesco.org/mab/br/brdir/latin-am/col4.htm
 137

6. Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica

Ángel Herrera-Ulloa*, Luis Villalobos-Chacón, José Palacios-Villegas,
Rigoberto Viquez-Portuguéz and Guillermo Oro-Marcos

Herrera-Ulloa, A., Villalobos-Chacón, L., Palacios-Villegas, J., Viquez-Portuguéz, R. and

Oro-Marcos, G. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles
and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 137-153.

1. Introduction 137
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 139
2.1 Description of fisheries 139
2.2 Fishing activity 142
2.3 Target species and fishing gears 142
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 147
4. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 150
5. Fishery management and planning 151
6. Issues and challenges 151
References 152

1. INTRODUCTION
Costa Rica is a small country, with a territory of 51 000 km2 (Figure 1). Due to
the small and open economy, export of products is a major component in many
industries, including fisheries. Joaquín and Windevoxhel (1998) indicate that by
the 1990s, most marine landings of the Central America region were contributed
by Costa Rica (179 000 tonnes), accounting for US$616 million, close to those
reported by Panama. The Central Valley, in the central region of the country,
comprises 60% of Costa Rica’s population. It is in this area where major cities are
located and thus where most of the jobs are generated.
Table 1 shows Costa Rica’s sea limits; the coastal zone holds only
7% of the population. It represents one of the less developed areas,
encompassing many socio-economic problems, and includes four cities
with fewer than 100 000 inhabitants. On the Pacific coast, the three main
areas are: Puntarenas (95 000 inhabitants), Golfito (30 000 inhabitants) and
Quepos (20 000 inhabitants). Limón (70 000 inhabitants) is located on the
Caribbean coast.
* Contact information: Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Costa Rica. E-mail: fherrera@una.ac.cr
138 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 1
Map of Costa Rica showing the Pacific and Caribbean regions

TABLE 1
Main characteristics of the Caribbean and Pacific coasts in Costa Rica

Caribbean Pacific

Coastline (Villalobos, 1982) 212 km, rectilinear coastline 1 016 km, three gulfs and several bays

Percentage of areas protected Slightly higher than 40% of Less than 30% of the coastline
(PRADEPESCA, 1995) the coastline

Exclusive economic zone

24 000 km2 589 682.9 km2
(Palacios, 2007)

Continental platform
2 400 km2 15 600 km2
(MINAE and PNUD, 2002)

Strong influence of Scattered storms, wind direction

Wind patterns northeast winds, hurricane changes according to the season
season influence

Humid tropical, high rain Dry tropical in the north, humid

Climate
influence tropical in the south

Many islands close to the coast and

Small islands Two islands
Coco Island about 644 km southeast

Mainly migratory lobster, Pelagic fishes, sharks, demersal fishes,

Fisheries stocks
mackerel, sharks crustaceans
Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 139

Protection of wild areas comprises 12.5% of the national territory. These

protected areas include: 9 national parks, 3 biological reserves, 2 no-take natural
reserves, and 16 wildlife refuges and wetlands. They cover a higher percentage
in the Caribbean (50%) than in the Pacific area (21%). Protection is one of the
main strategies within the country, since it has been estimated that the world has
between 13 and 14 million species, from which Costa Rica accounts for about 4%
of them (500 000 species). However, only 17% (almost 90 000 species) of these
species have been identified (i.e. it represents about 5% of the currently known
species in the world, which is about 1 700 000 species) (Ministerio de Ambiente y
Energía y PNUD, 2002).

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY

2.1 Description of fisheries
In Costa Rica, between 75% and 80% of the landings come from the artisanal
fleet. From those, about 95% of the fleet operates in the Pacific Ocean, which has
a larger exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Table 1). This area can be divided into
four zones: north or Guanacaste region (divided into three zones, neighbouring
with Nicaragua); Gulf of Nicoya region; Central Pacific region (divided into three
zones); and south Pacific region (neighbouring with Panama, divided into two
zones) (Palacios, 2007).
From the Pacific area, the Gulf of Nicoya concentrates the principal fleet
and the highest landings; this is one of the largest and most exploited estuaries
in Central America (Palacios, 2007; Palacios and Villalobos, 2007). This area has
important mangrove coverage which, in spite of comprising only 1% of the area
and accounting for 1% of the primary productivity, represents 76% of the system
biomass (Wolf et al., 1998).
One of the characteristics of the Caribbean coast is the presence of coastal
lagoons, where important recreational fisheries occur. In this region, several
important protected areas have been established limiting commercial fisheries
mainly to small-scale fleets. In contrast to the Pacific region, where several zones
are used for landing, in the Caribbean region only one area (Limón) concentrates
the fishing activity, which includes several landing sites: Barra del Colorado,
Puerto Limón and small landing sites on the southern coasts, including Cahuita
and Puerto Viejo. Catches in this region are much lower than on the Pacific coast,
despite the reduction in catches in the latter (Figure 2).
The volume of species caught by the small-scale fishing fleet on the Pacific coast
began to decrease by the beginning of the 1980s, affecting exports. The market was
supported by species such as snapper and groupers and new technologies allowed
an increase in shrimp landings. Since 1986, a decrease in fish catches was observed
and it was attributed to overexploitation of benthic resources on the marine
platform in Costa Rica, although there is not scientific support on this matter.
Given this situation, boat owners, aided by government export incentives, started
to built bigger boats and began to sail longer distances.
140 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 2
Catch landed trends in the Pacific and Caribbean coasts
by artisanal fleets operating in Costa Rica

Source: Incopesca, 2006.

Fishing fleets in Costa Rica have been classified into five categories which
target demersal and pelagic species (Table 2). Most boats are small-scale artisanal
and they concentrate on high-value species such as lobster, shrimp and molluscs.
Industrial fleets concentrate on sardine and there is a shrimp fishery that has been
classified independently (Palacios, 2007). Over time, recreational fisheries have
become more important for the economy of the country.
The diversity in the characteristics of the artisanal fleet is wide in Costa Rica.
It includes artisanal fleets which operate small boats without motors mainly in
the mangrove area where people collect molluscs; boats that use outboard engines
operate about 3 miles from the coast on day trips. Other boats have navigation
systems and can sail about 40 miles from the coast (Chacon et al., 2007). A higher
proportion of an artisanal fleet operates in the Pacific and land in Puntarenas
(Sancho, 2000) with about 200 boats (Table 2). However, there are significant fleets
in Quepos, Playa del Coco and Golfito (Li, 2002). In these fleets, 55% of the boats
are wooden, 30% are fibreglass and 15% are steel. Interviews indicated that most
of the boats’ lengths vary between 9 and 12 m. However, in the advanced scale
artisanal fishery, boats can reach up to 30 m. They all have internal engines with
an average power of 450 hp, although it is possible to find boats with only 70 hp,
or more than 600 hp. Average product storage capacity is 3 000 kg; however, there
are boats with up to 1 tonne storage capacity, or even 60 tonnes in the case of
advanced artisanal fishery boats.
Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 141

TABLE 2
Characteristics and targeted species for various Costa Rican fishing fleet categories

Number
Main
Category Subcategory Coast of boats Main target species
coverage
in 2000
Artisanal Small scale Coast Pacific and 3 110 Croaker (Cynocsion sp.)
Caribbean Swordspine snook
(Centropomus sp.)
Snapper (Lutjanus sp.)
Shrimp (Lytopenaeus sp.)
Molluscs (several genera)
Lobster (Panulirus sp.)

Artisanal Mid-scale Demersal Pacific 30–50 519 Snapper (Lutjanus sp.)

miles Grouper (Epinephelus sp.)
Mahi-mahi (Coryphaena
hippurus)
Sharks (several genera)

Artisanal Advanced Pelagic Pacific, 143 Mahi-mahi (Coryphaena

EEZ and hippurus)
international Swordfish (several genera)
waters Tuna (several genera)
Sharks (several genera)

Industrial Coast Pacific 73 Shrimp (Lytopenaeus sp.)

Industrial Semi-pelagic Pacific 2 Sardine (Opisthonema sp.)

The advanced artisanal fleet has a wide range of operation. According to

fishers, fishing days per boat are between 10 and 20 days, depending on the fishing
productivity of the zone. Boats fishing independently, such as the advanced liners,
have fishing trips that last approximately one and a half months. The normal area
of fishing extends from Central America to Colombia. In the case of the advanced
artisanal fishery, the area of fishing extends from southern Peru (10°S) to Mexico
(30°N).
The product cooling methods have evolved along with the fishery, boats
and techniques. Ice blocks were used years ago, changing in the mid-1980s to
ice flakes. In the last couple of years, new boats with cooling systems on board
were incorporated for the pelagic fishery, allowing greater independence. In
the beginning, the cooling system presented problems for both national and
international markets. Exports were rejected, or accepted at low price, since
the quality was not the same as the product preserved in ice, due to flesh
characteristics. The producers were changing and adapting techniques in order to
achieve the standards demanded by the market. Currently, the product is stored
and packed in better conditions, improving the dock price.
There is an international artisanal fleet, which is mainly operated by Taiwan
Province of China, with flags of convenience from countries such as Panama and
Belize. This is not a regular year-round fleet and is estimated at 50 boats. The
main reason for allowing these boats into Costa Rica is economics. There is no
regulation on the landings of these boats. There are some enterprises that unite the
business people from Taiwan Province of China who live in the country and the
Costa Rican people.
142 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

In the case of trawlers, there are licences for 69 boats; however, only between
40 and 50 are in operation, due to the economic fisheries crisis caused by
overexploitation. The industrial fleet is mainly composed of small sardine boats,
with limited contribution, since it has traditionally been developed in the external
areas of the Gulf of Nicoya. Nevertheless, for about 10 years, some companies
have tried to obtain more licences. However this has not been possible given the
status of the sardine populations in the Gulf of Nicoya, which feeds humpback
whales. This factor, in addition to fishing pressure, has not allowed the recovery
of the stock. Nonetheless, there is still pressure to open the fishery, especially in
the south (Golfo Dulce).
One problem reported in Costa Rica is associated with the shark fin fishery,
which is mainly carried out by the pelagic fishery. A few years ago, due to
lobbying, a control process was developed to prevent the disposal of shark
carcasses offshore. However, statistics are not accurate and it is hard to follow
trends and regulate this activity because this measure does not prevent the fishing
pressure and the risk of overfishing as the boat owners find multiple ways to avoid
restrictions.

2.2 Fishing activity

Multiple species are targeted by fishers in the area. The small-scale fishery is based
on coastal species, where white shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris or L. occidentalis)
are the most sought. This activity is generally carried out with drift nets or
gillnets in shallow waters, and in boats with outboard engines of 25 hp. The most
valued species by fishers are presented in Table 3. Local and scientific names of
commercial species are provided.
In this document, we will refer primarily to the fishing activity in the small-
scale artisanal fishing coastal area located in the Gulf of Nicoya.

2.3 Target species and fishing gears

As outlined above, different fleets operate in Costa Rican waters. Table 4 compares
the production in percentage of the fleets, showing an increase of landings for the
medium-scale fleet and a reduction for the small-scale fleet in the analysed period.
From 2000 on, international advanced fleets started moving out of Costa Rica,
mainly because of legal restrictions against shark finning, giving more potential to
the medium-scale fleet.
Depending on the time of the year, the moon phase, currents or area, the same
fishers may seek different fish species. Sciaenidae are the most valued; however,
Lutjanidae, Serranidae and Scombridae are also fished. Generally, fishing is carried
out in boats with 25 hp outboard engines. Wooden boats, generally with on-board
engines and four crew members, fish mahi-mahi in waters less than 80 km from the
coast. Along the coast, fishing occurs in shallow waters for species like snappers
which reside in rocky areas.
Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 143

TABLE 3
Main species targeted by fishing gear, boats and number of boats and
crew that fish in the Costa Rica EEZ

Average
Number
Type and size of Type and size of number
Species of boats in
fishing gear boat of crew
the fishery
members
Shrimps (Litopenaeus Gillnet, larger than Small scale, Approx. 850 2
stylirostris or 0.7 m, from 300 to less than 6 m
L. occidentalis) 400 m

Croacker (Cynocsion sp.) Midwater Small scale, Approx. 100

longline/200 hooks 7 to 9 m
Snook (Centropomus sp.) 2
Gillnet of 0.7 to
Snapper (Lutjanus sp.) 0.9 m
Black tuna (Euthynnus Drift gillnet of Mid-scale, Approx. 200 3
lineatus), mackerel 0.1 m of 600 m 7.5 m to 9 m
(Scombridae)

Mahi-mahi (Coryphaena 30 km maximum Mid-scale Approx. 530 5

hippurus), sharks
(Carcharhinidae, Surface longline/ Maximum 14 m
36-40 hooks/mile
Sphyrnidae, Lamnidae)
American type
and swordfish
(Istiophorus platypterus,
Makaira mazara,
Makaira indica and
Tetrapturus audax)

Snapper (Lutjanus sp.) 6.5 km maximum Mid-scale Approx. 600 4

and grouper (Serranidae)
Bottom longline Maximum 10 m
Tunas (Thunnus 97 km maximum Mid-scale, pelagic. Approx. 100 7–8
albacares and Thunnus longline, 36 to 40 Maximum 17 to
obesus), swordfish hooks/mile 18 m (fleet from
(Xiphias gladius), Costa Rica)
sharks (Carcharhinidae,
Between 800 to
Sphyrnidae) 1 000 miles
Tunas (Thunnus 235 km maximum Mid-scale, pelagic. Approx. 13–15
albacares and Thunnus longline, 36 to 40 Maximum 50, mainly
obesus), swordfish hooks/mile 30 to 37 m. Chinese
(Xiphias gladius), International
sharks (Carcharhinidae, fleet, mainly
Sphyrnidae) Taiwanese

TABLE 4
Percentage comparison of artisanal fish fleet landings from 1996 to 2002

Fishing fleet 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Handline 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Small scale 19 17 22 19 1 10 12

Medium scale 35 33 25 29 43 51 49

Advanced scale 43 46 47 49 43 38 39

Not available 3 4 5 3 1 1 1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: INCOPESCA, 2006.

144 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

The pelagic mid-scale fleet focuses on export species such as mahi-mahi,

swordfish and sharks. The foreign fleet, as well as the local fleet, fish on the same
species; however, the foreign fleet has a larger autonomous capacity, and in the
case of sharks this fleet has shown clear interest in the fins rather than the flesh.
In terms of pelagic species, most of the information is provided by the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and
studies focus primarily on tuna (Hinton and Bayliff, 2002).
The shrimp fishery is carried out by 55 trawlers (INCOPESCA, 2006); these
boats operate along the Pacific coast where several species are targeted. Wild
shrimp populations are the most studied species, specifically Gulf of Nicoya
shrimp which is monitored to assess the implementation of annual closures.

Shrimp fishery
The artisanal shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Nicoya started around 1924 (Campos,
1984). Between 1950 and 1960, the number of boats fluctuated between three and
six, but by 1970 there were 60 artisanal boats catching shrimp in the area. According
to González et al. (1993), the use of trawlnets in the shrimp fishery by the semi-
industrial fleet from 1945 to 1975 caused severe damage to the internal area of the
gulf. Even in the 1960s, the artisanal fishery was very small and small boats were
launched from the beach. The main development of this fishery occurred around
1986, when the use of monofilament net increased (Araya, 1995).
The target species of this fishery are white shrimp (Litopenaeus occidentalis,
Litopenaeus stylirostris, Litopenaeus vannamei), and Titi shrimp (Xiphopenaeus
riverti and Trachipenaeus byrdi), both caught between 5 and 50 m depth. Ping
shrimp (Farfantepenaeus brevirostris) and Kolibri shrimp (Solenocera agassizii,
S. foca) are caught between 40 and 100 m, and Camello shrimp (Heterocarpus
vicarius, H. affinis) are caught between 180 and 500 m. Table 5 shows the periods
with the highest landings for a variety of shrimp species. The 1960s were the most
important decade for white shrimp and the 1970s saw the highest Titi shrimp
landings. Kolibri shrimp maximum landings occurred in the 1980s, whereas the
early 1990s saw highest landings for Pink and Camello shrimp.
The shrimp fishery is a good example of the typical evolution process of
fisheries from the development to the declining phase. The shrimp fisheries
started in the 1950s, and the four different stages are shown in Figure 3. A
steady phase was observed between 1952 and 1957, an increase of catches marks
the development stage from 1958 to 1978, a peak phase from 1979 to 1986, and
declines began in 1985.

Finfish fisheries
Several studies have been undertaken to evaluate the conditions of fisheries in the
area (Palacios, 2007; Palacios and Villalobos, 2007), but an integrated analysis is
still lacking. A summary of catch trend analysis is presented here.
Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 145

TABLE 5
Shrimp fishery by group of species between 1952 and 2004

Maximum
Landing Maximum
average landing
Shrimp group Scientific name 2004 landing
in last five years
(tonnes) (year)
(tonnes)
Litopenaeus occidentalis, 196 368 1963–1967
White shrimp
L. stylirostris, L. vannamei

Xiphopenaeus riverti, 54 934 1971–1975

Titi shrimp
Trachypenaeus bydi

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus brevirostris 29 545 1988–1992

Kolibri shrimp Selenocera agassizii, S. foca 399 1 366 1984–1988

Camello shrimp Heterocarpus vicarius, H. affinis 70 619 1987–1991

Total 748 3 832

FIGURE 3
Shrimp fishery evolution in Costa Rica from 1952 to 2002

30 000
Phase 4

25 000
tonnes
in tonnes

20 000

Phase 3
Landings in

15 000
Landings

Phase 2
10 000

5 000
Phase 1

0
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20

Year

Catch trend analysis of finfish (including all species) was undertaken to identify
trends and maximum catches (using a five-year average to smooth the data). When
the average value of the catch series is compared with catches in 2004, a 41%
decrease in landings is evident (Table 6). Given the limitation of information by
species, comparisons were based on groups of species (Palacios, 2007). Except in
the case of sardine, most fisheries resources reached the highest catches between
the 1980s and 1990s. Sharks and swordfish reached the highest values by 2004, and
sardine and the mix of low-quality species showed the lower values regarding long-
term average catches.
146 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 6
Evaluation of catch trends of finfish species landed in Costa Rican fisheries
in the Pacific area

Maximum 2004
Catch average Period of proportion
Common
Scientific name in 2004 catch in maximum of
name
(tonnes) 5-year period catches maximum
(tonnes) catch
First quality Cynoscion albus
(corvina and Centropomus viridis
snook) Centropomus nigrescens 135.6 382 1980–1984 0.35
> 2.5 kg

First quality Cynoscion squamipinnis

(corvina and Cynoscion stolzmanni
croaker) Cynoscion phoxocephalus 992.9 1 634 1995–1999 0.61
< 2.5 kg Cynoscion reticulatus
Nebris occidentalis

Spotted rose Lutjanus guttatus

snapper 158.3 330 1993–1997 0.48

Pacific red Lutjanus peru

snapper 219 605 1984–1988 0.36

Lower quality Caranx hippos

Oligoplites mundos
(44 species of Paralunchurus dumerilli
17 families) Mugil curema 943 2 085 1986–1990 0.14
Anisotremus dovii
Other species
Sardine Opisthonema libertate (65%)
(jack, grunt Opisthonema bulleri (35%) 975 6 554 1970–1974 0.15
and mullet) Opisthonema medirastre (5%)

Barracuda Sphyraena ensis 7.14 14.3 1991–1995 0.50

Corvina Micropogonias altipinnis 271 695 1979–1983 0.39
Conger Ophisoma prorigerum
Ophisoma macrurum
Rhynchoconger nitens
Ariosoma gilberto 78.5 165 1993–1997 0.47
Chiloconger labiatus
Paraconger similis
Grouper and Epinephelus spp.
bass Paralabrax humeralis
Paralabrax loro 144.3 871 1984–1988 0.16
Paralabrax nebulifer
Alphestes multigutats
Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus
2321 7 059 1997–2001 0.33

Sharks Mustelus lunatus

Carcharhinus leucas 2025 3 979 1996–2000 0.51
Sphyrna lewini

White marlin Tetrapterus angustirostris 416.5 690 1997–2001 0.60

Striped marlin Tetrapterus audax 234 316 1994–1998 0.74

Sailfish Isitophorus platypterus 1 244 1 235 1996–2000 1

Swordfish Xiphias gladius
178 1 798 1995–1999 0.09

Total 11 534 28 412.3 0.41

Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 147

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Tourism is the main economic activity in the country. Since the late 1980s, the
export trend has caused a change in the Costa Rican production structure, from
mainly agriculture to electronic and tourism-based by the end of the 1990s. Since
1995, tourism activity reached an annual growth of 11%, accounting for 28.2% in
the total dollar export (Joaquín and Windevoxhel, 1998; Instituto Costarricense
de Turismo, 2002).
In 1999, the coastal zone comprised 58% of the country’s hotel accommodations
with 26 500 hotel rooms; these facilities are projected to reach 31 200 rooms by
2010 (Agencia de Cooperación del Japón e Instituto Costarricense de Turismo,
2001). On the other hand, according to Li (2002), the percentage of international
tourists interested in aquatic activities that visited Costa Rica is above 25%, which
represented by that time 33% of the total income coming from tourism.
Agriculture is the second most important economic activity in the country. It
provided about 14.9% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2004 (MAG, 2005).
About 20% of the land is suitable for agriculture (Joaquín and Windevoxhel, 1998).
In both coastal areas, even though the land is not well suited for agriculture, it is
still the main source of jobs, especially in plantations of banana, coconut, cocoa,
rice and sugar. Another relevant component is extensive livestock farming.
The fishing industry had no significant relevance before the 1970s. The
catalyst for economic development in fisheries is the industry sector, such as the
development of a fleet directed to catch shrimp, sardine and tuna (Blondin, 1992).
According to Breton et al. (1991), by the 1990s export from fishing represented
0.4% of the GDP, giving the artisanal fisheries little relevance in the occupational
structure of Costa Rica. This condition has not changed much into the twenty-
first century.
Demographic statistics on the population employed in fisheries are limited.
Surveys carried out by Programa para el Desarrollo Pesquero en Centroamérica
(PRADEPESCA, 1995) showed that the Pacific coast had 8 395 fishers, and the
Caribbean coast had 800 fishers (9 195 fishers in total).
Although the above data, both in economic and demographic terms, seem
to indicate that fisheries have little relevance, the truth is that the Costa Rican
fisheries play particularly important roles in the generation of labour in coastal
areas, not only as alternative primary work for marginal sectors, but also because
small-scale artisanal fisheries are the main source of marine products for domestic
consumption. Other fleets, particularly artisanal medium scale, advanced scale and
industrial, focus their production on the export market, with species such as mahi-
mahi, marlin and sharks, while the coastal fishery provides species such as croaker,
catfish, small sharks and low-value fish. The latter offer a relatively low price and
are the only option for the consumer population in Costa Rica. The strategic
importance of fisheries resources should be viewed in terms of social value, since
under economic criteria it holds little relevance.
148 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Most people who are employed in fisheries have an elementary education with
a low level of illiterate persons, and only a small proportion of people have a high
level of education (Table 7).

TABLE 7
Fishers´ educational levels to 1995

Educational level Percentage (%)

No studies 4

Primary educational level incomplete 30

Primary educational level complete 40

Secondary educational level incomplete 21

Secondary educational level complete 3

University educational level incomplete 1

University educational level complete 1

Fishing tradition is stronger in the small fishing communities located along

both coastlines; however, it is more significant on the Pacific coast than on the
Caribbean coast. Most fishers are men; however, there are also women, especially
in activities related to mollusc extraction. The canning industry hires many
women (about 1 200), mainly for cleaning tuna. There are urban fishers, located
principally in Puntarenas city (Pacific coast) and Limón (Caribbean coast); the rest
can be considered rural fishers. Puntarenas city is where most of the medium- and
advanced-scale fleets land.
Moreover, although there are no up-to-date precise figures or studies on the
matter, it is important to mention the contribution fishing has on the household
economy through child labour. This is mostly from the extraction of species and
by-products of mangroves, as well as children’s participation in the cleaning of
the products landed by small-scale fishers. In most cases, children do not receive
salaries, but they occasionally receive some lower-value fish which they can sell or
use for direct consumption.
The Gulf of Nicoya is the area where most of the small-scale fishers are located.
This is also where most scientific and social studies have taken place. Since 1829,
Puntarenas has been the first port and commercial centre in the country on the
Pacific coast (Blondin, 1992). Most fishers live in the area of the Gran Chacarita,
with very limited local power at the political and economic levels, which diminishes
the possibilities of local development. There is also a high rate of unemployment;
it is difficult to estimate, though it is presumed to be about 35%.
Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 149

Studies on the Pacific coast include those of Charles and Herrera (1992) who
gathered information from the Cooperativa de Pescadores de Puerto Thiel/Port
Thiel Fishers Cooperative (COOPETHIEL) to evaluate the monthly income of
fishers. They found a range between US$88 and US$176 for the period from 1988
to 1991, showing that although this income is not high, it does not fall within the
category of extreme poverty. More recent studies conducted by the Instituto Mixto
de Ayuda Social (Social Aid Institute), a governmental institution responsible for
working with poverty groups, obtained similar results, leading to the conclusion
that most fishers fall at the poverty level and not into the extreme poverty level.
Herrera and Charles (1994) compared the situation of COOPETHIEL (as
an example of an artisanal fishery) on the Costa Rica Pacific coast with artisanal
fisheries on the Caribbean coast. They found similar levels of income earned by
fishers but with different cultural patterns. For instance, the population along the
Caribbean coast experiences a strong influence from international tourism, speaks
Caribbean English and is predominantly black.
Villalobos and Hernández (1998) undertook a study on the social conditions
of the Gulf of Nicoya using an ecosystem-based approach. They established a
process of differentiation of the artisanal fishing fleet by specific socio-economic,
technological, environmental and production factors. They argue that these
differences should be considered in the implementation of fisheries management
protocols in the area, based on technical criteria and results derived from social
studies.
The tourism industry is changing the process of artisanal fisheries in many
regions of the country. The increase of tourism development on a large scale
has sometimes led to an increase in demand for fish products to supply local
tourism demand. In this sense, Gónzalez and Villalobos (1999) and Villalobos
and Gónzalez (2000) analysed the processes of interaction between traditional
fishing and tourism in the northern Caribbean. They also looked at the effects
of technological development on the fishing environment in the Caribbean.
Their results showed that tourist activity was becoming increasingly relevant as
a strategy for coastal development. In addition, tourism is changing the coastal
marine environment, as well as the social and cultural patterns of the artisanal
fishing communities.
In other cases artisanal fishing communities have substantially transformed
their traditional ways of operation and have opted for new forms of employment
related to recreational fishing, tourism and ecotourism. Examples are found along
the Pacific coast in Tambor, Puerto Níspero, Puerto Moreno and Moreno, and
along the Caribbean coast, such as Manzanillo. All of these towns were dedicated
to traditional commercial fishing by the mid-1990s, but currently remnants of
fisher activities are virtually imperceptible. There is a tendency that seems to be
increasing in some parts of the country, such as Quepos, Osa Peninsula and the
Golfo Dulce, where more and more fishers are incorporated into activities directly
linked to tourism.
150 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

The history of the Costa Rican fishing industry shows various organizational
experiences different in nature from the late 1970s and early 1980s. The fishing
cooperative organizational model was the most practiced until the end of the 1980s.
The model incorporated nearly 18% of the fishing population (about 20 fishing
cooperatives). However, by 2000, almost 50% of cooperatives had disappeared.
Although no comprehensive studies have been conducted to analyse fully this
decrease in organizations, one clear factor has been a perceived inconsistency
between the cooperative model used and the nature of traditional fishing activity.
Other organizational forms have been used at different times and from different
institutional perspectives for the local fishers’ committees (COLOPES) from 1987
to 1995. These had considerable success and acceptance among fishers, although
they disappeared due to political decisions.
It is estimated that there are 50 organizations actually linked directly or
indirectly to the fishing industry in Costa Rica for the Central Pacific area,
although only 37 of these were formally incorporated and duly registered.
Included in this category are two cooperatives, fishing associations, chambers,
trade unions and some COLOPES (Araya, 2006). Table 8 shows main activities or
duties undertaken by fishing organizations along the Central Pacific coast.

TABLE 8
Fishing organization activities in the Central Pacific region in 2006

Fishers'
Fishing Fish Labour Fishers'
committees Total
associations cooperatives unions chambers
(COLOPES)

Fuel subsidy 3 – 1 – 1 4

Marketing 2 – 1 1 – 3

Legal services 12 7 – 1 – 20

Productive projects 1 – – – – 1

Other activities 5 2 – 1 – 8

Total 23 9 1 3 1 37

Source: Departamento de Extensión y Capacitación, INCOPESCA.

Other organizational efforts have developed in some fishing communities,

especially in the Gulf of Nicoya region. These efforts have been promoted by the
Universidad Nacional (National University) and other support institutions, which
seek to incorporate productive alternatives in these communities, articulating the
main activity with ecotourism and mariculture to benefit marginal sectors, mainly
small-scale fishers, women and youth.
Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 151

5. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

By law, fishery planning and management is the responsibility of the Instituto
Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA, Costa Rica Fishery and
Aquaculture Institute). The Universidad Nacional (National University), the
Universidad de Costa Rica (Costa Rica University), the Ministerio de Ambiente
y Energía (Ministry of Environment and Energy), as well as various other
foundations and non-governmental organizations, participate in marine activities,
such as the World Wildlife Fund, Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (Biodiversity
National Institute) and Fundación Costa Rica – USA (CRUSA).
In Costa Rica there is abundant legislation on environmental matters in the form
of specific laws, regulations and decrees, but legislation is fragmented and non-
cohesive. INCOPESCA coordinates the fishery and aquaculture sectors, promotes
and organizes fishery development, marine hunting, aquaculture and research, and
encourages conservation and sustainable use of aquaculture and marine biological
resources based on technical and scientific criteria. INCOPESCA is responsible for
issuing hunting, marine fishery and boat-building permits, as well as the licences and
concessions for aquaculture production (Cajiao-Jiménez, 2003).
The Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE – Ministry of Environment
and Energy) is the institution responsible for marine protected areas, which include
mangroves. Sea turtle capture is prohibited (Red Regional para la Conservación de
las Tortugas Marinas en Centroamérica, 2001) and INCOPESCA is responsible for
protecting and conserving sea turtles in the jurisdictional waters of Costa Rica.
Fishery laws date back to 1948, but were challenged in the mid-1990s through
unconstitutional measures. Because of this, the laws remained for more than
five years in the National Congress, causing serious problems for resource
management. The most recent revisions were done before 2005, but there are still
shortcomings that limit the application of laws by INCOPESCA, which leads to
high rates of non-compliance in the fishery sector.

6. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Current fishery policies are not applied with an integral vision of resource
management or integrated resource management. There are no clear policies
regarding the use of international tendencies, such as the FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries or the Precautionary Approach. Moreover, there are no
clear policies in terms of resource allocation; basically, licences provide the right to
fish any resource fishers want to exploit. Efforts to avoid overfishing are limited to
closed areas, but are difficult to enforce due to the lack of resources.
Despite being the most developed country in Central America, Costa Rica still
needs to improve its conditions to compete with other countries in Latin America.
Given the reduction in catches of important resources, attention is needed to
control the fishing effort and, in some cases, to reduce the size of the fleet as well
as upgrade it. However, subsidies on fuel increase the existing pressure on marine
resources and, in the case of closures, the government provides little monetary
support. INCOPESCA has been inefficient during its 14 years of existence due
152 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

to the problems noted above in regard to the application of law, low budget, and
the shortage of qualified professional personnel. On the other hand, an increase
in added value has been considered, but this will require improvement in fisheries
infrastructure and sanitary control.

REFERENCES
Agencia de Cooperación del Japón e Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. 2001.
Estudio para el plan de uso de la tierra en las zonas costeras de las unidades
de planeamiento en la República de Costa Rica. Reporte Final. Vol. 2. Pacific
Consultants Internacional y Yachiyo Engineering Co. Ltd.
Araya H. 1995. La pesca artesanal sobre peneidos juveniles en el Nicoya Gulf, CR. In
Actas del Simposium ecosistema de manglares en el pacífico centroamericano y su
recurso de post-larvas de camarones peneidos. El Salvador, 8 al 11 de noviembre de,
1995. Edited by Javier Zamarro. pp. 310–320.
Araya I. 2006. El sector artesanal organizativo pesquero del Pacífico Central.
INCOPESCA. Internal Report. Puntarenas, Costa Rica.
Blondin D. 1992. Economía y sociedad en el Pacífico costarricense: Pescadores
artesanales en un medio urbano (Chacarita). Département dánthropologie. Université
Laval. Québec, Canada.
Breton Y., Roy D., Benazera C. & Chávez M. 1991. Dinámica social y comunidades
pesqueras en el Pacífico Costarricense: Pescadores y turistas a Sámara y el Coco
¿Un amor de temporada? Département dánthropologie. Université Laval. Québec,
Canada.
Cajiao-Jiménez V. (ed). 2003. Régimen legal de los recursos marinos y costeros en
Costa Rica. Editorial IPECA. San José Costa Rica.
Campos J. 1984. Estudio sobre la biología pesquera en el pacífico de Costa Rica:
aplicación al manejo del recurso. 1ª edición, Heredia, CR: Editorial de la UNA.
Chacón A., Araya H., Váquez R., Brenes R.A., Marín B.E., Palacios J.A., Soto R.,
Mejía-Arana F., Shimazu Y. & Hiramatsu K. 2007. Estadísticas pesqueras del
Golfo de Nicoya, Costa Rica, 1994-2005. INCOPESCA-UNA-JICA. Costa Rica.
Charles A. & Herrera A. 1992. Development and diversification: sustainability
strategies for a Costa Rican fishing cooperative. VIth International Institute of Fisheries
Economist and Trades (IIFET) Conference. Paris, France.
González L., Herrera A., Villalobos L., Breton Y., López E., Breton E., Houde E.,
Roy D. & Benazera C. 1993. Comunidades pesquero artesanales en Costa Rica.
Editorial de la Universidad Nacional.
González L. & Villalobos L. 1999. La función social de la pesca de la pesca artesanal
costera: el caso de Barra del Colorado. Limón Costa Rica. Rev. Perspectivas Rurales.
UNA, 2: 94–106.
Herrera A. & Charles A.T. 1994. Costa Rican Coastlines: mangroves, reefs, fisheries
and people. In Coastal zone Canada 94, Cooperation in The Coastal Zone:
Conference Proceedings. 20–23 September 1994. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
pp. 12–624.
Coastal fisheries of Costa Rica 153

Hinton M. & Bayliff W. 2002. Status of striped marlin in the Eastern Pacific Ocean
in 2001 and outlook for 2002. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, SCTB15
Working Paper. BBRG-1.
Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuacultura (INCOPESCA). 2006. Estadística
Pesquera. Departamento de Estadística, INCOPESCA.
Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. 2002. Plan general de desarrollo turístico
sostenible 2002-2012. San José. Costa Rica.
Joaquín J. & Windevoxhel N. 1998. Análisis regional de la situación de la zona
marina costera centroamericana. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. ENV-121,
Washington.
Li J. 2002. Descripción del sector náutico pesquero y acuícola de Costa Rica 2002.
Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje, Informe, Costa Rica.
MAG. 2005. Ministerios de Agricultura y Ganadería. Memoria 2005. (Disponible en:
http://www.mag.go.cr/bibliotecavirtual/memoria-2005.pdf).
Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el
Medio Ambiente. 2002. GEO Costa Rica: una perspectiva sobre el medio ambiente.
San José, Costa Rica.
Palacios J.A. 2007 El estado de explotación de las pesquerías de escama en el Pacífico
de Costa Rica. Universidad Nacional, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas.
Palacios J.A. & Villalobos L. 2007. La historia de la pesca en el Golfo de Nicoya,
Costa Rica (1950–2005). Universidad Nacional, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas.
PRADEPESCA. 1995. Encuesta de las actividades pesqueras con énfasis en la pesca
artesanal. Enfoque Regional. Panamá.
Red regional para la conservación de las tortugas marinas en Centroamérica. 2001.
Diagnóstico regional y planeamiento estratégico para la conservación de las tortugas
marinas en el istmo centroamericano. San José, Costa Rica.
Sancho W. 2000. Caracterización integral de la captura del dorado Coryphaena
hippurus dentro del sistema de pesca artesanal semi-avanzada en el litoral Pacífico
central, de la región de Puntarenas. Tesis de Licenciatura. Escuela de Ciencias
Biológicas. Universidad Nacional.
Villalobos C. 1982. Animales y plantas comunes de las costas de Costa Rica. EUNED.
Costa Rica.
Villalobos L. & Hernández C. 1998. Estudio del desarrollo pesquero en el Nicoya
Gulf, Costa Rica: Un enfoque sistémico. Tesis de Maestría. Maestría en Desarrollo
Rural. Universidad Nacional. Costa Rica.
Villalobos L. & González L. 2000. Algunas implicaciones de la tecnología pesquera en
el medio natural de Barra del Colorado, Limón, Costa Rica. Rev. Ciencias Sociales.
Universidad de Costa Rica, 88: 145–155.
Wolf M., Koch V., Chavarría J. & Vargas J. 1998. A trophic flow model of the Nicoya
Gulf, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop., 46 (Supl. 6): 63–79.
 155

7. Coastal fisheries of Cuba

SERVANDO V. VALLE*, MIREYA SOSA, RAFAEL PUGA, LUIS FONT AND REGLA DUTHIT

Valle, S.V., Sosa, M., Puga, R., Font, L. and Duthit, R. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Cuba. In S. Salas,
R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the
Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 155–174.

1. Introduction 155
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 156
2.1 The lobster fishery 158
2.2 Finfish fisheries 161
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 163
4. Assessment of fisheries 164
4.1 Lobster fishery 164
4.2 Finfish fishery 165
5. Fishery management and planning 166
5.1 Lobster fishery management 167
5.2 Finfish fishery management 168
6. Research and education 168
6.1 Lobster fishery research 169
6.2 Finfish fishery research 169
7. Issues and challenges 170
References 170

1. INTRODUCTION
Within Cuba’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the fisheries went through a
growth phase from 1955 up to the end of the 1970s (Baisre, 1985a, 1993). From
1962 to 1965, motorboats replaced sailboats, fisheries cooperatives were created,
prices of the species harvested increased, and more efficient fishing gears were
introduced. Landings coming from the EEZ expanded considerably, reaching up
to 79 000 tonnes by the mid-1980s; afterwards, a 20-year period of annual catches
show values lower than 10 000 tonnes (Baisre, 2000).
The high economic value of many fisheries resources off the Cuban shelf and the
fishing capacity created after 1959 (i.e. increase on fishing effort) have contributed

* Contact information: Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras, La Habana, Cuba. E-mail: servando@

cip.telemar.cu.
156 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

to high fishing pressure on many fishery resources, so that many of them are fully
exploited and, in some cases, overexploited. Various studies concluded that many
of the fisheries resources were exploited at their maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
(Baisre, 1981, 1985a, 1985b, 1993; Baisre and Páez, 1981). In 1981, regulatory efforts
aimed to protect overfished species and fishing effort was redirected to underutilized
species such as rays, blue crabs and clams.
According to Baisre (2000), by 1995 approximately 39% of the resources were
showing a negative trend in catches, 49% were in a mature phase with a high
level of exploitation, and only 12% were in the development phase with some
possibility for future increases. This means that 88% of the fishery resources
were in a critical situation from a fisheries management perspective by the end of
the 1990s, and consequently required urgent measures to reduce fishing pressure.
The case of Nassau grouper and mullets, with a decrease of 95% and 88%,
respectively, are among the most dramatic. Baisre (2000) has completed the most
recent evaluation of catch trends, so the current situation for Cuban fisheries is
difficult to assess. In addition, despite the management strategies implemented to
reduce pressure on fisheries resources, changes in the ecosystems in the region are
irreversible, making it difficult for catches to recover to previous levels (Baisre,
2000). Furthermore, there are no perspectives on the economics of fishing in
distant waters given the fuel costs, and aquaculture appears as the most viable way
to obtain fish products (FAO, 2008).

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY

Marine fisheries are an important source of foreign currency, animal protein and
generation of jobs for about 17 000 people in Cuba, including fishers, workers,
administrative personnel and other people involved in economic entities directly
related to fisheries (FAO, 2008). A number of species are exploited in Cuba, using
diverse fishing gears that are mainly artisanal, with boats less than 23 m in length.
These smaller vessels limit the distance the fishers can go in search of fish (Baisre,
1985a).
The Cuban Archipelago has an extension of 110 922 km2 and is located in the
tropical western region of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea, as well
as the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the
Bahamas and the Great Antillean Archipelago. The more detailed oceanographic
characteristic of the region is a continuous current of water (Antillean Current)
that, due to the action of trade winds, moves along Florida and the east coast of
the United States to form the Gulf Stream (Figure 1).
According to Claro and Parenti (2001), around 140 fish species have some
commercial value and many of them are exploited by a multispecies fleet. Fishers
use diverse types of fishing gears and methods to target a mix of the resources,
although specialization by area or species in some cases occurs.
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 157

FIGURE 1
Cuba and oceanographic features observed in the region

Source: Adapted from Siem (1988) and Garcia et al. (1991).

The Cuban fleet comprises three types of boats according to the area where
they operate: the coastal fleet, the Gulf fleet and the continental waters fleet.
The second one operates on the Yucatán Peninsula within the EEZ of Mexico
under agreement. This fleet targets mainly groupers and snappers using 16 boats
of 23 m length that operate like a mothership of smaller boats (6 m length). The
coastal fleet includes 990 boats (10–23 m length) made of fibreglass, iron and
ferrocement; all of them are equipped with motors and a GPS system. This fleet
belongs to 14 State enterprises that land their catches in the main ports of the
country (FAO, 2008).
The distinction between artisanal fisheries and small-scale fisheries varies
between countries. For example, a one-person canoe may be considered artisanal
in a developing country, while 20 m trawlers, seiners or longliners are categorized
as artisanal in developed countries. Hence, according to the concepts defined by
Copemed (2004) and Johnson (2000), which take into account boat length, gross
tonnage of the boat, fishing gears, target species and technology efficiency, most
fisheries operating on the Cuban shelf, with the exception of shrimp fisheries,
could be considered as artisanal/small-scale fisheries. Despite the diversity of
species available, the topographic characteristics of the bottoms and the presence
of many rocky zones and reef areas prevent the use of trawl fisheries and determine
the artisanal nature of most of these fisheries.
Although commercial, sport and recreational fisheries harvest several species of
crustaceans, molluscs, sponges and fishes, many of these species are not recorded
separately in the statistical system. The same applies for some minor fisheries such
as blue crab, sea cucumber and conch. On the other side, some resources, such
as lobster, tunas, oysters, crabs, sponges and turtles, have developed specialized
158 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

fisheries. All these facts contribute to the complexity of the Cuban fisheries,
making it difficult to assess them in one dimension or to define viable management
programmes for sustainable fisheries.
Catches are used for human consumption, with 29% of the local market
products allocated to institutional consumption, such as schools, daycares and
hospitals. The rest is sold to the local populations in State stores. Lobster and
shrimp provide 23% of the seafood export and the main fisheries concentrate
on lobster, finfishes and shrimp. This chapter concentrates only on the first two
fisheries, as the shrimp fishery is the more industrialized of these fisheries; shrimps
are frozen on-board and taken in a transportation vessel to the processing plant.
Catches from the lobster are kept fresh and processed by the industry and they
are all exported, while finfish catches generally are marketed fresh and are sold
locally; small portions of the catches are processed to be sold in supermarkets or
to export.

2.1 The lobster fishery

Spiny lobster of the Caribbean (Panulirus argus) is the most important commercial
fishery in Cuba given its high economic value. This species inhabits all waters
of the marine shelf and depends primarily on availability of shelters and the
rate of production and renovation of food resources. The geology of the area,
meteorological conditions and marine climate (tides, wave action, currents and
turbidity) have favoured the presence of lobster habitats (mangroves, seaweeds,
coral reefs). The fleet that targets lobster operates in practically all shallow waters
of the Cuban shelf, characterized by the presence of sandy bottoms with dispersed
rocks and corals which provide shelter for the lobsters.
The fishery is performed by 9 companies with boats coming from 15 ports.
They land their catches in 12 ports, 5 by the north coast and 7 at the south coast
(Figure 2). In the last five years, the fishery has generated a net income of around
US$70 million per year, and has provided direct employment to 1 110 fishers and
indirect employment to approximately 7 800 people (Puga et al., 2006).
The principal fishing grounds for the lobster fishery are located by the Gulf
of Batabanó, at the southwestern region of Cuba. This area is also known as
‘Lobster Triangle’ and, at some point, sustained catches of around 7 000 tonnes
annually. At present, this zone produces 66% of national lobster landings, with
the rest distributed among the southeast (17%), northeast (14%) and northwest
(3%) (Puga et al., 2006). There are nine processing plants that produce precooked
entire lobster and packs of lobster tails, which are the principal products exported
to Europe, Japan and Canada (Puga and de León, 2003).
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 159

FIGURE 2
Location of landing ports and plants that process lobster along the coast of Cuba

During the last ten years, catches have decreased from between 9 000 and
10 000 tonnes to an average value of 6 600 tonnes (Figure 3). Despite a reduction
on fishing effort since 1999 and an increase in the length of the closed season (from
90 to 120 days), no signs of recovery have been observed. Puga et al. (2005, 2006)
state that one of the main reasons for the reduction of catches is the decrease on
recruits and population abundance since 1989, caused by the combined effect of
fishing pressure and habitat damage. The latter has been due to hurricanes and
anthropogenic activities in coastal areas, such as river damming and reductions in
nutrient input (Baisre, 2006; Baisre and Arboleya, 2006; Piñeiro et al., 2006).

FIGURE 3
Lobster annual landings and fishing effort trends between 1955 and 2007

16 Landings 60 000
Fishing effort
14
50 000
Landings (thousand tonnes)

Effort (fishing days)

12
40 000
10

8 30 000

6
20 000
4
10 000
2

0
19 8

06
20 3
19 2

00
58

85
76
79
73
55

70
67

20 7
64

94
61

91

0
8

9
19
19

19
19
19
19

19
19

19

19

20
19

19

19

Year
160 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

There are 200 fishing boats, 250 000 fishing gears and about 1 110 fishers
directly involved in the Cuban lobster fishery. The crew of the lobster boat is
composed of four to six people (e.g. skipper, cook, engine operator and sailors).
The boats operate in four large management zones or subareas (Figure 2), which
are also partitioned into ten smaller divisions within each enterprise. The fishing
boats are linked to 28 holding centres, located at sea, where lobsters are kept alive
until they are shipped to the eight processing plants.
The lobster fleet includes boats made of different materials and sizes, ranging
from 10 to 18 m in length. Although there are still some boats made of ferrocement,
most of the lobster boats are fibreglass boats (Figure 4). One special feature of
the lobster boats is a fish-well constructed in the hull of the boat which allows
water circulation through holes and keeps lobsters alive for transportation to the
gathering centre where it is landed daily. At the gathering centre the lobsters are
kept in cages in the water before being transported to the processing plant.

FIGURE 4
Fibreglass boats used in the lobster fishery

The fishing gears include the artificial habitat pesquero (also called casita
cubana in other parts of the Caribbean), jaulon and traps. Pesquero is an artificial
habitat for lobster and it is used by fishers mainly between May and September
(e.g. during the open season). To remove the lobsters a net is placed around the
artificial reef. Then the lobsters are scared out by shaking the pesquero, trapping
the lobsters in the net. This operation is carried out by two men on a small boat.
Other techniques used include the bully net or free diving for lobsters. More
recently, a new type of pesquero has been built, which can be lifted from the vessel
with a winch and then the lobsters can be extracted. In the southeast region, old
car tyres are also used as artificial reefs.
Jaulon is a 5-cm chicken-wire mesh or large plastic trap used during the lobster
winter migration, between October and February. The mesh has two 40-m long
wings beside the entrance, which can be adjusted to increase or decrease the
effective fishing area.
The traps used are 5-cm chicken-wire mesh traps set during the whole fishing
season. These are common in the northeast region.
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 161

2.2 Finfish fisheries

In Cuba, approximately 150 different species of finfish are harvested. Following
Baisre (1985a), the principal species can be grouped as follows:

Demersal
Estuarine:
Mugilidae (mullets)
Gerridae (mojarras)
Other species (snooks, croakers)

Grass meadows and reef zones:

Lutjanidae (snappers)
Serranidae (groupers)
Haemulidae (grunts)
Other species (numerous)
Pelagic
Littoral:
Clupeidae (sardines and Atlantic thread herring)
Engraulidae (anchovies)
Coastal
Carangidae (jacks)
Scomberomorus (mackerels)
Inshore sharks (numerous species)
Oceanic
Oceanic sharks (various species)
Tunas (skipjack, blackfin and yellowfin)
Billfishes (marlins and swordfish)

Pelagic species represent 37.6% of the fish captured. Between the inshore
groups there are some representatives of clupeids (sardines, Atlantic thread
herring). Jacks (horse-eye jack, blue runner, bar jack, etc.) constitute a large group,
mostly inhabiting offshore waters, but sometimes penetrating estuarine areas.
The same occurs with other pelagic species such as sharks and different species of
Scomberomorus.
The finfish fishery occurs from all fishing ports (Figure 2), along the whole
continental platform of the country. Catches of fishes started to rise in 1959 and
reached maximum value around 1986 and 1987. Since then, the catches decreased
continuously and currently the stocks of the principal commercial species are
considered fully exploited and in some cases overexploited (Figure 5).
Demersal fishes represent 62.4% of finfish captures in the Cuban shelf. In this
fishery, mullets and mojarra are found in estuarine and littoral zones, while grunts,
snappers and some groupers inhabit reef and rocky bottoms, near grass meadows
(Thalassia). In deeper waters by the edge of the shelf, there are bigger and more
specialized species of snappers (silk snapper) and groupers.
162 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 5
Historical catches of finfish in Cuban waters

30 000
Catch (tonnes)

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

0
59

63

67

71

75

79

83

87

91

95

99
Lutjanidae is the fish family of higher economical importance for the Cuban
fishery. This group comprises 7.5% of the national capture and 21% of fish
catches, especially the lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), mutton snapper (L.
analis), grey snapper (L. griseus) and the yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus).
Seasonal landings are the result of fishing a variety of species. For instance,
many species are fished during their reproductive season. The most significant
spawning aggregations under fishing exploitation are lane snapper, mutton
snapper, grey snapper, mullets, Nassau grouper, blue runner and billfishes.
The absence of territorial rights between different enterprises complicates the
current statistical system and makes it difficult to assess the potential of different
regions because various enterprises operate in the same fishing zone, competing
for the resources without a clear benefit for the domestic fishery economy.
Most of the boats utilized for the finfish fishery in Cuba are made of
ferrocement and wood, with only few made of fibreglass. The length ranges from
15 to 20 m (Figure 6). In 1988, the fleet was composed of around 840 vessels, but
in 1998 this number decreased to 400 vessels.
The most common fishing gears used in this fishery are pots, nets, fixed nets
(tranques), gillnets, longline (bottom and surface) and trawlnets. Castile pots,
bottom longlines and vertical longlines are used in the fishery for deep snappers. In
oceanic waters, the Japanese pelagic longline is used to fish tuna and pelagic sharks,
but is limited to 300 hooks. For fishing small tunas there is a fleet of 18 baitboats.
Nets are used mainly in shallow waters and in coastal lagoons. The most
common nets are the trawling nets, fixed nets and gillnets. The common trawlnet
(chinchorro) is between 800 and 1 000 m long (8–10 m high). These trawlnets are
used in broad flat areas (seagrass meadows and sandy areas), where they are pulled
by two 15 to 20-m boats for two to three hours. This fishing gear is used mainly
in the northeastern region of the country.
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 163

FIGURE 6
Ferrocement vessel used in the finfish fishery

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The Ministry of Fishing Industry of Cuba registered a total of 42 012 workers
(25 457 are males and 9 076 are females). Women do not participate in harvesting,
but they can be found in all the other stages of the process. The labour distribution
by categories is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Labour distribution in the fishing activity in Cuba

Affiliation Number of people

Fishers 7 479

Directives 3 727

Technicians 6 149

Administrative 1 134

Services 4 378

Workers 19 145

To learn about fishers’ experiences in the fishery, 105 lobster fishers from two
companies were interviewed through surveys. The results show that 53.3% of
them have more than 20 years dedicated to fishing lobsters, confirming the labour
stability of the fishers.
Education in Cuba is free and mandatory up to grade nine, unlike other
developing countries in Latin America, which makes the level of education of fishers
above basic compared with countries in the same region. For instance, the captain
and the engine operator of the boats must have qualifications at the technical level.
Cultural and sport activities are frequently organized in the fishery communities.
164 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Fishery communities have a variety of services including running water, sewage

systems, free medical services, primary and secondary schools, shopping centres,
community social centres and postal offices. In these communities, fishers are
considered well paid and, in general, they have comfortable houses. A retirement
fee is paid to fishers when they attain 60 years of age for men and 55 years for
women. The amount of this fee is estimated from the number of years worked and
the income from the last ten years. In order to benefit the worker even more, the
best five years are taken into account.
Currently, a share system is in place among fishers. Fishers receive an amount
of money according to their catch (by kilogram of lobster or shrimp landed). They
receive payment according to the quality of the product. From the amount earned
in each trip, fishers subtract operating costs (ice, fuel, food), and 5% which is used
for social security. They receive the remainder in two instalments, 80% in Cuban
pesos and 20% in United States dollars. The amount of money they earn improves
their personal incomes significantly.
Fishers are affiliated with a union which advocates for the protection and
fulfilment of their rights and defends their interests before the managers of
the enterprise. In addition, if fishers need financial assistance to cover various
expenses (e.g. boat or engine repairs) during the closed season, they have open
access to credit, which can be paid back when they earn more money (e.g. during
the periods of higher abundance).
Generally, fishers are invited to participate in the meetings of the Fishery
Advisory Committee, which is the main board of the Ministry of the Fishing
Industry, to present, discuss and approve the principal guidelines of fishery
regulations and management before they are adopted. Participants include the
principal officers of the Ministry of the Fishing Industry, fisheries scientists and
representatives of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Havana
University, tourism, and from other related organizations within the fishing
industry. Aside from the regulations revised in this committee, allocations of
territorial rights are granted to the lobster and shrimp fisheries. Each enterprise
has its own territory previously defined and they define access to newcomers;
generally, the presence of other vessels is not allowed.
In the last few years, there has been an increasing effort to promote conservation
of fish stocks and their habitats, as well as the implementation of marine protected
areas (MPAs). There is a plan to include 20–25% of the Cuban shelf in marine
protected areas in the near future.

4. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
4.1 Lobster fishery
Historically, assessments of the spiny lobster resource in Cuba have been based
on several types of analysis, including prediction of future catch based on patterns
of juvenile settlement (Cruz et al., 1995b); yield-per-recruit analysis (Puga et al.,
1995); virtual population analysis (VPA) (Puga et al., 1996, 2005, 2006); surplus
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 165

production models (de León et al., 1991; Puga et al., 2003); and Delury depletion
model (González-Yáñez et al., 2006).
In Cuban waters, reproduction occurs all year with the largest number of
breeding females between March and May and a secondary peak in September.
The smallest length of a captured breeding female was 67 mm CL (carapace length)
(Cruz and de León, 1991), and the estimated lengths at maturation at 50% and
100% were 81 mm and 97 mm CL, respectively.
Puga et al. (1999) used a Thompson and Bell analysis based on information
from the fishery between 1992 and 1998 in the south zone of Cuba. To introduce
risk analysis while testing alternative management options, a stochastic variant of
the model was used taking into account the uncertainty of some of the biological
parameters. In addition to this analysis, Puga et al. (2003) adjusted the biomass
dynamic model to the catch per unit effort series from 1991 to 2001 with a catch
series from 1928 to 2001, taking into consideration observation errors in catch
and fishing effort, and the structural error in the method of calculation of the
catchability coefficient. The goal of this is to assess the status of the resource in
relation to some bio-economic reference points.
By comparing lobster catches from the 1980s to current trends, a reduction of
42% of landings has been observed at the national level (Puga et al., 2006). The
results of all assessments undertaken in Cuban waters suggest that the lobster
fishery is fully exploited. The last stock assessment indicates a potential catch
around 8 000 tonnes (Puga, 2005). Recruitment patterns show a declining trend
since the 1980s and currently reductions of 37% in the south and 49% in the north
have been reported (Puga et al., 2006). Taking into account this situation and the
accumulative effect in habitat damage, the current potential catch is likely to be
around 6 000 tonnes.

4.2 Finfish fishery

From all species captured by the finfish fishery in Cuban waters, one of the most
important is the lane snapper, especially in the Gulf of Batabanó. Cruz (1978),
using a surplus production model, estimated the MSY for 1978 at 3 300 tonnes.
The author has raised concern about certain levels of overexploitation since 1975
and suggested an increase in the minimum legal size to 17 cm. Carrillo (1979)
reported lower levels of biomass for the MSY (2 310 tonnes for the entire Gulf of
Batabanó, and a MSY of 1 920 for the eastern part). Obregón et al. (1990), using a
production model with mortalities, estimated the MSY for lane snapper between
220 and 251 tonnes for the northeastern platform. Valle (2003), using a dynamic
production model (Praguer, 1994, 2000), incorporated uncertainty and estimated
the MSY at 128 tonnes, concluding that this stock is overexploited and suggesting
some alternative strategies for biomass recuperation. Baisre (1985b) suggested
growth overfishing combined with recruitment overfishing for this fishery, due to
the use of very productive and no non-selective fishing methods (tranque). After
this period, some management measures were put in place: reproductive closure
from April to June, minimum legal size of 18 cm and catch quotas. After 15 years,
166 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

some signs of recovery were assumed; however, new assessments performed by

Valle (1997, 2001, 2003), using different approaches (Csirke and Caddy, 1983;
Caddy and Defeo, 1996) and considering uncertainty in the parameters, concluded
that the stock was overexploited (MSY = 1 009 tonnes ±183 tonnes).
Pedroso et al. (1986) assessed the lane snapper in the northwest platform
of Cuba using Beverton and Holt models. They determined a recruitment of
2.7 million individuals and a potential annual catch of 268 tonnes; similar results
were obtained ten years later through VPA by Valle (1996). By using a VPA
analysis and Dynamic Production Model (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Darby
and Flatman, 1994), Valle estimated a potential catch of 268 tonnes. Some other
assessments have been performed in other species such as yellowtail snapper
and grey snapper using mainly surplus production models and VPA. For these
assessments, uncertainty was not considered.

5. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

The commercial fishing industry of Cuba is an important source of fishery products
originating from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region. The Ministry of the
Fishing Industry (MIP) is the agency in charge of directing and implementing the
policies of the State and Government concerning research and the conservation,
extraction, processing and marketing of fish resources.
Aiming to improve economic efficiency and sustainable use of fishery
resources, a change in management focus has been in place. Probably the most
significant change in the MIP includes the decentralization of the day-to-day
operations of the harvesting sector. The MIP was in charge of the legal and
regulatory activities (i.e. administrative functions, enforcement, stock assessment,
etc.), while the production enterprises were delegated to control most day-to-day
productive activities and services. To facilitate the introduction of policy changes
aimed at decentralization, a new overall organization structure was created within
the MIP. The central idea of the new MIP structure is to incorporate modern
entrepreneurial and management techniques via more horizontal and flexible
structures called ‘associations’ (at present, these associations receive the name
of Industrial Fisheries Enterprises). These associations were created to bring
decision-making and responsibility closer to the point of production thereby
increasing the efficiency of the economic activities (i.e. fleet operations) related to
fisheries harvests (Adams et al., 2000).
The new MIP structure consists of numerous divisions, fisheries-related
associations, the National Fishery Inspection Office (ONIP), and the Fisheries
Research Centre (CIP). All of these units are subordinated to the minister. The
associations consist of 15 provincial fishing associations (PFAs) and six other
associations which have specific logistical responsibilities.
A PFA is located within each province, including the Isla de la Juventud.
These PFAs are responsible for producing shellfish and finfish landings in
compliance with the species-specific harvest plans. These plans are developed by
the associations themselves, then consulted with and approved by the Executive
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 167

Board of the MIP. The PFAs have independent control over productive resources
(i.e. vessels, fuel, supplies, ice, labour, etc.). The PFAs also have control over the
number of vessels in operation, as well as ensuring the enforcement of a variety of
regulations, including animal size restrictions, gear restrictions and closed seasons.
The other six associations provide the necessary resources and logistical support
for the PFAs. They also assist in feasibility studies of proposed projects with the
overall purpose of broadening fisheries market potential, finding new business
opportunities, and further development of other activities of common interest
(Adams et al., 2000).
The principal rules for fishery management are included in the Decree-Law
No. 164 ‘Fishery Rules’, approved by the Government of the Republic of Cuba
on 26 May 1996.
Some of the more important aspects of this law are:
r
The establishment of a System of Fishery Authorizations, through which
each vessel must hold a licence, which is granted by year.
r
The control and supervision of all fishery regulations is performed by a
National Office of Fishery Inspection, which has 200 inspectors in charge
of enforcement of the regulations. Also, a system of penalty and sanctions
exists for those who do not comply with the law.
r
The Commission of Fishery Consultation is the council for advice and
consultation that establishes regulations. In this council, commercial and
recreational fishers, state enterprises, universities, the Ministry of Science,
Technology and the Environment, and other interested organizations
(tourism, mining, transport, etc.) are represented.
r
The Centre for Fisheries Research proposes measures of fishery regulations;
these measures are analysed in the Commission of Fishery Consultation
and finally approved by the Minister of Fishing Industry. The Director of
Fisheries Regulations is in charge of the implementation of the resolutions
and the management measures, and the Office of Fishery Inspection is
responsible for control and enforcement of the regulations. Regulations
regarding each particular fishery are summarized in Table 2.

5.1 Lobster fishery management

One of the most important characteristics in fishery management of lobster is
the allocation of territorial rights for fishing to the different fishery enterprises.
Such grants at enterprise level are shared between the boats operating on each
enterprise. Due to the fact that the artificial shelter (pesquero) is a fixed gear,
which can remain at the bottom for long periods, they are exposed to being fished
by other people and not necessarily by who did the investment, construction,
movement and placing of the shelters in the most convenient places. With this
system, fishers have their own territory and, in some ways, they ‘cultivate it’; the
sense of property helps them to invest on their grounds, repair their gears, take
care of the bottom, and obtain benefits which tie them to their territory. Special
management regulations for these species are in place and reported in Table 2.
168 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

5.2 Finfish fishery management

It is obvious that the only way to avoid the collapse of a fishery or economical
losses is through the regulation of fishing effort. In the finfish fishery in Cuba, the
principal fishing regulations are based on the establishment of legal size limits for
different species of fish, and regulations of the size of the meshes in gillnets, traps
and in the cod-end in trawling nets (Table 2).

TABLE 2
Summarized information regarding regulations applied to the main fisheries in Cuba

Regulation Lobster Finfish

Closures Reproductive closure of 120 days Seasonal closure during reproductive
between February and June season
Legal size limits Minimum legal size of 76 cm Legal size limits for different species;
cephalothorax length maximum sizes in length or weight for
species suspected of having ‘ciguatera’
poisoning
Territorial rights Territorial division by enterprises -
Landing regulations Prohibition of land reproductive -
females
Others Prohibition to fish in nursery areas The use of fixed nets known as tranques
is banned in the Cuban platform;
eventual elimination of all the trawlers
in Cuban waters; regulations of the size
of the meshes in gillnets, traps and in
the cod-end in trawling nets

At present, the status of the principal commercial species of fish in the Cuban
platform is critical, showing symptoms of overexploitation. This is primarily
due to massive fishing gears, such as fixed nets (tranques), being deployed across
the path of spawning fish. The other fishing gear that has contributed to the
overexploitation of different commercial species is the trawling net, which is a
non-selective gear capturing a great number of juveniles.
Recently, the direction of the Ministry of the Fishing Industry, in order to
protect finfish species and achieve the recovery of the stocks, signed two new
regulations. The first one is to ban the use of the system of fixed nets known
as tranques in the Cuban platform to protect the migration of the spawning
aggregations. The second regulation is the gradual elimination, in a period of
four years, of all the trawlers in Cuban waters. It is expected that these astringent
measures can contribute to the recovery of the depleted fish populations in the
Cuban shelf.

6. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Commercial statistics collection has always been an important task undertaken in
order to be able to provide information to make management decisions. For the
collection of primary information, there is a group of professionals and specialists
in each fishery enterprise comprising a ‘Capture Board’ who, methodologically
assessed by the Centre of Fishery Research, are in charge of the survey trips
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 169

and collaborate in the collection of commercial fishery data. This information

is periodically sent to the Centre of Fishery Research for their analysis and is
introduced in the database of the fisheries to perform assessments.

6.1 Lobster fishery research

Research regarding this fishery covers a wide variety of disciplines given the fact
that the economy of the country relies a great deal on the income derived from
it. Research includes studies from the biological point of view (i.e. larvae, juvenile
recruitment and population dynamics) to the socio-economic and technological
analyses. Recently, studies regarding oceanographic factors that can impact
biomass and catch trends of lobster populations have begun to take place (Puga,
personal communication, September 2006).
The life history of lobster in Cuban waters has been described by different
authors (Baisre, 1964, 1978; Buesa, 1965; Cruz et al., 1986, 1995a; Lalana, 1989;
Alfonso et al., 1991; Brito and Suárez, 1994). Research in Cuba has covered almost
all stages of the life cycle of the spiny lobster (Figure 7).

FIGURE 7
Life history of the spiny lobster

6.2 Finfish fishery research

Claro (1981, 1982, 1983a,b,c) and García-Cagide (1985, 1986a,b, 1987, 1988) found
that size-dependent pattern of sex ratios in snappers, jacks and grunts suggest
that females are more abundant in almost all length classes and reach a larger size
than males. Female dominance in the population might be explained by a greater
survivorship, but also by differences in habitat preferences of both sexes, such as
in the grey snapper.
Patterns of sexual cell development (gametogenesis), particularly oogenesis,
have been detailed in many Cuban marine species. Numerous papers contain
information on this important aspect of tropical marine fish reproduction
(Álvarez-Lajonchere, 1979, 1980; García, 1979; García and Bustamante, 1981;
170 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Claro, 1982; García-Cagide and Claro, 1983; García-Cagide, 1985, 1986a,b, 1987,
1988; García-Cagide and Espinosa, 1991; Ros and Pérez, 1998).
Sierra et al. (2001) summarized the existing information on feeding habits of
fishes in the Upper Caribbean and particularly in Cuba. The existing information
on feeding should not be considered definitive. Some data from Cuba show great
intraspecific differences among different regions. Large changes might also occur
through time relative to environmental conditions.
Most of the available data on age and growth to adult stages of Caribbean fish
are based on predictable annual marks. Research in Cuba on adult life stages has
emphasized the use of rings deposited on bones (particularly the urohyal), scales
and otoliths (Olaechea and Quintana, 1970; Pozo, 1979; Claro, 1983a; Claro et al.,
1989; García-Arteaga and Reshetnikov, 1992). Claro and García-Arteaga (2001)
did a revision of the growth patterns of fish of the Cuban shelf.

7. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Fish resources of the continental shelf of Cuba are limited; the potential biomass
available is around 60 000 tonnes. Analysis of catch trends of several resources
show a historical loss of 20 000 tonnes caused by a combined effect of overfishing
and changes in the marine ecosystem (Baisre, 2000). Even if some improvements
in fisheries policies could help to improve the current conditions, changes in the
ecosystem appear to be irreversible; hence, the fisheries in Cuban waters cannot
support an increase in fishing pressure.
In Cuba, it is expected that one way to improve conditions in aquatic production
to increase economic development is through: (a) improvement of infrastructure and
technology for sustainable use of the resources; (b) aquaculture development; and
(c) improve training programmes to increase the skills of those participating in the
activity at different levels (extraction, processing, etc.). All of this should go coupled
with strategies to protect the environment from which the resources depend.

REFERENCES
Adams C., Sánchez P. & García A. 2000. An overview of the Cuban Commercial
Fishing Industry and Recent Changes in Management Structure and Objectives.
IIFET Proceedings.
Alfonso I., Frías M.P., Baisre J. & Campos A. 1991. Distribución y abundancia de
larvas de la langosta Panulirus argus en aguas alrededor de Cuba. Rev. Inv. Mar.,
12 (1–3): 5–19.
Álvarez-Lajonchere L. 1979. Algunos aspectos sobre la reproducción de Mugil liza
(Pisces: Mugilidae) en Tunas de Zaza, Cuba. Rev. Cub. Inv. Pesq., 4(2): 25–61.
Álvarez-Lajonchere L. 1980. Algunos datos adicionales y las relaciones largo-peso de
Mugil curema (Pisces: Mugilidae) en Cuba. Rev. Cub. Inv. Mar., 1(1): 75–91.
Baisre J.A. 1964. Sobre los estadios larvales de la langosta común Panulirus argus.
Contrib., 19. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras.
Baisre J.A. 1978. Movimientos y migraciones de la langosta. Mar y Pesca., 158:
36–40.
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 171

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

Claro R., García-Cagide A. & Fernándes de Alaiza R. 1989. Características biológicas

del pez perro, Lachnolaimus maximus (Walbaum), en el Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba.
Rev. Invest. Mar., 10(3): 239–252.
Claro R. & Parenti L.R. 2001. The marine ichthyofauna of Cuba. In Ecology of
the marine fishes of Cuba. Edited by R. Claro., K.C. Lindeman and L.R. Parenti.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. pp. 21–57.
Copemed. 2004. Inventory of the artisanal fishery communities in the Western and
Central Mediterranean. Informes y Estudios Copemed No. 4., Preliminary Release,
Version 1.0. FAO-Copemed.
Cruz R. 1978. Algunas consideraciones sobre las pesquerías de biajaiba (Lutjanus
synagris Linné 1758) en la plataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Cuba. Rev. Cub. Inv.
Pesq., 3(3): 51–82.
Cruz R., Brito R., Días E. & Lalana R. 1986. Ecología de la langosta (Panulirus argus)
al SE de la Isla de la Juventud. I. Colonización de arrecifes artificiales. Rev. Inv.
Mar., 7(3): 3–17.
Cruz R. & de León M.E. 1991. Dinámica reproductiva de la langosta (Panulirus argus)
en el archipiélago cubano. Rev. Cub. Invest. Mar., 12 (1–3): 234–245.
Cruz R., González J., de León M.E. & Puga R. 1995a: La pesquería de la langosta
espinosa (Panulirus argus) en el Gran Caribe. Evaluación y pronóstico. Cuba. Rev.
Cub. Inv. Pesq., 19(2): 63–76.
Cruz R., Puga R. & de León M.E. 1995b. Prediction of commercial catches of the
spiny lobster Panulirus argus in the Gulf of Batabanó, Cuba. Crustaceana, 68(2):
238–244.
Csirke J. & Caddy J.F. 1983. Production modelling using mortality estimates. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci., 40: 43–51.
Darby C.D. & Flatman S. 1994. Virtual Population Analysis: Version 3.1. User´s
Guide. Inform. Technol. Series No. 1. MAFF Fisheries Lab., Lowestoft.
De León M.E., Puga R. & Cruz R. 1991. Panorama de la pesquería de langosta en
Cuba durante, 1989. Rev. Cub. Inv. Pesq., 16(3–4): 21–29.
FAO. 2008. Perfiles de Pesca y acuacultura por país. Cuba.http://firms.fao.org/
fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?xml=FI-CP_CU.xml&dom=countrysector&xp_
nav=1&xp_lang=es. Consultado Febrero 2008.
García A. & Bustamante G. 1981. Resultados preliminares del desove inducido de lisa
(Mugil curema Valenciennes) en Cuba. Inf. Cienc-Téc, Rep. Invest. Inst.Oceanol.,
Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 158: 17–26.
García C., Chirino, A. & Rodríguez, J.P. 1991. Corrientes geostróficas en la ZEE al
sur de Cuba. In Memorias del Taller Internacional sobre ecología y pesquerías de
langostas. La Habana, 12–16 de junio de 1990. ----, Universidade de Habana, Vol.
12, No. 1–3, pp. 29–38.
García T. 1979. Study of the family Sciaenidae (Pisces) in Cuban waters [In Romanian].
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bucarest, Romania.
García-Arteaga J.P. & Reshetnikov Y.S. 1992. Edad y crecimiento del cibí carbonero,
Caranx rubber (Bloch) en las costas de Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst .Oceanol., Acad.
Cienc. Cuba, 1: 1–21.
Coastal fisheries of Cuba 173

García-Cagide A. 1985. Características de la reproducción del civil, Caranx ruber, en

la plataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst .Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba
34: 1–36.
García-Cagide A. 1986a. Características de la reproducción del jallao, Haemulon
album, en la plataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst .Oceanol., Acad.
Cienc. Cuba, 47: 1–33.
García-Cagide A. 1986b. Características de la reproducción del ronco amarillo,
Haemulon sciurus, en la región oriental del Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba. Rep. Invest.
Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 48: 1–28.
García-Cagide A. 1987. Características de la reproducción del ronco arará, Haemulon
plumieri (Lacépede) en la región oriental del Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba. Rev. Invest.
Mar., Ser., 8. 3: 39–55.
García-Cagide A. 1988. Particularidades de la reproducción de la sardina de ley,
Harengula humeralis (Cuvier, 1829), en el región oriental del Golfo de Batabanó,
Cuba. Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba, 12: 1–15.
García-Cagide A. & Claro R. 1983. Datos sobre la reproducción de algunos peces
comerciales del Golfo de Batabanó. Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol., Acad. Cienc. Cuba,
12: 1–20.
García-Cagide A. & Espinosa L. 1991. Algunas características histológicas de la
cherna criolla, Epinephelus striatus (Bloch) (Pisces: Serranidae). Cienc. Biol., 24:
134–138.
González-Yáñez A.A., Puga R., de León M.E., Cruz L. & Wolf M. 2006. Modified
Delury depletion model applied to spiny lobster, Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804)
stock, in the southwest of the Cuban shelf. Fish. Res., 79: 155–161.
Hilborn R. & Walters C.J. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment. Choice,
Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall.
Johnson J. 2000. Key features of small-scale/artisanal fisheries. UN Atlas of the
Oceans.
Lalana R. 1989. Zoobentos de dos lagunas costeras en la región de Tunas de Zaza,
Cuba. Rev. Invest. Mar., 10(3): 223–232.
Obregón M.H., Pozo E. & Valle S. 1990. Las pesquerías de biajaiba (Lutjanus
synagris) en la plataforma nororiental de Cuba. II Congreso Ciencias del Mar, 18–22
junio, La Habana.
Olaechea A. & Quintana M.M. 1970. Pre-evaluación sobre la determinación de la
edad en la biajaiba, Lutjanus synagris (Linné), Cuba. Segunda Reunión de Balance
del Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras (menagr.) 2: 50–61.
Pedroso B., Obregón M.H. & Pozo E. 1986. Evaluación de la pesquería de la biajaiba
(Lutjanus synagris Linnaeus, 1758) en la plataforma noroccidental de Cuba. V Foro
del CIP, Cuba Enero, 1986.
Piñeiro R., Puga R. & Gonzáles-Sansón G. 2006. Bases para el manejo integrado del
recurso langosta (Panulirus argus) en la zona costera sur de Pinar del Río. I. Factores
ambientales. Rev. Invest. Mar., 27(3): 245–251.
Pozo E. 1979. Edad y crecimiento del pargo criollo (Lutjanus analis [Cuvier, 1828] en
la plataforma noroccidental de Cuba. Rev.Cub.Inv.Pesq., 4(2): 1–24.
174 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 174

Prager M.H. 1994. A suite of extensions to a non-equilibrium surplus-production

model. Fish. Bull., 92(2): 372–389.
Prager M.H. 2000. User´s Manual for ASPIC: A Stock Production Model Incorporating
Covariates. Programme Version 3.28. Miami Lab. Doc MIA-92/93-55. Fifth Edition.
June 2000.
Puga R. 2005. Modelación bioeconómica y análisis de riesgo de la pesquería de
langosta espinosa Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804) en el Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba.
Tesis Doctoral. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, La Paz Mexico.
Puga R. & de León M.E. 2003. La pesquería de la langosta en Cuba. Report of the
Second Workshop on the Management of Caribbean Spiny Lobster Fisheries in the
WECAF Area. FAO Fisheries Report, 715. pp. 85-91.
Puga R., de León M.E. & Cruz R. 1995. Estado de explotación y estructura
poblacional de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus en Cuba. Rev. Cub. Invest.
Pesq., 19(2): 41–49.
Puga R., de León M.E. & Cruz R. 1996. Catchability of the main fishing methods
in the Cuban fishery of the spiny lobster Panulirus argus Latreille, 1804, and
implications for management, (Decapoda, Palinuridae). Crustaceana, 69(4): 2–16.
Puga R., de León M.E., Capetillo N., Piñeiro R. & Morales, O. 2006. Evaluación
de la pesquería de langosta en Cuba. Informe Nacional de Cuba al Taller Regional
sobre la Evaluación y la Ordenación de la Langosta Común del Caribe (Panulirus
argus) del, 19 al 29 de septiembre de 2006. Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Puga R., Hernández S., López M.J. & de León M.E. 2005. Bio-economic modelling
and risk assessment of the Cuban fishery for spiny lobster Panulirus argus. Fish.
Res., 75(1–3): 149–163.
Puga R., Luis Y. & de León M.E. 1999. Evaluación del riesgo en la toma de decisiones
para el manejo de la pesquería de langosta. VI Fórum de Ciencia y Tecnología
Pesquera. Taller Regional Langosta, 1999. 22–25 Nov, 1999.
Ros R.M. & Pérez C.M. 1998. Contribución al conocimiento de la biología del pez
sable, Trichiurus lepturus Linné, 1758. Ciencias, Ser. 8, Invest. Mar., 37: 1–33.
Siam, C. 1988. Corrientes superficiales alrededor de Cuba. Revistz Cubana de
Investigaciones Pesqueras, Vol. 13, No. 12. pp. 98–108.
Sierra L.M., Claro R. & Popova O.A. 2001. Trophic biology of the marine fishes of
Cuba. In Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Cuba. Edited by R. Claro, K.C. Lindeman
& L.R. Parenti. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 115–148.
Valle S.V. 1996. Crecimiento y evaluación de la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris, Linnaeus,
1758) en la región Noroccidental de Cuba. Tesis Ms. Sc. Universidad de La Habana.
Valle S.V. 1997. Evaluación de la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris, Linnaeus, 1758), en
el Golfo de Batabanó, Cuba, Presentado en: Taller Internacional “Pesca 97”.
Evaluación y manejo de recursos Pesqueros, 17–21 Nov., La Habana, 1997.
Valle S.V. 2001. El uso de modelos de producción con mortalidades en la evaluación
de la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris, Linnaeus, 1758) en la porción oriental del Golfo de
Batabanó. Pesca, 2001, La Habana 12–16 Nov. 2001.
Valle S.V. 2003. Diagnóstico del estado actual del stock de biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris
Linnaeus, 1758) en el Golfo de Batabanó, Región SW de Cuba. VI Congreso
Ciencias del Mar, ¨MARCUBA¨1–5 Dic, La Habana, 2003.
 175

8. Coastal fisheries of the

Dominican Republic
Alejandro Herrera*, Liliana Betancourt, Miguel Silva, Patricia Lamelas and
Alba Melo

Herrera, A., Betancourt, L., Silva, M., Lamelas, P. and Melo, A. 2011. Coastal fisheries of
the Dominican Republic. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal
fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.
No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 175–217.

1. Introduction 176
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 178
2.1 Description of fisheries 178
2.2 Fishing activity 188
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 191
3.1 Fishers’ characteristics 191
3.2 Social and economic aspects 193
4. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 194
4.1 Community organization 194
4.2 Fishers’ interactions with other sectors 195
5. Assessment of fisheries 197
6. Fishery management and planning 199
7. Research and education 201
7.1. Fishing statistics 201
7.2. Biological and ecological fishing research 202
7.3 Fishery socio-economic research 205
7.4 Fishery environmental education 206
8. Issues and challenges 206
8.1 Institutionalism 207
8.2 Fishery sector plans and policies 207
8.3 Diffusion and fishery legislation 208
8.4 Fishery statistics 208
8.5 Establishment of INDOPESCA 208
8.6 Conventions/agreements and organizations/institutions 209
References 209

* Contact information: Programa EcoMar, Inc. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. E-mail:
ongprogramaecomar@yahoo.com
176 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

1. INTRODUCTION
In the Dominican Republic, fishing has traditionally been considered a marginal
activity that complements other sources of income. This, and the low impact that
fishing has on the gross domestic product (GDP) (approximately 0.5%), are likely
causes for the limited economical and institutional support that the fishing sector
has received compared with other sectors, such as agriculture or hydro resources.
Despite this, Dominican Republic fishing activity has a long history, and has
developed rapidly during the last two decades. The number of fishing boats,
fishers and catches has grown since the beginning of the 1980s (FAO, 2001). The
fleet, which is comprised of more than 3 361 boats (98% of them artisanal), 8 399
fishers and an average annual production of 11 000 tonnes, generates significant
pressure on the traditional coastal and marine fishing resources (SERCM, 2004).
Nevertheless, the national demand is still not fulfilled, leaving little opportunity
for export (which is estimated at 900 tonnes), which results in an annual import of
seafood products averaging 34 000 tonnes (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1
Fishing production, and import and export of seafood products,
of the Dominican Republic from 1960 to 2005

Source: Subministry of Marine and Coastal Resources.

Fishing activities in the Dominican Republic include more than 300 species of
fishes, crustaceans, molluscs and echinoderms. These species are captured along
1 575 km of coastline, 8 000 km2 of platform (between 0 and 200 m of depth), and
4 500 km2 of oceanic banks and the adjacent oceanic environment, though the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) encompasses 238 000 km2 (Figure 2).
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 177

Fishing is carried out with more than 20 different fishing gear types and methods
(Colom et al., 1994), and catches are landed at more than 200 sites distributed
among the 16 coastal provinces (SERCM, 2004; Table 1). Specialists are amazed
by the growing dynamic nature of the fishing sector in the Dominican Republic,
which has been developed solely through artisanal fishers’ technologies and
knowledge, with informal finances and resources and little external intervention
(FAO, 2001).

FIGURE 2
The Hispaniola map shows the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic,
the 16 coastal provinces, the 200 m iso-bathymetric line,
the oceanic banks and the EEZ

Note: The letters indicate: MO (Montecristi), PP (Puerto Plata), E (Espaillat), MT (María Trinidad
Sánchez), S (Samaná), ES (El Seibo), HM (Hato Mayor), LA (La Altagracia), LR (La Romana),
SP (San Pedro de Macorís), SD (Santo Domingo), SC (San Cristóbal), PV (Peravia), AZ (Azua),
BH (Barahona), and PD (Pedernales).
178 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIES

Although it is not yet acknowledged, it is difficult to provide an exact definition
of the fishing types in the Dominican Republic due to two key aspects of the
fishing activity. First, the partially controlled fishery and open access to the fishing
grounds allows for any available resource to be caught at any moment and in
any accessible area of the coast, insular platform or surrounding oceanic region.
Second, the Dominican Republic artisanal fishery does not target exclusively one
resource. Whatever is caught is considered potentially useful for consumption or
commercialization.
For the purpose of this report we based the definition of fishing types on
Colom et al. (1994) and CFRM (2004), and have included some types which have
not been previously reported. We took a general approach, based on: (a) type
of resources and their fishing productivity; (b) fishing areas; (c) fishing gear
exclusivity; (d) depth intervals; and (e) relevance of the resource to the national
fishing regulations (Table 1).

2.1 Description of fisheries

Spiny lobster fishery
The spiny lobster fishery is the most valued in the Dominican Republic (SERCM,
2004). The key species is the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). However,
this fishery includes other species such as: the spotted spiny lobster (Panulirus
guttatus; langosta pinta), the green lobster (Panulirus laevicauda; langosta verde),
the copper lobster (Palinurellus gundlachi; langostín), the slipper lobster (Parribacus
antarticus), and the Spanish lobster (Scyllarides aequinoctialis) (Silva, 1994).
Colom et al. (1994) indicates that spiny lobster is caught with traps in the Jaragua
National Park, in the Pedernales Province. Historically, the spiny lobster coastal
fishery has been associated with the Sud-Occidental platform (marine protected area
of the Jaragua National Park), where lobsters are especially abundant. The frequent
reports of puerulus stage larvae on the trap ropes and in the shallow larvae grounds
in coastal protected areas could indicate important local post-larvae recruitment.
In fact, we have observed juvenile lobsters in all the stages (algal, transitional and
post-algal) in the area. A shallow marine grass and algae platform of 90 km2 offers
ideal conditions for a nursery area, while 25 km2 of rocky bottom and coral reefs
provide the appropriate environment for migrating juveniles and resident adults
which require sites for reproduction (Herrera and Colom, 1995).
Despite Pedernales’ importance as a lobster fishing area, it is questionable to
place such a high value on an extractive practice where sublegal juveniles compose
90% of the catches from this area (Herrera and Betancourt, 2003b). Pedernales is
not the only fishing site; spiny lobster is subject to strong fishing pressure along the
whole Dominican Republic platform up to a depth of 30 m. This is documented
with ecological and fishing data in Barahona (Schirm, 1995, 1995a), Azua (Melo
and Herrera, 2002), La Altagracia (Chiappone, 2001) and Samaná (Herrera and
Betancourt, 2003a). Lobster is also captured on the oceanic banks, where the fishery
is associated with the reef environment; however, there are no studies on this matter.
 TABLE 1
Main fishing types in the Dominican Republic. Fishing gears: At (Atarraya; casting net); Ba (Raft); Bu (Diving); Chah (Chinchorro de ahorque; gillnet);
Char (Chinchorro de arrastre; trawl); Cd (Line); LC (Squid line); Ml (Manual); Nb (Nasa del bajo; shallow trap); Nc (Nasa chillera; depth trap); PA (Longline);
Ja Jamos; bully nets); Main fishing zones Provinces of the Coasts (PC): AZ (Azua); BH (Barahona); BN (Banco de la Navidad – Christmas Bank); BP (Banco de
la Plata – Silver Bank); LA (La Altagracia); MC (Montecristi); PE (Pedernales); PP (Puerto Plata); SA (Samaná); TP (Coastal provinces platform).

Key species Associated Depth Distance Type of Main fishing

Name Gear Key references
(local name/scientific/common) habitat (m) (nm) fishery zones
Lobster fishery Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus Coastal/coral 0–30 ≤5.3 Nb, Bu Small-scale PE, LA, MC, Herrera and
(langosta) reef/ocean artisanal/ AZ, TP Betancourt, 2003b,
banks Subsistence 2003c
Shrimp fishery White shrimp Litopenaeus schmitti (camarón Demersal/bay - 4-15 Char, At Small-scale SA, MC Núñez and García,
blanco), pink shrimp F. duorarum (camarón artisanal/ 1983; Sang et al.,
rosado), Atlantic seabob Xiphopenaeus Subsistence 1997
kroyeri (camarón siete barbas)
Queen conch Queen conch Strombus gigas (lambí) Coastal/ocean 0–30 ≤5.3 Bu Small-scale PE, LA, MC, TP Tejeda, 1995
fishery banks artisanal/
Subsistence
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic

Reef fishery Many fish species (Lutjanidae, Haemulidae, Coastal/ocean 0–30 ≤5.3 Nb, Bu Smal- scale PE, MC, LA, SA, Schirm, 1995, 1995a;
Acanthuridae, Balistidae, Holocentridae, banks Chah, artisanal PP, AZ, TP Sang et al., 1997;
Serranidae, Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Cd Chiappone, 2001
Scaridae, Sparidae, Labridae), crustacean
(Majidae y Xanthidae) and molluscs
(Cassidae, Trochidae, Ranellidae,
Fasciolaridae, Strombidae and Octopodidae)
Deep-sea fishery Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus (chillo), Coastal 100–500 ≥5.3 Pa, Nc, Smal- scale BH, SA, PE, TP Sang et al., 1997;
in the platform blackfin snapper L. bucanella (chillo oreja Cd artisanal Arima, 1997, 1998-
border negra), queen snapper Etelis oculatus 1998b, 1999-1999b.
(boral), cardinal snapper Pristipomoides
macrophtamus, (roamo), vermilion snapper
Rhomboplites aurorubens (besugo), misty
yellowedge grouper Epinephelus mystacinus,
misty grouper E. flavolimbatus (meros)
Ocean banks Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus (chillo), Ocean banks 300–600 90 Pa Semi- BN, BP Kawaguchi, 1974;
fishery* blackfin snapper L. bucanella (chillo oreja industrial Arima, 1997, 1998-
negra), queen snapper Etelis oculatus 1998b, 1999-1999b.
(boral), cardinal snapper Pristipomoides
macrophtalmus (roamo), misty yellowedge
grouper Epinephelus mystacinus (mero)
179
 180

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Key species Associated Depth Distance Type of Main fishing

Name Gear Key references
(local name/scientific/common) habitat (m) (nm) fishery zones

Pelagic fishery Tunas, bonitos and albacores: Thunnus Pelagic − ≥5.3 Co, Ba, Small scale S and NE coasts Schirm, 1995b
or FAD** fishery albacares (yellowfin tuna), Euthynnus Cu artisanal
alleteratus (little tunny), Auxis thazard
(frigate tuna), Katsuwomis pelamis (skipjack
tuna), mackerels Scomberomorus sp.
(macarelas), wahoo Acanthocybium solandri
(guatapaná), dolphinfish Coryphaena
hippurus (dorado) and Atlantic sailfish
Istiphorus albicans (aguja)
Marlin fishery Blue marlin Makaira nigricans (marlin azul), Pelagic 40–100 8–32 Co Sport LA Just Us, 2006
white marlin Tetrapturus albidus (marlin
blanco)
Squid fishery Diamond squid Thysanoteuthis rhombus Pelagic 300–750 3–4 LC Small scale SA SERCM, 2000
(calamar diamante) commercial
Pelagic coastal Carangidae (jacks), Clupeidae (herrings), Pelagic/coastal − − At, Co Small scale Whole coastline SERCM, 2004
fishery Atherinidae (silversides), Hemiramphidae commercial
(ballyhoo), Gerridae, Sciaenidae (drums),
Centropomidae (snooks), Engraulidae
(anchovies), Sphyraenidae (juvenile
barracuda), some juvenile sharks (bull,
blackfin, hammerhead, nurse, reef and
lemon sharks)
Crab fishery Blue land crab Cardisoma guanhumi (paloma Mangrove, 0 − Ml Small scale SA, PE, LA, MC Ramírez and Silva,
de cueva), swamp ghost crab Ucides cordatus coastal commercial 1994
(zumbá), black crab mountain Gecarcinus
ruricola (cangejo moro)
Ornamental Many fish species: (Apogonidae, Balistidae, Coastal, coral 0–30 ≤5.3 Ja Medium MC CIBIMA, 1994; SERCM,
species fishery Chaetodontidae, Diodontidae, Grammidae, reef scale 2004
Haemulidae, Labridae, Ostracidae, commercial
Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Sciaenidae,
Syngnatidae, Tetrodontidae) and
invertebrates

* Does not include the lobster, queen conch and reef fish fishery in the shallow ocean banks region.
Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

** FAD: fish aggregating device.

Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 181

The traps used for the lobster fishery in Pedernales catch many bycatch fish
species, particularly white grunt (Haemulon plumieri; bocayate blanco) and
spotted goatfish (Pseudopeneus maculates; salmonete). There are also invertebrate
bycatch species caught in this fishery. These species are also considered part
of the catches (Schirm, 1995, 1995a); however, the small ones and those with
no commercial value are discharged. Some invertebrates, such as the starfish
(Oreaster reticulates), are used as bait. There is no estimation of the proportion of
discarded species. This fishery can be considered as a small-scale artisanal fishery
and as a subsistence fishery. The fishery takes place year-round, except during the
closure from April to July (Decree 316-86).
According to the Subsecretaría de Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos
(SERCM – Environment and Natural Resources State Subsecretariat, 2004), lobster
markets can be classified into three types: (a) internal consumption in restaurants,
supermarkets, fish shops; (b) tourism; and (c) export. The highest consumption
occurs in the tourism market, in which all the capture is commercialized and
consumed fresh in the domestic market. The lobster production of the last
12 years (1992–2003) has fluctuated from minimum values of 500 tonnes in 1996
up to a maximum of 2 651 tonnes in 2002, with a drastic drop in 2003. This drop
is attributed to loss of information in the fishing areas, or to a decrease in the
capture due to extreme meteorological events that occurred along the Dominican
coastline in 2003.

Shrimp fishery
Colom et al. (1994) recognize the shrimp fishery carried out with gillnets and casting
nets in Sánchez, Samaná Province, as a national fishing unit, which was described
by Núñez and García (1983) and complemented by Silva and Aquino (1993) and
Zorrilla et al. (1995). This fishery started in the early 1960s, when the closure of
train operations forced the local people to seek out other income sources. Three
shrimp species are landed in Sánchez town (Núñez and García, 1983): the Atlantic
seabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), the pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) and
the white shrimp (Litopenaeus schmitti). The white shrimp can be considered the
key species, since it comprises between 86% (Sang et al., 1997) and 95% (Then
et al., 1995) of the total shrimp catch.
The west region of Samaná Bay is the most important due to the fishing area
extension, the resource abundance and the number of fishers involved in the
fishery. The flow of the Yuna and Barracote Rivers define an estuary region
of 400 km2 in the west of Samaná Bay. Due to its high productivity, Samaná
is considered the most important fishing area of the country, though SERCM
(2004) indicates Manzanillo, Montecristi as another important fishing area.
The fishing gear used in the shrimp fishery catches great quantities of non-target
(or incidental) species, both invertebrate and fish species, which can comprise 54%
of the total catch. Sang et al. (1997) showed that this bycatch could include up
to 24 fish families and two crustacean families. Atlantic anchoveta (Cetengraulis
edentulous), Jamaica weakfish (Cynoscion jamaicensis; gogó), stardrum (Stellifer
colonensis; mandarín chino), whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnier; corvina),
182 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

hospe mullet (Mugil hospes; lisa), swordspine snook (Centropomus ensiferus;

robalo) and the blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus and C. danae; portúnidos) were
among the main species of bycatch. This is a small-scale fishery, which is carried
out year-round except during closure, in February and March (Decree 3546-73).
The landings ranged between 125 and 200 tonnes between 1963 and 1980
(Fisheries Development Limited, 1980), and according to recent data the average
catch between 1992 and 2003 has been 184 tonnes with important fluctuations
(SERCM, 2004). This amount is smaller than the production figures (400 tonnes)
resulting from aquaculture in other regions of the country (FAO, 2001).

Queen conch fishery

The queen conch (Strombus gigas) fishery occurs all along the Dominican Republic
platform. This is a highly valued resource that represents between 6% and 16%
of the national fisheries value. The queen conch fishery is linked to the platform
areas with sea grass and algae, where juveniles and adults are especially abundant.
These areas are located in the southeast of La Altagracia (Delgado et al., 1998;
Chiappone, 2001), Montecristi (Geraldes et al., 1998) and particularly Pedernales,
where most of the landings of the Dominican Republic take place (Appeldoorn,
1993; Tejeda, 1995, 1995b; Posada et al., 1999, 2000). Nevertheless, the queen
conch is under strong fishing pressure along the whole Dominican Republic
platform up to a depth of 30 m, as well as on the oceanic banks.
This is a small-scale fishery that takes place year-round. The fishery’s main
commercial target is the domestic market (fresh or frozen), with a high tourism
demand. Queen conch production in the last 12 years (1992–2003) has fluctuated
between a minimum of 1 200 tonnes in 1999 and a maximum of 3 000 tonnes
in 1992, with an average of approximately 2 000 tonnes. The export figures in
2000 were around 300 tonnes (SERCM, 2004). Because diving is the method of
harvesting, there is no bycatch in this fishery.

Coral reef fishery

The coastal reef fishery takes place on the coral reefs along the entire Dominican
Republic platform, up to 30 m of depth. The main fishing locations are the wide
platform areas with relevant coastal reef ecosystems, including barrier reefs (with
the typical ecological zoning from the reef lagoons to the deepest frontal reef),
fringe and patch reefs. Reef fishery studies have been conducted on the platforms
of Montecristi (Luczkovich, 1991; Geraldes et al., 1998), Puerto Plata (Betancourt
and Herrera, 2004), María Trinidad Sánchez (Decena and Díaz, 1982), Samaná
(Sang et al., 1997), La Altagracia (León et al., 1995; Schmitt, 1998; Chiappone
et al., 2000; Chiappone, 2001), Santo Domingo (Geraldes et al., 1997), Azua
(Bouchon et al., 1995), Barahona (Aquino and Infante, 1994; Beck and Colom,
1994; Beck et al., 1994; Schirm, 1995, 1995a; Tejeda et al., 1995) and Pedernales
(Schirm, 1995, 1995a; Reveles et al., 1997). Reef fish and invertebrates are under
strong fishing pressure on the whole Dominican Republic platform, as well as in
the shallow areas of the oceanic banks.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 183

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

absence of the fish in the Puerto Plata, Santo Domingo and Punta Cana reefs. This
impact is increased by the overexploitation of fish and invertebrate species for the
artisanal market that is induced by tourism.

Deep-sea fishery in the platform border

In some areas of the Dominican Republic platform, a deep-sea fishery is undertaken
beneath the slope, at 100 to 500 m of depth. The most important areas are
documented by exploratory fisheries, and they coincide with the areas where the
platform narrows and 100-m depth can be reached a short distance from the coast
by an artisanal boat. Examples of these areas are the Bahía de Neiba in Barahona
(Aquino, 1994; Colom, 1994; Colom and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Infante, 1995;
Tejeda and Feliz, 1995), around Isla Beata and Alto Velo, in Pedernales (Schirm,
1995b), and the north and east coast of the Península de Samaná (Sang et al., 1997;
Arima, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c).
The fishery is directed for Lutjanidae and Serranidae, in particular to seven
species that could account for 80% of the catch. Such species are (listed according
to their importance): cardinal snapper (Pristipomoides macrophtalmus; roamo),
silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus; chillo), blackfin snapper (L. bucanella; chillo
oreja negra), vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens; besugo), queen
snapper (Etelis oculatus; boral), and the misty yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus
mystacinus; meros) and yellowedge grouper (E. flavolimbatus; meros). Every
exploratory deep-sea fishery and catch analysis shows that these are the dominant
species by weight in the catch; however, the percentages of the species may vary
according to the location, depth and fishing gear.
CFRM (2004) indicates another set of species as representative to the deep-
sea fishery. They are: snappers (Apsilus dentatus, Lutjanus apodus, L. mahagoni,
and L. analis); and groupers (Epinephelus adscensionis, E. guttatus, E. striatus
and E. morio). These species are typical of more shallow waters; however, their
distribution pattern does allow for them to be caught in the deep-sea fishery,
though they are not dominant. Similarly, L. synagris, L. campechanus, Verilus
sordidus, Mycteroperca venenosa and Cephalopholis cruentata have been reported
in exploratory deep-sea fisheries. Traps, handlines and bottom longlines are the
fishing gear used in this fishery.
There are more than 20 species reported as bycatch in the deep-sea fishery.
The species belong to the families: Branchiostegidae, Brotulidae, Carangidae,
Congridae, Holocentridae, Labridae, Mullidae, Muraenidae, Ophycthidae,
Polimyxidae, Sciaenidae, Sparidae and Synodontidae. The deep-sea fishery also
reports catches of shark: Carcharinus limbatus and Mustelus canis (Colom, 1994).
Traps capture most of the accidental fish species (belonging to 12 families), as well
as crabs (Carpilius coralinus) and lobsters. In deep waters, most of the catch is
composed by large species. This is a small-scale fishery that applies fishing effort
year-round, and it seems to be spatially allocated in seasonal spawning areas that
are well known by fishers.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 185

Deep-sea fishery on the ocean banks

There are two ocean banks in the Dominican Republic marine territory: La
Navidad and La Plata, as well as other small banks in the north. The ocean bank
fishery shares many species with the deep-sea fishery on the inshore platform.
Nevertheless, this work separates the ocean bank fishery from the deep-sea fishery
since it is undertaken more than 90 miles from land, which makes it inaccessible
to most artisanal fishers. In fact, FAO (2001) considers the ocean bank fishery
as a semi-industrial fishery, in which boats with decks, diesel engines, freezing
equipment and ice storage, and 5 to 25 crew members, make 7- to 10-day trips
to the ocean banks. Kawaguchi (1974) carried out the first exploratory fishery
in the La Navidad Bank, and indicated the relevance of species such as Etelis
oculatus and Pristipomoides macrophtalmus. Later papers by Arima (1997, 1998–
1998b, 1999–1999b) reported 16 species and defined Lutjanus vivanus, Lutjanus
bucanella, and Epinephelus mystacinus as key species other than those reported
by Kawaguchi (1974). Puerto Plata and Samaná are departure ports, and bottom
longline and handline are the fishing gear used in this year-round fishery, which
can be limited by the hurricane season.

Pelagic fishery or fish aggregating device (FAD) fishery

The pelagic fishery occurs along the south coast, particularly in the provinces of
Barahona (Lee and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Tejeda, 1995; Reyes and Melo, 2004),
San Pedro de Macorís (Schirm, 1995b), Samaná (León, 1996; Sang et al., 1997)
and the north region. The main species are yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares),
little tunny (Euthynnus alleteratus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), skipjack tuna
(Katsuwomis pelamis), mackerels (Scomberomorus sp.), wahoo (Acanthocybium
solandri), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) and Atlantic sailfish (Istiphorus
albicans). Sharks are also accidentally caught in this fishery.
This is a seasonal small-scale artisanal fishery. Nevertheless, since it targets
many species (most of them are migratory species), the fishery occurs year-
round, depending on resource availability. SERCM (2004) considered the pelagic
fishery as a developing fishery that produced 227 tonnes in 2003. Rainbow runner
(Elegatis bipinnulatus; macarela), jack (Seriola sp.; blanquilla) and barracuda
(Sphyraena barracuda; picúa) are non-target species; nonetheless, they are caught
and consumed.

Sport fishery
Since 1998, the sport fishery is undertaken in the coastal regions of Bávaro,
Cabeza de Toro, Punta Cana, Boca de Yuma, Santo Domingo, La Romana and
Montecristi. This activity is run by nautical clubs and it can be part of the tourist
activities offered by hotels and resorts. Among the main nautical clubs which
organize annual fishing contests in the Dominican Republic are the Club Náutico
de Santo Domingo, located in Boca Chica, which has branches in Cabeza de Toro
and Boca de Yuma, the Club Náutico de Haina, Club Caza y Pesca de La Romana
and Club Náutico de Montecristi, as well as Marina de Chavón (SERCM, 2004).
186 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

This is a seasonal sport activity. The main species are the blue marlin (Makaira
nigricans; marlin azul) and the white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus; marlin blanco),
though other species can be included in this fishery. The white marlin is usually
caught about 8 to 10 nautical miles from the coast, at 40 to 100 m depth. The
fishing season for this species runs from the end of April until the end of July.
The best fishing area for blue marlin is located 32 nautical miles from Punta Cana,
on the Pichincho Bank, Canal de la Mona. This species is generally distributed in
deeper waters, generally at 70 m of depth. The fishing season starts in June and
continues until the end of August. There are no official catch statistics for these
species. Tourism promotional Web sites offer some sporadic data. For example, in
2003 during 28 fishing days, 46 white marlins and 10 blue marlins were reported
to be caught and released (Just Us, 2006).

Pelagic coastal fishery

CFRM (2004) refers to the pelagic coastal fishery that occurs particularly on
the sea grass bottom in reef lagoons. Target species are numerous, and they
belong to a wide range of families: Carangidae (jacks), Atherinidae (silversides),
Hemiramphidae (balyhoo), Sciaenidae (drums), Sphyraenidae (juvenile barracuda),
Gerridae (mojarra), Clupeidae (herrings), Centropomidae (snooks) and Engraulidae
(anchovies). The last four families are related to outflows of fresh water to the
coast, where Mugilidae (mullet) is also caught. The pelagic coastal fishery catches
some juvenile sharks as well, such as bull, blackfin, hammerhead, nurse, reef and
lemon sharks.
The fishery occurs year-round, catching both target and incidental species
with gillnets, casting nets, hook-and-line, and occasionally traps. CFRM (2004)
indicates that the most abundant species in terms of volume of catch are Caranx
bartholomaei, with a mean annual catch of 176.20 tonnes, and Caranx hippox with
a mean annual catch of 143.68 tonnes. However, in the case of the species used for
baits, such as sardines and machuelos (Opisthonema oglinum), the exact volume of
catch is unknown, though they can reach high values. The pelagic coastal fishery
is considered a moderately exploited fishery; nonetheless, there are no data to
conduct a complete assessment. The fish stocks could also be affected by coastal
pollution. The fishery is unregulated.

Diamond squid fishery

The diamond squid fishery started in 2001 in the Dominican Republic under the
direction of the Japanese expert Tsinchichi Arima. The fishery was undertaken
on-board of the Guarionex ship, donated by the Japanese government to the
Centro de Desarrollo Pesquero (CEDEP/Fishing Development Center), in
Samaná (SERCM, 2004). The target species is the diamond squid (Thysanoteuthis
rhombus), which is an oceanic epipelagic species whose mantle can reach a length
of 1 m and weight of 20 kg. The species distribution area covers the tropical and
subtropical waters in the world. Fishing depth ranges between 300 and 750 m, and
the main fishing site is three miles off the coast, to the east of El Francés, on the
east coast of the Samaná Peninsula. The diamond squid is fished with a special line
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 187

for squids (squid dropline fishing). This is an artisanal seasonal small-scale fishery
in the early stages of development. The fishing seasons are not clearly defined
since the diamond squid’s oceanic migration patterns are practically unknown.
The Subsecretaría de Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos (State Subsecretariat
of Coastal and Marine Resources) indicates that the diamond squid fishery could
develop into the most important fishery in the near future (SERCM, 2004).

Mangrove crab fishery

Many species of crab are caught in the mangrove areas of the Dominican Republic,
which occupy 260 km2. The mangrove crab fishery is more relevant in the provinces
that have the largest mangrove ecosystems, particularly in Samaná, Montecristi,
Pedernales and La Altagracia, which total almost 70% of the mangroves in the
Dominican Republic. The target species are blue land crab (Cardisoma guanhumi;
paloma de cueva), swamp ghost crab (Ucides cordatus; zumbá) and black mountain
crab (Gecarcinus ruricola; cangrejo moro), with 2003 catches of 77.83, 28.49, and
33.01 tonnes, respectively.
Though these crab species are highly commercialized and consumed throughout
the country, the mangrove crab fishery has never been reported among the
Dominican Republic fisheries. Nevertheless, its relevance is acknowledged since
this is the most regulated fishery in the country, with seven Presidential Decrees in
37 years (Ramírez and Silva, 1994). The regulations address key fishing-biological
issues, such as the prohibition to catch females (Decrees 1345-67 and 2515-72);
restriction to the legal minimum length; closures (Decrees 2945-72, 976-79 and
317-86); fishing prohibitions (Decree 1867-76); and the national closure of five
years from 1996 to 2000 (Decree 68-96).

Ornamental fish and invertebrate fishery

SERCM (2004) groups this fishery together with the coral reef fishery because
the fishing occurs basically in the same environment. However, we considered
addressing the ornamental fishery independently since: (a) the objective of the
fishery is not consumption, but commercialization in aquariums; (b) the target
species are small and colourful fish and invertebrate species, which do not have
commercial value for consumption; (c) fishing is undertaken manually, with small
bully nets and traps; and (d) currently the fishery is located only in the country’s
northwestern region, in the Montecristi Province. The ornamental fishery is a
commercial medium-scale fishery undertaken by a small number of fishers and for
which there is no precise statistical control in place.
The export of ornamental fish started in the 1980s, and currently is distributed
exclusively among three companies (Tropical Seas, Petrosa S.A., Montecristi
Export y Puerto Libertador S.A.), which direct the fishery to 30 species of
ornamental fish and a similar number of marine invertebrates. The companies
export to international markets, mainly the United States. The amount of
reef species caught is not accurately known, though it has been estimated at
205 901 animals between 1996 and 2001, averaging 34 316 animals per year and
56 317 animals in 2003 (SERCM, 2004), indicating a substantial increasing trend.
188 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

The families represented in the catch are predominantly Apogonidae, Balistidae,

Chaetodontidae, Diodontidae, Grammidae, Haemulidae, Labridae, Ostracidae,
Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Sciaenidae, Syngnatidae and Tetrodontidae.
SECRM (2004) indicates that the species with highest catch volume are: blue
chromis (Chromis cyanea; cromis azul) and Royal gramma (Gramma loreto;
gramma real), but the Centro de Investigaciones de Biología Marina (CIBIMA)
had reported other species that even today are still caught, such as Sergeant Major
(Abudefduf saxatilis; sargento mayor), cardinal fish (Apogon binotatus; cardenal),
banded butterflyfish (Chaetodon striatus; banderita), porcupine fish (Diodon
hystrix; guanábana), spotted drum (Equetus punctatus; obispos) and jacknife fish
(E. lanceolatus; obispos), small mouth grunt (Haemulon chrysargyreum; bocayate),
slippery dick (Halichoeres bivitattus; doncella), rock beauty (Holacanthus tricolor;
guinea), spotted boxfish (Lactophrys bicaudalis; pez cofre), blue head wrasse
(Thalassoma bifasciatum; cabeza azul) and slender seahorse (Hyppocampus
reidi; caballito de mar) (CIBIMA, 1994). All these species are protected by the
Ley Sectorial de Biodiversidad (Biodiversity Sectorial Law) (USAID, 2002),
in particular the slender seahorse which is on the Lista Roja (Red List) of the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
CFRM (2004) indicates that statistical data also report the export of black coral,
anemones, crabs, bivalves, gastropods, polychaetes, starfish, sea cucumbers and
other invertebrates. The extraction of these resources can affect the equilibrium of
coral reefs; however, there are no studies on this subject. Moreover, the country is
losing a valuable source of organisms with bioactive substances, which are highly
valued in the international market. The extraction and commercialization of these
resources is regulated by Decree 318-86.

2.2. Fishing activity

Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)
Lobster is caught along the Dominican Republic platform by artisanal fishery
methods. The main fishing gear is trap. The trap could be made of chicken wire
or plant fiber (Haitian traps). Most of the lobster fishing traps have a mesh size
of 24 mm (if they are made of wire), and 41 mm (if they are Haitian traps). None
of these traps have escape vents or biodegradable panels. The mesh used in the
current traps catch lobsters of 35 to 45 mm carapace length, although 80 mm
carapace length is the minimum legal size. This explains the high percentage of
sublegal lobsters in shallow fishing areas on sea grass (in or close to nursery areas),
which can reach 90% in Pedernales and Samaná.
Average crew size is two men fishing in small wooden boats called cayucos
(2.9 to 6.4 m in length), wooden or fibreglass boats called yolas (3 to 7 m in
length), or small boats called botes (5.5 to 8.4 m in length). Fishers set 10 to
100 traps, mainly on the sea grass bottom, between 1 and 30 m of depth, for
3 to 13 days. Some lobsters are caught by free diving (between 1 and 10 m),
or with a compressor (up to 30 m) using hooks or harpoons. Occasionally,
lobsters are caught with gillnets.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 189

About 40% of the fishers at national level target lobster exclusively (SERCM,
2004). Therefore, it is estimated that 3 360 fishers and more than 1 500 boats are
concentrated in this fishery. Thus, the remaining 60% of fishers may catch lobster
incidentally; however, they still land and consume or commercialize their catch. It
is a fact that the growing and uncontrolled fishing effort on the lobster resource
and unsustainable fishing practices have caused a significant decrease in the catch,
a disappearance of commercial-sized lobster, and an extinction of lobster in some
regions (Herrera and Betancourt, 2003, 2003e).

White shrimp (Litopenaeus schmitti)

The white shrimp is caught in the Samaná Bay using 250 casting nets and
350 trawls, which operate from 387 cayucos (small boats) and an average crew
of two men. About 933 fishers participate in this fishery (SERCM, 2004). Even
though the resource is overexploited, the high prices and the tourism demand have
resulted in increased fishing effort despite decreasing catches.
There are no biological fishery studies on the white shrimp, and the stock
(already overexploited) has never been assessed. Sang et al. (1997) measured
492 shrimps and indicated an average of 35 mm for the cephalotorax length of white
shrimp (113 mm of total length). There is a clear lack of biological information on
this resource, whose life cycle in the bay has never been studied, as well as a lack
of information on gear selectivity and exploitation levels.

Queen conch (Strombus gigas)

Queen conch is the most important resource in the Dominican Republic. The
queen conch fishery is completely artisanal; catches are obtained manually, by free
diving or diving with an air compressor on the sea grass marine bottom. It occurs
in up to 33 m of depth. Crew members are two free divers, or three divers, if the
diving is done with compressor. The fishery is undertaken with cayucos, or boats
(yolas), whose exact number is unknown. The number of divers is also unknown.
The fishery is regulated by Decree 312-86, which establishes the minimum legal
fishing size at 25 cm of siphon length; and Decree 833-03, which establishes the
annual closure of the fishery from 1 July to 31 October. However, there is no
effective control of the fishery. In fact, the resource is overexploited in the whole
country, and the reports of sublegal juveniles in catches can reach 90% (Tejeda,
1995). The species is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (UNEP-WCMC,
2006), and export permits have been temporarily suspended to protect the
species.

Grouper (Serranidae)
There are about 30 species of the Serranidae family in the Dominican Republic
reef and deep-sea fishery (Silva, 1994; Sang et al., 1997). Cepalopholis fulva,
C. ruentatus (graysby), Epinephelus guttatus and E. striatus (Nassau grouper) are
reported in practically all reef fishery areas, while Epinephelus mystacinus and
190 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

E. flavolimbatus (yellowedge grouper) are reported in the deep-sea fishery on the

platform border and the oceanic banks. In the case of the reef fishery, Serranidae
are caught by handline, traps (made of wire of fibre, similar to the lobster fishery),
or diving. In the deep-sea fishery, the fishing gear are longlines, handlines and
type-Z traps that are 2.30 m long, 1.80 m wide and 0.55 m high, made with chicken
wire with a maximum mesh size of 0.37 cm, and using sardines as bait.
The Serranidae catch reached 6 605 tonnes between 1992 and 2001, with an
annual average of 657 tonnes. In terms of catch volume, the main species was
E. adcensionis with an annual average of 521 tonnes, equivalent to 79% of the
total catch of Serranidae (SERCM, 2004). Non-discriminatory fishing, paired
with the lack of effective regulations, has caused many Serranidae species to be in
a critical state in some regions of the country. Studies in Samaná (Sang et al., 1997)
reveal that all reef species are being caught before reaching maturity. Data from
La Altagracia indicate that the intensive exploitation on the reef manifests itself
through population decreases, as well as decreases in species composition and size.
Currently, the dominant species in terms of number and biomass are small-sized
species such as C. cruentatus (graysby) and C. fulva (coney) (Chiappone et al.,
2000), which are no larger than 35 cm (Schmitt, 1998).
There are no studies addressing the state of the Serranidae family species that
are targeted in the deep-sea fishery. Thus, high exploitation on the reproductive
stocks could be occurring, especially in the spawning areas where they aggregate.
The Serranidae family is protected only by Decree 2099-84, which prohibits
fishing during the spawning season, but the Decree does not clarify dates or
species that are to be protected.

Snapper (Lutjanidae)
There are about 16 Lutjanidae species caught in the reef and deep-sea fishery
(Silva, 1994; Sang et al., 1997). Lutjanus analis, L. griseus, L. synagris and
Ocyurus chrysurus are reported in practically every reef fishery, while L. vivanus,
L. bucanella, Etelis oculatus, Pristipomoides macrophtalmus and Rhomboplites
aurorubens are reported in the deep-sea fishery on the platform border and the
oceanic banks. The Lutjanidae family is caught with the same fishing gear as the
Serranidae family: handlines, traps or diving in the reef fishery, and longline,
handline and traps in the deep-sea fishery.
Lutjanidae catches from 1992 to 2003 fluctuated from a minimum of 800 tonnes
in 1997 to a maximum of 3 000 tonnes in 2003 (SERCM, 2004), with an annual
average of 1 600 tonnes. Like Serranidae, biological fishery studies reveal that most
of the Lutjanidae species caught in the reef fishery are smaller than their size at
maturity. This group is not protected by any specific regulation.

Other demersal fish

The reef fishery catches over 70 species of fish that belong to the families
Acanthuridae, Balistidae, Haemulidae, Holocentridae, Labridae, Pomacanthidae,
Pomacentridae, Scaridae and Sparidae, from which there is almost no information
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 191

on the catches. However, Chiappone et al. (2000) data from ecological studies on
La Altagracia reef indicate that the intensive fishery has changed the abundance
ranges, density and size of the parrotfish in the region, as the most abundant
species (Scarus taeniopterus, Sparisoma aurofrenatum and Scarus croicensis) have
sizes that do not exceed 30 cm in length. Schmitt (1998) shows the same low
density and small-size situation in the Haemulidae commercial species. Sang et al.
(1997) data in Samaná are consistent with these examples.

Pelagic resources
Pelagic resources are comprised of a large group of tuna, bonito and albacore,
mackerel (Scomberomorus sp.), wahoo, dolphinfish and sailfish. These species are
caught in the sport fishery and in the pelagic fishery or by using FADs. The fishery
can be undertaken with longline, gillnet, trolling and live baiting fishing (viveo),
with or without rafts. There are no regulations to control the pelagic fishery.
Pelagic fish catches increased from 2001 to 2003, reaching 217 tonnes (SERCM,
2004). This is attributed to the improvement of fishing technology and the use of
rafts, as well as the fishers’ sailing capacities, which allow them to work in areas
further from the coast.
In terms of the exploitation of the pelagic species by the sport fishery, and by
national or international tourist fishers, there are no official statistics. However,
it is estimated that there are between 1 000 and 1 500 sport fishers, and about
250 boats of every size, and that more than 3 000 tourists request sport fishery
services in Bávaro, El Cortecito, Macao, Punta Cana and Cabeza de Toro
(SERCM, 2004).

Diamond squid (Thysanoteuthis rhombus)

Diamond squid is caught from boats with a three-man crew by dropline fishing.
Currently, only 20 fishers, 6 boats and 12 types of fishing gear are involved in the
diamond squid fishery. Catches per boat can reach up to four or five squids a day
(E. Fermín, personal communication). SERCM (2004) indicates that in 2003 the
diamond squid experimental catch was estimated at 2 tonnes. The average weight
per squid was about 13 kg. There have not been any biological fishery studies for
this species, whose reproduction, feeding and migratory patterns are unknown
(Kazunari et al., 2001).

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

3.1 Fishers’ characteristics
The last SERCM (2004) census showed that the total number of fishers in the
Dominican Republic was 8 399 (Table 2). Also, there are about 46 500 people
indirectly employed in activities related to the fishery (SERCM, 2004).
192 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 2
Number of fishers, landing sites and boats per coastal province

Coastal province Landing sites Number of fishers Number of boats

Montecristi 8 612 225

Puerto Plata 19 1 232 342

Espaillat 4 105 48

María Trinidad Sánchez 13 435 170

Samaná 37 2 514 1 082

Hato Mayor 6 402 259

El Seibo 5 309 138

La Altagracia 10 185 143

La Romana 7 255 148

San Pedro de Macorís 8 318 185

Santo Domingo 4 228 128

San Cristóbal 4 160 57

Peravia 8 376 135

Azua 7 387 180

Barahona 13 432 192

Pedernales 12 449 229

Total 165 8 399 3 661

Source: Based on SERCM fishing census data (2004).

Most of the fishers are not dedicated full time to fishing. The Centro para la
Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, Inc. (CEBSE,
1994) reports that in Samaná only 27% of fishers are exclusively dedicated to
fishing. Other income activities are carpentry (6%), street/beach vending (2%),
and agriculture (46%). Agriculture can be undertaken simultaneously with fishing
activities. In Montecristi, 80% of coastal fishers are full-time fishers (Luperón,
1998). The percentage of fishers who are dedicated full time to fishing is related to
the economic benefits of the activity. Overexploitation of resources has resulted
in more and more fishers looking into alternative economical activities, making
tourism (direct or indirect) related activities one of the most relevant options.
Fishing in the Dominican Republic is primarily artisanal, and it is undertaken
almost exclusively by men. Very few women participate directly in this activity
on-board, since working conditions are very hard and work can last the whole
day. Women participate in cleaning of fish and its commercialization, either
fresh or processed (fried). Also, many women’s associations are oriented to the
aquaculture of fish in tanks (Nolasco, 2000).
At the national level, artisanal fishers show loyalty to their fishing grounds,
and are generally very territorial. For example, the CEBSE (1994) reports that
93% of Samaná fishers were born in the province. Historically, fishing has been
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 193

recognized as an important traditional family economic activity. Moreover, there

are family names that have been linked to the exploitation of certain fishery
resources for many years.
In Montecristi, 22% of fishers have been fishing in the area for more than
25 years. However, there is also a migratory population that lives between
different communities, fishing during specific times of the year and linking their
fishing activity to seasonal species such as wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)
(Luperón, 1998). In Samaná, 40% of fishers have been fishing for more than
20 years (Silva and Aquino, 1993). This indicates the existence of a permanent
fishing population that carries out a significative historical traditional fishery.

3.2 Social and economic aspects

The socio-economic studies of the fishery sector are fragmented, rare, and more
descriptive than quantitative. The most recent national artisanal fishery censuses
(Colom et al., 1994; SERCM, 2004) include only the number of fishers, fishing
sites, fishing gear and boats, but do not address education or any other social and
economic aspects of the sector. In general, it is understood that fishers have a low
education level; however, the actual data are provided by local studies. Luperón
(1998) indicates that 72% of the Montecristi fishers have completed primary
studies, 18% secondary studies and 7.2% are illiterate. The workforce in the
fishery has a very low educational level and a high illiteracy rate, and no fishers
with any university level of education. CEBSE (1994) reports that 64% of fishers
have primary educational level, 11.2% secondary level and 0.2% has reached
some kind of technical or university level; 24.4% of fishers are illiterate. Only
approximately 50% of fishers have some elementary educational level (SERCM,
2004).
In terms of the fishers’ family structure, CEBSE (1994) is the only source of
information available in Samaná, which reports between 3 and 6 people in the
household, with an average of 5 people. There are households with a significantly
higher number of members, reaching 12 or 13; however, these cases represent
less than 1% of the total households. We have not been able to find information
on family planning or family members’ roles. It is known, however, that fishing
activity has a family tradition in the Dominican Republic.
Unfortunately, national artisanal fisher censuses (Colom et al., 1994; SERCM,
2004) do not include economic income data. Therefore, the available information
is scattered, dated and narrowly focused. In Montecristi, in the northwest area
of the country, 58% of coastal fishers received a monthly income that fluctuated
between RD$500 and RD$1 000, which was below the national minimum salary
established by the government; 22% received income between RD$1 000 and
RD$1 500; and 20% between RD$1 500 and RD$4 000 (Luperón, 1998). In
Barahona, González et al. (1995) estimated fishers’ average monthly income as less
than RD$500. SERCM (2002) recently indicated that the average monthly income
in this area was RD$3 000, and RD$4 000 in Azua. One United States dollar is
equivalent to 37 RD pesos.
194 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

CEBSE (1994) shows age structural data of the Samaná fishers grouped by less
than 20 years (8%), from 20 to 30 years (32%), from 30 to 40 years (28%), from 40
to 50 years (16%), from 50 to 60 years (11%), and more than 60 years (5%). These
numbers are similar to the Montecristi data, where 71.2% of the workforce in the
fishery is between 20 and 50 years old, with values of 29.6% and 23.2% for the age
groups of 20 to 30 years and 40 to 50 years, respectively (Luperón, 1998).
With regard to the quality of life of fishers, the information available for the
south region (González et al., 1994, 1995a, 1995b) and north region (CEBSE,
1994; Luperón, 1998), as well as the authors’ experiences with fishing communities
in the whole country, show that the majority of the fishing sector lacks the
appropriate basic living infrastructure, medical care and education. The low
educational level, low income (that must be distributed among large families), and
the total dependence on fish buyers and processors are the main causes of poverty
in the fishery, which has never been eradicated by any official programme.

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

4.1 Community organization
Nationally, it is recognized that fishers’ organizational levels are low, and
generally occur circumstantially under the influence of a local leader who typically
then becomes an entrepreneur. In Samaná, CEBSE (1994) reports that 81% of
fishers are not organized, 16% participate in some kind of association, 2% in
cooperatives, and 1% are unionized. In Montecristi, Luperón (1998) comments
on the current absence of organizations, and explains that the heterogeneity of
occupations and interests make it difficult to create an organizational structure that
responds to the collective interests of the sector. There have been many attempts to
create cooperatives, which have received fishing gear, boats, refrigerating systems,
vehicles and technical assistance; however, the absence of fiscal policies and
resource mismanagement have damaged the institutionalization and sustainability
of these endeavors, whose goods ended up in private entrepreneurs’ hands.
Nevertheless, in other regions of the country there are fishing organizations that
are strong locally. They define themselves as associations or cooperative groups,
though they do not differ much from each other in their organizational structure
and functioning. Some organizations are simply collaborative groups with a few
members united by working relationships and common problems. On the other
hand, there are some organized associations with Memorandums of Understanding,
administrative and accounting registry, and associated economic and social
achievements. We have not found a national registry of these organizations; thus,
Table 3 has been constructed on the basis of our field experience.
The engagement of fishers and community in co-management at the national
level seems limited. Mateo et al. (2000) offers an example of a co-management
experience by Jaragua Group, an NGO that works in Pedernales region, with the
design of a joint programme for fishing in Oviedo Lagoon. However, the pioneer
for fishing resources co-management strategies with fishers is Centro para la
Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno (CEBSE), an
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 195

NGO that works in Samaná region (Lamelas, 1997). NGOs have been the only
successful initiators for co-management of fishing resources with fishers in the
Dominican Republic. This has not been the case with governmental institutions,
even though they are responsible for promoting co-management work.

TABLE 3
Some of the fishing organizations in the Dominican Republic

Coastal province Site Fishing organization

Azua Puerto Viejo Asociaciones El Progreso y Centolla (association)

Puerto Viejo Grupo Cooperativo Pedro Tejeda (group)

Puerto Viejo Asociación San Rafael (association)

Barahona Barahona Grupo Manatí (group)

La Altagracia Boca del Yuna Cooperativa de Pescadores de Boca de Yuma (coop.)

Puerto Plata Luperón Asociación de Pescadores de Luperón (association)

Samaná Sánchez Asociación de Pescadores de la Fe (association)

Samaná Cooperativa del Golfo de la Flecha (coop.)

Asociación de Pescadores Unidos de Las Terrenas

Las Terrenas
(association)

Asociación de Pescadores de Las Pascualas, El Valle y

Las Pascualas
La Majagua (association)
San Cristóbal Nigua Asociación de Pescadores de Nigua (association)

San Pedro de Macorís San Pedro Asociación de Pescadores del Parque (association)

As part of the strategy to integrate all social sectors in the co-management

process, CEBSE created programmes for organizing the fishing sector that
includes a diagnostic study for the sector. By a participative process that included
hundreds of persons, CEBSE managed to identify the main problems, recommend
policies, and suggest the people or groups of people who should be involved in
the problem-solving process. CEBSE (1996) offers an integrated management
plan for Samaná region that includes concrete actions to address the fishing sector
problems with the participation of state stakeholders (Samaná Municipality),
control stakeholders (Navy), financial stakeholders (Fishing Commerce and
Agricultural Bank), educational stakeholders (CEDEP) and fishing stakeholders
(independent fishers and associations).

4.2 Fishers’ interactions with other sectors

The Dominican Republic coastal zone has tourism, ports and industry as priority
uses, with tourism being the most influential activity on the fishing sector. From
a socio-economic and cultural point of view, this new industry has established
itself in the middle of villages that have traditionally lived on coastal resources,
resulting in use conflicts, changing demographic patterns, and increasing the
196 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

impact of human activities on coastal ecosystems. Tourism increased the range of

impacts in coastal areas by developing new uses (to satisfy tourism demand) or by
introducing non-sustainable practices.
The fishing sector’s interaction with other sectors that use the coastal zone is not
documented in any published work. The information provided in this work derives
from the authors’ experiences, as well as some isolated data from environmental
impact studies and public consultation, which analyse the fishing sector as part of
the socio-economic realm. For example, interaction with the tourism sector has
been negative in the east and northeast, where tourism development has impacted
the fishing sector. The negative impact of tourism manifests itself through the
physical exclusion of the coastal zone (fishing villages and landing sites) and the
marine zone (traditional fishing areas). Also, in many cases, tourism development
is responsible for the relocation of fishers to sites far away from the fishing areas,
causing fishers to look for other economic alternatives that are foreign to their
traditions. In other cases, fishers have incorporated the possibilities that tourism
offers, increasing the exploitation of highly demanded species such as lobster
and queen conch. One of the worst consequences of these new practices is the
extraction of reef species for handicrafts, which are sold to tourists in hotels or
at shops on the beach. More than 50 invertebrate and fish species are involved in
these practices, most of them protected by national and international laws. Many
of these species are key species of the ecosystem and, furthermore, relevant for the
maintenance of its biological equilibrium. It is also clear that overfishing of marine
organisms results from the high demand of these species in tourist centres.
Another antagonistic factor between the fishing and tourism sectors is the
destruction and contamination of fishing sites due to nautical and subaquatic
activities, which are carried out without any educational environmental approach.
This is common in diving enterprises, which are concessionaries of tourist hotels
in Puerto Plata, Bávaro or San Pedro de Macorís. Most of these problems have
arisen due to the lack of national policies in territorial planning and integrated
coastal management, even though there are many proposals with regard to the
latter that have not been pursued, such as the most recent CFRM (2004) proposal.
Impacts from diving also occur during non-regulated excursions, which are
undertaken with no environmental educational purposes.
Resorts established mainly in coastal areas have now been globalized, with
change as well in the fishing village culture that was so attractive to tourists when
tourism began its development in the Dominican Republic. Currently, we find a
mix of behaviours and lifestyles that have forgotten, and in many cases neglect, the
cultural values that have taken hundreds of years to develop (ABT, 2002).
There are some examples where the fishing and tourism sectors have been
able to share the use of the coastal zone. In Bayahibe, La Romana, some fishers
managed to integrate into the local tourism sector via an economically beneficial
maritime transportation system for tourists. In the Bahía de Luperón (Luperón
Bay) in Puerto Plata, the Marina Tropical Luperón (Luperón Tropical Marine)
prioritized jobs for local fishers (Betancourt and Herrera, 2004).
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 197

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
As a starting point, we should make clear that biological fisheries studies have
basically taken a descriptive approach in the Dominican Republic; and traditional
stock assessment methods that are based on size frequency analysis, estimation
of mortality and growing parameters, cohort analysis, fishing gear selectivity,
predictive modelling and others have been absent. In fact, most of the references
in this report relate to works that have addressed population dynamics in a general
manner, or simply have addressed general biological or ecological aspects of
valued fishing species.
This is understandable when considering that most of the development of this
activity has occurred outside the academic realm, without official support, and
with a major autodidactic component. In fact, 75% of the national researchers’
works that are cited in the Reference section belong to biologists working
independently in NGOs. State subsidized academic institutions have had a smaller
influence in the development of fishery biology, due mainly to the fact that their
work has been directed to basic research; while independent organizations, which
require financial support from international organizations for their projects,
need to present applied research proposals with participation and benefits to the
communities.
Only a few works have attempted to obtain production estimates in Barahona
and Pedernales (Infante and Silva, 1994; Schirm, 1995; Silva, 1995) and Bahía
de Samaná (Samaná Bay) (Silva and Aquino, 1994; Herrera, 2000), but they are
isolated efforts. One of the main problems for fishery research in the Dominican
Republic is the lack of stock assessments. As part of the Proyecto Propescar Sur
(Propescar Sur Project), Schirm (1995) estimated some population parameters for
four relevant fishing resources in Pedernales (Table 4), though we have not found
more information on this matter.

TABLE 4
Basic population parameters for some resources in the Dominican Republic

Males Females Combined

Species Measure
 k  k  k

Panulirus argus 21 0.24 19.5 0.28 – – CL (cm)

Haemulon plumieri – – – – 42 0.34 FL (cm)

Pseudopeneus maculatus 27 0.70 25 0.35 – – FL (cm)

Lutjanus synagris – – – – 45 0.23 FL (cm)

Source: Estimated by Schirm (1995) using FISAT Programme.

Note: L∞ = maximum length; k + parameter of curvature (from von Bertalanffy growth model).
198 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Fisheries Development Limited (1980) was responsible for one of the most
comprehensive fishery plans in the Dominican Republic. Based on acoustic
and exploratory research on the platform over one year, Fisheries Development
Limited estimated the annual maximum fishing production. According to its
results, the fishing resources on the platform (up to 200 m) and on the oceanic
banks Navidad and La Plata had the annual sustainable production capacity
shown in Table 5, with 1.8 tonnes/km2 of yield per year.

TABLE 5
Annual sustainable production capacity tonnes of the fishing resources on the platform
and oceanic banks

Extension
Demersal Pelagic Total
(km²)

Platform (200 to 500 m) 3 400 1 500 – 1 500

Platform (up to 200 m) 8 000 10 738 3 439 14 177

Oceanic banks 4 500 6 325 1 810 8 135

Total 12 500 18 563 5 249 238 012

Source: Based on Fisheries Development Limited (1980) and Giudicelli (1996).

These figures, which seem to be the only realistic estimation available,

are also supported by later assessments, which offer similar numbers for the
annual productivity of pelagic and demersal resources on the southwestern
platform (1.7 tonnes/km2) (Infante and Silva, 1994) and demersal resources
(0.9 tonnes/km2) (Schirm, 1995). For Bahía de Samaná (Samaná Bay), Silva and
Aquino (1994) estimated a total annual production of 163.3 tonnes for demersal
and pelagics which, considering catch data from Sang et al. (1997), they were
theoretically divided in 17.6 tonnes for the estuarine littoral complex and
143.8 tonnes for the coral reef-sea grass complex, with 1.2 tonnes/km2 and
0.3 tonnes/km2 of yield per year, respectively (Herrera, 2000).
Giudicelli (1996) calls attention to the fact that former assessments have only
taken into account coastal pelagic and demersal resources up to 180 to 200 m of
depth, without considering the demersal resources of the slope at 200 to 500 m of
depth and the oceanic pelagic resources. Therefore, he adds to the assessment an
estimated figure for the slope demersal resources, concluding that the sustainable
annual production potential for the platform, slope and oceanic banks could be
around 18 500 tonnes for demersal and 5 000 tonnes for pelagic, with a total of
23 500 tonnes. This limit has already been reached; thus, we can think that all
potential demersal (and some pelagic) species of the country are exploited to
the limit of their maximum level. Therefore, increasing production in a rational
manner would require directing the effort to oceanic pelagic resources.
As far as we know, ecosystem modelling, cost-benefit analysis, financial
analysis, or risk analysis applied to fisheries have not been undertaken. The only
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 199

economic fisheries assessment was done by Walter (1994), which has not been
updated. León (1997) analysed the distribution, commercialization and end-point
of fishing products in Samaná.
Artisanal fishery endeavors are not large enough to require undergoing
an environmental impact assessment process. Artisanal fishery proposals are
managed by the State. Social impact assessments directed to artisanal fisheries
have not been done. However, many environmental impact studies consider this
sector as a socio-economic component of the projects, and thus they are treated
as secondary. Even though some works have analysed social and economic aspects
of the artisanal fishery sector as we mentioned before, we cannot state that actual
demographic studies of the sector have been systematically undertaken.

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

Currently, the Dirección de Recursos Pesqueros (DRP) is responsible for fisheries
management in the Dominican Republic. DRP responds to the Environment
and Natural Resources Subministry, which in turn responds to the Environment
and Natural Resources State Secretariat (SEMARN). The Environment and
Natural Resources State Subsecratariat (SERCM) replaced the former Ministry
of Agriculture (SEA), and at the moment is the only national authority for the
fishing sector.
Theoretically, there is a traditional management system in place that covers
the basic control, enforcement and monitoring aspects of the national fishing
activities. Part of this system involves developing and maintaining a Registro
Nacional de Pescadores (Fishers National Record), which considers licence
applications to ensure that whoever undertakes any fishing activity is properly
registered. To control the authorized fishing activity, fulfillment of the licence
system and regulations are enforced, particularly fisheries closures, minimum
catch size and gear. This is carried out by inspectors trained by SERCM. On
the other hand, SERCM periodically collects statistics data from the freshwater
and marine fisheries to assess catch trends and the degree of exploitation for the
fishing resources. This provides key information for new temporary or permanent
regulations at the national or local level. SERCM indicates that data are collected
in eleven Fishing and Coastal and Marine Administrative Service Stations that are
distributed state-wide and which receive instructions to collect field data.
Other institutions related to the fishing sector are the Banco Agrícola de
la República Dominicana (BAGRICOLA), which offers loans for acquiring
equipment and gear to fishing groups, or associations, and the Development and
Cooperative Credit Institute (IDECOOP), which advises and certifies fishing
cooperatives according to the legislation on national cooperatives. IDECOOP
has implemented financing projects for equipment to cooperatives on a few
occasions.
Fisheries management in the Dominican Republic has been the objective for
several national plans, which coincided with the beginning of the 1980s (Fisheries
Development Limited, 1980; ONAPLAN, 1983), 1990s (JICA/SEA, 1992) and
200 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

2000s (ICRAFD, 2001). The first of these plans was developed by Fisheries
Development Limited (1980), in coordination with the Instituto Dominicano
de Tecnología Industrial (INDOTEC), which presented a report for fishing
development in the Dominican Republic that included a comprehensive compilation
of former studies. This first plan also provided the first census for the fishing sector,
with socio-economic, technological, commercial and biological fishing data, as well
as results from exploratory fisheries and the first estimates of fishing productivity.
The Planning National Office (ONAPLAN) adds some recommendations for
scientific and technological policies for the fishing sector (ONAPLAN, 1983). The
second plan was developed by the Japan International Cooperative Agency (JICA)
that, together with SEA, elaborated the basic design of the Dominican Republic
coastal fishery development project (JICA/SEA, 1992). This work analyses in detail
the fishing antecedents in many regions of the Dominican Republic and provides
criteria for implementing fishing projects. More recently, ICRAFD (2001) and
CFRM (2004) offer a third plan that analyses the current situation, which provides
practical guidance for future actions to improve the organization of fisheries in the
Dominican Republic. Besides some isolated achievements, none of these plans have
actually contributed to improving the socio-economic situation of the fishing sector
at the national scale. Moreover, none of them have developed into a long-term plan
to address and solve the multiple problems of the system.
Even though there is an institutional framework, and despite the above-
mentioned plans indicating the major problems and needs, fisheries management in
the Dominican Republic has not been fully successful. One of the first challenges is
open access. While there is a legal requirement for fishers to obtain a fishing licence
issued by SERCM, in practice, there is no adequate control; thus any resource is
fished at any time of the year, on any coastal area, platform or oceanic region. Even
then, the official licence does not indicate precise catch quotas, fishing areas, species
to be caught or fishing gear. Therefore, fishing is an uncontrolled activity directed by
economic interests. Moreover, none of the Dominican Republic’s artisanal fisheries
target exclusively one species. Regardless of gear type, catches are utilized for
consumption or commercialization, regardless of size or quality.
This situation also reaches protected areas, such as the National Park Jaragua
in Pedernales or the National Park Montecristi, where fisheries resources are
under the same fishing pressure as in non-protected areas. The management plans
of these protected areas include measures to protect fisheries resources, but they
are simply not followed. There are several basic regulations for the protection
of fishing resources at the national level; however, they cannot be enforced since
there are no personnel or resources for this purpose.
The major problem relates to the institutional instability because SERCM
employees are removed every four years in accordance to the electoral term. This
causes loss of time, knowledge and valued personnel. Since there are no biological
research institutions (either private or governmental), there is no periodical
scientific assessment independent from the fishery management sector, and official
reports generally focus more on achievements than on difficulties.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 201

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

7.1 Fishing statistics
One of the main challenges to organizing the Dominican Republic fisheries is
the lack of standardized and continued series of timely data, which would allow
for a regional and national analysis of the catch trends. At the national level, the
Subministry of National Resources, under the SEA and currently SERCM, has
been reporting official global data of the catch (SERCM, 2004). It is stated that
the information comes from statistics obtained in various landing sites in the
country. These are the only available statistics, and their reliability is questioned
(Giudicelli, 1996).
Nevertheless, there have been some relevant local attempts to address this
matter. CEBSE maintained the fishing statistics in Samaná for some years (Silva
and Aquino, 1994; Silva et al., 1995; Aquino and Silva, 1995). Silva and Colom
(1996) elaborated guidelines for collecting fishing statistics in the Dominican
Republic. In Pedernales, Schirm (1995) offered the only known work for the
estimation of fisheries productivity on the south platform, and showed the
increasing trend in catches. However, these efforts were discontinued when the
projects that supported them finished and are no longer up-to-date.
The catch classification system applied in the Dominican Republic is one of
the problems that make statistics difficult to be obtained (Silva and Colom, 1996).
Independent from where it is caught, catches are divided into special categories that
follow a commercial criterion, rather than an ecological or biological criterion, and
fish are grouped according to the quality and acceptability by consumers (Table
6). This also applies to many of the research catches.

TABLE 6
Dominican Republic catch classification

Categories Groups of species

Class 1 Lutjanidae, Serranidae and Scomberidae

Class 2 Lutjanidae, Carangidae, Mugilidae, Serranidae and small Scomberidae

Class 3 Pomadasidae, Pomacantidae and Scaridae

Class 4 Acanturidae, Balistidae and others

Lobster Lobsters from the Family Palinuridae and Scyllaridae

Shrimp Family Penaeidae

Crab Genus Cardisoma, Callinectes, Mithrax

Queen conch Genus Strombus

Octopus Genus Octopus

Others Rays and sharks

Source: Silva and Colom, 1996.

202 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

This system can be useful commercially; however, it is not useful for fishing
statistics. For example, Class 1 is a heterogeneous mix of snappers, yellowtail
snappers, silk snappers, mutton snappers, groupers, jewfish, graysbies, and
king and Spanish mackerels. This includes demersal fish such as Lutjanidae
(about 20 species) and Serranidae (about 50 species), which are distributed in the
mangroves and at 600 m, as well as pelagic species such as Scomberidae (about
14 species). Some of these species have clear seasonality, some represent a reef
fishery, while other species represent the deep-sea fishery on the border of the
platform or pelagic fishery, and they are caught with different fishing gears,
making difficult any attempt of fishing effort standardization.
To analyse the catch, it is necessary to identify individual species or groups of
species; thus, the current commercial classification must be complemented with
biological criteria. On this subject, it has been demonstrated that the concept of
‘complex ecological fishing’ (Baisre, 1985) could be an approximation of high
methodological and practical value (Silva and Colom, 1996; Herrera, 2000). One
of the key concepts to achieving clear statistics is categorizing resources harvested,
so that catch, effort, and size and sex composition registries can be carried out in
a relatively easy manner to obtain reliable statistics.

7.2 Biological and ecological fishing research

The Dominican Republic does not have a fishing research centre, nor does it have
a national research plan to respond to scientific needs for fisheries management.
Some governmental institutions, such as the Centro de Investigaciones de Biología
Marina (the Center for Marine Biology Research) and the Acuario Nacional
(National Aquarium), have temporarily adopted these functions through specific
projects. Even more relevant than these endeavors are the results obtained by
non-governmental organizations, such as the CEBSE, Grupo Jaragua, Centro
para el Desarrollo del Noroeste, and Programa EcoMar (CEBSE, Jaragua Group,
Center for the Development of the northeast and EcoMar Programme). Despite
their limitations in time and geography, these efforts have created the basis for the
Dominican Republic fish biology studies over the long term (e.g. Table 4). Coastal
provinces have been the pilot areas for these endeavors, and thus the available
information is concentrated in those areas (Montecristi, Samaná, La Altagracia and
Pedernales). There is practically no information in the remaining provinces. There
is some isolated information on pelagic resources from regional institutions that
have included Dominican waters in their study areas. All these results, which are
presented in Table 7, belong to isolated efforts.
Shrimp fishery data: There are only general descriptive works on the shrimp
fishery: key species, fishing gear and number of fishers (Núñez and García, 1983;
Silva and Aquino, 1993; Then et al., 1995). Sang et al. (1997) offer some data on
size and catches of accidental species.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 203

TABLE 7
Projects that have contributed to the Dominican Republic fishing research. Coastal
provinces: Barahona (BH), Pedernales (PD), Samaná (SA) and La Altagracia (LA)

Sponsors/
Year Name of the project Area
participants

1980 Fishing development in the Dominican Republic General FDL/INDOTEC

Promotion of artisanal coastal fishery at the

1987–1995 south littoral BH, PD, AZ GTZ/SEA

Fishing communities involvement in the

1992–1996 co-management of fishing resources in Samaná Bay SA FF/CEBSE

TNC/MAMMA/
1993 Parks in peril: National park of the east LA
PRONATURA

Biodiversity inventory and characterization of the

1993–1996 communities around Samaná Bay and Peninsula SA HELVETAS/CEBSE

MC, SA, PNUD/ONAPLAN/

Conservation and management of the marine coastal
1995–1998 biodiversity in the Dominican Republic CEBSE/GJI/CIBIMA/
PD CIDEN
Fishing and ecological research of the lobster Programa EcoMar,
2002–2003 Panulirus argus PD, SA, AZ
Inc.

Acronyms: CIDEN: Centro para el Desarrollo del Noroeste; CEBSE: Centro para la Conservación
y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno; CIBIMA: Centro de Investigaciones de
Biología Marina; FDL: Fisheries Development Limited; FF: Ford Foundation; GJI: Grupo Jaragua,
Inc.; GTZ: German International Cooperation Agency; HELVETAS: Switzerland Association for
Development and Cooperation; INDOTEC: Instituto Dominicano de Tecnología Industrial; JICA:
Japan International Cooperation Agency; MAMMA: Fundación Dominicana Pro-Investigación
y Conservación de los Recursos Marinos; ONAPLAN: Oficina Nacional de Planificación; SEA:
Ministry of Agriculture; TNC: The Nature Conservancy; UNDP: United Nations Development
Programme.

Lobster fishery data: All the information on the lobster fishery has been
recently summarized by Herrera and Betancourt (2003b–2003d), who offer the
first diagnosis of the resource. Information comes from catches on 60 landing sites
in the coastal provinces of Pedernales, Samaná, El Seibo, Hato Mayor and Azua,
where 3 594 lobsters were measured, sexed, and had their reproductive condition
assessed. Lobsters were caught between 2 and 37 m of depth, in 3 325 traps (as
well as by diving or using gillnet). Sites, gear and fishing methods are described
for this fishery; selectivity of wire traps and Haitian traps are compared; structure
of size (by sex, fishing areas and depth) are analysed; and catch and effort data
are assessed. This analysis enabled the identification of the primary problems in
the management of this fishery, as well as offered specific recommendations for
organization of the fishery and the implementation of future regulations. The
lobster (Panulirus argus) also underwent a Postlarvae Recruitment Monitoring
Programme, which was developed but not completed (Herrera, 1996).
Queen conch data: There are some general fishing evaluations on queen conch
(Appeldoorn, 1993, 1997), but the most complete fishing-biological works are
by Tejeda (1995a–1995c), which offer a complete description of the fishery in
Pedernales, including size structure, habitat, distribution, morphometry of the
204 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

shell, areas and fishing gear, catch data by effort unit by area and depth, and
production estimations. More recent ecological work has been focused on larvae
studies (Vargas and Billini, 2000) and abundance estimation, distribution, and
juveniles and adults size structure in the marine protected areas in Parque Nacional
Jaragua (Jaragua National Park) in Pedernales (Delgado et al., 1998; Posada et al.,
1999, 2000) and Parque Nacional del Este (east National Park) (Torres et al., 2000;
Torres and Sealey, 2002a, 2002b).
Oceanic banks fishing data: Arima’s studies (1997, 1998a–1998c, 1999a–1999c)
are the only data on fishing operations with bottom longline on the oceanic
banks Navidad and Plata between 90 and 600 m of depth. The information relates
to seasons, depth, species, catch weight and fishing effort for about 16 species,
among which there are key species (Lutjanus vivanus, Lutjanus bucanella, Etelis
oculatus and Pristipomoides macrophtalmus). These biological data can be the basis
for future assessments of fishing stocks on the oceanic banks, and have special
relevance when comparing key species on the coastal platform and the oceanic
banks fisheries (Table 8).

TABLE 8
Comparison of weight data (in grams) of the species and frequency (in percentage) in
the catch of four key species caught on the oceanic banks and Samaná Bay

Catch frequency
Weight range (g)
Local (%)
Scientific name
name Samaná Oceanic Samaná Oceanic
platform banks platform banks

Ruama Pristipomoides macrophthalmus 92–432 227–953 0.3 93.0

Queen
snapper
Etelis oculatus 386–964 227–2 903 0.1 90.6
Ojo
amarillo
Lutjanus vivanus 92–1 132 454–3 629 0.3 11.6

Ala negra Luthanus bucanella 154–1 364 544–1 724 0.2 10.5

Source: Based on Arima, 1999c and Sang et al., 1997.

Pelagic fishery: Lee and Aquino (1994) and Colom and Tejeda (1995a) offer the
first data on catch-per-unit effort for the pelagic fishery with rafts in Barahona.
Schirm (1995c) offers a more complete analysis in this type of fishery, including
sites, fishing methods, species composition, abundance, resource seasonality, catch-
per-unit effort, fishing yield, and management measures. Valdivia (2003) provides
data on an experimental tuna fishery with longline. There is relevant research on
pelagic species undertaken by Virginia University in oceanic waters, around Punta
Cana, which includes marking and recapture of species and their habitat preferences
(Graves, 2002; Graves et al., 2003; NOAA Fisheries, 2004). In particular, sport
fishery data on marlin belong to Web pages that promote this type of fishery as a
tourism option. Data include species, catch weight and seasonality (Just Us, 2006).
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 205

Fishing gear assessment in exploratory fisheries: Fishing gears have been

assessed in certain fisheries, including: variation in species composition and catch
for three types of traps (Aquino and Infante, 1994), the effect of trap mesh size on
the size structure (Herrera and Betancourt, 2003a), and the comparison between
bottom longline types in the catch of deep-sea fisheries (Arima, 1999c). Many
fishing gears and methods have been tested, such as the trawl (Beck and Colom,
1994; Beck et al., 1994), bottom longline (Colom, 1994; Valdivia, 2003), depth line
fishing (Aquino, 1994; Colom and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Infante, 1995), FADs
(Lee and Aquino, 1994; Colom and Tejeda, 1995; León, 1996), handline (Tejeda et
al., 1995) and traps (Lee, 1995; Tejeda and Feliz, 1995). All these studies provide
specific data on species caught, catch volume and catch-per-unit effort.
There are inventories of fishing biodiversity in the provinces of Montecristi
(Luczkovich, 1991; Geraldes et al., 1998), Samaná (Sang et al., 1997), María Trinidad
Sánchez (Decena and Díaz, 1982), La Altagracia Sur (León et al., 1995; Schmitt,
1998), Santo Domingo (Geraldes et al., 1997), San Cristóbal (Terrero, 1989), Azua
(Bouchon et al., 1995) and Pedernales (Silva, 1994; Reveles et al., 1997).
In general, fisheries biology studies have had a descriptive approach, whether
economical, commercial, technological, social, taxonomical, or focused on gear
assessment. Research on fishery biology with a long-term approach and with
stock assessment of key species is practically non-existent. Despite the relevance in
fishery biology of studying the size and sex composition of exploited populations
with a spatial-temporal approach, there are no studies on this matter and much of
the population data is inconsistent.
Due to the limited research efforts as mentioned above, according to Giudicelli
(1996) it is difficult to undertake reliable assessments for maximum sustainable
catch in Dominican waters. The only fisheries where population structure has
been studied are queen conch (Posada et al., 1999, 2000) and lobster (Herrera
and Betancourt, 2003b–2003d) in Samaná, Pedernales and Azua, where spatial
distribution criteria has been derived for many life stages (nursery and reproductive
areas), as well as direct proof of overexploitation in growing and recruitment
stages. However, these fisheries have not been studied over a long enough duration
to assess population parameters and thus there have been no attempts at some kind
of fisheries modelling.

7.3 Fishery socio-economic research

Social and economic research on the fishery sector has not been a priority in the
scarce studies undertaken, which have basically followed a descriptive approach.
There are general data on the socio-economic characteristics of the fishing
communities in Samaná (CEBSE, 1994), Barahona, Pedernales (Beck et al., 1994a;
González et al., 1994, 1995a, 1995b) and Montecristi (Stoffle et al., 1994; Luperón,
1998). It should also be mentioned that Nolasco (2000) addresses gender issues.
206 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

7.4 Fishery environmental education

There are no national plans or programmes for fishers’ environmental education.
The NGOs have taken the responsibility of developing informative materials,
as well as carrying out workshops and educational activities with fishers and
coastal communities. There are important examples of environmental educational
activities undertaken by PRONATURA in the Parque Nacional Submarino La
Caleta (Submarine National Park La Caleta) in Santo Domingo (Vega, 1998), the
Grupo Jaragua, Inc. (Jaragua Group, Inc.) in Pedernales (Reveles et al., 1997; Mateo
et al., 2000), the didactic manual from Fundación Dominicana ProInvestigación y
Conservación de los Recursos Marinos (MAMMA – Dominican Foundation for
Research and Conservation of Marine Resources) (Geraldes et al., 2001), and the
workshops in ecology and conservation of the lobster, carried out at the national
level by Programa EcoMar, Inc. (EcoMar Programme, Inc.).
The only centre devoted to fishers capacity building is the Centro para el
Desarrollo y Entrenamiento Pesquero (CEDEP – Center for Fishery Development
and Training) in Samaná (SEA, 2000). This centre was donated by the Japanese
government through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and it is
managed by SERCM. According to SERCM (2004), 150 professional fishers have
been trained in the country, especially in Samaná and surrounding areas. This is
a very low number considering that the centre has sufficient resources to train at
least 50 fishers per month in its facilities.
JICA has provided important support to the development of artisanal fishers
in Samaná. Japanese specialists have developed educational materials on every
issue that could be relevant for artisanal fishers, such as freezing equipment, fish
preparation and conservation, gear, fishing methods, use of GPS and ultrasound,
repairing and maintenance of boats and engines, and basic knowledge on fishing
cooperatives (Saito, 1999). All of these materials are in Hara’s (1999) Manual of
Fishery Techniques and Knowledge introduced in the Dominican Republic.
According to SERCM (2004), approximately 1 660 fishers in the south region
received assistance from PROPESCAR-Sur, either in administration matters or in
social organization and business management.

8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Currently, there is much strength that we can rely on to improve the fishery system
in the Dominican Republic. First, despite the above-mentioned deficiencies, there
is a history and institutional organizational basis for the management and ordering
of fisheries. Second, key issues are clearly identified for the main resources, as well
as the necessary measures to start solving the problems. Third, there is a group
of technicians who can face the challenge of taking fishery biology to a new level
of development. Fourth, the development of the Environmental Management
System (Sistema de Gestión Ambiental), promulgated by the Natural Resources
and Environment General Law (Ley General de Medio Ambiente y los Recursos
Naturales), provides the setting for addressing fisheries resources and coastal
community impacts.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 207

However, there are many gaps that have to be addressed in order to take advantage
of the above-mentioned strengths, such as the lack of institutional assessment,
management and fisheries control, as well as the absence of national plans for short-
, mid- and long-term development, existing fragmented fishery legislation without
efficient enforcement mechanisms, lack of reliable and precise fishery statistics, and
the absence of fishery research institutions with scientific sustainability criteria to
undertake socio-economic studies directed to the fishery sector.
The establishment of management institutions that are independent from
the dynamics of the national political sector is one of the major challenges that
the fishing sector faces. There is need for stable, experienced, responsible and
knowledgeable institutions to develop and implement a long-term National
Plan for Fishery Development in the Dominican Republic (Plan Nacional para
el Desarrollo Pesquero de la República Dominicana). This plan must have an
open scientific vision, promote modern and efficient legislation, include reliable
statistical fishery systems, represent the reality of the national fishery in every
aspect, position the country as a leader in fishery resource management, and firmly
support international fishing commitments. One of the national challenges would
be to create a scientific institution responsible for undertaking fishery biological
studies of the national resources. This would concentrate the national experience
and would assure (through research and projects) a move from the current
descriptive research to the assessment and modelling of fisheries.

8.1 Institutionalism
If we really want to start assessing and managing our fisheries resources in a
rational manner, the Dirección de Recursos Pesqueros (DRP – Fishing Resources
Directorate) of SERCM must become a scientific institution for national fisheries
management (stable and long-lasting), independent from political changes, rather
than the current situation where office personnel are removed every four years. It
would be necessary to implement policies for hiring technical personnel, as well as
developing specific programmes to educate the authorities in the sustainability of
coastal zone management concepts. The fishing sector requires clear administrative
direction by implementing strategies based on technical, ecological, economic and
social criteria to achieve rational management.

8.2 Fishery sector plans and policies

It is necessary to review the fishery plans developed since 1980 to the present,
to identify the positive aspects related to fisheries development and elaborate a
unified and definitive National Plan for Fishery Development in the Dominican
Republic, which would identify solutions for all the sector’s issues and gaps. Based
on the changes in the world economy, this plan should consider a subject that has
never been addressed before: the relationships between the fishing sector stages
(commercialization, distribution, export and import) to establish the sector trends in
relation to current global economy processes. It is necessary to develop clear policies
for each of the sector components, especially for the most vulnerable element: the
fishers.
208 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

8.3 Diffusion and fishery legislation

It is necessary to develop pieces of legislation unified in a General Law of Coastal
and Marine Fishery Resources in the Dominican Republic to incorporate the
country’s international commitments. Legislation should be explicit in terms of the
resources being regulated and the specifications of the minimum legal size, closure
periods and protected areas; and the legislation must be based on the ecological
and biological scientific knowledge of fishing resources. Regulations for those
resources that are not yet regulated should be developed, and stricter legislation
should be assessed for protected resources. Regulation should clarify that fisheries’
resources cannot be exploited prior to the undertaking of experimental fishing
and population assessments. The updating and complementation of fisheries
legislation should be accompanied by efficient administrative and enforcement
mechanisms, as well as by effective diffusion mechanisms that reach every level
of the fishery sector. Environmental education programmes should be developed
by governmental and non-governmental institutions to teach the biological,
ecological and conservational aspects supporting the regulations. This would
allow for understanding the regulations as a means of preserving the resources that
support the fishery, and not just as restrictive rules. In this sense, diffusion of the
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is essential.

8.4 Fishery statistics

It is necessary to implement a national fishery resources organizational system
that includes economic (commercial categories) and ecological (resources, fishing
type, fishery ecological complex) criteria to define general categories, which
would provide the basis for the systematic compilation of the fishery biological
information. It is necessary to develop and maintain a fisheries statistics system for
the Dominican Republic, which would include a permanent inventory of species
composition, length, weight, catch, effort, as well as other fishery biology data to
assess the evolution of the fisheries and develop predictive models. To contribute
to controlling fishing activities it is necessary to start planning the establishment of
catch assessment and monitoring centres in at least some key areas in every coastal
province, in particular those with major potential such as Montecristi, Puerto
Plata, Samaná and Pedernales.

8.5 Establishment of INDOPESCA

An important aspect for the assessment and management of the Dominican Republic
fishery would be the creation of the Instituto Dominicano de Investigaciones
Pesqueras (INDOPESCA – Dominican Fishery Research Institute). INDOPESCA
would be responsible for designing and implementing the fishery biology research
plan, which should include comprehensive studies of distribution processes and
life cycles of the fishery resources, as well as address, for the first time, relevant
aspects such as stock assessment and population dynamic studies of our main
resources. It should also include fishery productivity estimates, with an emphasis
on important areas such as the slope edge and La Navidad and La Plata oceanic
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 209

banks which encompass highly valued reproductive stocks. INDOPESCA would

also be responsible for baseline social and economic studies of the fishery sector, as
well as advising official institutions for the protection of fishery resources through
cutting-edge assessment and management criteria. Moreover, INDOPESCA
would play the main role in fisheries environmental education and technical
assistance to the national fishery sector.

8.6 Conventions/agreements and organizations/institutions

It is essential to review and update the national and international agreements on
fishing and fisheries resources, which have been subscribed to by the Dominican
Republic. Therefore, it is crucial to create an office to address these issues while
working closely with the Ministry of International Affairs. It is crucial to analyse
our participation in and commitment to current agreements, and identify inaction
on agreements that could be relevant for national development. The same applies
to our involvement in regional organizations or institutions related to fishery
cooperation. This would allow for improving the fishery sector with international
financial and technical support.

REFERENCES
ABT. 2002. Informe final Volumen 5. Capítulo 9: Recursos costeros y marinos. In
Diagnóstico ambiental y análisis económico/fiscal, República Dominicana, Proyecto
de políticas nacionales de medio ambiente. Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambiente
y Recursos Naturales.
Appeldoorn R. 1993. Report on the lambi fishery and resource in the area of Punta
Beata, Dominican Republic. Technical Report submitted to Propescar Sur.
Appeldoorn R. 1997. Observaciones sobre el estado de los recursos pesqueros
en el Parque Jaragua. Reporte del Grupo Jaragua, Inc. Proyecto GEF-PNUD/
ONAPLAN Conservación y Manejo de la Biodiversidad Costero-Marina en la
República Dominicana.
Aquino A. 1994. Evaluación de la pesquería de profundidad en la Bahía de Neiba,
República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, 1: 99–118.
Aquino A. & Infante J. 1994. Composición de especies y volúmenes de captura de
nasas antillanas en Juan Esteban, Barahona, República Dominicana. Reportes del
Propescar-Sur, 1: 127–151.
Aquino C. & Silva M. 1995. La pesquería marina en la costa sur de la Bahía de Samaná
(Sabana de la Mar y Miches), República Dominicana: Estudio Básico. Centro para
la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc.
Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.
Arima S. 1997. Relación sobre la operación de prueba de pesca (No. 2) Palangre vertical
de fondo ensayado en el Guarionex. Mini-Proyecto en Centro de Entrenamiento y
Desarrollo Pesquero.
Arima S. 1998a. Relación sobre la operación de prueba de pescado (No. 1). In Manual
para artes de pesca en el Mini-Proyecto de Samaná. Agencia de Cooperación
Internacional de Japón (JICA). pp. 89–110.
210 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Arima S. 1998b. Relación sobre la operación de prueba de pescado (No. 3). In Manual
para artes de pesca en el Mini-Proyecto de Samaná. Agencia de Cooperación
Internacional de Japón (JICA). pp. 111–145.
Arima S. 1998c. Comparación entre palangre de fondo y palangre vertical de fondo.
En: Manual para artes de pesca en el Mini-Proyecto de Samaná. Agencia de
Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA). pp. 146–150.
Arima S. 1999a. Informe mensual de las actividades de los barquitos del Mini-Proyecto.
Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA), junio 4/1999, No. 21.
Arima S. 1999b. Informe mensual de las actividades de los barquitos del Mini-Proyecto.
Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA), julio 6/1999, No. 22.
Arima S. 1999c. Datos de operaciones del palangre vertical de fondo por Guarionex,
Marien, Magua y Higuey, en el Mini-Proyecto en Samaná. Agencia de Cooperación
Internacional de Japón (JICA)/ Centro de Entrenamiento y Desarrollo Pesquero
(CEDEP).
Baisre J.A. 1985. Los complejos ecológicos de pesca: Definición e importancia en
la administración de las pesquerías Cubanas. FAO Fisheries Report, 327(Suppl.):
251–272.
Beck U. & Colom R. 1994. Resultados de experimentos de pesca con tramallo de
ahorque demersales en la costa Suroeste de la República Dominicana. Reportes del
Propescar-Sur., 1: 78–82.
Beck U., Infante J., Aquino C. & Reyes Z. 1994a. Algunos problemas en la gestión
de los recursos costeros en las Provincias de Barahona y Pedernales. Reportes del
Propescar-Sur., 1: 119-126.
Beck U., Lee R.U. & Castellanos A.R. 1994b. Resultados de las operaciones de pesca
con redes de ahorque demersales del Grupo Manatí entre abril y junio de, 1989.
Reportes del Propescar Sur., 1: 37–43.
Betancourt L. & Herrera A. 2004. Bahía de Luperón: Apuntes ecológicos para la
conservación de un Área Protegida. República Dominicana. Programa EcoMar,
Inc./Universidad INTEC, Santo Domingo.
Bouchon C., Bouchon-Navarro Y. & Louis M. 1995. Fish biodiversity in Puerto
Viejo Azua, Dominican Republic. Abstracts of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Gulf
and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
CEBSE. 1994. Características socioeconómicas y culturales de las comunidades
humanas alrededor de la Bahía de Samaná. Asociación Suiza para el Desarrollo y la
Cooperación/ Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná
y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
CEBSE. 1996. La estrategia para el co-manejo de los recursos pesqueros de la Bahía
de Samaná. In Plan de Manejo Integrado para la Región de Samaná. Documento 1.
Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno,
CEBSE, Editora Ozama. pp. 69–90.
CFRM. 2004. Presentation plan for managing the marine fisheries of the Dominican
Republic, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 211

Chiappone M. (ed). 2001. Fisheries investigations and management implications in

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

Geraldes F.X., Vega M., Pugibet E., Torres R.E., Rodríguez Y., Almanzar L. &
Guerrero D. 1997. Estudio y prospección de las condiciones ecológicas ambientales
y uso del Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta, Informe final, Fundación
Dominicana ProInvestigación y Conservación de los Recursos Marinos, MAMMA,
Inc.
Giudicelli M. 1996. Las pesquerías dominicanas: evolución, situación y perspectivas.
Informe de la FAO.
González B., Abdala J. & Aquino E. 1994. El Propescar-Sur y la participación
comunitaria en la gestión ambiental y el co-manejo de los recursos pesquero
en el litoral Sur de la República Dominicana. In Conferencia: La participación
comunitaria en la gestión ambiental y el co-manejo en la República Dominicana.
Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno,
CEBSE/Caribbean Natural Resources Institute CANARI. pp. 53–64.
González B., Aquino J.E. & Abdala J. 1995a. Evaluación socioeconómica de los
pescadores del litoral Sur: I. Grupo Manatí, 1984-1993. Reportes del Propescar-Sur,
3: 80–88.
González B., Aquino J.E. & Abdala J. 1995b. Rentabilidad y factibilidad de las
principales pesquerías en la Provincia de Barahona, 1993–1994. Reportes del
Propescar-Sur, 3: 1–18.
Graves J. 2002. Billfish Research and management news for the mid-Atlantic. Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences.
Graves J.E., Horodysky A.Z. & Kerstetter D.W. 2003. Tracking the fate and habitat
preferences of white Marlin released from commercial fishing gear with archival
pop-up tags. http://www.microwavetelemetry. com/Fish_PTTs/graves_article.htm
Hara Y. 1999 (Ed.). Técnicas y conocimiento de la pesca introducidas en la República
Dominicana. Proyecto de desarrollo de la pesca artesanal en el área de Samaná (1996–
1999). Secretaría de Estado de Agricultura/Agencia de Cooperación Internacional
de Japón, SEA/JICA.
Herrera A. 1996. Programa de monitoreo del reclutamiento postlarval de la
langosta Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804) en el Parque Nacional Jaragua, República
Dominicana. Informe Técnico a Propescar Sur, Barahona.
Herrera A. 2000. Clasificación de datos de las pesquerías de Samaná bajo el concepto
de los complejos ecológicos de pesca. In La clasificación numérica y su aplicación
en la ecología. Universidad INTEC. pp. 83–84.
Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003a. Efecto del tamaño de malla de la nasa sobre la
estructura de tallas de la langosta Panulirus argus en la pesca de la plataforma de
Pedernales. In Investigaciones ecológico-pesqueras de las langosta Panulirus argus
en la plataforma dominicana. Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora Búho, Santo
Domingo. pp. 5–24.
Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003b. Datos de la pesca de la langosta Panulirus argus
en la región de Samaná con notas sobre P. guttatus. In Investigaciones ecológico-
pesqueras de la langosta Panulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana. Intec/
Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora Búho, Santo Domingo. pp. 25–44.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 213

Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003c. Datos de la pesca de la langosta Panulirus argus

en la región de Pedernales. In Investigaciones ecológico-pesqueras de las langosta
Panulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana. Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora
Búho, Santo Domingo. pp. 45–68.
Herrera A. & Betancourt L. 2003d. Datos de la pesca de la langosta Panulirus
argus en la región de Azua. In Investigaciones ecológico-pesqueras de las langosta
Panulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana. Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora
Búho, Santo Domingo. pp. 69–93.
Herrera A. &. Betancourt L. 2003e. Pautas para el ordenamiento de la pesca de la
langosta espinosa Panulirus argus en República Dominicana. In Investigaciones
ecológico-pesqueras de las langosta Panulirus argus en la plataforma dominicana.
Intec/Programa EcoMar, Inc. Editora Búho, Santo Domingo. pp. 94–116.
Herrera A. & Colom R. 1995. Análisis de la estructura poblacional de la langosta
Panulirus argus en datos de las pesquerías de la región de Beata, con recomendaciones
sobre el muestreo biológico. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, 3: 31–37.
ICRAFD. 2001. Five Year Work Programme for the Dominican Republic (April
2000–March 2005). Integrated Caribbean Regional Agriculture and Fisheries.
Infante J. & Silva M. 1994. Producción pesquera provincias Barahona y Pedernales.
Reportes del Propescar Sur, 1:153–182.
JICA/SEA. 1992. Informe del estudio de diseño básico del proyecto de desarrollo de
pesca costera en la República Dominicana. Agencia de Cooperación Internacional
de Japón/ Secretaría de Estado de Agricultura/ D & A Engineering, Co. Ltd.
Just Us. 2006. Blue and White marlin are running, Don´t miss out on a hot season.
Punta Cana 2004 Sport Fishing Charters. http://www.gotmarlin.com
Kawaguchi, K. 1974. Handline and longline fishing exploration for snapper and
related species in the Caribbean Sea and adjacent waters. Mar. Fish. Rev., 36: 9.
Kazunari Y., Shimizu H. & Kosuge T. 2001. Diurnal swimming patterns of the
diamondback squid as observed by ultrasonic telemetry. Pelagic and Deep Sea
Biology Section, Ishigaki Tropical Station. Seikai National Fisheries Research
Institute. Fisheries Research Agency. http://www.snf.affrc.go.jp
Lamelas R. 1997. Hacia el co-manejo de los recursos naturales en la región de Samaná,
República Dominicana. Community and the Environment: Lessons from the
Caribbean 4. CANARI, Panos Institute, Washington, D.C., CEBSE, Dominican
Republic.
Lee R. 1995. Informe sobre la introducción de la embarcación Caranx y nasas del
hondo a la cooperativa Carlos Marte del Palmar de Ocoa. Reportes del Propescar-
Sur 3: 20–32.
Lee R. & Aquino A. 1994. Introducción de FAD´s en la Bahía de Neiba. Reportes del
Propescar Sur, 1: 183–194.
León F.D. 1996. Construcción de balsas con materiales desechables, Centro para la
Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE.
214 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

León F.D. 1997. Distribución, vías de comercialización y destinos de los productos

pesqueros de Samaná y Sabana de la Mar. Centro para la Conservación y
Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. Santo Domingo,
Dominican Republic.
León Y., Pugibet E. & Sulka R. 1995. The abundance of fishes in shallow, algal/
seagrass habitats in the waters surrounding Parque Nacional del Este, Dominican
Republic. Abstracts of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries
Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Linton D., Smith R., Alcolado P., Hanson C., Edwards P., Estrada R., Fisher T.,
Fernández R.G., Geraldes F., Mccoy C., Vaughan D., Voegeli V., Warner G.
& Wiener J. 2002. Status of Coral Reefs in the Northern Caribbean and Atlantic
Node of the GCRMN. In Status of coral reefs of the world: 2002. Edited by C.R.
Wilkinson. GCRMN Report, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
pp. 277–302.
Luczkovich J.J. 1991. Marine ecology of the Buen Hombre coast. In Satellite
monitoring of coastal marine ecosystems: a case from the Dominican Republic.
Edited by R.W. Stoffle y D.B. Halmo. East Carolina University. pp. 93–141.
Luperón G. 1998. El sistema pesquero de la zona de Montecristi, República
Dominicana: Estudio básico. Reporte final de resultados, Centro para el Desarrollo
del Noroeste, CIDEN, Inc.
Mateo J., Arias I., Hierro B. & Garrido E. 2000. Fisheries programme design in
Laguna de Oviedo, Jaragua National Park, Dominican Republic: A co-management
experience. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 51: 309–315.
Melo A. & Herrera A. 2002. Datos pesqueros de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus
(Latreille, 1804) en la plataforma de Azua, República Dominicana. Revista Ciencia
y Sociedad, Universidad INTEC, Santo Domingo, XXVII. 3: 453–477.
NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan Amendment.
Chapter 2 Description of Atlantic Billfish Fisheries National Marine Fisheries
Service. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
Nolasco R. 2000. Situación de la mujer en la pesca y acuicultura en República
Dominicana. Primera Reunión de Puntos Focales de la Red Latinoamericana de
las Mujeres del Sector Pesquero Acuícola Informe Final. Octubre del 2000. http://
mujeres.infopesca.org/novedades/nov_2_rep_dominicana.htm
Núñez F. & García E. 1983. Aspectos preliminares de la pesquería camaronera en
el Puerto de Sánchez, República Dominicana. Tesis para la opción del grado a
Licenciado en Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.
ONAPLAN. 1983. Estudio de base del sector pesquero. Secretariado Técnico de la
Presidencia de la República Dominicana, Oficina Nacional de Planificación.
Posada J.M., Mateo I.R. & Nemeth M. 1999. Occurrence, abundance and length
frequency distribution of queen conch, Strombus gigas, (Gastropoda) in shallow
waters of the Jaragua National Park, Dominican Republic. Proc. Carib. J. Science,
35(1–2): 70–82.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 215

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

SERCM. 2002. Proyecto Manejo Integrado de los Recursos Costeros Marinos para
el Desarrollo Sostenible en las Provincias de Azua y Barahona. Reporte de la
Subsecretaría de Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos, Secretaría de Estado de
Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.
SERCM. 2004. Los Recursos Marinos de la República Dominicana. Subsecretaría de
Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos/Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales, SERCM/SEMARN, Editora Búho, Santo Domingo.
Silva M. 1994. Especies identificadas en las pesquerías costeras artesanales del Suroreste
de la República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar Sur, 1: 1–36.
Silva M. 1995. Estimación de la captura y el esfuerzo máximo sustentable en la pesquería
marina de la Bahía de Neiba, República Dominicana. Abstracts 48th Annual Meeting
Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Silva M. & Aquino C. 1993. La Pesquería Marina en la Provincia de Samaná, República
Dominicana: Estudio Básico, Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de
la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. Santo Domingo, Dominican
Republic.
Silva M. & Aquino C. 1994. Estadísticas Pesqueras. Centro para la Conservación y
Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. El Cayuco, 1(1): 6–7.
Silva M., Aquino C. & King V. 1995. Estadísticas Pesqueras. Centro para la
Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno, CEBSE, Inc. El
Cayuco, 2(1): 2–4.
Silva M. & Colom R. 1996. Guía para el levantamiento de estadísticas pesqueras en
la República Dominicana. CEBSE-PROPESCAR-SUR/SEA, Santo Domingo,
Dominican Republic.
Stoffle B.W., Halmo D., Stoffle R. & Burpee G. 1994. Folk management and
conservation ethics among small-scale fishers of Buen Hombre, Dominican
Republic. In Folk Management in the World’s Fisheries. Lessons for Modern
Fisheries Management. Edited by C.L. Dyer and J.R. McGoodwin. University
Press. Colorado. pp. 115–138.
Tejeda J.C. 1995a. Evaluación de la pesquería del lambí Strombus gigas (L.) en el
Parque Nacional Jaragua, 1992–1993. República Dominicana. Tesis para optar por el
título de Licenciado en Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.
Tejeda J.C. 1995b. La pesquería del lambí Strombus gigas en el Parque Nacional
Jaragua. Reportes del Propescar-Sur, 3: 42–69.
Tejeda J.C. 1995c. Niveles de captura y algunos aspectos de la biología del lambí
Strombus gigas en el área de influencia de PROPESCAR-SUR, durante el período,
1988–1994, Barahona. Abstracts of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Gulf and
Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Tejeda J.C. & Feliz L. 1995. Niveles de captura de la pesquería de nasa chillera,
utilizando tres tipos de carnadas en la Bahía de Neiba, Barahona. Abstracts of the
48th Annual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo Domingo,
Dominican Republic.
Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic 217

Tejeda J.C., Feliz D. & Feliz L. 1995. Evaluación de la pesquería con línea de mano
en las cuatro principales playas de la Provincia Barahona, República Dominicana.
Abstracts of 48th Annual Meeting Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Santo
Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Terrero N. 1989. Informe sobre los peces costeros de Palenque, República Dominicana.
Contribuciones del Centro de Investigaciones de Biología Marina (CIBIMA). 80:
1–11.
Then T.M., Balbuena E. & Casilla M.A. 1995. Situación actual de la pesquería del
camarón blanco, Penaeus schmitti, en Sánchez, Samaná., 1995. Tesis de licenciatura,
Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Torres R.E., Bustamante G., Chiappone M., Geraldes F.X., Pugibet E., RodriguezY.,
Sealey K.M.S., Tschirky J. & Vega M. 2000. Fisheries Zoning Plan for Parque
Nacional del Este, Dominican Republic. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 51: 475–491.
Torres R.E. & Sealey K.M.S. 2002a. Abundance, size frequency, and spatial
distribution of queen conch (Strombus gigas) in Southeastern Dominican Republic:
A four-year population study in Parque Nacional del Este. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.
Inst., 53: 120–128.
Torres R.E. & Sealey K.M.S. 2002b. Shell midden surveys as source of information
about fished queen conch (Strombus gigas) populations: A case study in Parque
Nacional Del Este, Dominican Republic. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 53: 143–153.
UNEP-WCMC. 2006. UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species on
the World Wide Web: http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/
USAID. 2002. Proyecto de Ley Sectorial de Biodiversidad. Environmental Policy and
Institutional Strengthening, Dominican Republic.
Valdivia, G.A. 2003. Reporte de pesca experimental de palangre de atún, CEDEP/
JICA. Subsecretaría de Recursos Costeros y Marinos, Secretaría de Estado Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.
Vargas R. & Billini C.F. 2000. Larval abundance of Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) in
Jaragua National Park, Dominican Republic. Sustainable Development of Coastal
Zones and Instruments for its Evaluation International Conference, Germany.
www.rabbitgraph.de/cdg/p_esbili.htm
Vega M. 1998. Proyecto Educación Ambiental a la Comunidad Vecina al Parque
Nacional Submarino La Caleta. Programa de Apoyo a las Áreas Protegidas,
Fundación MacArthur/PRONATURA. www.acuarionacional.com/publicaciones/
modulos/pescay buceo7.htm
Walter G. 1994. Comercialización de productos pesqueros en República Dominicana.
Reportes del Propescar Sur, 1: 195–259.
Zorrilla T., Balbuena E. & Casilla M. 1995. Situación actual de la pesquería del
camarón blanco en Sánchez, Samaná. Tesis para la opción del grado a Licenciado en
Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.
 219

9. Coastal fisheries of Grenada

ROLAND BALDEO*

Baldeo, R. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Grenada. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and

J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 219–229.

1. Introduction 219
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 221
2.1 Beach seine fishery 221
2.2 Lobster fishery 223
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 223
4. Community organization and interactions with other sectors 224
5. Assessment of fisheries 225
6. Fishery management and planning 225
6.1 Long-term plan 227
6.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance 228
7. Research and education 228
Acknowledgements 229
References 229

1. INTRODUCTION
Grenada is one of the small island developing states in the eastern Caribbean.
It comprises the main island by that name, the inhabited islands of Carriacou
and Petit Martinique, and several uninhabited smaller islands mainly off the
northeast and southeast coasts (Figure 1). It is located in the Caribbean Sea
between latitudes 11.5° and 12.5° north and longitudes 60° and 61° west. The
main island of Grenada has a width of 18 km, a length of 34 km, a coastline of
about 121 km, an area of 340 km2, and its highest point reaches nearly 900 m.
Carriacou, located 24 km to the northeast of the mainland, is less mountainous
and has an area of 34 km2. Petit Martinique is 2.3 km2 and lies east of the
northern part of Carriacou (FAO, 2006).

* Contact information: Fisheries Officer. Fisheries Division. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. St.
George’s, Grenada. E-mail: rolandbaldeo@hotmail.com
220 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Grenada has a relatively large insular shelf area of 3 100 km2. The shelf is
narrow on the western coast, extending from shore less than 1 km to 200 m
depth. From the southeast to the northeast, the shelf varies in width between
4 and 12 km, and extends to the west-southwest in a 19-km-wide tongue for about
32 km. Depths on the shelf vary from 40 to 80 m with average depths of 30 to
40 m. In the Grenadines, the shelf is from 20 to 60 m deep over the greater part
of the area. Ocean currents generally flow from the east-southeast towards the
northwest. Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde are at the north of the island, and Gouyave
is on the west (FAO, 2006).

FIGURE 1
Geographic location of the island of Grenada

Source: FAO, 2006.

Coastal fisheries of Grenada 221

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY

Grenada’s most important fishery targets coastal pelagics within the country’s
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The main species targeted are:

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus)
Albacore (Thunnus alalunga)
Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans)
Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
Atlantic sailfish (Istiophorus albicans)
Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus)
Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)
King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)
Bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus)
Round scad (Decapterus sp.)

The fishery is essentially medium-scale commercial in which the entire catch

is sold. Grenada’s fishery does not record bycatch since there is a market for all
species captured. Because the main species targeted are migratory pelagics, there is
an element of seasonality both in effort and catches. Catches of pelagic species are
most prevalent between October and July; however, this does not imply a totally
inactive period in between where catches approach zero. In this context, one may
argue that the fishery is essentially year-round.

2.1 Beach seine fishery

The beach seine fishery in Grenada has been researched and described by Finlay
(1996). It targets coastal pelagic species in bays around the islands of Grenada,
including jacks, round robins, rainbow runners, sprats and anchovies.
In 1994, there were 41 large beach seines operating in Grenada, operated by
289 fishers, most of whom are not the owners of the gear (Finlay, 1996). About
25% of the seines in Grenada were based in Gouyave, and only one or two out
of the more than a dozen have been owner-operated. Net units are operated by
groups of six to eight fishers who position themselves at a fishing location and take
turns fishing. Fishing practices are governed by a well-defined set of 15 traditional
rules enforced at the haul by the seine net community. The rules institutionalize
how fishers stake a claim to a haul by anchoring and tying the sternline to shore;
how they determine the sequence of turns if more than one boat is preparing to
seine; how to share the catch or revenue from it when helpers and volunteers take
part; and other practices designed to make fishing operations work smoothly
and predictably. In recent years, increasing competition and conflict among seine
nets and also between seine nets and non-fishing coastal sea users have tended to
disrupt the traditional practices necessitating consultations to decide on agreed
upon management measures.
222 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

The process of formalizing the system of rules for seine fishing in Grenada
has been ongoing since 1982, when the Chief Fisheries Officer became aware
that there was an informal system. In the following years he interviewed many
seine fishers and interpreted, compiled and documented the rules. These were
then reconfirmed with groups of fishers in meetings at all major fishing areas
and formulated into a set of rules that they could endorse for adoption by the
government as regulations. A survey to determine fishers’ views concerning beach
seine fishing practices showed that 97% of captains strongly supported legalizing
the traditional rules.
The seine net fishery in Grenada is a case of an attempt by the government to
systematically document traditional fishing rules and customs in order to consider
incorporating them into formal fisheries legislation. A basic assumption and
prerequisite is that the communities in which the fishing takes place should be
willing and able to perpetuate the traditional rules.
Information regarding fishing activities for pelagic fisheries in Grenada is
shown in Table 1, updated up to 2004. It is important to note that the information
provided is also historically accurate (early 1980s). The most flexible variable is the
number of boats in the fishery.
In Grenada, other fishery species are targeted, as in the case of the Caribbean
spiny lobster. This species is of high importance in the wider Caribbean given its high
economic value. In Grenada, this crustacean is captured using of trammel nets.

TABLE 1
Summary of fishing activity for pelagics in Grenada

Type and size of Type and size Number of boats Average

Species
gear of boat in fishery crew

Yellowfin tuna
Sailfish Surface longline
Launch 10–15 m 75 4
Swordfish 500 hooks
Blue marlin

Yellowfin tuna
Sailfish Surface longline
Pirogue 7–9 m 120 3
Swordfish 200 hooks
Blue marlin

Yellowfin tuna
Surface longline
Sailfish Open 5–7 m 210 2
150 hooks
Blue marlin

Blackfin tuna
Dolphinfish Trolling lines – 3 Open pirogue 130 2–3
Barracuda

Jacks
Double ender
Round robin Beach seine 25 8
5–7 m
Scads

Source: Statistical Unit, Fisheries Division, Grenada.

Coastal fisheries of Grenada 223

2.2 Lobster fishery

Around Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde in the north of Grenada, fishers have used
trammel nets as the main method for harvesting Caribbean spiny lobster since
the 1980s. Nowhere else in Grenada is this gear used primarily for lobsters, and
many of these enterprises are owner-operated. These nets are non-selective, and
hauling them physically damages productive bottom habitats. Use of trammel nets
was recently prohibited in Grenada. The nets were prohibited in neighbouring
countries several years earlier.
A boat will typically catch 30 to 60 kg of lobster per week in a season of 16
to 24 weeks. Between 6 and 10 boats are usually operating, so landings of about
10 tonnes per season of whole lobster from Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde are possible.
Lobsters may be landed in Sauteurs or taken to holding pens in shallow water for
accumulation. Landings are usually taken by road to the Grenville fish market for
sale, and some also find their way to the capital, St. George’s. The market accepts
lobster caught by the illegal fishing gear, as well as lobster caught by Self-contained
Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) divers by hand or using loops.
Although Sauteurs fishers exploit several fisheries, lobsters are the mainstay that
provides them with their fishing identity and main livelihood. Estimates of personal
and fishery-wide income vary considerably. However, fishers are said to expect
about US$2 000 per eight-month season. The seasonal value of the lobster fishery at
these locations may be around US$100 000, not counting indirect employment and
value added in final marketing through hotels.
While recognizing the illegality of their actions and agreeing to stop using the
nets, trammel net fishers at Sauteurs and Isle de Ronde have argued that they need
first to be provided with alternative and legally acceptable fishing gear that yields
adequate returns. Dialogue between the fishers and Fisheries Division on this issue
has been ongoing for several years. Fishers argued successfully, at policy level,
for relaxing enforcement of the legislation until the Fisheries Division introduced
suitable alternative gear. Phillip (2002) provides details of fishing methods. The
Fisheries Division’s work with the fishers on alternative gear and persuading
them to comply with the fisheries regulations is an attempt at co-management in a
fairly narrow sense. Due to the relatively remote location of the fishing areas away
from the capital and regular enforcement efforts, obtaining the fishers voluntary
compliance with the legislation is critical for management of the fishery.

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

As of 2004, 1 931 fishers were registered with the Fisheries Division. Records also
reveal that there are 35 weekend fishers and 365 part-time fishers, while the remainder
is classified as full-time fishers (1 834). A part-time fisher is usually engaged in farming
part of the time. Occupations engaged in by part-time fishers include construction and
boat building. Some may travel abroad for part of the year.
Few women in Grenada are involved in active fishing. However, their
participation in the industry is fairly high profile in the following areas: fish
vending, fish processing (salting, smoking), export sector (as exporters), clerical
224 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

work (for major exporters), quality control (for exporters), and financial
controllers for their male fishing partners.
The last role is of critical importance in maintaining the viability of the fisher
family (Johnson St. Louis, personal communication, 2004). A fact that is not
commonly noted is that some women invest substantially in the industry as boat
owners. Every parish in Grenada along the coast has communities with a long
fishing tradition. However, with regards to the movements of fisheries from
one locality to another, the situation is fairly fluid. Fishers based in a particular
location may originate elsewhere.
In Grenada, 84.3% of all fishers possess a minimum elementary education (i.e.
pre-secondary); 7.1% have reached secondary level; and 8.7% have completed
tertiary level education (ranging from junior college to university). The average
fishing family size is five. The wife and sons usually play a supporting role to the
father (usually the fisher). The wife may help to process surplus catch (salting).
The sons, if old enough, may accompany the father on fishing trips during school
vacations. Fishers of small boats may earn between US$9 300 and US$10 000 per
year. (Johnson St. Louis, personal communications, 2004). For the larger boats (i.e.
longliners) annual income ranges between US$15 300 and US$33 700.
Grenada does not possess ‘fishing communities’ in the sense understood in
some countries. Fishing is just another occupation in a normal community. There
is no discernable difference in a community with a sizeable number of fishers
from any other community, except perhaps the presence of boats, fishing gear and
fishing infrastructure (jetty, fish markets). Grenadian fishers have the same access
to housing (with electricity, running potable water), transportation, medical care,
school and entertainment facilities as the rest of the population.

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

Not all fishers belong to a fisheries organization, but a significant number of them
do belong to some organized group. There are six fisher organizations nationwide.
These organizations take the form of registered fishermen cooperatives and/
or associations. Additionally, investors such as bankers and administrators may
actively participate in meetings in an advisory capacity.
To the extent that fishers belong to registered organizations, they may participate
in fishery management. It must be noted, however, that fishers’ contributions to
management at this level are mainly related to advocacy. Fishers may sometimes
share information on an ad hoc basis of a nature that can be directly utilized in
fishery management. Such information is usually of the sort that has implications
for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). Another way in which fisheries
participate in fishery management is by sharing traditional ecological knowledge
(TEK) with fishery managers.
Community-wide involvement in fishery management is restricted to advocacy
by individuals on specific issues and reporting of illegal activities (MCS). However,
the community is not sufficiently informed about fishery issues in order to be
effective as it could be.
Coastal fisheries of Grenada 225

Non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) involvement in fishery management

is very limited. Mainly, they have served to facilitate training programmes and
community discussions. From time-to-time, an NGO will focus attention on some
aspect of the marine environment (e.g. habitat degradation, coastal erosion). Grenada
currently has a number of NGOs (conservation groups and three universities)
involved in marine turtle research that is aimed at protecting populations.
In terms of interactions with other sectors, fishers targeting large pelagics
using the surface (drifting) longlines sometimes do get into conflict over sea
space. A drifting longline occupies a substantial portion of available sea space
thus increasing the likelihood of gear overlapping and entanglement. Within the
inshore coastal area, the beach seine targets mainly scads (bigeye and roundeye
scads). These fishes are an important source of low-cost, high-quality protein for
the Grenadian community. In recent times, however, the demand for these fishes
as bait for the large pelagic fishery has increased markedly.
Other coastal activities include fishing for demersals, tourism-related activities,
recreational diving, yachting and shipping. Very often, direct conflicts develop
between yachts and inshore pelagic fishers when the former get in the way of
beach seines.
Grenada does not possess anything resembling an integrated coastal management
policy.

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
Stock assessment of large pelagics is normally conducted by the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which uses a
variety of models and tests. Neither Grenada nor other Caribbean countries
have been conducting any assessments on the smaller pelagics (with the possible
exception of wahoo and dolphinfish). Population parameters include length
and age at maturity. ICCAT also provides estimates of recruitments, yields and
biomass.
Under the ecosystem approach to the Lesser Antilles Project (FAO, 2006),
some attempt is being made to develop workable ecosystem modelling. One of
the models being looked at is ECOPATH. There are large knowledge gaps as it
relates to Grenada’s pelagic fishery. Knowledge deficiency covers such areas as:
no bio-economic assessment of the fishery; no cost-benefit or financial analysis;
no risk/uncertainty analysis; no environmental impact assessment; and no social
impact assessment.
There may be some information on demographics of the fishing community.
But issues as they relate to gender, movement of labour, traditional knowledge and
community-based management have never been subjects of targeted research.

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

Grenada’s fishery is centrally managed through a Fishery Management Unit
(referred to as the Fisheries Division) within the Ministry of Agriculture. The
Fisheries Division was established by an Act of Parliament in 1986. This piece of
226 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

legislation, administered by the Fisheries Division, provides for the appointment

of a chief fisheries officer and other fisheries officers responsible for the
formulation and review of fisheries management and development Plans, and a
fisheries advisory committee made up of fishers, investors and other stakeholders
in the industry. The Fisheries Act also makes provisions for the establishment of
access agreements, local and foreign fishing licences, fish processing operations,
local management areas, fisheries conservation, fisheries research, and control of
gear and effort. In addition, the Fisheries Act provides for enforcement, and grants
rule-making powers to the Minister responsible for fisheries.

Subsidiary legislation includes the following:

r
Fisheries Regulations SRO #9 of 1987;
r
Fisheries (Fishing Vessel Safety) Regulations SRO #3, 1990;
r
Fisheries (Amendment) Regulations SRO #24, 1996;
r
Fisheries (Amendment) Regulations SRO #2, 2001;
r
Fisheries (Amendment) Act #1, 1999;
r
Fisheries (Marine Protected Regulations), 2001.

Legislation directly related to fishers includes:

r
Grenada Territorial Seas and Marine Boundaries Act #25, 1989
(defining EEZ a consolidation of SRO #17 and #20 of 1978);
r
CARICOM Common External Tariff Order #18, 1995
(Archipelagic baseline Ordinance);
r
Grenada Ports Authority Act (Cap. 247);
r
Fish and Fishery Products Regulations SRO #17, 1999;
r
Merchant Shipping Act (1994);
r
Waste Management Act #16, 2001.

The Fisheries Division is under the Ministry of Agriculture and hence policies
guiding fisheries management and development are formulated and implemented
within a framework that was developed and agreed upon for the agricultural
sector as a whole. Within this context, the issues of target stock conservation and
management, infrastructure enhancement and socio-economic development are
the main areas of focus.
Grenada is signatory to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
(which incorporates the Precautionary Principle) as well as the Convention on
Biological Diversity. The offshore pelagic fishery operates under the principle of
the ‘commons’, whereas fishing opportunity is governed by a ‘first-come basis’.
On the other hand, fishing opportunity in the inshore pelagic fisheries (scads)
is subject to traditional conventions in territorial use rights in fisheries (TURF).
Fishing opportunity is allocated to specific seines at specific times by common
agreement. This TURF system has evolved over many decades and is not written.
It has proved to be effective in preventing conflicts among seine owners and for
Coastal fisheries of Grenada 227

this reason is adhered to by all. The ‘right’ to fish in this sense simply refers to
having a designated ‘turn’ to encircle a school of fish within a particular bay.
Conservation measures as they relate to the pelagic fishery are twofold. In
the case of large pelagics falling under the mandate of ICCAT, the conservation/
management measures proposed by that organization are followed. With regard
to the inshore pelagics, the law provides for the regulation of mesh sizes in
beach seines. The Fishery (Amendment) Regulations of 1996 and 2001, and the
Fisheries (Marine Protected Areas) of 2001, provide for habitat protection and
enhancement. These pieces of legislation envisage the protection of both spawning
and foraging habitats.
All fishery officers are empowered by the Fishery Act as enforcement officers.
Enforcement is normally conducted jointly with police/coast guard. Enforcement
covers such areas as illegal fishing (including fishing during the closed season and
foreign fishing). Compliance within the pelagic fishery is fairly high.
Grenada’s commercial fishery is subsidized. Subsidies include a rebate on fuel
purchased (82 cents on the gallon), all fishing gear and all safety-at-sea items
(100% duty and 100% general consumption tax off). The law stipulates that only
‘bona fide’ fishers are eligible for concessions.

6.1 Long-term plan

Generally the objective of fisheries management is to sustain and increase yields
from fisheries resources for the purpose of satisfying and enhancing human
food consumption and contributing to the socio-economic options available to
the Grenadian community. In this regard, long-term planning incorporates the
following aspects:
r
Apply the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in the management
of specific stocks and habitats and use as reference points in conservation
and management programmes.
r
Apply technology that is efficient and selective.
r
Continue the control of fishing effort in order to protect stocks from both
local and foreign fishers.
r
Ensure that various fisheries sector providers are controlled and facilitated
for the socio-economic development of the Grenadian community as a
whole.
r
Implement FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Convention
on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) and ICCAT’s management measures.
r
Continue to promote co-management in all fisheries. In addition, initiatives to
implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management will continue.
r
Strengthen the Fisheries Division’s capacity in data collection, processing
and analysis.
r
Improve fishery infrastructure.
r
Continue the drive to ensure the security of the fishing fleet by vigorously
enforcing safety at sea regulation.
228 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

r
Pursue institutional strengthening at the level of the Fisheries Division with

emphasis on human resource development.
r
Maintain regional and international collaboration in the interest of fishery
management and conservation.

6.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance

All fishery officers are empowered by the Fishery Act as enforcement officers.
Enforcement is normally conducted jointly with police/coast guard. Enforcement
covers such areas as illegal fishing (including fishing during the closed season and
foreign fishing). Compliance within the pelagic fishery is fairly high.
Unfortunately, there is no formal mechanism to evaluate fisheries management
in Grenada.

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

The following data are routinely collected at primary landing sites: catch and
effort, landings by species and weight, and fishing area/ground.
Table 2 summarizes the type of data normally collected.

TABLE 2
Summary of fisheries data collected

Type of Fishery Agency/organization/

Data collected/method Location
data type institution
Catch and 1 and 2 From production and landings All primary and FD/MALFF
effort tertiary landing
sites
Biological1 1 and 2 Measurements done by data Primary landing FD/MALFF
collectors at market whenever sites
available
Biological2 Used to be collected GYS FD/MALFF for ICCAT
during the national billfish through CRFM
tournament but discontinued
as the tournament is basically
of catch and release type
Biological 1 and 2 Planned for as part of the All markets FD/MALFF, CRFM, FAO
ecosystem based system of
management

Note: type 1 refers to the large offshore pelagic fishery (yellowfin tunas, billfishes), while type 2 are
small pelagics (blackfin, wahoo, dolphinfish, etc.).
Note: GYS = Grenada Yacht Services; FD = Fisheries Division; MALFF = Ministry of Agriculture,
Lands, Forestry and Fisheries; ICCAT = International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; CRFM = Caribbean
Regional Fisheries Mechanism.
1 Length frequency.
2 Length frequency, weight, sex.

With regard to large tuna and tuna-like species (especially billfishes), both stock
assessment and fishery management is relegated to ICCAT. As a consequence, all
countries targeting species under ICCAT’s mandate, whether contracting parties
or not, are obligated to provide ICCAT with catch and effort and other relevant
Coastal fisheries of Grenada 229

data. ICCAT then determines available biomass and decides on appropriate

management measures. All countries must comply with management measures
proposed by ICCAT.
A limited amount of work has been done through the Organization of Eastern
Caribbean States (OECS) Fisheries Unit on the economic and social aspects of
the fishery. While the study was a country-specific survey of fishing vessels, it
did incorporate information on fishers. Data included information on crew, social
status, dependencies, costs and expenditure, among others.
There is no formal structured educational programme (environmental or
conservation) on fishing or fisheries. From time-to-time, fisheries officers will
make ad hoc presentations in schools, community centres, cooperatives, and at
the university on issues concerning sustainable utilization of marine resources and
conservation. During such presentations, the concept of sustainable utilization is
normally explained. Much focus is also placed on sensitizing people on fishery
conservation laws.
Only one vocational institution (except for the Grenada Fishing School, 1980–
1982) has ever sought to promote fishing as an occupation, but this programme has
since been stopped. As a rule, vocational institutions offer alternative occupations
to fishing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to the following persons who assisted with the preparation
of this report: Crofton Isaac (Fisheries Officer, Fisheries Division); Justin Rennie
(Chief Fisheries Officer [Ag], Fisheries Division); Paul Phillip (Fisheries Officer,
Fisheries Division); Johnson St. Louis (Fisheries Officer, Fisheries Division) and
Tracy Augustine (Data Clerk, Fisheries Division).

REFERENCES
FAO. 2006. Fisheries Country Profile for Grenada. [Online document] Web page:
http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/GRD/profile.htm – Date of consultation: Nov. 24,
2006.
Finlay J.A. 1996. Community-level sea use management in the Grenada beach seine
net fishery: current practices and management recommendations. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados.
Phillip P.E. 2002. Management recommendations for lobster fishery re: trammel nets.
Fisheries Division manuscript.
 231

10. Coastal fisheries of Mexico

José Ignacio Fernández*, Porfirio Álvarez-Torres, Francisco Arreguín-Sánchez,
Luís G. López-Lemus, Germán Ponce, Antonio Díaz-de-León, Enrique Arcos-
Huitrón and Pablo del Monte-Luna

Fernández, J.I., Álvarez-Torres, P., Arreguín-Sánchez, F., López-Lemus, L.G., Ponce, G.,
Díaz-de-León, A., Arcos-Huitrón, E. and del Monte-Luna, P. 2011. Coastal fisheries of
Mexico. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin
America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome.
pp. 231–284.

1. Introduction 232
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 233
2.1 Fisheries technology 235
2.2 Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean fisheries 235
2.3 Pacific coast fisheries 237
2.4 Seasonality 239
2.5 Non-target species and bycatch 240
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 240
3.1 Average annual income level 241
3.2 Fishers’ levels of education and roles of family members
in coastal fisheries 242
3.3 Processing and marketing 243
3.4 Conflicts between fishers and other coastal activities 244
4. Assessment of fisheries 245
4.1 Status of the fisheries 247
5. Fishery management and planning 249
5.1 Historical trends 249
5.2 Legal instruments, strategies and management tools 250
5.3 Management and enforcement 252
5.4 Fishers’ participation in fisheries management 252
5.5 Community and NGO involvement in fishery management 253
5.6 Management in accordance to international guidelines 253
6. Research and education 254
6.1 Ecosystem-based management approach 255

* Contact information: Instituto Nacional de la Pesca-SAGARPA. Mexico. E-mail: WECSG20@

yahoo.com.mx
232 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

7. Issues and challenges 257

7.1 Fisheries assessment and approaches needed for integration 257
7.2 Lack of long-term vision on fisheries management 257
7.3 Flaws in fishery policies and lack of transparency 258
7.4 Need for a definition of use rights 258
7.5 Interactions between industrial and artisanal fleets and with
other sectors 259
7.6 Impact of subsidies on fishing activities 260
References 260

1. INTRODUCTION
Small-scale fisheries in Mexico account for about 97% of the marine fleet. These
fisheries cover about 70% of the continental shelf, which accounts for 10% of the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and occur scattered along both coastal regions:
the Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean (Figure 1). In this
chapter, we first present an overview of the Mexican marine fisheries, emphasizing
the most important small-scale fisheries in each region, and providing more
detailed information when available. We refer to coastal, small-scale or artisanal
fisheries as those that generate products for local consumption and marketing, use
small-scale boats that operate with low capital investment, are labour intensive
with limited autonomy and capacity, and usually undertake daily fishing trips.
Other fisheries (midscale and industrial) are referred to when applicable.

FIGURE 1
Map of the coastal area in Mexico surrounded by waters from
the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea

Source: Beltrán-Turriago, 2007.

Total annual catch in Mexico has fluctuated in the last three decades around
1.3 million tonnes (Figure 2). Different governmental programmes provided the
incentive for the development of the fisheries between the 1970s and the 1980s,
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 233

especially by improving technology and increasing fishing effort (Salas et al.,

2007); more recently, catches range around 1 million tonnes (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2
Landing trends from 1950 to 2003 in Mexico

1 800

1 600

1 400
Landings (thousand tonnes)

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0
40

43

46

49

52

55

58

61

64

67

70

73

76

79

82

85

88

91

94

97

00

03

06
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20
Year

Source: CONAPESCA, 2002.

The development of Mexican fisheries has been different between regions, as

landings from the Pacific contribute the most to the total national catch (77%),
compared with those from the Gulf of Mexico (21%) and the Caribbean region
(2%) (CONAPESCA, 2002). However, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean
region play an important role in terms of catch value and job generation. In these
areas, a high proportion of total catch comes from the artisanal (small-scale) fleet
that targets highly profitable species; other proportions of the landings come from
multispecies fisheries that are mainly seasonal.
Landings from the Pacific have fluctuated more over the last two decades
than those from the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean region (Figure 3). This occurred
mostly during the early 1990s when El Niño-southern Oscillation (ENSO) events
caused declines in abundant sardine stocks. Catches in the Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean Sea peaked by 1993–1994, the shrimp and the octopus fisheries
contributing the most to the overall catch.

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIES

Small-scale coastal fisheries can be described in terms of the catch of a variety
of target species, plus several incidental species. Target species comprise 28% of
the catches in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, as registered in statistical
yeardocuments. Although subsistence fisheries are widespread, most artisanal
fisheries can be characterized as small- to medium-scale commercial, since a
significant fraction of the catch is sold to local markets or to middlemen for both
domestic and overseas markets.
According to statistical yeardocuments (CONAPESCA, 2001), there are
56 412 small artisanal vessels in the Pacific shores: 1 609 in Baja California;
234 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

3 633 in Baja California Sur; 7 234 in Sonora; 11 828 in Sinaloa; 4 442 in Nayarit;
2 938 in Jalisco; 791 in Colima; 5 171 in Michoacán; 4 744 in Guerrero; 5 090 in
Oaxaca; and 8 932 in Chiapas.

FIGURE 3
Landing trends from the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea
of main species targeted by coastal fleet in Mexico

Source: SEMARNAP, 2004.

On the other hand, there are 43 392 small artisanal vessels in the Gulf of Mexico
and Caribbean shores: 6 662 in Tamaulipas; 15 898 in Veracruz; 9 601 in Tabasco;
5 362 in Campeche; 4 981 in Yucatán; and 888 in Quintana Roo (CONAPESCA,
2001).
Despite the differences in small-scale fisheries on both coasts, the per
capita investment in fishing gear and boat equipment is generally low in both
cases, compared with semi-industrial fleets. However, fishing technology has
been improved during the past two or three decades as increases in both boat
motorization and the use of more efficient fishing gears have occurred. These
changes are the result of investments applied in these fisheries in Mexico, similar
to investments in technology that have occurred in many other countries in Latin
America and the Caribbean during the same period (Salas et al., 2007). Regardless
of these improvements, productivity has not increased accordingly, since near-
shore fishery resources are fully exploited, overexploited (Díaz de León et al.,
2004) or fished down (Salas et al., 2004). Increasing fish demand and marketing
of fish products has led to an excess of fishing capacity, resource depletion,
waste of economic and human resources, and poor returns on investments. In
addition, fishers have been faced with increases in frequency and intensity of
natural phenomena in coastal areas such as hurricanes, tropical storms and red
tides, which have impacted the resources and limited their fishing operations, thus
affecting fishers’ profits (Díaz de León et al., 2004; Salas et al., 2006).
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 235

2.1 Fisheries technology

Mexican artisanal fisheries vary in their degree of technology. The simpler side has
fishers operating from the shore or from propelled wooden canoes using cast nets or
beach seines. However, most fishing vessels are made of fibreglass and are 6 to 10 m
long. In some regions, the outboard-powered small vessels are called panga.
Some fisheries, like the shrimp fishery that operates in coastal waters, use fixed
gears which block migrations to the sea (tapos) and use small vessels to load the
catches and take them to shore. In Tamaulipas and Veracruz, fishers use small vessels
and ‘V’ shaped fixed nets (charangas) and they store the catch until it is taken to
shore.
In some cases, such as the octopus-grouper fishery in Yucatán and the lobster
fishery, several fleets of varying size and capacity target the same species. The larger
vessels generally use fishing methods and gears which incorporate the same level of
mechanical support for extraction, such as winches for grouper or traps for lobster.
These vessels have the ability to expand their operations to deeper areas, usually
targeting species of larger size, or other species like octopus. These fisheries can
be sequential, as different types of vessels operated by different stakeholders target
various life stages of the exploited populations, resulting in social interactions that
are not always explicitly considered in management. Even though it is generally
forbidden by regulations, diving is also a common fishing method in the Gulf of
Mexico and the Caribbean, targeting species like lobster, conch and octopus.

2.2 Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean fisheries

A variety of species are targeted in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.
However, only a dozen of them represent the highest contribution in volume
and profit; other species are caught incidentally or in a complementary manner.
A summary of the characteristics of the vessels used, as well as the usual crew
employed by the fleet that undertake fishing operations in the Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean region, are presented in Table 1. Appendix I presents a complete list
of species targeted in the area.
One of the most important fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico targets grouper
and related species. The demersal species associated with reef areas (Veracruz)
and rocky areas (Yucatán) are usually reported in a group called escama. This
situation can obscure the organization of catch records and the assessment of
stocks, further complicating the implementation of management strategies that
properly regulate the effort allocated to different stocks. The demersal fishes
included in the ‘escama’ group include the following: groupers (Epinephelus
flavolimbatus, E. morio, E. itajara, E. adscencionis, E. drummondhayi, E. nigritus,
Mycteroperca bonaci, M. microlepis, M. venenosa, M. interstitialis); snappers
(Lutjanus bucanella, L. vivanus, L. synagris, L. analis, L. griseus, L. jocu, Ocyurus
chrysurus, Rhomboplites aurorubens), porgies (Calamus bajonado); grunts
(Haemulon plumieri); banded rudderfish (Seriola zonata); hogfish (Lachnolaimus
maximus); and tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) (Monroy et al., 2000a). At
certain locations in the Gulf of Mexico, between 35% and 70% of the total catch
of escama is made up of the red grouper (E. morio).
236 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 1
Summary of characteristics of boats and gears employed in the fisheries that operate in
the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean region

Type and size of Number of Average

Species Type and size of boat
gear boats crew size

Octopus Alijos (small boats) 3–4 m long, fibreglass Around 3 500 1–4 for small
carrying jimbas boat, carried by a 7–9 m small vessels, boats, 10–12
(wooden stick with long boat with outboard and 500 mid-size for mid-size
several lines and engine (15–75 hp) or by vessels vessels
baits) a 12–22 m long vessel
acting as mother ship
for the alijos. Around 10
alijos for mid-size vessels
and 2 alijos for small
vessels

Shrimp V-shaped nets 4–6 m long, fibreglass Around 4 000 1–4

15 to 50 m wide boat with outboard small boats in
(charangas), cast engine (15–100 hp) Tamaulipas-
nets, gillnets Veracruz
At least 200–400
vessels in seabob
fishery

Mullets 450–1 500 m long 4–6 m long fibreglass No records 1–4

gillnets, 2–3.75 in boat, with outboard
mesh size engine (15–75 hp)

Grouper Longline with 3–4 m long, fibreglass Around 4 000 1–4 for small
1 500–2 000 boat, carried by a 7–9 m small vessels, boats, 4–12
handlines or short long boat with outboard 500–600 mid- for mid-size
longlines engine (15–75 hp) or by size vessels vessels
a 12–22 m long vessel
acting as mother ship for
the alijos

Spanish Gillnets (300 m long, 4–6 m long fibreglass No records 1–4 in boats,
and king 3.5–4 in mesh size), boat with outboard up to 20
mackerels beach seines (400– engine (15–100 hp) when using
800 m), handlines beach seines

Sharks Longlines, gillnets 4–6 m long fibreglass Around 3 665 1–4

and rays boat with outboard small vessels
engine (up to 100 hp)

Lobster Hooka system, 7–9 m long, fibreglass 998 small vessels 1–3 for small
artificial habitats boat with outboard and 16 mid-size vessels, 6–12
(casitas) and traps in engine (between 50–75 vessels for mid-size
Yucatán; nets, diving hp) and mid-size vessels vessels
and same as above in (10–22 m long)
Quintana Roo

Finfish Gillnets, longlines, 7–9 m long, fibreglass Up to 43 392 1–4 for small
cast nets, handlines, boat with outboard small vessels vessels
beach seine nets engine (15 up to 100 hp)

In Tamiahua, Veracruz, the following species account for more than 50% of
the total catches: spotted and silver weakfish (Cynoscion nebulosus and C. nothus);
mojarras (Eugerres spp.); sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus); croaker
(Micropogon undulatus); drum (Pogonias cromis); and red drum (Sciaenops
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 237

ocellatus). White mullet and mullet catches account for another 9%. In Laguna
Madre, Tamaulipas (north of the Gulf of Mexico), spotted weakfish, croaker,
sheepshead and drum (together, 28% of catches) are caught with gillnets (Gómez
and Monroy, 2000).
Some fish species can also be caught in lobster traps (González-Cano et al.,
2000), namely grouper (Epinephelus morio), hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus),
cabrilla (Serranus cabrilla), and snappers (Lutjanus spp.). Other crustaceans, such
as crabs and lobster (Scyllarides nodifer), are also caught incidentally and are
consumed locally. On the other hand, white shrimp are caught in nets used to
catch seabobs in shallow waters of the Campeche Bank. In this zone no artisanal
fishery for white or pink shrimp in shallow marine waters is allowed, although it
occurs frequently enough to be considered a serious problem. In Tamaulipas and
Veracruz, small fishes and crabs of several species are caught in the charangas,
although a list of such species has not been published (Fernández et al., 2000). In
Yucatán, shrimp are caught in the estuaries using nets called triangulos, which are
operated manually (Salas et al., 2006).

2.3 Pacific coast fisheries

Several fisheries based in the Pacific region could be considered as a single group
(or species) since they are very specialized (e.g. seaweeds, kelp, octopus, lobster and
crabs). Other species, such as the abalone, conch, clams, mussels and sea urchins,
are hand-picked by divers using boat-based air compressors (called ‘Hooka’). In
these fisheries it is not very common to report incidental catch, although some
complementary species are captured by the divers. Table 2 depicts a summary of
the characteristics of some of the fisheries in the Pacific region and Appendix II
includes a complete list of species targeted in the region.
The Pacific littoral fisheries are similar to the fisheries for shrimp in coastal
waters, with fishers using fixed gears blocking migrations to the sea (locally called
tapos) and small vessels to collect catches and take them to shore. There are also
active fishing gears to catch shrimp in shallow water, such as cast nets and suripera
(a quasi-trawlnet).
One of the most specialized fisheries in the area is the one for sharks, as it
requires different fishing strategies and gears than those used for finfish. However,
some fleets that target finfish using gillnets and longlines also catch sharks. There
is high species richness for sharks in the Mexican Pacific and almost all are sold
commercially when caught.
In the squid fishery, which primarily targets the giant squid (Dosidicus gigas),
some species appear as bycatch, for example, the common Pacific squid (calamar
común del Pacífico, Loligo opalescens), the dart squid (calamar dardo, Loliolopsis
diomedeae), Lolliguncula spp., Illex spp., Ommastrephes spp., and Symplectoteuthis
spp. These are also caught as bycatch by industrial shrimp trawlers.
238 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 2
Summary of vessels and gear characteristics of the fisheries in the Pacific littoral

Number of
Fishery Type and size of gear Type and size of boat
vessels
Seaweed SCUBA diving, Hooka 5–7 m fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 59

Kelp Hand-picked Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 613

Abalone SCUBA diving, Hooka Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 878

Conch SCUBA diving Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine

SCUBA diving, Hooka, hand-
Clams Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 200
picked on low tide
SCUBA diving, Hooka, hand-
Mussels Fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 55
picked on low tide
Giant squid Poteras Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 2 000

Octopus SCUBA diving, Hooka Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 1 188
Castnets, suripera or dragona, Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine
Shrimp 12 339
seine (55 hp)
Metal, wood and plastic traps 5-7 m fibreglass boats, outboard engine
Lobster 1 110
(Californian type) (40–75 hp)
‘Chesapeake trap’, maximum
Crabs Small vessels, fibreglass, outboard engine 2 700
dimensions 60 x 60 x 40 cm
Stone crabs Traps Small vessels, fibreglass, outboard engine 760

Sea urchin SCUBA diving, Hooka Up to 7 m fibreglass, outboard engine 615

Sea
SCUBA diving, Hooka Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 7
cucumber
7 m fibreglass boat, outboard engine
Groupers Gillnets, line
(45–60 hp)
Croakers Gillnets 100–500 m long, 3–6 in.
Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine
and drums mesh size
Bottom gillnets 200–300 m
Snappers long, 82.55 mm mesh size, line, Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine
handline
Almadraba, beach net, lines
Jacks Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine
(currican)
Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine
Flounders Bottom gillnets, trawling, lines
(115 hp)
Mullets Gillnets 2.5–3.5 in. mesh size Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 848
500 in BCS,
Tilefishes Handlines, gillnets Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 33–380 in the
west coast BC
Gillnets; handline, SCUBA
Snooks Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine
diving, harpoon
gillnets 500 m long, 2.5-3.5 in
Mackerels Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine
mesh size
Longline 1 500–3 000 m long,
Coastal
500–1000 hooks; up to 750 m Small fibreglass vessels, outboard engine 4 973
sharks
long and 350 hooks
Bottom gillnets 4–10 in. mesh 7-8 m overall length, fibreglass outboard
Rays
size engine (75 hp or more)
Sport fishing fibreglass vessels, outboard
Sailfish Fishing rod 966
engine
Sport fishing fibreglass vessels, outboard
Dolphinfish Fishing rod 966
engine
Sport fishing fibreglass vessels, outboard
Marlin Fishing rod 966
engine

BCS = Baja California Sur; BC = Baja California.

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 239

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

more abundant in Tamaulipas in April and September to October, in March

and October in Veracruz, in March and October–November in Tabasco, and in
January and November in Campeche, Yucatán and Quintana Roo. For the king
mackerel these peaks occur in June and August in Tamaulipas, May and August in
Veracruz, May and October for Tabasco, in December to February in Campeche,
in December and January in Yucatán, and in December and February in Quintana
Roo (Schultz et al., 2000).
Sharks and rays: In many species caught by this fishery, abundance varies
according to migratory movements occurring mostly during winter, when several
species are caught (Cid et al., 2000; Fuentes-Mata et al., 2002).
Spiny lobster: Although migratory movements dependent on age and size have
been described (González-Cano, 1991), their effect on availability has not been
clearly defined. Seasonality of the fishery is determined mainly by management,
with a closed season from 1 March to 31 June (González-Cano et al., 2000).
Catches are usually higher from July to September.

2.5 Non-target species and bycatch

Because of the low selectivity and diversity of fishing gears and methods in the
small-scale fisheries, the catches contain a considerable number of different species.
It is important to notice here, however, that most of the products harvested by the
small-scale fleet are sold and rarely discarded. In multispecific fisheries, as many
stocks are diminishing and catch-per-unit effort continues to decline, fishers tend
to keep those resources that can be traded in such a way that the travel costs can
be compensated and a profit generated from every fishing trip. This condition,
however, does not apply in the case of the shrimp fishery. A list of non-target
species harvested incidentally is presented in Appendix III for artisanal fisheries
and in Appendix IV for shrimp trawl bycatch.

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The statistical yeardocument report indicated that 268 727 persons were employed
in fisheries in Mexico in 2001 (CONAPESCA, 2001). In 1999, the National
Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information (INEGI) reported 154 379
persons employed directly in fisheries and aquaculture and 83 058 employed in
jobs directly related to them.
According to the statistical yeardocument of 2000 (CONAPESCA, 2001), there
were 104 028 persons involved full time in fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean seashores: 15 153 in Tamaulipas; 32 277 in Veracruz; 21 499 in Tabasco;
12 307 in Campeche; 19 711 in Yucatán; and 3 081 in Quintana Roo. These numbers
include artisanal and industrial fishers as well as 1 203 involved in aquaculture and
other jobs directly related to the sector. In most cases, those registered by INEGI
as employed in fisheries satisfy the criterion of obtaining most of their income from
fisheries or related activities. Despite these records, there is no accurate information
published that estimates the number of people involved in each of the most
important fisheries in the country, nor does discrimination by type of fleet exist.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 241

Gómez and Monroy (2000) report that in the Laguna Madre there were
1 233 small vessels operating in the finfish fishery. According to the same authors,
there were 3 111 fishers operating in the northern Veracruz finfish fishery with
2 408 small vessels.
The number of fishers per vessel varies according to the type of fishery and the
region. For instance, in Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco and Campeche the average
number of fishers by registered small vessel is 2.2, while in Yucatán and Quintana
Roo the average is 3.7 fishers per vessel.
The Pacific littoral presents a north-to-south decreasing gradient in the number
of fishers per vessel. This is due mainly in part to the fact that the Gulf of California
(north) is a highly productive area, reflected in the economy through the presence
of industrial fleets targeting mainly tuna, sardine and shrimp. In comparison, the
rest of the Pacific shores are dominated by artisanal fisheries. The southern Pacific
shores also experience higher indices of poverty.
According to statistical yeardocuments (CONAPESCA, 2001), there
are 149 522 persons involved full time in fisheries in the Pacific seashores:
6 444 in Baja California; 11 027 in Baja California Sur; 22 638 in Sonora; 39 681 in
Sinaloa; 10 627 in Nayarit; 5 001 in Jalisco; 2 281 in Colima; 8 527 in Michoacán;
11 071 in Guerrero; 13 755 in Oaxaca; and 18 470 in Chiapas. These numbers
include artisanal and industrial fishers as well as 15 969 persons involved in
aquaculture and other related activities.
The proportion of people working in fishing by state in the Pacific is as follows:
Baja California (4.67%); Baja California Sur (5.21%); Sonora (13.53%); Sinaloa
(24.36%); Nayarit (7.94%); Jalisco (3.70%); Colima (1.50%); Michoacán (7.22%);
Guerrero (11.37%); Oaxaca (9.07%); and Chiapas (11.42%).
In the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, distribution of people employed in
fisheries is as follows: Tamaulipas (0.55%); Veracruz (0.47%); Tabasco (1.14%);
Campeche (1.8%); Yucatán (1.2%); and Quintana Roo (0.34%) (data comes
from INEGI, 1999 and CONAPESCA, 2001). Dependence on fishing is more
evident in small fishing communities. For example, Méndez (2004) reports 67%
of households are dependent on fisheries in Celestún, Yucatán.
No official statistics give a clear idea of part-time employment in fisheries in the
Gulf of Mexico. Chenaut (1985) reports that many fishers along the Yucatán coast
were originally peasants; they engaged in fisheries when they were displaced from
agriculture. Many of these retained some of their agricultural activities. However,
this situation should be considered a special case. The same author reports that in
the neighbouring Quintana Roo, the dependence of communities on fisheries is
higher because the land in the north of that state is unfit for agriculture. Fishing
traditions date back many years in many locations along the Mexican coast; Alcalá
(1986) reports a figure of 500 years for some communities.

3.1 Average annual income level

There are big differences between the incomes derived from fisheries among
regions and types of fisheries. The average monthly income derived from fisheries
242 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

in municipalities of the five states around the Gulf of California for the period
2000–2001 was 2 714 Mexican pesos (MXN) (1 US$ = 11.50 MXN), while in
the Gulf of Mexico states the average was 624 MXN. In Tamaulipas, the average
monthly income was 702 MXN, 471 MXN in Veracruz, 579 MXN in Tabasco,
475 MXN in Campeche, 526 MXN in Yucatán, and 989 MXN in Quintana
Roo. It is worth noting that the states with the highest average income have the
most valuable fisheries: shrimp (Tamaulipas) and lobster (Quintana Roo) (data
processed from INEGI, 1999). Nadal (1996) reported that 14% of fishing units
(employed in industrial fisheries) received 43% of the total income while 67% of
them (those employing 1–15 fishers per unit) received only 2.8%.
In many small fishing communities the lack of basic services such as running
water, education and electricity has been reported (e.g. Melville, 1984; Rodríguez,
1984; Cheanaut, 1985; Alcalá, 1986; Cesar and Arnaiz, 1998; Méndez, 2004). Even
in communities with basic services, the low income and the low average wages
create low living standards for many artisanal fishers.
Those states with large littorals and low populations, such as the whole Baja
California Peninsula and Sonora in the Mexican northern Pacific, are characterized
by the lack of basic services and the dispersion of fish landing locations. In some
states such as Oaxaca and Chiapas in the southern Mexican Pacific, as well as
northern Tamaulipas and Campeche, fishing communities are characterized by
low standards of living.
Most fishers are native to the regions where they operate. However, there is a
considerable seasonal migration in certain areas associated with local variations
of resource abundance. Fernández et al. (2000) and Gómez and Monroy (2000)
reported on the seasonal migration of fishers to Tamaulipas from other states
(mostly Veracruz) when the shrimp and mullet fisheries are in periods of high
abundance. Alcalá (1986) reports the presence of transient fishers from Veracruz
to Tabasco. Cesar and Arnaiz (1998) report migrant fishers from Veracruz
establishing fishing communities in northern Quintana Roo. In the Mexican
Pacific, some groups move seasonally between Chiapas and the Gulf of California
for the shark fishery.

3.2 Fishers’ levels of education and roles of family members in coastal

fisheries
Generally speaking, the educational level among artisanal fishers is low. Méndez
(2004) reported that less than 25% of boys in a fishing community in Yucatán
reached secondary school. A similar figure was reported in Michoacán, on the
Pacific shore, where 28% of fishers studied some years of elementary school and
only 31% finished this educational level; 21% reached secondary school and only
1% enrolled in college (Toledo and Bozada, 2002).
Concerning family participation in the fishery, most times women have marginal
roles in the harvesting process but play significant roles in processing. Younger
members of the family play auxiliary roles and act many times as apprentices
(Chenaut, 1985; Alcalá, 1986; Méndez, 2004). This level of participation is
reflected in the annual income of families in fishing communities.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 243

INEGI (1999) reports that only 3.7% of the people registered as directly
involved in fisheries and aquaculture are women, and 21% of them are working in
administrative and control areas. Women, along with the elderly and children, are
more involved with subsistence fisheries (Chenaut, 1985; Méndez, 2004).

3.3 Processing and marketing

Fishery products coming from artisanal small-scale fisheries are mainly fresh,
iced, frozen and, in very limited cases, processed. National, local and international
markets receive the products from these fisheries. Finfish and shark (up to a
certain size) are usually sold whole. Most of the shrimp artisanal catches in the
Gulf fisheries are of small sizes and are not suitable for international markets.
Octopus is processed (frozen) for the export market. Around 20 to 25%
of catches were exported in 2001, but in 1997 nearly 14 000 of the almost
18 000 tonnes caught were sent to international (mostly Asian) markets
(CONAPESCA, 2001). After 1996, when the north African octopus fishery
collapsed, international demand rose, doubling the price of octopus paid to fishers
in the Yucatán and Campeche fishery (Solís-Ramírez et al., 1998; Hernández et al.,
2000). However, prices were lower in consecutive years, and demand decreased
(Salas et al., 2006).
Around 40 to 50% of lobster catches are exported (González-Cano et al.,
2000). Frozen lobster tails comprise around 30% of the exported volume, the rest
being fresh and iced (CONAPESCA, 2001).
Close to 4 000 tonnes from approximately 8 000 tonnes of grouper catches
are exported to the United States of America, frozen whole or in fillets. The rest
is distributed in national markets and little is consumed locally (Monroy et al.,
2000a).
Nearly 70% of shark is sold fresh, 22% frozen, and the rest dried-salted. Shark
leather has been exported to the United States and Europe (294 tonnes in 1990,
worth US$10 million). Although it does not appear in statistical yeardocuments
since 1996, shark fins are exported to Asian markets (190 tonnes and US$2.5
million in 1987) (Cid et al., 2000).
The female gonads of mullets earn a price four to five times that of the rest
of the fish (120 Mexican pesos per kg, around US$30 in 1994). Fresh mullets
are consumed locally and only 4% are exported. Around 48% of female gonads
are consumed locally, 24% are for the national market, and 28% are exported.
Dried-salted mullets comprise 97% of the mullet products for the national market
(Gómez and Monroy, 2000).
On the Pacific littoral, seaweed is dehydrated and sold mostly in national
markets. Kelp is dehydrated and sold in national markets and exported. Both are
used to extract alginates.
Abalone is sold fresh and iced in national (local) markets. It is also frozen or
canned for national markets and exportation. Most species of conch are sold fresh
and iced locally and are rarely canned. Conch is also used for handicrafts. Clams
and mussels are mostly sold fresh and iced; they are rarely frozen or in brine.
244 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Squid is mostly sold fresh and iced. Sometimes it is processed (canned), while
octopus is sold mostly fresh and iced for the national market.
Most of the shrimp coming from artisanal catches are of small sizes, making
them unsuitable for international markets. These shrimp are consumed at local and
national levels. Large white shrimps caught in coastal waters are usually exported
and a small amount is allocated to national markets.
More than 70% of lobster catches are exported, mostly frozen. At the national
level, lobster is sold iced and fresh. Crab is mainly sold fresh and iced for the
national market. Some large boats targeting crab and operating under a special
licence process the meat into crabs sticks, which are cooked and exported.
Practically all production of sea urchin is frozen and mostly exported; sea
cucumber is dried and mostly exported. Most marine fishes are sold whole or
in fillets and are fresh, iced and frozen for national markets. A small amount of
groupers and snappers are exported frozen, whole or in fillets. In several cases,
gonads earn the highest prices and some species, such as mullets, are targeted
mostly for the gonads. Some species (i.e. mullets) are dried-salted or smoked and
sold in national markets.

3.4 Conflicts between fishers and other coastal activities

Allocation of marine resources has always been a complex issue to address in
fisheries. This issue is further complicated when deciding who will be granted
access to the most profitable resources, such as shrimp, lobster, abalone and
conch, in Mexico. By decree these resources were allocated to members of fishing
cooperatives in the 1970s and 1980s, restricting access by the members of the
organizations once they got the concession of the resources. By the 1990s this
decree was changed and the access was opened to other participants. However,
preference was given to those who have historical rights over the resources as long
as they were able to demonstrate they were efficient in the production system.
Another potential source of conflict in fisheries is the interaction of small-scale
fisheries with industrial fisheries, especially in the cases where the same resources
are targeted by both fleets. This is the case for the shrimp fisheries in Mexico, as
juvenile shrimp are caught by artisanal fishers in the estuaries, while the adults
are caught in marine areas. Juvenile shrimp can be overfished, reducing the stock
available for population reproduction and as a fishing stock for the industrial
fleet. The shrimp fishery is one of the most important fisheries in economic
terms in Mexico and the conflict between artisanal and industrial fishers is a
growing concern for fisheries managers (Fernández et al., 2000). Similar types of
interactions occur within the octopus and grouper fisheries, although the conflicts
have not been as drastic as those reported in the shrimp fishery. However, octopus
artisanal fishers along the interstate border of Campeche and Yucatán have been
clashing periodically over access to fishing grounds.
Other conflicts arise between fisheries and conservation. One case in particular
involves interactions between harvesters and marine mammals in the Gulf of
California. In the upper Gulf of California there is a marine reserve aimed
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 245

to primarily protect the vaquita (Phocoena sinus) and the totoaba (Totoaba
macdonaldii), which are threatened by shrimp trawl fishing activity and the use of
gillnets by the artisanal fishery. Moreover, there is restricted access to the core area
of the reserve for all fleets which is not respected by the artisanal fishers (Morales-
Zárate et al., 2004; Lercari, 2006).
Conflicts between commercial and recreational fisheries are also present.
For instance, commercial fishers claim access to the dolphinfish stock normally
reserved for sportfishers. Commercial fishers claim that there is enough biomass
of the stock to allow their participation, but sportfishers argue that reduction in
individual sizes could cause a negative impact on the tourist sector.
Prohibiting fishing around oil platforms is a growing problem for fishers in
the Campeche Bank as the area has been banned to fishing operations. Pollution
from oil extraction activities is also a growing concern. Social disruption in fishing
communities as a result of oil worker immigration has been noticeable in the
Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche (Rodríguez, 1984).
Resort developments and tourism-related activities have been interfering with
fishing activities in a high degree in the northern coast of Quintana Roo (Cesar
and Arnaiz, 1998) and several places along the Pacific coasts, such as Huatulco,
Acapulco, Manzanillo, Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlàn and Los Cabos, among others.

4. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
The National Institute of Fisheries has developed assessment of the stocks of
the most important fisheries in Mexico; this assessment is periodically updated
(INP, 1998, 2000). As a means to unify methods that facilitate comparisons and
understanding of the results by the fishing community and all fishing sectors, these
assessments have been based on biomass models and in several cases uncertainty
and risk analysis have been included. This data includes information from the
most important artisanal fisheries considered in those analyses. An important
contribution for knowledge of the status of small-scale fisheries from the Gulf
of Mexico is reported in Flores et al. (1997). A summary of some of the methods
employed for stock assessment of several fisheries are listed below and the status
of the main fisheries by region is integrated afterwards.
Arreguín-Sánchez and Pitcher (1999) analysed changes in catchability by size
of the grouper fishery, comparing fleet trends through time. Several studies on
reproduction have been conducted for grouper, including Brulé et al. (2003).
Monroy et al. (2000a) and Giménez-Hurtado et al. (2005) applied an age
structured model to assess the grouper fishery. Age-structured models have
also been employed to assess the octopus fishery (Solís-Ramirez et al., 1998;
Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2000; Hernández et al., 2000), the shrimp fishery (Castro
and Arreguín-Sánchez, 1991; Fernández et al., 2000), and sardine in the Gulf of
California (Morales-Bojórquez et al., 2003). Cohort analysis has been used to
assess the lobster fishery.
Age-structured models have been used in many fisheries because of the
importance of considering age-related events (migrations, individual growth,
246 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

reproduction and sex shifts in protogynous hermaphrodite species like red

grouper), which facilitate the development of strategies for fisheries management.
Yield-per-recruit analysis has been applied to shrimp fisheries (Arreguín-
Sánchez and Chávez, 1985) and the Spanish and king mackerel (Schultz et al.,
2000). Shark fisheries assessments are still in early stages, possibly due to lack of
data. Yield-per-recruit analyses have been applied to the shark fishery by Cid et al.
(2000).
Biomass dynamics models, fitted assuming equilibrium, have been applied
to several fisheries, including grouper (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1985) and octopus
(Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 1999). These are also used to evaluate recovery time
of some stocks after high levels of exploitation, as in the case of abalone and
red grouper (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1992). Non-equilibrium conditions have been
assumed in more recent applications for the mullet and snapper fisheries (Gómez
and Monroy, 2000; Monroy et al., 2000b).
Dynamic bio-economic analyses have been applied to several fisheries: shrimp
(Arreguín-Sánchez and Chávez, 1985), octopus, lobster and grouper (Seijo, 1986;
Seijo et al., 1987; Seijo et al., 1991; Díaz de León and Seijo, 1992; Hernández, 1995;
Seijo et al., 2001; Monroy, 1998). The inclusion of estimation of dynamic costs and
revenues helps in decision making and to understand the effect on fishers’ short-
term and long-term dynamics.
Due to the economic importance of crustacean fisheries, including shrimp
which produces half of the export revenues from fisheries and currently receives
subsidies and tax returns, financial analyses have been required (Goudet and
Goudet, 1987; FAO/World Bank, 1988; FIRA, 2003). However, these studies
concentrate primarily on the industrial shrimp fishery.
Although some analyses, including uncertainty and risk analysis, in the
assessment of some fishery resources have been undertaken by the National
Fisheries Institute, the results have not yet been published. Few case studies have
been reported. Solís-Ramirez et al. (1998) evaluated the octopus fishery integrating
uncertainty on the estimation of some parameters on the predictions made based
on an age-structured model.
Some ecosystem trophic models based on the Ecopath-Ecosim software have
been applied to different ecosystems on both coasts of the country: Campeche
Bank, the coasts of Veracruz and Yucatán, the northern and central Gulf of
California, La Paz Bay, Huizache-Caimanero system of lagoons, and the coasts of
Jalisco and Michoacan, among others (Arreguín-Sánchez, 2002; Arreguín-Sánchez
and Calderón-Aguilera, 2002; Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2004; Zetina-Rejón et
al., 2004; Arreguín-Sánchez and Martínez-Aguilar, 2004; Lercari, 2006; Cruz-
Escalona, 2005; Zetina-Rejón, 2004; Galván-Piña, 2005; Díaz-Uribe et al., 2007).
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 247

4.1 Status of the fisheries

A summary of the status of the main small-scale fisheries of both the Gulf of
Mexico-Caribbean and the Pacific regions is presented in Tables 3 and 4.

TABLE 3
Status of the main Mexican small-scale fisheries of the Caribbean and
Gulf of Mexico region

Small-scale fishery Status Catch 2003 (tonnes)

Shrimp
Brown (Farfantepenaeus aztecus)
Seven Bearded (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri)
White (Litopenaeus setiferus) 26 798

Pink (Farfantepenaeus duorarum)

Red (Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis)

Finfish
9 081
Red grouper (Epinephelus morio)
Octopus
15 713
Octopus maya
Octopus vulgaris
Spiny lobster
Panulirus argus 828
Panulirus guttatus

Shark (27 species) 5 651

Conch/snails
Queen conch (Strombus gigas) 50
White conch (Strombus costatus)

Development potential Fully exploited Overexploited Exhausted

Source: Adapted from Seijo and Martínez, 2006.

The status of the main fishing stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, except those of
Octopus vulgaris, is critical since most of them are fully exploited or exhausted.
Effort expansion in the octopus fishery of the Yucatán Shelf is directed toward
O. vulgaris. The National Institute of Fisheries (NIF) assumed that this increase
would not impact the fully exploited O. maya stock since O. vulgaris occurs at
greater depths (>10 fathoms [>18 m]) than O. maya. The highest concentrations of
O. maya occur around 3 to 7 fathoms in near shore limestone crevices. However,
there is no control over the operation areas of the fleet.
Most fisheries require precautionary measures to avoid their depletion. In
fact, four of the main stocks in the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean region are fully
exploited, two overexploited and two show signs of exhaustion. In contrast with
the Pacific region, most of the fisheries are artisanal.
248 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Most artisanal fisheries in Mexico present a high degree of overlap. It is not

uncommon to find fishing cooperatives in the same locality that have permits to
catch shrimp, shark and finfish throughout the year. This condition complicates
the assessment of the stocks involved in different fisheries; usually assessment has
been based on single-species analysis. In some regions fishers shift seasonally from
one species to another according to patterns of seasonal abundance, as already
noted. A list of the main target species (English common name, Spanish local
name and scientific name) involved in the above-mentioned fisheries is provided
in Appendix I.

TABLE 4
Status of the main Mexican small-scale fisheries of the Pacific region

Catch
Status of
Small-scale fishery 2003
the stock
(tonnes)
Shrimp
Blue shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris) 97 107
Pacific white shrimp (L. vannamei)
White shrimp (L. occidentalis)
Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus californiensis)
Cristal shrimp (F. brevirostris)
Seabob (Xiphopenaeus riveti)

Lobster
Red (Panulirus interruptus)
Central Baja California Peninsula 2 140

Northern and southern Baja California populations

Clams
Baja California Sur and Sinaloa 11 290
Baja California and Sonora

Octopus 1 044

Sharks (30 species)

Oceanic
Alopis pelagicus 20 960
A. vulpinus
Coastal
Carcharinus falciformis
Snappers
4 314
Lujanidae spp.

Development potential Fully exploited Overexploited Exhausted

Source: Modified from Seijo and Martínez (2006); Seijo et al. (2006).
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 249

None of the major fisheries along the shores of the Pacific Ocean have
possibilities of effort expansion. Six of them are categorized as fully exploited
and three as exhausted. For instance, Sala et al. (2004) report that, although some
catches are stagnant or still increasing for some species groups, catch-per-unit
effort shows a declining trend after 1980 in the Gulf of California. The authors
state that coastal food webs in the area have been ‘fished down’ during the last
30 years. A shift in the target species from high to low trophic levels has resulted
in a dramatic increase in fishing effort in the region. Fishing not only impacted
targeted species, but also caused community-wide changes. In fact, large predatory
fishes such as sharks, gulf groupers, gulf coneys, goliath groupers and broomtail
groupers were among the most important catches in the 1970s, but became rare by
2000. The results also show that species that were not targeted in the 1970s, such
as parrotfish, whitefish, spotted snapper, tilefish and creolefish, have now become
common catches. The authors argue that their results exhibit a clear trend that
Gulf of California fisheries have fished down the food web, leading to effects on
the entire coastal ecosystem well beyond the direct impacts on targeted species.
These fisheries are unsustainable in their current state and management needs to be
re-evaluated with sound regulatory measures to prevent further degradation.

5. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

5.1 Historical trends
Since 2000, most small-scale fisheries shifted from an open access regime to a
licence limitation management strategy. Effort regulations have historically been
enforced by government and, in a limited and successful number of cases, through
community management and co-management schemes such as in the case of the
spiny lobster fisheries of Punta Allen (Seijo, 1993; Sosa-Cordero et al., 2008) and
Baja California.
Fisheries management in Mexico has undergone changes of emphasis and
approaches several times in the last decades. In the 1970s, a promotion policy
reasserted exploitation of shrimp, lobster, abalone (the most valuable species),
oyster, totoaba, pismo clam, cabrilla and sea turtles to cooperatives.
During the 1970s and 1980s, emphasis was put on production increases. The
Ministry of Fisheries was established by 1982. At the end of the 1970s, catches
reached nearly 1.4 million tonnes, a fivefold increase in ten years as a result of a
fisheries sector development policy that greatly increased fishing effort. However,
national catches oscillate around 1.2 million tonnes since the early 1980s.
In the early 1990s, a change in policies occurred that aimed to promote private
investment, favour industrial fishers and abrogate the ‘reserved species’ regime.
This policy matured in 1992, when the current Federal Fisheries Law was enacted.
Thorpe et al. (2000) documented the effect of the introduction of the ‘New
Economic Model’ in fisheries management in several Latin American countries,
including Mexico. These authors present the change in emphasis from privileging
the social (cooperatives) sector to favouring private investment.
250 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

As a result, the fisheries industry was incorporated in 1994 in the newly formed
Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (Secretaría de Medio
Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca [SEMARNAP]) as an underministry, and
as part of a global policy aimed at attaining sustainable development. Hernández
and Kempton (2003) discussed the effect of attempts to introduce a greater
degree of scientific input in the management and public participation processes in
Mexico in the mid- to late-1990s. This intended to include fisheries in a broader
framework of natural resources management. The new fisheries plan stated
sustainability as a goal and the Precautionary Principle as a guideline. Three
elements were introduced: (a) an attempt to make the decision-making process
more scientific-based; (b) a new legal instrument, the National Fisheries Chart
(Álvarez-Torres et al., 2002); and (c) a more active participation of stakeholders
in decision-making.
Since the end of 2000, at the beginning of the new administration, fisheries
were transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture: Agriculture, Livestock, Rural
Development, Fisheries and Food (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería,
Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación: SAGARPA), shifting again to ‘incentives’
of development (SAGARPA Plan Sectorial, 2001). At present, the agency
responsible for fisheries management, monitoring and enforcement is the National
Commission of Aquaculture and Fisheries (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y
Pesca [CONAPESCA]). As a result of its transfer, the underministry of fisheries
was downsized, and its state delegations (formerly one in every one of the
32 states) were reduced in number and incorporated into SAGARPA delegations,
losing their hierarchical link to CONAPESCA.

5.2 Legal instruments, strategies and management tools

The fisheries included in this analysis are regulated in several ways. The octopus
fishery is managed through a closed season (from January to August) that protects
individual growth to marketable sizes and an annual catch quota. The shrimp
fishery is regulated by closed seasons, mesh size and gear type restrictions and
zonal restrictions for different users (prohibitions of trawling for industrial ships
below five fathoms, a 15 nautical miles from shore no-fish zone in the Yucatán
Peninsula). The lobster fishery has effort restrictions (by limiting the number of
concessions), legal size limits, a prohibition of catching ovigerous females and
a closed season. The grouper fishery has legal size limits and effort restrictions
(number of permits), and a quota awarded to the Cuban vessels operating in the
fishery is an allocation instrument. In the mullet fishery, a closed season, legal
size limit and mesh size regulations are applied. In the shark fishery, an issuing of
new permits moratorium has been in place for some years (Cid et al., 2000), but
proposed regulations on closed seasons and protection of breeding areas have still
to be applied. Regulations on the finfish fishery have yet to be applied widely.
A relatively new legal instrument, the Official Mexican Standards (Normas
Oficiales Mexicanas [NOM]), was developed which included the usual regulations
such as permits, gear type restrictions, season and area closures, legal size limits,
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 251

quotas and bycatch excluding devices. Until 2000, only 14 fisheries were regulated
by NOMs, including shrimp, lobster and octopus.
Fisheries on the Pacific littoral are regulated with different instruments as
described below.
Seaweed: Fishing area, gears and landing places are controlled.
Kelp: Exploitation of fishing areas are allocated to groups while areas, fishing
gears, seasons and amount of fishing are defined by permits.
Abalone: Closures by area and time. Four administrative areas were established
and a quota is defined separately. There is a minimum legal size, fishing gear is
regulated and fishing at low tides is prohibited. A stocks-recovery plan has been
implemented with measurable success in some areas. The goal is to maintain
biomass at 50% of the pristine biomass.
Clam: Pacific calico scallop includes a minimum legal size, catch quota and
effort by area in the Baja California Peninsula. A closed season is defined. Pismo
clam and the purplelip rock oyster are currently species under special protection
and officially they are not commercially exploited. Their use is now regulated by
the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley
General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente).
Molluscs: Catch quotas by bank are defined for conch; fishing permits allowed
for mussel and octopus in the Pacific. Giant squid has a fishing effort control
based on an annual catch quota.
Shrimp: Seasonal and spatial closures by region, controls on fishing gears and
amount of effort. Fixed gears are used as defined by the fishing law.
Lobster: Minimum legal size by species and area, seasonal and spatial closures.
In the central Baja California, fishing cooperatives agreed voluntarily to the use of
windows for escapement in traps to reduce pre-recruits (sizes below L50).
Crab: In Sonora, the fishing sector has agreed on a seasonal closure to control
fishing effort of several species such as ‘stone crabs’, where the number of permits
is controlled. Fishing areas and minimum legal size are defined by target species.
It is prohibited to capture gravid females.
Sea urchin: Characteristics of the gears and landing places are controlled and seasonal
and spatial closures, minimum legal size and catch quotas have been introduced.
Sea cucumber: From 2000 to the present, this fishery is regulated under the
‘promotion’ (fomento) scheme because limited information of the resource
does not allow access to a high number of users. Promotion permits involve the
commitment of the users to generate information for the better understanding of
the resource for management purposes.
Marine fishes: All marine fishes are globally managed by controlling access
through fishing permits. Some details are added for groupers where areas and
fishing gears are defined and for mullets where minimum legal size, mesh size and
seasonal closures are established by species and region.
Sharks: Limited number of permits; new participants only by substitution of
vessels.
Rays: Just fishing permits.
252 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Sport fishing: Dolphinfish, marlin and swordfish appear as associated species

in some commercial fisheries. However, there is no commercial fishing for
dolphinfish or swordfish. Marlin is regulated under a commercial fishery, where
permits specify fishing gears and areas.

5.3 Management and enforcement

Before the mid-1990s, the Secretariat of Fisheries had an inspection and enforcement
body. After being incorporated into SEMARNAP, fisheries inspection and regulation
enforcement was incorporated in the PROFEPA (an environmental attorney’s office
within the Ministry of Environment). When the fisheries regulation was transferred
to SAGARPA, most former fisheries inspectors remained in PROFEPA or were
transferred to SAGARPA’s delegations with no formal links to CONAPESCA,
which formally did not have a fisheries inspection role. Since illegal fishing is a
serious problem in many parts of the country, the effectiveness of enforcement has
been limited at best, even if institutional redesign had not played a role.
The navy, in collaboration with fisheries management institutions, has played
an important auxiliary role in enforcement over the years. Several research centres
across the country have developed scientific research efforts on fisheries issues.
However, although scientists from those institutions have been participating with
fisheries (federal and states) authorities and advising enterprises or fishers about
management in the last decade, there are no institutional schemes to completely
formalize the use of this scientific infrastructure.

5.4 Fishers’ participation in fisheries management

Industrial fishers are associated with the National Fishing and Aquaculture
Chamber. Artisanal fishers have the National Fishing Cooperatives Confederation.
There are 2 976 registered fishing cooperatives in Mexico, along with
2 954 organizations of other types, such as Fishing Production Societies, Fishing
Production Unions, Social Solidarity Societies and others. In total, there are
185 756 people associated within these organizations, 118 328 in cooperatives and
67 428 in other kinds of organizations (CONAPESCA, 2001).
In a process regulated by the Federal Metrology and Standardization Law (Ley
Federal de Metrología y Normalización), committees should be formed to allow
stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes, such as issuing Mexican
Official Norms or assisting with certain management decisions (i.e. setting closed
seasons). Although the fisheries regulatory agency (at present CONAPESCA)
is the one that makes the final decision (and bears full responsibility for it), this
process is intended to be enhanced by stakeholder participation. At present,
this process is far from perfect. Only some committees have been formed so
far. The functioning of those already established still has to be improved. Most
artisanal fishers’ organizations have yet to have consultants who can assist them
on technical issues. Full representation of those invited to attend the meetings has
yet to be achieved. Hernández and Kempton (2003) discuss difficulties found in
implementing this system in the shrimp fishery, in particular the interactions of
artisanal and industrial fishers.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 253

Recently an advisory body, the National Fisheries Council (Consejo Nacional

de Pesca), was formed that included representatives from industrial and artisanal
fishers. However, it is still too early to discuss the results of the implementation
of such a body in designing and implementing fisheries policies.

5.5 Community and NGO involvement in fishery management

Beyond state committees, there is little involvement of the local community in
fisheries management. However, some communities in the Pacific and in Punta
Allen, Quintana Roo, in the Caribbean have experienced successful community-
based management programmes applied to the spiny lobster fishery (Seijo, 1993;
Bourillon and Ramade, 2004).
Pérez-Sánchez and Muir (2003) quote fishers as saying that distrust over
the honesty of cooperative leaders and authorities as an obstacle to an effective
community organization. Ostrom (2000) points to these factors as a prerequisite
for community management of resources.
The NGOs have had an increasing indirect role in the shape of proposals
and studies performed on local fisheries. One example is NGO involvement
in processes like ecolabelling (Bourillon and Ramade, 2004). However, this
participation is not yet widespread.
Chenaut (1985) reported a traditional, self-imposed, territorial partitioning
system for lobster fishers in eastern Yucatán and northern Quintana Roo, where
territorial units were assigned to communities, independent of their affiliation to
fishing cooperatives. This author comments on the fact that fishing authorities
did not recognize the territorial divisions. However, such systems are not widely
used in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. In the Pacific littoral there are
several examples of management where communities are participating, such as the
cases of abalone, sea urchin and lobsters. Some attempts to involve stakeholders in
management have been made in finfish fisheries but without clear results yet.

5.6 Management in accordance to international guidelines

In 1982, Mexico signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and the Agreement regarding the implementation of Part XI of
the Convention. Previously in 1976, the National Constitution was modified
to include the 200-nautical-mile EEZ. In 1999, Mexico signed the Agreement to
Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures
by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas. In 1995, Mexico signed the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Mexico has been an active promoter of this
Code.
Although in the period 1994–2000 the Precautionary Principle was included
explicitly in the Fisheries Sector Plan, it is not mentioned in the new sector
Fisheries Plan that defines ‘sustainability’ as an aim.
The main instrument of allocation of fishing rights is the fishing permit.
Although in some cases, issuing of short-term permits has been recommended in
fisheries of uncertain status, as in the shark fishery (Cid et al., 2000), there is a trend
254 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

to issue longer term permits or concessions as a way of “giving legal certainty”

to fishing activities and as a “tool for countering deterioration of the resources”
(SAGARPA, 2001). At first, concessions had been issued to exploit demersal
resources, mostly invertebrates that lend themselves to territorial divisions (such
as lobster or abalone).
Quotas have been sparingly used in Mexico’s fisheries management. The
grouper fishery has a quota awarded to Cuban vessels fishing in the Yucatán. The
octopus fishery has a TAC-type (total allowable catch) overall quota that has been
used as a substitute for effort regulations. This quota has not been very effective
and researchers recommended against it early on (Solís-Ramírez et al., 1998). The
closest to an individual quota system is the one applied to abalone cooperatives in
Baja California.

6. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Statistics are gathered periodically by local fishery offices, subordinated to
SAGARPA’s delegations. This information is processed by CONAPESCA to
produce, among other things, statistical yeardocuments. The National Fisheries
Institute (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca [INP]) gathers data from samples on some
fisheries included in research projects.
Concerning fisheries research, a number of scientific research projects have
been conducted to assess stocks harvested by small-scale fisheries in Mexico,
including:
(i) Studies on the octopus fisheries dating back to the early 1960s, which include
the description of the main exploited species (Octopus maya) (Voss and Solís-
Ramírez, 1966), growth and recruitment (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1992), and the
development of the fisheries (Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 1987; Solís-Ramírez,
1975, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997; Solís-Ramírez and Chávez, 1986; Solís-Ramírez
et al., 1998; Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2000).
(ii) Studies on the shrimp fishery, including some relevant to the management
of the artisanal fishery (Castro and Santiago, 1976; Schultz and Chávez,
1976), population dynamics, mortality and growth assessments (Smith, 1984,
1988; Re-Regis, 1989, 1994; Castro and Arreguín-Sánchez, 1991, 1997), and
overviews of the fishery (Fernández et al., 2000; Ramírez-Rodríguez et al.,
2001).
(iii) Several studies on migration, growth, mortality, reproduction and general
population dynamics on the Spanish and king mackerels (Mendoza, 1968; Doi
and Mendizabal, 1978; Chávez, 1981; Mendizabal, 1987; Vasconcelos, 1988;
Aguilar et al., 1990; Olvera et al., 1991; Sánchez et al., 1991; Arreguín-Sánchez
et al., 1995). Schultz et al. (2000) present a general overview of the fishery.
(iv) Studies on mullets, including growth, mortality and general ecological
observations from the mid- to late-1970s (Márquez, 1974; Castro, 1978).
Gómez and Monroy (2000) summarized results from several unpublished
research reports and made a detailed description of the fishery.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 255

(v) The grouper fishery has been studied in depth. Early studies date back to
the 1960s (Solís, 1969). Later studies include growth (Rodríguez, 1986),
catchability (Arreguín-Sánchez, 1999), the state of the fishery (Doi et al.,
1981; Arreguín-Sánchez, 1985; Contreras et al., 1995; Burgos and Defeo, 2000;
Burgos and Defeo, 2004: Giménez-Hurtado et al., 2005), and interaction of
fleets (Zetina et al., 1996a). Monroy et al. (2000a) summarize many important
aspects of the fishery. Mexicano-Cintora et al. (2007) also integrate a list of
references of studies related to grouper and other demersal fishes from the
Yucatán shelf.
(vi) The lobster fishery studies include works on feeding (Colinas and Briones,
1990), reproduction (Ramírez, 1996), morphometrics (Zetina et al., 1996b),
density and distribution (Bello et al., 2000), and descriptions of the fishery
(Arceo and Seijo, 1991; Briones and Lozano, 1994; Ríos et al., 1995, 1997,
2000; Cervera et al., 1996; González-Cano et al., 2000). An overview of the
fishery can be found in González-Cano et al. (2000) and Salas et al. (2005).

Although earlier work on shark fisheries can be found (e.g. Hernández, 1971),
the first systematic studies in the 1980s and 1990s were performed by the INP (e.g.
Uribe, 1990; Castillo-Géniz, 1992; Castillo-Géniz et al., 1998). Studies performed
include species proportion in catches, morphometrics, types of fishing gears used,
and times and places of occurrence of juveniles (Bonfil, 1997; Cid et al., 2000;
Márquez, 2000; Soriano et al., 2000).
Many studies of several finfish species from different areas have been presented
in different catalogues (e.g. Vega-Cendejas, 1998; Espino et al., 2003, 2004). Other
aspects such as growth and reproduction studies of some demersal fishes can be
found in different theses (e.g. Rodríguez, 1992; Leonce-Valencia, 1995). Mexicano-
Cíntora et al. (2007) present about 500 references on studies undertaken on fishery
resources from the Yucatán shelf.

6.1 Ecosystem-based management approach

A number of ecosystem models based on trophic webs have been developed
with emphasis on fishing activity using an ‘Ecopath with Ecosim’ platform (i.e.
Arreguín-Sánchez, 2002). Several of them have been used for modelling fisheries
dynamics in the context of the ecosystem approach management strategies or
assessing fisheries impact on the ecosystems.
A number of trophic ecosystem models have been constructed along both
littorals, putting emphasis on the role of fish resources. Generally most of these
models consider functional groups at the level of families with the exception
of target or overfished species which are considered individually. The research
has been focused to investigate the role of some stocks within the ecosystem,
concentrating on fisheries management and conservation, and to evaluate the
impact of fishing of some resources on the ecosystem. In Table 5, existing trophic
ecosystem models are listed indicating the type of ecosystem considered for the
analysis and the main research purpose.
256 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 5
Ecosystem trophic models constructed in Mexico indicating the type of ecosystem and
the main purpose for their construction

Fisheries Impact
Trophic
Ecosystem conservation of Reference
web/role
management fishery

Coral reefs Älvarez-Hernández (2003),

X X
Caribbean Sea Arias-González et al. (2004).
Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (1993a, b), Vega-
North Cendejas et al. (1993a, b), Arreguín-
Continental X X X Sánchez (2000). Arreguín-Sánchez &
Shelf of Yucatán Manikchand-Heileman (1998), Arreguín-
Sánchez & Valero (1996).
Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (2004), Arreguín-
Sánchez & Manikchand-Heileman (1998),
Vega-Cendejas (1993a, b), Zetina-Rejón
(2004), García-Cuellar (2006), Zetina-
Campeche Bank X X X
Rejón & Arreguín-Sánchez (2002),
Arreguín-Sánchez (2002), Arreguín-
Sánchez et al. (1993a), Arreguín-Sánchez
et al (2008a, b).

Tabasco X Cabrera-Neri (2006)

Southwest Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (1993b),

Gulf of Mexico X X Arreguín-Sánchez & Chávez (1995),
(Veracruz) Cruz-Escalona (2005).
Gulf of Mexico
X Vidal & Pauly (2004)
synthetic model
Jalisco and Galván-Piña (2005), Galván-Piña &
X X X
Colima Arreguín-Sánchez (2008)
Southern Salcido-Guevara (2006), Salcido &
X
Sinaloa Arreguín-Sánchez (2007), Lozano (2006)
Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (2002), Arreguín-
Central Gulf of Sánchez & Martínez-Aguilar (2004),
X X X
California Arreguín-Sánchez & Calderón-Aguilera
(2002).
Morales-Zárate et al. (2004), Lercari
Northern Gulf
X X X (2006), Lercari & Arreguín-Sánchez
of California
(2008), Lercari et al. (2007).
Del Monte-Luna (2004), Del Monte et al.
Gulf of Ulloa X
(2007).

Models from bays and coastal lagoons

Arreguín-Sánchez et al. (2004), Díaz-
La Paz Bay X X X Uribe et al. (2007), Arreguín-Sánchez
et al. (2007).
Concepción Bay X Gorostieta-Monjaraz (2001)

Huizache and
X X X Zetina-Rejón et al. (2001, 2003, 2004)
Caimanero
Chávez et al. (1993). Vega-Cendejas
Celestun
X (1998), Vega-Cendejas & Arreguín-
Lagoon
Sánchez (2001)
Manikchand-Heileman and Arreguín-
Terminos Sánchez (1998), Rivera-Arriaga et al.
X X
Lagoon (2003), Zetina-Rejón (2004), Zetina-Rejón
et al. (2004).
Alvarado Cruz-Escalona (2005), Cruz-Escalona
X
Lagoon et al. (2006).
Tampamachoco Rosado-Solórzano & Guzmán del Proó
X
Lagoon (1993)
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 257

TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)

Fisheries Impact
Trophic
Ecosystem conservation of Reference
web/role
management fishery

Madinga
X De La Cruz-Aguero (1993)
Lagoon
Tamiahua
X Abarca-Arenas & Valero (1993)
Lagoon

Ascención Bay X Vidal & Basurto (2003)

Vega-Cendejas & Arreguín-Sánchez
Mangrove
X (2001), Vega-Cendejas (2003), Rivera-
system
Arriaga et al (2003).

Interdependent ecosystems

Alvarado
Lagoon and
adjacent X X X Cruz-Escalona (2005)
continental
shelf
Terminos
Lagoon and X X X Zetina-Rejón (2004)
Campeche Bank

7. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

7.1 Fisheries assessment and approaches needed for integration
There is a reasonable scientific effort on stock assessment when it comes to
evaluating fisheries in Mexico. Originally there was a single species focus and,
more recently, the ecosystem models have been introduced in some evaluations.
However, social science studies related to the fishing sector (including social and
economic analysis of fisheries) are poorly developed in Mexico (or at least carried
out by only a few researchers and ignored by managers). In recent years, the
international community (Jentoft and MacCay, 1995; Berkes et al., 2001; Euan
et al., 2004; Salas and Gaertner, 2004; Salas et al., 2007) has recommended the need
to integrate natural and social sciences to find management strategies that focus
on sustainability. Fisheries need to be examined within a broader natural resource
research and management framework.

7.2 Lack of long-term vision on fisheries management

Fisheries management in Mexico has undergone changes in emphasis and
approach several times in the last decades, but still lacks a long-term plan.
Accordingly, related institutions have undergone several modifications. Fisheries
plans are updated every six years and usually change in approaches and emphasis.
The Federal Fisheries Law and related regulations are general in scope and mainly
give broad structure for management. Hernández and Kempton (2003) and
Beltran-Turriago (2007) have discussed the problems resulting from the complete
redesign of Mexican institutions every six years, most especially the introduction
of new administrations; those shifts have prevented the development of a coherent
fisheries policy. Some efforts have been made to generate management instruments
258 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

that transcend the institutional administrative changes and shifts in approaches,

such as the case of the National Fisheries Chart, which includes a diagnosis of
the state of the resources, characteristics of the fisheries, and setting legal limits
to fishing effort on a per fishery basis (Álvarez-Torres et al., 2002). This chart is
updated regularly based on scientific information, but could benefit from widening
its scope. There is also a need to develop the mechanisms for social participation
in the decision-making and possibly the implementation of management and
research programmes.

7.3 Flaws in fishery policies and lack of transparency

Hernández and Kempton (2003) stated that conditions such as low stock levels,
too many fishers, trends of rent reduction, and no incentives to conserve the
resource generate a race to fish and overcapitalization of the resource. In our view,
institutional fragility should be added as a cause of these problems. The reduction
of institutions devoted to fisheries research and management that have resulted
from administrative changes generates deficits in terms of attention to problems
in the sector and effectiveness in management (Beltran-Turriago, 2007). Ostrom
(2000) points out that effective social organization and institutional structure are
the only ways to combat problems related to poorly defined property rights.
Allocation of property right has been defined as one of the effective management
tools dealing especially with artisanal fisheries. Thorpe et al. (2000) also state that
greater management resources and expertise are required under such conditions.
Other weaknesses in the management system concern equality among different
users of resources and development alternatives during policy changes. It is
important not to remain stagnant while searching for solutions to overexploitation
and overcapacity. For example, reductions between 50 and 60% of fleet size have
been suggested recently for the Mexican Gulf of Mexico shrimp fleet (Goudet
y Goudet, 1987; FAO/World Bank, 1988) and financial support from the
government has shifted to shrimp culture (36% of credits awarded), compared
with 22% of credits devoted to industrial fisheries and 16% to artisanal fisheries.
Geographically, there are also differences, with 83% of the credits awarded to five
states in the north Pacific Region (CONAPESCA, 2001).
On the other hand, there is a widespread perception of fisheries as a ‘production
activity’ that does not consider the need for environmental protection. This, along
with the dire economic situation of many fishers and the ever-growing dependence
of the fisheries sector on subsidies, drives upper level officials to design policies
that in many occasions are not compatible with other branches of government.

7.4 Need for a definition of use rights

The increasing degree of conflict in Mexico’s fisheries stems in part from a
free-access regime that persisted for decades. The environment of poorly
defined property rights can only lead to a ‘tragedy-of-the-commons’ and a
‘prisoner dilemma’ type of outcome (Ostrom, 2000). Hence, cooperation among
stakeholders to conserve and obtain maximum benefits from an exploited resource
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 259

is an important prerequisite for successful management schemes. There is a broad

consensus among social scientists on the pivotal role of institutional arrangements
in shaping peoples’ interactions with their natural environments and negotiation
processes in natural resource management. Incentives for sustainable exploitation
of fishing resources come in the shape of long-term assurance of being able to reap
benefits from them in a fair and equitable fashion. But this assurance can only
occur in a setting of well-defined use or property rights. The co-management of
common-pool resources in different parts of the world has been shown. However,
territorial concessions are not widespread in Mexico. An exception would be
the area concessions awarded to cooperatives exploiting benthic resources such
as abalone or lobster in the Baja California peninsula. However, even though
allocation of inshore areas to artisanal fisheries has been proposed, it still remains
unclear how these reserved areas would be established, especially with pressure
from the industrial sector on government agencies and the lack of flexibility of the
centralized management system.

7.5 Interactions between industrial and artisanal fleets and with other
sectors
Thorpe et al. (2000) discuss that conflicts between fishers, particularly between
the artisanal and industrial sectors, have generated serious problems in Mexican
fisheries. In this sense, it is common to find that industrial fishers and artisanal
fishers blame each other for decreases in catches of several resources in different
areas. Illegal actions from artisanal fishers are reported by industrial fishers. In
contrast, artisanal fishers are concerned with the effects the excessive fishing power
from industrial fishers might have on several resources, especially spawners of some
species (i.e. grouper or shrimp). Either way, it is a fact that effort and fishing power
have increased greatly in Mexican fisheries. For example, the number of artisanal
vessels rose more than fivefold since 1970 from 15 000 vessels to 102 000 in 2000.
Before 1982, about 1 600 new artisanal vessels were incorporated each year. On
the other hand, even though the industrial fleet has decreased approximately 5%
from its maximum in 1983, the fishing power has increased due to the adoption of
new fishing techniques and gears.
Other productive activities compete for resources use, areas, or can limit the
expansion of fishing activities or serve as a complementary source of income for
fishers in Mexico. Different regions present different conditions and the interaction
of fisheries with other sectors varies among areas. For example, oil exploitation has
been an increasingly important activity in the Campeche Bank since the mid-1970s
(Melville, 1984). Exclusion of some areas to fishing still remains a problem for
some people. Tourism is an important activity in the Yucatán (Méndez, 2004) and
Quintana Roo (Cesar and Arnaiz, 1998) coasts and the expansion of this sector
increases demand for seafood and labour. On the Pacific coast, there are well
developed tourism locations such as Los Cabos, Acapulco, Huatulco, Mazatlan,
Manzanillo, Puerto Vallarta, Bahia de Banderas, and a number of smaller tourist
centres. Cargo activities in some areas have been expanding, such as Lázaro
260 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Cárdenas, Manzanillo and Salina Cruz. Multiple uses of the coastal areas require
efforts to identify possible human and ecological interdependencies. In addition,
definition on users’ rights of natural resources is required.

7.6 Impact of subsidies on fishing activities

Subsidies to fisheries (in the form of reduction in diesel fuel prices) went from
468 million Mexican pesos in 2001 to 887 million in 2002. Initially, subsidies
were directed towards supporting the operations of the industrial fleet (as it only
uses diesel). However, they began to be earmarked also to gasoline, used by the
artisanal fleet at the end of 2003 (Cámara de Senadores, 2003). Subsidies were seen
as an important issue in the Chamber of Deputies consultation’s results to ‘increase
competitiveness’ (Comisión de Pesca de la Camara de Diputados, 2001). Although
it has been acknowledged that subsidies should not be directed to increasing
fishing effort (Cámara de Senadores, 2003), it seems that little attention has been
paid to the economic effects, and those over the exploited stocks, of subsidies in
maintaining present levels of fishing effort (National Research Council, 1999;
World Wildlife Foundation, 2001).

REFERENCES
Abarca-Arenas L.G. & Valero-Pacheco E. 1993. Toward a trophic model of Tamiahua,
a coastal lagoon in Mexico. In Trophic box models of Aquatic Ecosystems. Edited
by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc., 26: 181–185.
Aguilar S.F., Salas S., Cabrera M.A. & Martínez J.D. 1990. Crecimiento y mortalidad
del carito Scomberomorus cavalla, en la costa norte de la Península de Yucatán.
Ciencia Pesquera, 8: 71–87.
Alcalá M.G. 1986. Los pescadores de la costa de Michoacán y de las lagunas costeras de
Colima y Tabasco. Cuadernos de la Casa Chata No. 123. Centro de Investigaciones
y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. SEP. Mexico.
Álvarez-Hernández J.H. 2003. Trophic model of a fringing coral reef in the southern
Mexican Caribbean. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 11(6): 227–235.
Álvarez-Torres P., Díaz de León, A., Ramírez-Flores O. & Bermúdez-Rodríguez E.
2002. National Fisheries Chart: a new instrument for fisheries management in inland
waters. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 12: 317–326.
Arceo P. & Seijo J.C. 1991. Fishing effort analysis of the small-scale spiny lobster
(Panulirus argus) fleet of the Yucatán shelf. FAO Fisheries Reports, No.431 (Suppl.):
59–74.
Arias-González E., Núñez-Lara E., González-Salas C. & Galzi R. 2004. Trophic
models for investigation of fishing effect on coral reef ecosystems. Ecol. Model.,
172 (2–4): 197–212.
Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1985. Present status of the red grouper fishery in the Campeche
Bank. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 38.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 261

Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1992. An approach to the study of the catchability coefficient

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

Arreguín-Sánchez F., Seijo J.C. & Valero, E. 1993a. An application of the ECOPATH
II to the north continental shelf ecosystem of Yucatán, Mexico. In Trophic box
models of Aquatic Ecosystems. Edited by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM
Conf. Proc., 26: 269–278
Arreguín-Sánchez F., Valero E. & Chávez E.A. 1993b. A trophic box model of
the coastal fish communities of the southwestern Gulf of Mexico. In Trophic box
models of Aquatic Ecosystems. Edited by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM
Conf. Proc., 26: 195–205.
Arreguín-Sánchez F., Cabrera M.A. & Aguilar F.A. 1995. Population dynamics of
the king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) of the Campeche Bank, Mexico. Sci.
Mar., 59(3–4): 637–645
Arreguín-Sánchez F., Solís-Ramírez M.J. & González M.E. 1999. Population
dynamics and stock assessment for Octopus maya (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) fishery
in the Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico. Rev. Biol. Trop. (en línea). http://rbt.ots.
ac.cr/revistas/48-2-3/05.%20arreguin.htm.
Arreguín-Sánchez F., Solís-Ramírez M.J. & González M.E. 2000. Population
dynamics and stock assessment for Octopus maya (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae)
fishery in the Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico. Rev. Biol. Trop., 48(2–3): 323–31.
Arreguín-Sánchez F., Arcos E. & Chávez E.A. 2002. Flows of biomass and structure
in an exploited benthic ecosystem in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Ecol. Model.,
156: 167–183
Arreguin-Sánchez F., Zetina-Rejón M., Manickchand-Heilemanb S., Ramírez-
Rodríguez M. & Vidal L. 2004. Simulated response to harvesting strategies in an
exploited ecosystem in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico. Ecol. Model., 172(2-4):
421–432.
Arreguín-Sánchez F., del Monte-Luna P., Díaz-Uribe J.G., Gorostieta M., Chávez A.
& Ronzón-Rodríguez R. 2007. Trophic model for the ecosystem of La Paz Bay,
southern Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Fisheries Centre Research Reports.
Canada, 15(6): 134–160.
Arreguín-Sánchez F., Ramírez-Rodríguez M., Zetina-Rejón M. & Cruz-
Escalona V.H. 2008a. Natural hazards, stock depletion, and decision making in
the southern Gulf of Mexico pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) fishery.
Mitigating Impacts of Natural Hazards on Fishery Ecosystem. Amer. Fish. Soc., 64:
419–428.
Arreguín-Sánchez F., Zetina-Rejón M. & Ramírez-Rodríguez M. 2008b. Exploring
ecosystem-based harvesting strategies to recover the collapsed pink shrimp
(Farfantepenaeus duorarum) fishery in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Ecol. Model.
214: 83–94.
Bello J., Ríos G.V., Liceaga M.A., Zetina C.E., Arceo P., Cervera K. & Hernández H.
2000. Estimación de densidad y distribución de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus
en el arrecife Alacranes utilizando sistemas de información geográfica. CRIP-
Yucalpetén. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Contribuciones Investigación Pesquera.
Doc. Téc., No. 8.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 263

Beltrán-Turriago C. 2007. Linkage between fisheries and the aquaculture sector in

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

Castro R.G. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1991. Evaluación de la pesquería de camarón

café Penaeus aztecus del litoral mexicano del noroeste del Golfo de Mexico. Cien.
Mar., 4: 147–159.
Castro R.G. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1997. Mortality and stock assessment of the
brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus (Crustacea: Penaeidae), in the northwest Gulf of
Mexico. Rev. Biol.Trop., 45 (3): 1075–1083.
Cervera K., Ríos G.V. & Zetina C. 1996. Métodos de captura para la langosta
Panulirus argus utilizados en las costas del estado de Yucatán en forma experimental.
Mem. II Simposio de Oceanografía Biológica en Mexico. Septiembre, 1996. La Paz
Baja California Sur, Mexico.
Cesar A. & Arnaiz S. 1998. El Caribe Mexicano: una frontera olvidada. Universidad
de Quintana Roo.
Chávez E.A. 1981. Towards a rational management of Western Gulf of Mexico shore
fisheries. In G.E. Lasker (ed.). Pergamon Press. Oxford. pp. 2018-2023.
Chávez E.A., Garduño M. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1993. Trophic dynamic structure
of Celestun Lagoon, Southern Gulf of Mexico. In Trophic models of Aquatic
Ecosystems. Edited by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc., 26:
186–192.
Chenaut V. 1985. Los pescadores de la Península de Yucatán. Cuadernos de la Casa
Chata No. 121. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología
Social. SEP. Mexico.
Cid A., Castillo J.L., Soriano S.R., Ramírez C., Márquez J.F. & Tovar J.R. 2000
Tiburón. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico: Evaluación y Manejo,
1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico. CINVESTAV, Unidad Mérida,
Yucatán, Mexico.
Colinas F. & Briones P. 1990. Alimentación de las langostas P. guttatus y P. argus
(Latreille, 1804) en el Caribe mexicano. An. Inst. Cien. Mar Limn. UNAM. México,
17(1): 89–106.
Comisión de Pesca de la Cámara de Diputados. 2001. Consulta Nacional del Sector
Pesquero. Enero-Abril 2001. Informe. Cámara de Diputados LVIII Legislatura.
Mexico.
CONAPESCA. 2001. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca 2001. CONAPESCA/SAGARPA,
Mexico.
CONAPESCA. 2002. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca 2001. CONAPESCA -SAGARPA,
Mexico.
Contreras M., Moreno V. & Burgos R. 1995. Estado actual de la pesquería del mero
(Epinephelus morio) en Yucatán. En: CD-Multimedia: Atlas Pesquero de Mexico,
Pesquerías Relevantes. SEPESCA, INP. Cenedic Universidad de Colima, Mexico.
Cruz Escalona V.H. 2005. Interdependencia ecotrófica entre la laguna de Alvarado,
Veracruz y la plataforma continental adyacente. Tesis Doctor en Ciencias. Centro
Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur,
Mexico.
Cruz-Escalona V.H., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Zetina-Rejón M. 2006. Analysis of the
ecosystem structure of Laguna Alvarado, western Gulf of Mexico, by means of a
mass balance model. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 72(1–2): 155–167.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 265

Defeo O., Andrade-Hernández M., Pérez-Castañeda R. & Cabrera-Pérez J.L.

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

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

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

Melville R. 1984. Condiciones laborales de los pescadores camaroneros en Ciudad del

Carmen, Campeche. Cuadernos de la Casa Chata No. 112. Centro de Investigaciones
y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. SEP. Mexico.
Méndez J.I. 2004. Actitudes hacia los recursos naturales y su uso en los jóvenes de
Celestún, un estudio de caso. M.Sc. thesis. Departamento de Ecología Humana.
Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Avanzados, IPN. Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Mendizabal O.D. 1987. Análisis preliminar del estado de la población de sierra,
Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill), del Golfo de Mexico. Tesis Profesional.
Facultad de Ciencias. UNAM. Mexico.
Mendoza A. 1968. Consideraciones sobre la biología pesquera de la sierra,
Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill), en el Estado de Veracruz. Bios., 1(2): 11–22.
Mexicano-Cíntora G., Leonce-Valencia C., Salas S. & Vega-Cendejas M.E.
2007. Recursos pesqueros de Yucatán: fichas técnicas y referencias bibliográficas.
Cinvestav del IPN., Mexico.
Monroy M.C. 1998. Análisis bioeconómico de la pesquería del mero Epinephelus
morio en el Banco de Campeche bajo condiciones de riesgo incertidumbre. Tesis de
Maestría, CINVESTAV, Unidad Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Monroy M.C., Moreno V., Hernández A. & Garduño M. 2000a. Mero. In
Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000.
Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.
Monroy M.C., González M.E., Garduño M., Gómez G., Hernández I., Quiroga C.
& Fuentes, P. 2000b Huachinango. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en
Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Mexico.
Morales-Bojórquez E., Gómez-Muñoz V.M., Félix-Uraga R. & Alvarado-
Castillo, R.M. 2003. Relation between recruitment, sea surface temperature, and
density-independent mortality of the Pacific sardine (Sardinops caeruleus) of the
southwest coast of the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Sci. Mar., 67(1): 25–32.
Morales-Zárate M.V., Arreguín-Sánchez F., López-Martínez J. & Lluch-Cota S.E.
2004. Ecosystem trophic structure and energy flux in the upper Gulf of California,
Mexico. Ecol. Model., 174: 331–345.
Nadal A. 1996. Esfuerzo y Captura. Tecnología y Sobreexplotación de los recursos
pesqueros en Mexico. Colegio de Mexico. Mexico.
National Research Council, Committee on Ecosystem Management for Sustainable
Marine Fisheries. 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press.,
Washington, DC.
Ostrom E. 2000. El gobierno de los bienes comunes. La evolución de las instituciones
de acción colectiva. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico. Centro Regional
de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico.
Olvera R.M., Ruiz L., Borbón J.A., Sánchez A., Cerecedo J.L. & Sánchez R. 1991.
Áreas de desove del peto Scomberomorus cavalla en la Zona Económica Exclusiva
Mexicana del Golfo de Mexico. Reporte XV Mexus-Golfo. (Inédito).
Pérez-Sánchez E. & Muir J.F. 2003. Fishermen perception on resources management
and aquaculture development in the Mecoacan estuary, Tabasco, Mexico. Ocean
Coast. Manag., 46: 681–700.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 269

Ramírez A. 1996. Reproducción de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus (Latreille,

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

Sala E., Aburto-Oropeza O., Reza M., Paredes G. & López-Lemus L.G. 2004.
Fishing down coastal food webs in the Gulf of California. Fisheries, 29(3): 19–25.
Salas, S. & Gaertner, D. 2004. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: management
implications. Fish and Fisheries, 5: 153–167.
Salas S., Sumaila R.U. & Pitcher T. 2004. Short-term decisions of small-scale fisheries
selecting alternative target species: a choice model. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 61(3):
374-383.
Salas S., Bello J., Ríos V., Cabrera M.A., Rivas R. & Santamaría A. 2005.
Programma maestro del sistema-producto de las pesquerías de langosta en Yucatán.
CONAPESCA-SAGARPA-CINVESTAV, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Salas S., Mexicano-Cíntora G. & Cabrera M.A. 2006. Hacia dondé van las pesquerías
en Yucatán? Tendencias, retos y perspectivas. CINVESTAV I.P.N., Mérida, Yuc.
Mexico.
Salas S., Chuenpagdee R., Seijo J.C. & Charles A. 2007. Challenges in the assessment
and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish.
Res., 87: 5–16.
Salcido-Guevara L.A. 2006. Estructura y flujos de biomasa de un ecosistema
bentónico explotado en el Sur de Sinaloa, Mexico. Tesis de Maestría en Ciencias.
Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN, La Paz, Baja California Sur,
Mexico.
Salcido-Guevara L.A. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2007. A benthic ecosystem model of the
Sinaloa continental shelf, Mexico. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 15(6): 170–187.
Sánchez G., Schultz L., Vasconcelos J., Gamboa R.B., Díaz C. & Iglesias A. 1991.
Resultado de marca-recaptura de peto, Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier), en las
costas del Golfo de Mexico. Reporte XV Mexus-Golfo (inedit).
Schultz L. & Chávez E.A. 1976. Contribución al conocimiento de la biología
pesquera del camarón blanco (Penaeus setiferus) del Golfo de Campeche Mexico.
Mem. Simposium sobre Biología y Dinámica Poblacional de Camarones. Guaymas,
Son., Mexico. pp. 58–72.
Schultz L., Fernández J.I. & Rodríguez C.M. 2000. Sierra-Peto. In Sustentabilidad y
Pesca Responsable en Mexico; Evaluación y Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional
de Pesca. Mexico.
Seijo J.C. 1986. Comprehensive simulation model of a tropical demersal fishery
red grouper (Epinephelus morio) of the Yucatán continental shelf. Ph.D. Thesis.
Michigan State University.
Seijo J.C. 1993. Individual transferable grounds in a community managed artisanal
fishery. Mar. Resour. Econ., 8: 78–81.
Seijo J.C. & Martínez F.J. 2006. Análisis prospectivo de política de acuacultura y pesca
en Mexico. FAO, United Nations. Mexico, DF.
Seijo J.C., Solís-Ramírez M.J. & Morales G. 1987. Simulación bioeconómica de la
pesquería de pulpo Octopus maya de la plataforma continental de Yucatán. Mem.
Simp. Invest. Biol. Ocean. Pesq. Mexico. La Paz, B.C.S. pp.125–138.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 271

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

Soriano S.R., Solís, A., Ramírez C., Cid A.& Castillo J.L. 2000. Tiburones del Golfo
de Tehuantepec. In Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico. Evaluación y
Manejo, 1999-2000. Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Mexico.
Thorpe A., Aguilar-Ibarra A. & Reid C. 2000. The new economic model and marine
fisheries development in Latin America. World Development, 28(9): 1689–1702.
Toledo A. & Bozada L. 2002. El delta del río Balsas. Medio ambiente, pesquerías y
sociedad. Instituto Nacional de Ecología. SEMARNAT. Mexico.
Uribe J.A. 1990. Guía de campo para la identificación de tiburones y cazones de la
sonda de Campeche. Ser. Doc. Trab. INP SEPESCA, 23: 1–48.
Vasconcelos P. J. 1988. Migración de peces pelágicos costeros en el Golfo de Mexico
(la sierra y el peto como ejemplos). In Los Recursos del Mar y la Investigación.
Secretaría de Pesca. Instituto Nacional. de la Pesca. Mexico. 1: 17–22.
Vega-Cendejas M.E. 1998. Trama trófica de la comunidad nectónica asociada al
ecosistema de manglar en el litoral norte de Yucatán. Tesis Doctor en Ciencias.
Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, Mexico.
Vega-Cendejas M.E. 2003. Trophic dynamics of a mangrove ecosystem in Celestun
Lagoon, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 11(6):
237–243.
Vega-Cendejas M.E. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2001. Energy fluxes in a mangrove
ecosystem from a coastal lagoon in Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Ecol. Model., 137:
119-133.
Vega-Cendejas M.E., Arreguín-Sánchez F. & Hernández M. 1993a. Trophic fluxes
on the Campeche Bank, Mexico. In: Trophic models of Aquatic Ecosystems. Edited
by V. Christensen and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc., 26: 206–213.
Vega-Cendejas M.E., Hernández M. & Arreguín-Sánchez F. 1993b. Trophic
interrelationships in a beach seine fishery from the northwest coast of Yucatán
Peninsula, Mexico. J. Fish Biol., 44: 647–659.
Vidal L. & Basurto M. 2003. A preliminary trophic model of Bahía de la Ascensión,
Quintana Roo, Mexico. Fish. Cen. Res. Rep., 11(6): 255–264.
Vidal L., & Pauly D. 2004. Integration of subsystems models as a tool toward
describing feeding interaction and fisheries impacts in a large marine ecosystem, the
Gulf of Mexico. Ocean Coast. Manag., 47: 709–725.
Voss G.L. & Solís-Ramírez M.J. 1966. Octopus maya, a new species from the Bay of
Campeche. Bull. Mar. Sci., 16 (3): 615–625.
World Wildlife Foundation. 2001. Hard facts, hidden problems. A review of current
data on fishing subsidies. Technical Paper. WWF.
Zetina C., Ríos G.V. & Capurro L. 1996a. Red grouper (Epinephelus morio)
population in Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico, and different management strategies
considering the technological interactions of three fishing fleets. Ciencia Pesquera,
13: 95–98.
Zetina C., Ríos G.V. & Cervera K. 1996b. Relaciones morfométricas de langosta
(Panulirus argus) de las costas de Yucatán, Mexico. Ciencia Pesquera, 12: 41–5.
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 273

Zetina Rejón M.J. 2004. Efectos de la pesca en ecosistemas interdependientes: Laguna

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

APPENDIX I
Target species in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region
by type of organism, common and scientific names

Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific name

Mayan (red) octopus Pulpo maya, pulpo rojo Octopus maya

Molluscs
Cephalopods
Common octopus Pulpo común, pulpo patón O. vulgaris

Crustaceans
Brown shrimp Camarón café Farfantepenaeus. aztecus

White shrimp Camarón blanco Litopenaeus setiferus

Pink shrimp Camarón rosado F. duorarum

Seabob Camarón siete barbas Xiphopenaeus kroyeri

Spiny lobster Langosta espinosa Panulirus argus

Spotted lobster Langosta pinta P gutatus

Green lobster Langosta verde P. laevicauda

Fish Lisa Lisa Mugil cephalus

White mullet Lebrancha M. curema

Grouper Mero Epinephelus morio

Spanish mackerel Sierra Scomberomorus maculatus

King mackerel Peto, carito S. cavalla

Gerres sp., Eugerres sp.,
Mojarra Mojarra
Eucinostomus sp.
Gafftopsail catfish Bandera Bagre spp.

Jack Jurel Caranx spp.

Snook Robalo Centropomus spp.

Weakfish Trucha Cynoscion spp.

Snapper Guachinango, pargo Lutjanus spp.

Seabass Corvine Cynoscion spp.

Rudderfish, amberjack Esmedregal Seriola spp.

Yellowtail snapper Rubia Ocyurus spp.

Vermilion snapper Besugo Rhomboplites spp.

Grunt Ronco Pomadasys, Anisotremus

Sea catfish Bagre Arius spp.

Croaker Berrugata Menticirrhus spp.

Pompano Pompano Trachinotus spp.

Cabrilla Cabrilla Paralabrax, Epinephelus

Flounder Lenguado Paralichtys, Syacium

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 275

APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)

Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific name

Sharks and
Atlantic sharpnose shark Cazón de ley, caña hueca Rhizoprionodon terraenovae
rays

Blacktip shark Tiburón puntas negras, volador Carcharhinus limbatus

Bonnethead Cazón cabeza de pala, pech Sphyrna tiburo

Scalloped hammerhead cornuda S. lewini

Bullshark Tiburón chato C. leucas

Blacknose shark Cazón canguay, pico negro C. acronotus

Smalltail shark Tiburón poroso,cuero duro C. porosus

Tiburón curro, puntas negras,

Spinner shark C. brevipinna
picudo
Cornuda grande, cornuda
Hammerhead S. mokarran
gigante

Night shark Tiburón nocturno, ojo verde C. signatus

Sandbar shark Tiburón aleta de cartón, aletón C. plumbeus

Angel shark Tiburón ángel, angelote Squatina dumerili

Tiburón prieto, negro,

Dusky shark C. obscurus
tabasqueño
Chucho, chucho obispo, chucho
Spotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari
pintado

Skate Raya Raja texana

Southern stingray Raya látigo Dasyatis americana

Longnose stingray Raya látigo hocicona D. guttata

Cownose ray Raya gavilán Rhinoptera bonasus

276 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

APPENDIX II
Target species in the Pacific region by type of organism, common and scientific names

Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific name

Molluscs Blue abalone Abulón azul Haliotis fulgens
(Gastropods)
Yellow abalone Abulón amarillo H. corrugada

Black abalone Abulón negro H. cracherodii

Chinese abalone Abulón chino H. sorenseni

Red abalone Abulón rojo H. rubescens

Crown conch Caracol burro Melongena patula

Pink murex Caracol chino rosa Hexaplex erythrostomus

Northern radix murex Caracol chino negro Muricanthus nigritus

Purpura conch Caracol de tinta Purpura pansa

Cortez conch Caracol burro Strombus galeatus

Wavy turban Caracol panocha Astrea undosa, A. turbanica

Bivalves Pismo clam Almeja pismo Tivela stultorum

Squalid callista Almeja chocolata Megapitaria squalida

Golden callista Almeja chocolata roja M. aurantica

Disk dosinia Almeja blanca Dosinia ponderosa

Many-ridged venus Almeja roñosa de risco Peryglipta multicostata

Frilled californian venus Chione undatela

Ornate venus C. gnidia

Californian venus clam Almeja roñosa C. californiensis

Almeja mano de león o
Pacific lion´s paw Lyropecten subnodosus
almeja voladora
Pacific calico scallop Almeja catarina Argopecten circularis

Scallop Almeja voladora Pecten vogdesi

Ark Pata de mula Anadara tuberculosa

Purplelip rock oyster Almeja burra Spondylus calcifer

Rugose pen shell Callo de hacha Pinna rugosa

Maura pen shell Callo de hacha china Atrina maura

Mytilus californianus, M. edulis,
Mussels Mejillón
Modiolus capax
Cephalopods Octopus Pulpo Octopus hubbsorum, O. vulgaris

White spotted octopus Pulpo manchado O. macropus

Two spotted octopus Pulpo manchado O. bimaculatus

Pulpo rojo O. rubescens

Giant squid Calamar gigante Dosidiscus gigas

Echinoderms Red sea urchin Erizo rojo Strogylocentrotus franciscanus

Sea urchin Erizo púrpura S. purpuratus

Isostichopus fuscus,
Sea cucumber Pepino de mar
Parastichopus parvimensis
Coastal fisheries of Mexico 277

APPENDIX II (CONTINUED)

Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific name

Crustaceans Brown shrimp Camarón café Farfantepenaeus californiensis

Blue shrimp Camarón azul Litopenaeus stylirostris

White shrimp Camarón blanco L. vannamei, L. occidentalis

Cristal shrimp F. brevirostris

Rock-shrimp Camarón roca, japonés Sicyonia dorsalis, S. penicillata

Seabob Camarón siete barbas Xiphopenaeus riveti

Camarón zebra Trachypenaeus faoe

Camarón botalón T. pacificus

Green crab Jaiba verde Callinectes bellicosus

Blue crab Jaiba azul C. arcuatus

Black crab Jaiba negra C. toxotes

Red lobster Langosta roja Panulirus interruptus

Green lobster Langosta verde P. gracillis

Blue lobster Langosta azul P. inflatus

Lobster Langosta insular P. penicillatus

Stone crabs Cangrejo amarillo Cancer anthonyi

Cangrejo rojo de roca C. productus

Cangrejo púrpura C. gracilis

Cangrejo de roca moteado C. antennarius

Cangrejo C. magister

Cangrejo mexicano C. jhongarti

Fishes Jewfish Cherna o mero Epinephelus itajara

Verdillo Paralabrax nebulifer

Sandía Paranthias colonus

Cabrilla piedrera Epinephelus labriformis

Baqueta Epinephelus acanthistius

Cabrilla sardinera Myoteroperca rosacea

Spotted sandbass Cabrilla de roca Paralabrax maculatofasciatus

Spotted cabrilla Cabrilla pinta Epinephelus analogus

Flag cabrilla Cabrilla piedrera Epinephelus labriformis

Cabrilla cueruda Dermatolepis dermatolepis

Baya Mycteroperca jordani

Cabrilla plomada Mycteroperca xenarcha

Pescada Stersolepis gigas

Corvina azul, corvina de
Shortfin corvina Cynoscion parvipinnis
aleta corta
Orange mouth corvina Corvina boca anaranjada C. xanthulus

Gulf curvina Corvina del golfo C. othonopterus

Stripped corvina Corvina rayada C. reticulatus

278 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

APPENDIX II (CONTINUED)

Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific name

Fish Corvina chiapaneca C. albus
(continued)
White seabass Corvina blanca Atractoscion nobilis

Drum Corvina chata o boquinete Larimus argenteus

Chano sureño Micropogonias altipinnis

Gulf croacker Chano norteño o berrugata Micropogon megalops

Corvineta armada Bairdiella armata

Corvineta ronco B. icistia

King croacker Berrugata, gurrubato Menticirrhus panamensis

Berrugata californiana M. undutatus

Highfin corvina Berrugata real M. nasus

Berrugata roncadora Umbrina xanti

Berrugata aleta amarilla U. roncador

Pomadasys macracanthus,
Grunter Ronco
P. panamensis
Burrito grunt Burrito Anysotremus interruptus

Cortez grunt Mojarrón Lythrulof flaviguttatum

Bronzestriped grunt Roncacho Orthopristis reddingi

Pacific red snapper Huachinago del Pacifico Lutjanus peru

Spotted rose snapper Pargo lunarejo, flamenco L. guttatus

Pargo amarillo, coyotillo,
Yellow snapper L. argentiventris
alazan, clavelino
Pargo rojo, pargo colmillón L. jordani
Pargo colorado, pargo
Colorado snapper L. colorado
listoncillo
Dog snapper Pargo mulato, pargo prieto L. novemfasciatus

Pargo rabirrubia Lutjanus inermis

Blue and gold snapper Pargo azul-dorado,rayado Lutjanus viridis

Pargo raicero, pargo de
Mangrove snapper Lutjanus aratus
manglar
Mexican barred snapper Pargo coconaco, tecomate Hoplopagrus guentheri

Common jack Jurel Canarx hippos

Jack Ojón C. marginatus

Jurel toro Caranx caninus

Jurel voraz, ojo de perra C. sexfasciatus

Green jack Cocinero, jurel bonito C. caballus

Chicharro ojoton Selar crumenophtalmus

Yellow tail Esmedregal, jurel de castilla Seriola dorsalis

Amberjack Esmedregal limón Seriola rivoliana

Esmedregal cola amarilla Seriola lalandi

Esmedregal fortuno S. peruana

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 279

APPENDIX II (CONTINUED)

Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific name

Fish California halibut Lenguado californiano Paralichthys califomicus
(continued)
Lenguado huarache Paralichthys woolmani

Cortez halibut Lenguado de Cortes Paralichthys aestuarius

Lenguado cola de abanico Xystreurys liolepis

Lenguado bocón Hippoglossina stomata

Lenguado diamante Hypsopsetta guttulata

Fourspot sole Lenguado cuatrojos Hippoglossina tetrophthalmus

Lenguado resbaloso Microstomus pacificus

Three-eye flounder Lenguado Ancylopsetta dendritica

Striped mullet Lisa rayada, cabezona Mugil cephalus

White mullet Lisa blanca, liseta, lebrancha Mugil curema

Lisa hospe Mugil hospes

Pierna o blanco Caulolatilus princeps

Conejo, salmón Caulolatilus affinis

Robalo plateado o garabato Centropomus viridis

Black snook Robalo prieto o piedra Centropomus nigrescens

Robalo aleta prieta o paleta Centropomus medius

Robalo espina larga Centropomus armatus

Robalo aleta amarilla,
Black snook Centropomus robalito
constantino, robalito
Tarpon snook Constantino Centropomus pectinatus

Chub mackerel Macarela Scomber japonicus

Pacific mackerel Sierra Scomberomorus sierra

Spanish mackerel Sierra Scomberomorus concolor

Yellowfin mojarra Mojarra de aletas amarillas Diapterus peruvianus

Silver mojarra Mojarra plateada Eucinostomus argenteus

Mojarra blanca Gerres cinereus

Pacific flagfin mojarra Mojarra E. gracilis

Dolphinfish Dorado Coryphaena hipurus

Sharks and Cazón mamón Mustelus henlei, M. lunulatus
Rays
Sharpnose shark Cazón bironche Rhizoprionodon longurio

Scalloped hammerhead Cornuda o martillo Sphyrna lewini

Pacific angel shark Angelote Squatina californica

Tiburón cornudo Heterodontus mexicanus

Cornuda prieta S. zygaena

Tiburón volador, puntas
Blacktip shark Carcharinus limbatus
negras
Tiburón aleta de cartón Carcharhinus falciformis

Tiburón coyotito Nasolamia velox

280 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

APPENDIX II (CONTINUED)

Groups Common name Spanish name Scientific name

Sharks Tiburón perro Alopias superciliosus
and rays
(continued) Tiburón chato Carcharhinus leucas

Tiburón perro Alopias pelagicus

Tiger shark Tintorera Galeocerdo cuvier

Cornuda gigante Sphyrna mokarran

Gata Ginglymostoma cirratum

Tiburón azul Prionace glauca

Cornuda Sphyrna media

Mako Isurus oxyrinchus

Thresher shark Tiburón zorro Alopias vulpinus

Tiburón puntas blancas Carcharhinus longimanus

Tiburón martillo Sphyrna corona

Small tail shark Tiburón cuero duro Carcharinus porosus

Lemon shark Tiburón limón Negaprion brevirostris

Mustelus californicus

Cephaloscyllium ventriosum

Heterodontus francisci

Carcharhinus obscurus

Triakis semifasciata

Hexanchus griseus

Notorynchus cepedianus

Stingray Raya Dasyatis longus

Pacific manta Manta o mantarraya Manta hamiltoni

Longtail diamond stingray Raya con espinas D. brevis

Bat ray Raya gavilán o tejolote Myliobatis californicus

Seaweeds Sargazo Sargazo gigante Macrocystis pyrifera

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 281

APPENDIX III
Non-target species and/or bycatch

English name Spanish name Scientific name

Finescale triggerfish Cochi Batistes polylepis

Ocean whitefish Pierna, blanco Caulolatilus princeps

Bighead tilefish Conejo, salmón Caulolatilus affinis

Cortez flounder Lenguado de Cortés Paralichthys aestuarius

Pacific bearded brotula Lengua Brotula ctarki

California scorpionfish Lapón californiano Scorpaena guttata

Spotted scorpionfish Lapón, escorpión, rascado Scorpaena plumieri

Mexican hogfish Vieja mexicana Bodianus diplotaenia

California sheephead Vieja californiana Semicossyphus pulcher

Bocaccio Rocote Sebastes paucispinís

Kelp rockfish Rocote sargacero Sebastes atrovirens

North Pacific hake Merluza norteña Merluccius productus

Speckled guitarfish Guitarra punteada Rhinobatos glaucosiigma,

Whitesnout guitarfish Guitarra trompa blanca Rhinobatos leucorhyncfius

Shovelnose guitarfish Guitarra viola Rhinobatos productus

Banded guitarfish Guitarra rayada Zapteryx exasperala

California butterfly ray Raya mariposa californiana Gymnura marmorata

Pacific chupare Raya coluda del Pacífico Himantura pacifica

Whiptail stingray Raya látigo común Dasyatis brevis

Pacific angelshark Angelote Squatina califomica

Grey smooth-hound Cazón, tiburón mamón Mustelus califomicus

Siklefin smooth-hound Cazón segador Mustelus lunulatus

Brown smooth-hound Cazón hilacho Mustelus henlei

Pacific sharp-nose shark Tiburón bironche Rhizoprionodon longurio

Inshore sand perch Serrano cabicucho Diplectrum pacificum

Paralabrax
Spotted sand bass Cabrilla de roca
maculatofasciatus
Flag Serrano Serrano bandera Serranus huascarii

Flathead mullet Lisa rayada, lisa cabezona Mugil cephalus

Pacific porgy Mojarron, pluma marotilla Calamus brachysomus

Paloma pompano Pampano paloma Trachinotus paitensis

Yellowfin surgeonfish Cirujano aleta amarilla, barbero Acanthurus xanthopterus

Pacific mutton hamlet Guaseta del Pacifico Alphestes immaculatus

Scrawled filefish Lija garrapatera, bota trompa Aluterus scriptus

Burrito grunt Burro bacoco Anisotremus interruptus

282 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

APPENDIX III (CONTINUED)

English name Spanish name Scientific name

Threadfin jack Jurel de hebra, cocinero, chicuaca Carangoides otrynter

Pacific crevalle jack Jurel toro Caranx caninus

Bigeye trevally Jurel voraz Caranx sexfasciatus

Pacific graysby Enjambre Cephalopholis panamensis

Shortfin weakfish Corvina azul, corvina aleta corta Cynoscion parvipinnis

Zopilote, peluquero, chavelito, chambo,
Pacific spadefish Chaetodipterus zonatus
ojo de perra
Rooster hind Baqueta Epinephelus acanthisbus

Spotted grouper Cabrilla pinta Epinephelus analogus

Itajara Mero guasa, cherna Epinephelus itajara

Starry grouper Cabrilla piedrera Epinephelus labriformis

Star-studded grouper Baqueta ploma Epinephelus niphobles

Ronco, chano, burro manchas amarillas,

Yellow spotted grunt Haemulon flaviguttatum
jiniguaro

Spottail grunt Burro rasposo Haemulon maculicauda

Greybar grunt Burro almejero, guzga Haemulon sexfasciatum

Blue-bronze sea chub Chopa rayada Kyphosus analogus

Cortez sea chub Chopa de Cortes, chopa gris Kyphosus elegans

Giant manta Mantarraya, manta gigante Manta birostris

Wavyline grunt Ronco rayadillo Microlepidotus inornatus

Gulf grouper Baya Mycteroperca jordani

Leopard grouper Cabrilla sardinera, mitan Mycteroperca rosacea

Bronze-striped grunt Burrito, ronco rayado Orthopristis reddingi

Goldspotted sand bass Cabrilla extranjera, lucero Paralabrax auroguttatus

Parrot sand bass Cabrilla cachete amarillo, lucero Paralabrax loro

Pacific cownose ray Manta gavilán Rhinoptera steindachneri

Pacific spotted
Lapón, escorpión Scorpaena mystes
scorpionfish
Almaco jack Esmedregal limón, esmedregal almaco Seriola rivoliana

Bullseye puffer Botete diana Sphoeroides annulatus

Orangeside triggerfish Cochi naranja, bota, pejepuerco Suflamen verres

Gafftopsail pompano Pampano fino, pampano rayado Trachinotus rhodopus

Polla drum Berrugata roncadora Umbrina xanti

Longfin salema Chula, jiguagua, salmonete Xenichthys xanti

Pacific ladyfish Macabi Elops affinis

Yellowfin mojarra Mojarra bandera, mojarra rayada Gerres cinereus

Pacific sierra Sierra del pacifico Scomberomorus sierra

Bluespotted cornetfish Trompeta, corneta pintada Fistularia commersonii

Coastal fisheries of Mexico 283

APPENDIX III (CONTINUED)

English name Spanish name Scientific name

Californian needlefish Agujón californiano Strongylura exilis

Roosterfish Papagayo Nematishus pectoralis

Threadfin jack Jurel de hebra, chicuaca Carangoides otrynter

Rainbow runner Macarela salmón Elagatis bipinnulata

Snouted eagle ray Raya águila picuda Myliobatis longirostris

Bat eagle ray Tecolote, raya murciélago Myliobatis californica

Longfin sanddab Lenguado alón Citharichthys xanthostigma

Spotted eagle ray Chucho pintado Aetobatus narinari

Threadfin bonefish Quijo, macabi, chile, banana Albula nemoptera

Anchovy Anchoveta, anchoa chicotera Anchoa sp

Black snook Róbalo prieto Centropomus nigrescens

Yellowfin snook Róbalo aleta amarilla, constantino, robalito Centropomus robalito

Pacific anchoveta Sardina bocona, boquerón Cetengraulis mysticetus

Milkfish Sabalote Chanos chanos

Pacific bumper Jurel de castilla, casabe Chloroscombrus orqueta

Golden mojarra Mojarra palometa Diapterus aureolus

Mojarra aletas amarilla, mojarra china,
Peruvian mojarra Diapterus peruvianus
malacapa
Pacific ladyfish Machete del pacifico Elops affinis

Pacific flagfin mojarra Mojarra tricolor Eucinostomus curan ischana

Graceful mojarra Mojarra charrita Eucinostomus gracilis

Blackfin jack Chocho, jurel chumbo Hemicaranx zelotes

California kingcroaker Berrugata Menticirrhus undulatus

Longjaw leatherjack Piña bocona Oligoplites altus

Squint-eyed croaker Corvineta bizca Ophioscion strabo

Pacific thread herring Sardina crinuda Opisthonema libentate

Brassy grunt Burrito corcovado Orthopristis chalceus

Blue bobo Barbudo seis barbas Polydactylus approximans

Panama grunt Ronco mapache Pomadasys panamensis

Pseudupeneus
Bigscale goatfish Chivo, chivato, salmonete
grandisquamis
Mexican lookdown Jorobado escamoso, tostón Selene brevoortli

Barred sand bass Verdillo, cabrilla de arena Paralabrax nebulifer

Mexican barracuda Barracuda mexicana Sphyraena ensis

Bigeye croaker Chano norteño Micropogonias megalops

Gulf weakfish Corvina golfina Cynoscion othonopterus

Dow's mojarra Mojarra cantileha o blanca Eucinostomus dowii

284 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

APPENDIX IV
List of fish species composing shrimp-trawl bycatch of the southern Gulf of California

Percent
Family Species Cumulative %
(weight)
Diodontidae Diodon holocanthus 14.08 14.08
Serranidae Diplectrum pacificum 8.64 22.72
Synodontidae Synodus scituliceps 7.72 30.44
Serranidae Paralabrax maculatofasciatus 6.27 36.71
Gerreidae Eucinostomus dowii 6.26 42.97
Hamulidae Haemulon steindachneri 5.64 48.61
Balistidae Balistes polylepsis 4.04 52.65
Haemulidae Orthopristis reddingi 3.50 56.15
Rhinobatidae Rhinobatos glaucostigma 3.09 59.24
Achiridae Achirus mazatlanus 2.70 61.94
Paralichthyidae Etropus crossotus 2.28 64.22
Sparidae Calamus brachysomus 2.25 66.47
Haemulidae Haemulidae 2.14 68.61
Batrachoididae Porichthys analis 2.13 70.74
Triglidae Prionotus stephanophrys 1.87 72.61
Ariidae Arius platystomus 1.60 74.21
Haemulidae Haemulopsis elongatus 1.58 75.79
Sciaenidae Micropogonias ectenes 1.56 77.35
Lutjanidae Lutjanus peru 1.27 78.62
Paralichthyidae Hippoglossima tetrophthalma 1.25 79.86
Urolophidae Urobatis halleri 1.17 81.03
Serranidae Diplectrum spp. 1.06 82.09
Narcinidae Diplobatis ommata 1.05 83.14
Scorpàenidae Scorpaena russula 1.03 84.17
Lutjanidae Lutjanus guttatus 0.79 84.96
Haemulidae Haemulon maculacaudi 0.74 85.71
Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides lobatus 0.74 86.45
Paralichthyidae Cyclopsetta panamensis 0.73 87.18
Mullidae Pseudupeneus grandisquamis 0.63 87.81
Triglidae Prionotus ruscarius 0.60 88.41
Gerreidae Diapterus peruvianus 0.59 89.00
Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides spp. 0.52 89.52
Haemulidae Haemulon elongatus 0.44 89.96
Ophidiidae Lepophidium prorates 0.39 90.35
Paralichthyidae Citharichthys spp. 0.39 90.75
Triglidae Prionotus birostratus 0.39 91.14
Urolophidae Urobatis maculatus 0.38 91.52
Sciaenidae Umbrina xanti 0.36 91.88
Haemulidae Pomadasys panamensis 0.31 92.19
Gerreidae Eucinostomus gracilis 0.29 92.48
Narcinidae Narcine entemedor 0.29 92.76
Rhinobatidae Rhinobatos productus 0.29 93.05
Ariidae Arius spp. 0.28 93.33
Paralichthyidae Syacium latifrons 0.28 93.61
Synodontidae Synodus evermanni 0.26 93.87
 285

11. Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico

MÓNICA VALLE-ESQUIVEL*, MANOJ SHIVLANI, DANIEL MATOS-CARABALLO AND DAVID J. DIE

Valle-Esquivel, M., Shivlani, M., Matos-Caraballo, D. and Die, D.J. 2011. Coastal fisheries
of Puerto Rico. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries
of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544.
Rome, FAO. pp. 285–313.

1. Introduction 286
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activities 286
2.1 Commercial fishery 287
2.2 Recreational fishery 291
2.3 Commercial fishing activity 291
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 293
4. Community organization and interaction with other sectors 296
4.1 Community organization 296
4.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectors 297
5. Assessment of fisheries 298
5.1 Reef fisheries 298
5.2 Queen conch assessments 299
5.3 Spiny lobster assessments 301
5.4 Reef fish assessments 304
6. Fishery management and planning 305
6.1 Federal fisheries management 306
6.2 Local fisheries management 308
7. Research and education 308
8. Issues and challenges 309
Acknowledgements 310
References 310

* Contact information: MRAG Americas, Inc., St. Petersburg. Florida, USA. E-mail: monica.valle@
mragamericas.com
286 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

1. INTRODUCTION
Puerto Rico is composed of an archipelago that includes the main island of Puerto
Rico and a number of smaller islands and keys, the largest of which are Vieques,
Culebra and Mona (Figure 1). The main island of Puerto Rico is the smallest by
land area but third largest by population among the four Greater Antilles (Cuba,
Hispaniola, Jamaica and Puerto Rico). The length of its coastline is approximately
1 094 km and the continental shelf area extends to 4 073 km2 (FAO, 2003).
Until 2003 there were 44 marine protected areas (MPAs) in Puerto Rico making
a total of 3.4% of land area (FAO, 2003).

FIGURE 1
Map of Puerto Rico

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITIES

The fisheries of Puerto Rico can be classified as small scale and mostly artisanal in
nature. Multiple gears are used to harvest a wide variety of fish and shellfish for
commercial, recreational or subsistence use. A high level of mixing is observed in
the landings, so a species-wide segregation of fisheries is not possible, except for
some snapper and grouper species within the reef fish complex, the queen conch
and the spiny lobster. These species have been targeted commercially and have
been better documented in the historical records. On the other hand, there is
limited information on bait, ornamental, or recreational and subsistence fisheries.
In the sections that follow, an overall description of the entire fishery of Puerto
Rico will be presented. However, focus will be placed on the commercial fishery
and on those species that, due to larger abundance or to traditional value or
economic importance, have been better documented and for which management
regulations exist. Other components of the overall fishery will be merely outlined,
but should deserve further consideration as more data become available.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 287

2.1 Commercial fishery

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

FIGURE 2
Historical reported commercial landings of fish and shellfish in Puerto Rico, (a) 1930-2000,
and (b) 1983-2002, with an approximate proportion of fish and shellfish (invertebrate)
species. Pelagics include tunas, dorado, wahoo, marlin, sailfish and swordfish; shellfish
include crabs, molluscs (clams, octopus, snails and other) and lobsters

(a)

(b)

Sources: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL and NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Statistics Reports and Landings Files, NOAA,
2003.

By 2003, reported landings dropped to 1 089 tonnes (not shown), perhaps

as a result of under-reporting (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a). Over these 30 years,
the total combined fish and shellfish landings show declines beginning around
1979 and continuing through 1993. The proportion of fish and shellfish of the
total combined landings remained relatively constant, at about 83% and 17%,
respectively. The reported commercial landings of combined fish and shellfish by
region indicate a consistent trend over the period 1971 to 2000. Historically, 48%
of the total catch has been landed in the west coast, followed by the south (24%),
east (18%) and north coasts (10%) (Figure 3).
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 289

FIGURE 3
Historical reported commercial landings of fish and shellfish in Puerto Rico,
1971–2000, by region

Sources: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL Cooperative Statistics Reports and NOAA, 2003.

Recent data (2001–2003) showed that the most important fish categories, in
terms of percentage of total landings, were the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)
with 8.9%; yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) 8.6%; queen conch (Strombus
gigas) 8.1%; deep water snappers (mainly silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus) 7.1%;
lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) 5.4%; various species of tuna (mainly yellowfin,
Thunnus albacares and skipjack, Katsuwonus pelamis) 4%; grunts (mainly white
grunt, Haemulon plumieri) 3.7%; king mackerel (Scomberomerus cavalla) 3.3%;
dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) 3%; parrotfishes 3%; trunkfish 2.3%; groupers
(mainly red hind, Epinephelus guttatus) 2.2%; and cero mackerel (Scomberomerus
regalis) 1.90% (Figure 4) (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a).

FIGURE 4
Most represented species categories in the Puerto Rican commercial landings
between 2001 and 2003

Source: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL and NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Statistics Reports and Landings Files.
290 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

The gears most commonly employed during the period (2001–2003) were lines
(handlines, troll lines, longlines and rod and reel), accounting for 40% of the total
reported landings. Lines were followed by traps (fish trap and lobster trap) with
22%; divers (skin and SCUBA) caught 19.6%; and nets (beach seine, gillnet, cast
net and trammel net) accounted for 18% of the total (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a).
The commercial fishery in Puerto Rico is a year-round activity, but decreases
during the hurricane season, particularly in the months of August and September.
Certain species are harvested seasonally, such as dolphinfish (October through
March in the north Coast, May to August in the south Coast), and yellowfin tuna
(between May and September). Some other species (i.e. red hind, mutton snapper)
are captured at greater rates during the reproductive season, when they form
spawning aggregations (Matos-Caraballo, personal communication). The DNER
has implemented seasonal/area closures to deal with this problem, for example, a
prohibition on fishing in an area off the west coast of Puerto Rico (Tourmaline
Bank) from 1 December through 28 February, a period that coincides with the
spawning season for red hind (CFMC, 1994).
Approximately 99% of the fishery products are marketed as fresh food. The
remaining 1% is processed to make fish empanadas (empanadillas) or fried fish
patties (bolitas de pescado).
Historical time series are available from the Puerto Rico Department
of Natural and Environmental Resources, Fisheries Research Laboratory
(DNER/ FRL) for a broad range of species and species groups from 1983–
2003 (Matos-Caraballo, 2004a). Raw data for the main fish and invertebrate
categories have been summarized to illustrate general trends over time (Figure
2a, Figure 5). Landings for all categories have fluctuated between 1983 and
2002, with an initial decline until 1992 and a general increase thereafter,
peaking in years 1995–1997 at approximately 262 tonnes of shellfish, 176
tonnes of pelagic species, and 1 270 tonnes of reef fishes.

FIGURE 5
Reported commercial conch and spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico for 1983–2002

Sources: Puerto Rico DNER/FRL and NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Statistics Landings Files.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 291

Between 1983 and 2002, the approximate proportion of each group from
the total landings was: reef fishes (including ornamental and bait fish) near
75.7%; pelagics (tuna, dorado, wahoo, marlin, sailfish and swordfish) 7.6%; and
invertebrates (crabs, clams, other molluscs, snails, octopus and lobster) 16.7%.
If we disaggregate conch and spiny lobster from the invertebrate landings, they
correspond to 7.3% and 7.9% of the total, respectively. These relative proportions
have remained fairly stable over time, with a few fluctuations. Since 1995, larger
amounts of shellfish and pelagics are observed, compared with the previous values
(1983–1994).

2.2 Recreational fishery

Until recently, the recreational fisheries of Puerto Rico were not well documented.
In 1979, NOAA Fisheries implemented a national programme, the Marine
Recreational Fisheries Sampling Survey (MRFSS), to provide a reliable database for
estimating the impact of recreational fishing on marine resources. The MRFSS has
only been conducted consistently in Puerto Rico since 2000. This survey provides
estimates of total fish landed, the variance of the total, auxiliary information on the
estimated number of fish released and the size composition of the fish harvested
and released (NOAA Fisheries, 2003).
The species groups targeted in the recreational fishery are snappers, groupers,
grunts, jacks, dolphin, wahoo and blue marlin. There are a series of recreational
tournaments for marlin, dolphin and wahoo. Although not necessarily targeted,
the spiny lobster and queen conch are also harvested by recreational fishers
(Matos-Caraballo, personal communication).
Recreational fishing in the United States Caribbean can be a significant source
of fishing mortality, and consists of activities by both locals and tourists. Current
fishing regulations for territorial waters require recreational fishers to have a
licence or permit, and both federal and local regulations require the registration
of recreational vessels. However, information on recreational fishing activities is
generally missing (NOAA Fisheries, 2003), so the level and trends in this fishery
remain largely unknown.

2.3 Commercial fishing activity

For descriptive purposes, the commercial fisheries of Puerto Rico can be divided
into four categories: reef, bait, deep water and pelagic fisheries. The reef fishery
can be further subdivided into reef fish, queen conch, spiny lobster and ornamental
fisheries. While fishing for different groups can occur on the same fishing trip
given the multispecies and multigear nature of the overall fishery, each of these
categories can be characterized by the group(s) of species targeted, the type of gear
used, the type and size of the boats, the approximate crew size, and the number of
participants in the fishery (Table 1).
A census conducted in 2002 (Matos-Caraballo, 2004b) calculated that a total of
956 active commercial fishing vessels and 1 163 fishers were operating in Puerto
Rico. Data from this census also indicated that the multigear and multispecies
292 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

nature of the Puerto Rican fishery led most of the commercial fishers to exploit
two or more species categories (Table 1). Reef fish (including conch and lobster)
were exploited by 87% of the total number of fishers interviewed (1 163), 36%
exploited the pelagic species, 37% the deep-water species (particularly snapper),
and 56% targeted bait fish; overlapping of target species exists. The gear types
that accounted for the highest percentage of landings by weight between 2001 and
2003 were lines (handline, troll line and rod-and-line), taking 40% of the total
catch; traps (fish trap and lobster trap) with 22.1%; divers (skin and SCUBA)
with 19.6%; and nets (beach seine, gillnet, cast net and trammel net) with 18.3%
(Figure 6) (Matos-Caraballo, 2004b).

TABLE 1
Subdivision of the commercial fisheries of Puerto Rico into four categories, with their
corresponding characteristics. The total number of fishers in the 2002 census was 1 163

Type and Number

Average of fishers
Type and size size of boat
Category Species crew (2002)
of gear (length in
size
metres) (% of total)
1. Reef 1a. Reef fishes Fish traps, lobster
traps, bottom lines,
beach seines, gillnets,
trammel nets, skin 4.6–12 2
diving and SCUBA
diving.

1b. Spiny lobster Skin diving and SCUBA 87

diving. 4.9–6.7 2

1c. Queen conch Skin diving and SCUBA

diving. 4.9–6.7 2

1d. Ornamental SCUBA and skin divers

5.5–7.3 2

2. Pelagic Tuna, dorado, Bottom lines and troll

wahoo lines 4.6–9 2 36

3. Bait Cast nets, beach seines,

gillnets, troll lines and
bottom lines 4.6–7.3 2 56

4. Deep Deep water Bottom lines and fish

water snappers, traps
groupers, 4.6–12 2 37
tilefishes

Source: Matos-Caraballo, 2004b.

Note: Due to the multispecies and multigear nature of the fishery, the sum of the reported percentage of fishers by
category does not add up to 100%.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 293

FIGURE 6
Percentage of total commercial landings by gear type reported in years 2001–2003

Commercial landings by gear (%) 40

30

20

10

0
Lines Traps Divers Nets
Gear Type

Source: Commercial Landings Statistics Report (April 2001–March 2004); Matos-Caraballo, 2004b.

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

According to Matos-Caraballo (2004b), the number of commercial fishers has been
declining steadily in Puerto Rico over the past decade. In 1996, a census determined
that there were 1 758 active fishers on the island, but that total had declined to
1 163 active fishers by 2002. Overall, the industry lost almost 34% of its participants
in that six-year period, after enjoying several decades of stability (Figure 7). Much of
this decline has been attributed to a decreasing resource base, as evidenced by lower
catch in recent decades. Importantly, remaining fishers have also shifted effort from
traditional gears, such as traps and nets, to SCUBA diving, free-diving and hooks
(Matos-Caraballo, 2004b). The results thus suggest a consolidation brought upon
mainly by resource constraints and associated economic effects.

FIGURE 7
Total number of fishers and vessels in the Puerto Rico fisheries from 1969 to 1996

Source: Puerto Rico DNER Cooperative State Federal; NOAA Fisheries, 2003.
294 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Matos-Caraballo (2004b) reported that 36% of the 1 163 fishers interviewed

in a 2002 census are full-time, and the remaining 64% are part-time. The level
of professionalization varies with the type of fishery. For example, a NOAA
Fisheries study conducted with members of the fish trap industry in the United
States Caribbean found that Puerto Rican fishers obtained an average of 60%
of their household income from commercial fishing (Shivlani et al., 2005).
Similarly, western Puerto Rico’s pelagic fishery is largely full-time and industrial
in composition, due mainly to the higher catch rates in the region. However, the
majority of the fishery’s participants are artisanal (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini,
2002; Matos-Caraballo, 2004b), and distinctions such as full- and part-time are
fluid for these participants, based on factors such as resource abundance, access
to fishing capital, and other employment opportunities, among others. Other
occupations in which fishers participate include jobs in the construction (especially
in the past decade) and agricultural sectors. Others migrate, either temporarily or
on a permanent basis, to the mainland United States to seek employment in a
variety of mostly labour-intensive sectors (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002).
Female participation is very limited in Puerto Rican fisheries or within the
processing sector, as women only rarely participate directly (i.e. as fishers). In the
fish trap industry, for example, women made up less than 1% of the 2003 trap
fisher population. Instead, women generally engage in ancillary activities such as
gear maintenance and repair, fishery product sales and marketing (e.g. running
restaurants, selling fish, etc.), and accounting and other paperwork, among other
activities; however, there is no cultural or otherwise defined division of female
labour as exists in other fishing communities.
Most fishers are local, in that they fish in adjacent waters and live within
local communities. This is due partly to the artisanal nature of the fishery and its
capacity, as well as the de facto (if not de jure) existence of territories, especially
in the trap fishery (Posada et al., 1997). Most fishers use small, open vessels less
than seven metres in length and with small, outboard motors. The pelagic fleet in
Puerto Real, in western Puerto Rico, was an exception, as these fishers used to
fish the deeper, offshore waters of Puerto Rico’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
This pelagic fleet, however, disappeared seven years ago (Griffith and Valdés-
Pizzini, 2002). Also, certain trap (and other gear) fishers may target deeper fishing
grounds, but such individuals also represent exceptions to the mainly local nature
of Puerto Rican fisheries. In total, the 1 163 fishers represent only a small fraction
of Puerto Rico’s 3.81 million residents (United States Census, 2004), making up
0.03% of the island’s overall population. However, partly because much of Puerto
Rico’s population is located in urban centres, certain smaller coastal communities
exhibit considerable fishing characteristics, including ports such as Guayama,
Puerto Real and Las Croabas, among others.
Apart from the local, mainly artisanal fleets in Puerto Rico, there has been
the seasonal influence of United States mainland longliners, especially in the
1980s and 1990s (NOAA Fisheries, unpublished data). At their peak in 1987–88,
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 295

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

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND INTERACTION WITH OTHER

SECTORS
4.1 Community organization
There are two main fishery organizations in Puerto Rico: Villas Pesqueras and
cooperatives. The Villas Pesqueras (or fishery organizations) play several roles
in many fishing communities, including locations to land and sell products (i.e.
processing sites), places to store gear, and meeting locations. Each association
is comprised of a governing body, organized as a board of directors. The most
experienced (and politically deft) fishers are those who make up the board, with
one fisher serving as association president. The Villas Pesqueras also are polarized
organizations, in that they often provoke as much disdain as they attract affiliation
(Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002). Nevertheless, the Villas Pesqueras remain the
most prominent fishery organizations within most of the communities in which
they are located.
The other form of organization in Puerto Rico, encouraged primarily by
the government agency CODREMAR (Corporacion para el Desarrollo y
Administracion de los Recursos Marinos, Lacustres y Fluviales de Puerto Rico)
in the 1980s, is that of fishery cooperatives. Cooperatives have not fared as
successfully as first planned, and their overall success varies considerably by
location and depends on a variety of fishery-related (marine resource abundance and
quality, fishery technology and capacity) and non-fishery-related circumstances.
Anecdotal information indicates that out of Puerto Rico’s 42 coastal municipalities
and 90 fishing centres (ports where commercial fishing activity occurs), only the
following fishing centres actually work as real associations or cooperatives:

Fisher Cooperative of Culebra, Isla de Culebra

Fisher Association of Villa del Ojo, Playuela, Aguadilla
Fisher Association of Playa de Ponce, Ponce
Fisher Association of Boquete, Peñuelas
Fisher Association of Hoar, San Juan
Fisher Association of Villa Pesquera de Puerto Real, Cabo Rojo

Fishers exert influence in the fishery management process in the United States
of America mainly via membership in organizations (such as the aforementioned
Villas Pesqueras and cooperatives) which lobby for fishery interests and by
representation in the regional fishery management councils (Ross, 1997; Hanna
et al., 2000). In the case of Puerto Rico, the regional council responsible for
fishery management is the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC). The
CFMC is comprised of seven voting members and three non-voting members.
These members are drawn from various federal and state (in this case territorial)
agencies and from interest groups. Interest group representatives, which include
commercial fishery interests, are selected by the governors of Puerto Rico and the
United States Virgin Islands (United States Census, 1852). The CFMC has at least
two fishers as voting members. Other fishers belong to CFMC’s advisory panel.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 297

Many fishers participate in the public hearings. The DNER has approximately ten
fishers to work in the review process for Puerto Rico’s Fishing Regulations.
Involvement at the community level is exerted mainly through fishery
organizations, which may represent community interests; presidents of fisher
associations often participate in public hearings. However, there is no formal
community-based representation in the management framework.
There exist a number of local and extra-local non-governmental organizations
in Puerto Rico, and all of these exert some influence on fishery management
on the island, either formally through lobbying effort or informally by shaping
public opinion. Groups such as the Committee for the Rescue and Development
of Vieques (CRDV), which are interested in local issues that may include fishery
interests, often work with fishers to address environmental and cultural impacts
CRDV, 2004). Larger, United States-based and international non-governmental
organizations, including The Nature Conservancy and The Ocean Conservancy,
maintain a strong presence in the United States Caribbean, influencing fishery and
marine protected area (MPA) agendas, among others (TNC, 2004; TOC, 2004).

4.2 Interactions between fishers and with other sectors

Fishers using different gear types may compete for the same resource, especially
in a mixed fishery as exists in Puerto Rico (Scharer et al., 2002). That is, because
fishers often use different gear types (i.e. nets, traps, SCUBA diving and hook-
and-line) to target the same species, there is direct competition between gear types.
Conflicts arise when fishers using one gear are affected by or are perceived to be
affected by fishers using another gear. Trap fishers, for instance, often argue that
their catch is poached by divers (Scharer et al., 2002; Shivlani et al., 2005).
Coastal activities in Puerto Rico are dominated by development and tourism,
and both sectors compete and thereby conflict directly with commercial fishing
(Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini, 2002). As gentrification proceeds along the island’s
coastal zone, fishers are often outcompeted by more lucrative uses, including
coastal development (resorts, hotels and housing) and recreational facilities
(such as harbours and marinas); the end result is a decline in commercial fishing
influence and presence within the coastal zone, similar to what has occurred in
other areas (for example, see Schittone, 2001, for a review of gentrification in Key
West, Florida). In some parts of Puerto Rico, modest Villa Pesqueras cohabit the
coastal zone with modern developments and sprawling marinas (Shivlani et al.,
2005). Inevitably, as competing uses vie for presence in the coastal zone, conflicts
arise over use and eventually existence rights. Recreational interests, for the most
part, are winning the competition in Puerto Rico and much of the United States,
as commercial fisheries decline due to a combination of lower resource abundance,
greater access to fishery products from foreign markets, and higher profits to be
realized from recreational and non-fishery sectors, among others.
298 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
NOAA Fisheries is in charge of conducting periodic assessments and evaluating
fishery management. Selected species for assessment are analysed via the Southeast
Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process, which is a region-wide initiative
involving the Gulf of Mexico, south Atlantic and Caribbean states. Scientists and
stakeholders from local and federal agencies, as well as an external review panel,
participate in this stock assessment process.
Stock assessment efforts in Puerto Rico have concentrated on reef species,
particularly those of greater economic importance, such as queen conch, spiny
lobster, shallow-water snappers and groupers, and more recently, deep-water
species. Assessments for ornamental, bait or pelagic species have not been
conducted. The main stock assessment studies conducted in Puerto Rico are
described in the sections that follow.

5.1 Reef fisheries

Research efforts in the United States Caribbean have provided some insight into
the life history, growth and biology of fish and shellfish species, and into the
effects of fishing pressure on some exploited stocks. Fishery independent surveys
have provided information on size structure, density, abundance and community
structure of coral reef fishes and invertebrates of commercial importance. Many
studies have concentrated on spiny lobster and queen conch.
In the early 1990s, stock assessments of spiny lobster, the shallow water
reef-fish complex and queen conch were conducted by Bohnsack et al. (1991),
Appeldoorn et al. (1992), and Appeldoorn (1991, 1992), respectively. Cummings
et al. (1997) performed catch rate, size composition and stock assessment analyses
of red hind and coney from St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. In recent
years, Valle-Esquivel (2002a) conducted a review of the United States Caribbean
fisheries information with emphasis on queen conch, followed by assessments of
the Puerto Rico and St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands stocks (Valle-Esquivel,
2002b). In 2003, a group of scientists from NOAA Fisheries and the University
of Miami conducted a comprehensive review of data and information for the
deep-water snapper-grouper complex (NOAA Fisheries, 2003). Mateo (2004)
calculated relative indices abundance and performed yield-per-recruit analyses of
the Puerto Rico spiny lobster. These efforts resumed in 2004 with comprehensive
assessments of the Caribbean spiny lobster and the yellowtail snapper (NOAA
Fisheries, 2005a, 2005b).
The Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and amendments for reef fish, lobster,
queen conch and coral fisheries in the United States Caribbean have been supported
by Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Regulatory Impact Reviews (RIR),
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (RFA), and socio-economic assessments (CFMC,
1981, 1985, 1994, 1996, 2002, 2004).
The objective of the Environmental Impact Statements is to assess the
environmental consequences of management alternatives and to propose action for
those impacts. On the other hand, the prominent concerns in the regulatory policy
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 299

considerations are the costs and benefits of regulatory actions. Costs and benefits are
evaluated on socio-economic grounds, and include thorough financial analyses.
Most recently, the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Generic
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment to the four United States Caribbean
FMPs (CFMC, 2004) describes the EFH for each fishery, identifies the Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), addresses adverse effects of fishing, and
evaluates the consequences of alternatives. The EIS describes the physical,
biological, human and administrative environments of each fishery, and highlights
the fishing and non-fishing threats to EFH. A Social Impact Statement is implicit
within the EIS, as the consequences to the fishing communities of each of the
proposed alternatives are carefully outlined and evaluated.
Other surveys have been conducted independently from the FMPs and RIRs
that include socio-economic information: comprehensive censuses of the fishers of
Puerto Rico (Matos-Caraballo, 1996, 2004b), an economic report of the fishers of
Puerto Rico (Matos-Caraballo, 2002), a queen conch stratification survey for the
United States Caribbean (Rosario, 1995), and a conch CPUE assessment (Rivera,
1999). These have been used to evaluate the number of full-time and part-time
fishers, the alternative economic activities, the number of boats operating in
different areas for each fishery, the gears commonly used, the species targeted,
and the proportion of fishers. A more recent study (Murray and Associates, 2003)
characterized the economic and social conditions of the fish trap fleet that operates
in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Their survey collected data
on demography (age, education, number of dependents), fishing practices (usage,
soak time, catch composition), revenue and cost (variable and fixed), capital
investment (vessel, traps), capacity utilization, regulatory contingent behaviour
(trap limitation) and spatial deployment of effort.

5.2 Queen conch assessments

Two stock assessments have been made of the queen conch stocks of Puerto Rico.
Appeldoorn (1991, 1992) performed yield-per-recruit and production model
analyses using biological data and catch and effort information from 1970 to 1986,
and estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) values of 227 tonnes for the
whole coast of Puerto Rico, and 86 tonnes for the west coast, where fishing effort
is concentrated due to higher conch productivity.
More recently, Valle-Esquivel (2002b) performed catch rate analysis and stock
assessments for the queen conch fisheries of Puerto Rico, the southwest coast of
Puerto Rico, and St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. The author estimated
relative indices of abundance for the commercial sector using generalized linear
mixed models (GLMM). For the stock assessment, the author adjusted a non-
equilibrium surplus production model (ASPIC) (Prager, 1994) to a time series
of commercial landings (1983–2001) (Figure 8) and standardized CPUE indices
(Figure 9). Median MSY values were calculated at 63.5 tonnes for the whole
fishery and at 32 tonnes for the southwest coast.
300 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 8
Estimated commercial queen conch landings for Puerto Rico during 1983–2001.
Landings from the southwest coast (light grey) represented 58% of the total
conch landings (dark grey) during those years

Landings (per tonnes)

Source: Valle-Esquivel, 2002b.

FIGURE 9
Nominal and standardized CPUE indices for the whole coast (a) and the
southwest coast (b) of Puerto Rico. Bars represent 95% confidence intervals

(a)

(b)

Source: Valle-Esquivel (2002b), updated in 2005.

Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 301

From a range of assessment scenarios, this author concluded that the queen
conch fishery was undergoing overfishing and approaching an overfished state
(Figure 10). Model projections under different management alternatives showed
that current fishing practices are not sustainable, and that fishing mortality should
be reduced immediately through the implementation of catch quotas, effort
reduction, temporal/area closures, and/or size-limit regulations. Given the high
uncertainty in the data and in the ASPIC results, Valle-Esquivel recommended
the continuation of survey programmes to estimate fishery-independent indices of
abundance and the collection of recreational fisheries information and biological
data to improve assessments (Valle-Esquivel, 2002b).

FIGURE 10
ASPIC biomass (B/BMSY) and fishing mortality ratio (F/FMSY) trajectories for different stock
assessment scenarios, with MSY ranging between 0.5e5–0.8e5 kg
(Biomass ratios are below the MSY threshold, fishing mortality ratios are above,
indicating overfished and overfishing conditions)
5

4
B/Bm sy

3
B/Bmsy and F/Fmsy

F/Fm sy

0
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002

Year
Source: Valle-Esquivel, 2002b.

5.3 Spiny lobster assessments

Periodic assessments have been conducted in the United States Caribbean to
determine the status of the resource and to guide fisheries management. In
1990, Bohnsak et al. (1991) conducted the first formal stock assessment using
an equilibrium production model. Their analysis showed that between 1970 and
1990 Puerto Rico’s lobster landings had fluctuated significantly around an average
of 144 tonnes, and that undersized lobsters accounted for 40% of the total catch.
The authors recommended that more effort should be used to enforce and increase
compliance with the minimum size regulations and suggested that the lobster
stock would continue to be defined as overfished until the spawning potential
ratio levels rose above 20% spawning potential ratios (SPR).
Matos-Caraballo (1999) analysed the status of Puerto Rico’s spiny lobster
fishery from 1992 to 1998 and found significant signs of overfishing. In 1951,
302 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

a total of 202 tonnes of spiny lobster were harvested by 466 fishers. By 1991,
only 96 tonnes were harvested by 576 fishers, thus showing an overall decrease
in abundance. Results also suggested a decrease in the mean carapace length of
harvested lobster over a forty-year period (1951–1991). In addition, approximately
59% of the spiny lobster caught between 1989 and 1991 were below legal size,
perhaps due to poor enforcement. By 1998, an increase in enforcement efforts by
the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) did lead to a
reduction in the catch of undersized lobsters to only 24% of the lobster landed.
With this study, the author concluded that increased enforcement would help to
decrease overfishing.
Bolden (2001) assessed the status of spiny lobster in the United States Caribbean
from 1980 to 1999. The author’s analyses were based upon data gathered from
commercial landings reports and biostatistical data from the NOAA Fisheries
commercial trip-interview programme. Bolden’s results indicated that the annual
spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico decreased steadily from 1984 to 1988 and
fluctuated since then. Despite this decline in the fishery, the commercial value
for the species increased substantially, by nearly 60% from 1994 to 1995 (from
US$802 959 to US$1 373 497). Biostatistical data revealed that 20% of the spiny
lobsters landed were below legal size. Bolden concluded that consistent declines
in carapace length and CPUE and changes in sex ratios were signs of a declining
fishery and recommended that authorities monitor landings more carefully,
particularly the compliance with minimum size regulations.
In 2003, Mateo and Die (2004) re-examined the fishery and found that lobster
landings in Puerto Rico had increased throughout the 1990s and had remained
stable since 1995, averaging roughly 129 tonnes. They estimated a combined-gear
index of relative abundance, with values fluctuating around 7 kg/trip between
1983 and 2001. The authors recommended a continued improvement in data
collection, particularly of CPUE, and the use of size and relative abundance
indices for future assessments.
In 2004, Mateo estimated the exploitation rates of spiny lobster by analysing
trip-interview data for the period 1999–2000 and using a yield-per-recruit analysis.
Exploitation rates were estimated at 0.66 for males and between 0.68 and 0.71
for females. The author concluded that the resource was fully exploited and that
overfishing might be due to three main factors: management failure to enforce
size regulations, a lack of basic biological and ecological knowledge of the species,
and a lack of management oriented research. The author recommended the need
for fully coordinated spiny lobster research involving government, fishers and
industry (Mateo, 2004).
The most recent evaluation of the spiny lobster fisheries of the United States
Caribbean was conducted in 2004–2005 at the Southeast Data, Assessment and
Review workshops (NOAA Fisheries, 2005b). Analyses included a review of all
previous assessments, historical data, commercial landings, biological information
and abundance survey data. Results indicated that the main methods used to
harvest lobster in Puerto Rico are SCUBA diving (43%), fish traps (38%) and
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 303

lobster traps (9%). Trends in the landings showed several fluctuations, with an
average of 105 tonnes harvested from 1983 to 2003, representing almost 50% of
the average landings from the peak years (1977–1982) (Figure 11).

FIGURE 11
Estimated commercial spiny lobster landings for Puerto Rico, from 1969 to 2003.
The dotted line represents the best estimate of historical landings and
the solid line represents data from landing records

Source: NOAA Fisheries, 2004b.

Length frequency analysis of the commercial landings showed significant

differences in size composition over time and space and among gears. The
proportion of undersized lobsters declined significantly, from a level of 40–50%
in the 1980s to approximately 15% between 2000 and 2003. This information,
coupled with past yield-per-recruit studies (Mateo and Tobias, 2002; Mateo, 2004),
suggested that the current minimum size was appropriate to maximize yield-per-
recruit.
To identify temporal trends in relative abundance, new standardized catch
rates by gear and for the combined fishery were estimated for years 1984 to 2003
(Figure 12). Fairly steady abundances were observed over this period, averaging
roughly 7 kg per trip. These trends and the length distributions indicated some
stability over the past 20 years. However, the application of standard and age-
structured production models failed to provide reasonable results regarding stock
status, due to the uninformative nature of the available data. It was also suggested
that spiny lobster assessments based on local dynamics would continue to fail
unless it is considered that recruitment, movement and connectivity may occur
at a larger scale within the Caribbean basin. A number of recommendations were
discussed to improve future data collection and research programmes, to modify
the modelling approaches for stock assessment, and to develop and strengthen
partnerships with the fishing community (NOAA Fisheries, 2005b).
304 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 12
Puerto Rico combined-gears relative abundance index for spiny lobster from trip
interview data. Nominal CPUE, standardized index of abundance and 95% confidence
limits for period 1984–2003 are shown

Source: NOAA Fisheries, 2005b.

In general, each assessment conducted since 1980 has yielded results indicating
that the spiny lobster fishery in the United States Caribbean has shown signs of
overfishing, and that landings, catch rates and relative abundance have declined
significantly since the beginning of the fishery. The general consensus is that
increased enforcement of the current spiny lobster Fishery Management Plan
should lead to a healthier fishery, while the standardization of available fishery
data and the collection of data more applicable to the assessment process should
allow for a more accurate determination of its status. Further, management
of spiny lobster by means other than by relying on minimum carapace length
regulations may prove more effective at maintaining a sustainable and profitable
fishery (NOAA Fisheries, 2005b).

5.4 Reef fish assessments

A stock assessment workshop conducted in 1991 examined fishery trends for
shallow and deep-water reef fishes in the United States Caribbean based on
fishery landings and biostatistical data (Appeldoorn, 1992). Results showed that
the reef fishery from Puerto Rico had declined from previous levels: in 1931,
1 403 fishers using 711 vessels (only 9 with motors) landed 1 397 tonnes, and
by 1989, 1 822 fishers with 1 107 vessels landed 1 046 tonnes. Between 1974 and
1990, landings averaged 1 429 tonnes, reaching a peak of 2 431 tonnes in 1979
(see Figure 2b). Composition of snapper landings shifted from mostly shallow
water to deeper water species. Catch-per-unit effort based on fish traps declined,
and landings of larger individuals of groupers such as coney and hind decreased
over that period; Nassau grouper in particular continued to be very scarce.
Biostatistical data showed that growth overfishing was a prevalent problem.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 305

The most noteworthy management recommendations from this workshop

were to improve compliance and secure compatible regulations between the
Caribbean Fishery Management Council and the Commonwealth and Territorial
Governments; to reduce fishing effort, particularly on small fishes; to establish no
harvest zones to protect spawning aggregations; and to include deep-water species
in the Fishery Management Plan.
Stock assessments have also been performed for individual species in Puerto
Rico and the United States Virgin Islands using mainly yield-per-recruit,
production models and biostatistical data analyses. The main reef-fish species that
have been studied are red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) and coney (Cephalopholis
fulva) (Beets and Friedlander, 1992; Sadovy and Figuerola, 1992; Sadovy, 1993;
Bolden, 1994, 2001; Cummings et al., 1997), lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris)
(Acosta and Appeldorn, 1992), and yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus)
(NOAA Fisheries, 2005a).
In 2003, a comprehensive review of Caribbean deep-water reef fish information
was conducted at the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review workshop (SEDAR
No. 4, NOAA Fisheries, 2003). The workshop focused on the deep-water
species that are most common in the commercial landings: silk snapper (Lutjanus
vivanus), queen snapper (Etelis oculatus), blackfin snapper (Lutjanus buccanella)
and sand tilefish (Malacanthus plumieri). Analyses included examination of the
commercial and recreational landings, and of biological and abundance survey data
to investigate the possibilities for stock assessment. While in some cases the data
was considered insufficient, trends in the landings, species and size composition,
and catch rates were estimated for silk and queen snapper for Puerto Rico and the
United States Virgin Islands for years 1983–2002.
A similar effort took place in 2004–2005 with the Southeast Data, Assessment,
and Review workshops (SEDAR No. 8) for the Caribbean yellowtail snapper
(Ocyurus chrysurus) and the Caribbean spiny lobster (NOAA Fisheries, 2005a,
2005b). Analysis of the yellowtail snapper fishery of Puerto Rico included the
development of standardized indices of abundance from fishery independent
sampling and the examination of the size composition from commercial catches.
Due to data limitations, only simple assessment methods were pursued, including
an innovative catch-free model and a non-equilibrium production model (ASPIC).
Results from these models showed that the data were insufficient and inadequate
to provide information on current stock status. Recommendations for effective
management of the yellowtail snapper (and of reef-fish species in general) in the
United States Caribbean emphasized a commitment for long-term research, data
collection and monitoring (NOAA Fisheries, 2005a, 2005b).

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

Fisheries in Puerto Rico are a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth
and the United States federal government. Federal waters extend from nine
nautical miles (nm) to the lesser of 200 nm or an international border off Puerto
Rico. These are administered through FMPs developed by the Caribbean Fishery
306 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Management Council (CFMC) and approved by the Secretary of Commerce, with

guidance from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, NOAA Fisheries).
Each FMP defines the management unit (i.e. the species or groups of species
that are relevant to the management objectives). Currently, the CFMC manages
179 fish stocks under four FMPs: (i) spiny lobster; (ii) queen conch; (iii) reef fish;
and (iv) corals and reef associated invertebrates. They are described in detail in
the following sections. Federal regulations apply to commercial and recreational
fisheries.
The fishing activity inshore, in territorial waters, is managed by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through the Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources (DNER). The Puerto Rican Department of Agriculture
(PRDA) also has some interest in fisheries, primarily administering landing
facilities and markets.

6.1 Federal fisheries management

Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the
United States Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1981)
This FMP was implemented in January 1985, and was supported by an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR).
The management unit was defined to include Panulirus argus (Caribbean spiny
lobster), described objectives for the fishery, and established management
measures to achieve these objectives.
The primary management measures for spiny lobster established by the FMP
are: definitions of MSY (376 tonnes per year) and optimal yield (OY) (from 264
to 376 tonnes per year); prohibition on the retention of egg-bearing (berried)
females; a minimum carapace length of 8.9 cm; requirements to land lobster
whole, to include a self-destruct panel on traps and pots, and to identify and mark
traps, pots, buoys and boats; and a prohibition on the use of poisons, drugs or
other chemicals, and on the use of spears, hooks, explosives or similar devices to
take spiny lobsters. Amendment 1 (May 1991) to the FMP added definitions of
overfished and overfishing based on 20% spawning per recruit (SPR).

Fishery Management Plan for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the
United States Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1996)
This FMP was implemented in January 1997, and was supported by an EIS and an
RIR. Primary management measures include: definitions of MSY (335 tonnes per
year) and OY (allow 20% SPR to remain intact); size limits including minimum
length (23 cm) and lip thickness (1 cm); a requirement that conch be landed in
the shell; a prohibition on the sale of undersized shells; a recreational bag limit of
three queen conch per day, not to exceed 12 per boat; a commercial catch limit of
150 queen conch per day; an annual spawning season closure that extends from
1 July through 30 September; and a prohibition on the use of hookah gear.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 307

Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the United
States Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1985)
This FMP was implemented in September 1985 and was supported by an EIS,
an RIR, and modified by three subsequent amendments. The reef fish fishery
management unit includes shallow and deep-water species, comprising virtually
all finfish that are known or believed to be captured by commercial, recreational,
and/or subsistence fishers in the United States Caribbean.
Primary management measures include: definitions of MSY and OY
(3 493 tonnes, excluding marine aquarium finfish); specifications for the
construction of fish traps; minimum mesh sizes for traps (3.8–5.1 cm); a
requirement to identify and mark gear and boats; a prohibition on the use
of poisons, drugs and other chemicals and explosives to take reef fish; size
limit with 2.5 cm increase by year for yellowtail snapper (20.3–30.5 cm);
a prohibition on the take or possession of Nassau and Goliath groupers;
definitions of overfished and overfishing with respect to 20% SPR levels;
a prohibition on the harvest, possession, and/or sale of certain species
used in the aquarium trade (seahorses and foureye, banded and longsnout
butterflyfish); and area closures for red hind and mutton snapper in the
United States Virgin Islands and in the Tourmaline, Sierra and Bajo de Cico
Banks off Puerto Rico.

Fishery Management Plan for the Corals and Reef Associated Invertebrates of
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands (CFMC, 1994)
The CFMC’s Coral FMP was supported by an EIS and an RIR, was implemented
in December 1995, and amended in 1999. Primary management measures include
prohibitions on the take or possession of gorgonians, stony corals, and any species
in the fishery management unit if attached or existing upon live rock; on the sale
or possession of any prohibited coral; on the use of chemicals, plants or plant-
derived toxins, and explosives to take species in the coral fishery management unit;
a requirement that dip nets, slurp guns, hands and other non-habitat destructive
gear types be used to harvest allowable corals; and a requirement of a permit to
harvest allowable coral species.

Generic Fishery Management Plans’ Amendments (CFMC, 2002, 2004)

The CFMC submitted a Comprehensive Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment
to the Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, Reef Fish, and Coral Fishery Management
Plans to NOAA Fisheries in May 2005. The three-part purpose of this action
is to analyse within each fishery a range of potential alternatives to: (i) describe
and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the fishery; (ii) identify other actions
to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such EFH; and (iii) identify
measures to prevent, mitigate or minimize the adverse effects of fishing on such
EFHs.
308 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

6.2 Local fisheries management

On 11 February 2004, a new Fishery Regulation Act for the Conservation and
Management of the Territorial Fishery Resources of Puerto Rico was issued by the
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) (DRNA, 2004).
These regulations are applicable to territorial waters and complement the Federal
Fishery Management Plans. Puerto Rico follows the National Atmospheric
Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS) international
guidelines and therefore not a ‘rights based’ system.
Commercial fishers in Puerto Rico enjoy several forms of subsidies:
(i) registration of each fishing vessel only costs US$5.00; (ii) 9% of the income from
fishing activities is exempt from taxes; and (iii) subsidies from the Department of
Agriculture to acquire fishing equipment and gear, up to a maximum of US$2 000.
The implementation of Fishery Management Regulations in Puerto Rico is fairly
recent, so the effects of management have not accrued or been fully evaluated. The
new Fishery Regulations include closed seasons, marine reserves and minimum
sizes and there are MPAs on the islands of Culebra, Mona, Monito and Desecheo.
Because management regulations in territorial waters were implemented very
recently, their effectiveness is yet to be seen.

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

The Commercial Fishery Statistics Programme (CFSP) of the DNER Fisheries
Research Laboratory (FRL) has collected landings information since 1971.
Landings data of the multispecies and multigear fisheries of Puerto Rico are
collected using a landing trip ticket system, which has been consistent since the
programme’s inception. Trip tickets contain the following information: fishing
date, name of fish buyer, fisher and/or helper, fishing licence number, municipality,
fishing centre (landing area), number of trips reported, gear type, fishing effort
(hours fishing), weight in pounds by species or taxonomic family, market value,
depth, and fishing area. Tickets use common names and species identification is
possible using Erdman’s (1985) numeric codes. Fishers usually land fishes, lobster,
oyster and octopus in the round (not eviscerated); conch weights include (dressed)
meat only (Matos-Caraballo, 2001).
The CFSP also collects biostatistical data through the cooperative NOAA-
DNER/FRL Trip Interview Programme (TIP), which consists of the identification
of the individuals caught by species, individual measurement in millimetres, and
weight in grams. This programme also provides an estimation of the catch-
per-unit effort and the catch composition. Landings and biostatistical data are
mandatory by Law 278 issued on 30 November 1998. Finally the CFSP conducts
fishery censuses every five to six years when funds are available (Matos-Caraballo,
personal communication).
In addition to the CFSP, the DNER/FRL Fishery Monitoring Programme
collects fishery-independent data. Catch from these scientific campaigns provides
detailed information on species composition and biostatistics, such as the size,
age and weight structure of the species harvested. The DNER/FRL Research
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 309

programme is also conducting a study on the reproductive cycles and size of

maturation of many reef fish species that are important in the commercial and
recreational fisheries (see DNER/FRL Commercial Fishery Statistics Reports
between 1989 and 2004).
The CFMC and NOAA Fisheries are currently conducting socio-economic
studies of the commercial fisheries of Puerto Rico. One such example is an
economic study of the trap fishery in the United States Caribbean conducted
in 2003 (Murray and Associates, 2003). The objective of this survey was to
collect realistic economic and demographic data to describe the socio-economic
characteristics of trap fishers and trap fishing in Puerto Rico and the United
States Virgin Islands. The data was collected via interviews with a group of
randomly selected licence holders who fish with traps. The questionnaire provided
information on operational, fixed, licence and management costs; the use of fish
and or lobster traps; specialization in other fisheries; fishing effort (number of
traps deployed, soak times); cost and lifetime of traps; use and cost of other gear;
vessel information (maintenance costs, lifespan, power, associated gear); catch
information by area (species, trips, costs); crew share; and household income.
Education on environmental issues and the conservation of Puerto Rico’s
fishery resources are provided by the University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College
Programme and the DNER. Conferences are regularly held in schools around
the island, targeting not only children, but other diverse members of the fishing
community. Unfortunately, there are no vocational schools or training to promote
alternative occupations (Matos-Caraballo, personal communication).

8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

The fisheries of Puerto Rico are generally well documented, and a relatively long
time series of catch and biological data have accrued over the past three decades.
A variety of fishery-dependent, fishery-independent and socio-economic surveys
have been conducted in the area to support fisheries assessments and develop solid
management strategies. Strengths therefore include a good working knowledge of
the basic fishery sector, in terms of participants, gear and catch trends. Additional
strengths include the capacity among the research community to obtain data,
provide support and to realize analyses conducive to improved knowledge of the
status of the fishery resources. Finally, Puerto Rico has a robust set of management
regulations in place to preserve and rebuild fish and shellfish stocks, to protect the
essential habitat needed for their subsistence, and to preserve the livelihood of
people dependent upon these fishery resources.
Gaps include a poor understanding of socio-economic dynamics and
relationships, and how these affect fishing (e.g. bartering seems to be an alternative
to cash economies in some areas); characterization of fishing communities; socio-
historical and cultural dimensions of fishing on the island; spatial capture and
effort profiles; misreporting or under-reporting by fishers; inconsistent or irregular
sampling programmes; incomplete fishery databases; scarce or inadequate stock
assessments; uncertainty on stock status for key species; and deficient enforcement
of management regulations, among others.
310 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Major challenges remain on how to improve data collection to the point where
consistency is achieved, how to best characterize and report on the multispecies
component of the fishery, how to determine ways to retain fishing as a traditional
activity in a region subject to gentrification and development, and how to best
incorporate fisher participation in the management process.
To meet the challenges presented requires further and more expansive data
collection (including the characterization and monitoring of key fisheries and
fishing communities); improving and enforcing zoning strategies that maintain
a diverse coastal community and one which includes a working fishing sector;
developing participatory research programmes that assist in data collection and
minimize costs, while affording buy-in from the fishers; and improving the
attractiveness of local markets for sustained or higher ex-vessel values (in the wake
of imported marine products).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge Manuel Valdéz Pizzini and Graciela García Moliner
who provided important documentation for this manuscript and gave much
insight into the history and operation of the fisheries of Puerto Rico.

REFERENCES
Acosta A. & Appeldoorn R.S. 1992. Estimation of growth, mortality and yield-per-
recruit for Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus) in Puerto Rico. Bull. Mar. Sci., 50:282–291.
Appeldoorn R.S. 1991. History and recent status of the Puerto Rican conch fishery.
Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 40: 267–282.
Appeldoorn R.S. 1992. Preliminary calculations of sustainable yield for queen conch
(Strombus gigas) in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf
Carib.Fish. Inst., 41 (A): 95–105.
Appeldoorn R.S., Beets J., Bohnsack J., Bolden S., Matos D., Meyers S., Rosario A.,
Sadovy Y. & Tobias W. 1992. Shallow water reef fish stock assessment for the
United States Caribbean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-304,
United States DOC, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center, Miami, Florida.
Beets J. & Friedlander A. 1992. Stock analysis and management strategies for Red
Hind, Epinephelus guttatus, in the United States Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Carib.
Fish. Inst., 42: 66-79.
Bohnsack J., Meyers S., Appledoorn R.S., Beets J., Matos-Caraballo D. & Sadovy Y.
1991. Stock assessment of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in the United States
Caribbean. Miami Laboratory Contribution No. MIA-9C91-49, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
Bolden S.K. 1994. A summary of biological and fishery data on red hind (Epinephelus
guttatus) and Coney (Cephalopholis fulva) stocks in the United States Virgin
Islands. MIA-93/94-32, NOAA, NMFS, SFSC, Miami, Florida.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 311

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

Mateo I. 2004. Population dynamics for the spiny lobster Panulirus argus in Puerto
Rico Progress Report. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish Inst., 55: 506–520.
Mateo I. & Die D. 2004. The status of spiny lobster Panulirus argus in Puerto
Rico: Based on commercial landings data. Cooperative Institute for Marine and
Atmospheric Studies, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,
University of Miami.
Mateo I. & Tobias W.J. 2002. Preliminary estimations of growth, mortality and yield-
per-recruit for the spiny lobster Panulirus argus in St. Croix, United States Virgin
Islands. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 53: 59–75.
Matos-Caraballo D. 1996. Puerto Rico Fishery Census, 1995–96. Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources.
Matos-Caraballo D. 1999. Overview of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, commercial
fishery in Puerto Rico during 1992-1998. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish Inst., 52: 19–203.
Matos-Caraballo D. 2001. Commercial Fisheries Statistics, 1989–2001: Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Programme. DNER Fisheries Research Laboratory, Puerto Rico.
Matos-Caraballo D. 2002. Informe Económico de Pescadores en Puerto Rico. Fax a
Ramón Martínez. DNER/ FRL. 20 Sept. 2002.
Matos-Caraballo D. 2004a. Puerto Rico/NMFS Cooperative Fisheries Statistics
Programme April 2001–March 2004. DNER Fisheries Research Laboratory, Puerto
Rico.
Matos-Caraballo D. 2004b. Comprehensive Census of the Marine Fishery of Puerto
Rico 2002. Department of Natural and Environmental Resources/Fisheries Research
Laboratory (DNER/FRL), Commercial Fisheries Statistics Programme.
Murray T., Associates, Inc. 2003. Final Report on the United States Caribbean Trap
Economics Study 2001–2003.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2003. SEDAR 4 Data Workshop Report (SEDAR
4-DW) for the Caribbean-Atlantic Deepwater Snapper-Grouper Complex. DOC/
NMFS/SEFSC, Charleston, South Carolina. (Draft)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2004a. Puerto Rico Coastal Management Programme.
World Wide Web document.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the
United States Caribbean. Available at: www.caribbeanfmc.com/feis/Volume%20
1%20Text.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2005a. SEDAR 8 Data, Assessment and Review
Workshop Reports for the Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper Ocyurus chrysurus. DOC/
NMFS/SEFSC, Charleston, South Carolina.
Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico 313

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2005b. SEDAR 8 Data, Assessment and Review
Workshop Reports for the Caribbean Spiny Lobster Panulirus argus. DOC/
NMFS/SEFSC, Charleston, South Carolina.
Posada J.M., Valdés-Pizzini M., Grove M. & Rosado, M. 1997. Mapping fishing grounds
using GPS technology. Proc. 49th Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., Bridgetown, Barbados, 1996.
Prager M.H. 1994. A suite of extensions to a nonequilibrium surplus-production
model. Fish. Bull., US 92: 374–389.
Rivera J.A. 1999. Queen Conch CPUE Assessment in Puerto Rico and United States
Virgin Islands: Preliminary Report. NOAA-NMFS Miami Laboratory, Florida.
Rosario A. 1995. Queen Conch Stratification Survey. SEAMAP-Caribbean Programme.
CFMC/NMFS.
Ross M.R. 1997. Fisheries conservation and management. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Sadovy Y. & Figuerola M. 1992. The status of the red hind fishery in Puerto Rico
and St. Thomas as determined by yield-per-recruit analysis. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.
Inst., 42: 23–38.
Sadovy Y. 1993. Biology and fishery of the red hind in Puerto Rico and the United
States Virgin Islands. Report to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council.
Scharer M.T., Prada M.C., Appeldoorn R.S., Hill R., Sheridan P. & Valdés-
Pizzini M. 2002. The use of fish traps in Puerto Rico: current practices, long-term
changes, and fishers’ perceptions. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 55: 744-756.
Schittone J. 2001. Tourism vs. commercial fishers: development and changing use of
Key West and Stock Island, Florida. Ocean Coast. Manag., 44(1–2): 15-38.
Shivlani M., Valdés-Pizzini M., Murray T., Kirkley J. & Suman D. 2005. A
characterization study of the economic and sociocultural impacts of fish traps in the
United States Caribbean (Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands). Proc.
56th Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., November 10–14, 2003, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2004. Eastern Caribbean Programme. Available at:
http://nature.org/wherewework/caribbean/usvirginislands/
The Ocean Conservancy (TOC). 2004. Available at: www.oceanconservancy.org/
dynamic/home/home.htm; www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/czmpuertorico.html
United States Census. 2004. Census 2000 data for Puerto Rico. Available at:
www.census.gov/census2000/states/pr.html
Valle-Esquivel M. 2002a. United States Caribbean Queen Conch (Strombus gigas)
data update with emphasis on the commercial landing statistics. NOAA National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Sustainable Fisheries
Division Contribution No. SFD-01/02-169. www.sefsc.noaa.gov/PDFdocs/
QueenConchUpdate.pdf
Valle-Esquivel M. 2002b. Standardized catch rates and preliminary assessment
scenarios for Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) in the United States Caribbean. NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Sustainable
Fisheries Division Contribution No. SFD-02/03-184. Available at: www.sefsc.noaa.
gov/PDFdocs/QueenConchAssessment.pdf
 315

12. Coastal fisheries of Trinidad

and Tobago
Elizabeth Mohammed*, Lara Ferreira, Suzuette Soomai, Louanna Martin and
Christine Chan A. Shing

Mohammed, E., Ferreira, L., Soomai, S., Martin, L. and Chan A. Shing, C. 2011. Coastal fisheries
of Trinidad and Tobago. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries
of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544.
Rome, FAO. pp. 315–356.

1. Introduction 316
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 317
2.1 The soft-substrate demersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish) 317
2.2 The hard-substrate demersal fishery 320
2.3 The coastal pelagic fishery 321
3. Fishers and socio-economic aspects 323
4. Community organizations and interactions with other sectors 328
5. Assessment of fisheries 329
5.1 Stock assessments, bio-economic analyses and abundance surveys 329
5.2 Ecosystem analyses 330
5.3 Economic analyses: costs and earnings studies 335
6. Fishery management and planning 337
6.1 Fisheries management policy 338
6.2 Fisheries legislation 338
6.3 Fisheries monitoring and surveillance 341
6.4 Fisheries subsidies 341
6.5 Marine protected areas 342
7. Research and education 342
7.1 Research and projects 342
7.2 Data and statistics 343
7.3 Information management system 345
7.4 Education, training and capacity building 345

* Contact information: Fisheries Division, Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs.
St. Clair Circle, Port of Spain, Trinidad, West Indies. E-mail: eliza_moham@yahoo.com
316 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

8. Issues and challenges 346

8.1 Legislation 346
8.2 Institutional structure 346
8.3 Linkage between scientists and decision-makers 347
8.4 Monitoring and enforcement 347
8.5 Traditional resource management and stakeholder participation 348
8.6 Integrated coastal zone management 348
8.7 Data availability 349
Acknowledgements 349
References 349

1. INTRODUCTION
The fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago are multispecies, multigear and multifleet.
Fisheries resources off the two main islands of the archipelagic state differ because
of significant ecological differences. Due to its location on the South American
shelf, the resources off Trinidad are diverse, including soft-substrate demersal
species as well as small coastal pelagic species and large migratory pelagic species.
Off Tobago, the prevailing oceanic conditions are favourable to small coastal
pelagics and highly migratory pelagic species, and to a lesser extent, reef species.
The differences in bathymetry and oceanographic conditions have resulted in
greater similarities between the fisheries of Tobago and other northern islands
with small shelf areas in the eastern Caribbean, while the fisheries of Trinidad
are similar to those off the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In Trinidad, the
main fisheries are the soft-substrate demersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish),
the hard-substrate demersal fishery, the coastal pelagic fishery, and the oceanic
(highly migratory) pelagic fishery. The coastal pelagic and hard-substrate demersal
fisheries are dominant in Tobago. Except for the oceanic (highly migratory)
pelagic fishery, all fisheries are coastal. However, some gears capture juveniles of
highly migratory species in inshore coastal waters. This chapter focuses on the
three main coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago.
Trinidad and Tobago, the southernmost islands of the Caribbean region,
occupy a total area of 5 128 km2, of which 4 828 km2 corresponds to Trinidad and
only 300 km2 corresponds to Tobago. Tobago is located approximately 32 km to
the northeast off Trinidad (Figure 1). The coastline measures 470 km and the shelf
area extends to about 204 000 km2 (FAO, 2006).
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 317

FIGURE 1
Geographic location of the islands of Trinidad and Tobago

Source: Fisheries Division.

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY

2.1 The soft-substrate demersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish)
The soft-substrate demersal fishery targets mainly shrimps and groundfish.
Several species of shrimps (mainly Paenidae) are caught including Farfantepenaeus
subtilis (brown shrimp), F. notialis (pink shrimp), F. brasiliensis (pink-spotted
shrimp, hoppers), Litopenaeus schmitti (white/cork shrimp), and Xiphopenaeus
kroyeri (honey/jinga shrimp, seabob). Key groundfish species in this fishery
are Sciaenidae (e.g. Cynoscion jamaicensis, C. acoupa, Macrodon ancylodon,
Micropogonias furnieri), Clupeidae, Engraulidae, Gerreidae (e.g. Diapterus sp.),
Lutjanidae (e.g. Lutjanus sp., Rhomboplites aurorubens), Haemulidae (e.g.
Haemulon sp., Genyatremus luteus, Orthopristis spp.) and Ariidae (Bagre sp.,
Arius sp.). Shrimps are caught mainly by trawlnets, while groundfish are either
targeted by the artisanal multigear fleet, using gears such as gillnets, fish pots,
demersal handlines and demersal longlines, or caught as bycatch in the trawlnets.
To a lesser extent, shrimp are also caught by beach/land seines, as part of the
artisanal multigear fishery. Trawlnets operate mainly in the Gulf of Paria (west
coast of Trinidad) (Figure 2a), although larger trawlers also operate off the north
and the south coasts. The artisanal multigear fleet, which targets soft-substrate
318 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

demersal fish, operates mainly off the west and south coasts of Trinidad. The
fishery is seasonal, with shrimp catches being greatest from June to December and
groundfish catches greatest from January to July.

FIGURE 2
Fishing areas off Trinidad and Tobago: (a) soft-bottom demersal fishery (trawl); (b) hard-
bottom demersal fishery (fish pots); (c) coastal pelagic fishery (gillnets); (d) coastal
pelagic fishery (pelagic lines); and (e) coastal pelagic fishery (beach seine).

Source: Fisheries Division.

Trawlers operate only in Trinidad and are grouped into four categories (types).
Type I is the smallest vessel with an average size of 6.7 to 9.8 m, and a 56 hp
outboard engine. Type II is larger in size (7.9 to 10.4 m) and is generally equipped
with inboard engines ranging from 48 to 100 hp. Both Types I and II use trawlnets
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 319

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

diagonal mesh size of 3.8 to 5.0 cm, while those in Tobago are Z-shaped with mesh
size of about 3.0 cm (Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip, 1992a). In addition to
gillnets and fish pots, demersal handlines and longlines are also used. The latter
consists of a nylon rope line of ¼-inch thickness and a leader line of nylon twine
with about 200 hooks of Number 1, 2 and 3 sizes each placed at about 4 m apart.
As shown in Figure 3a, shrimp has dominated catches from this fishery in
Trinidad since 1995 (26 to 56% of annual landings), with croaker being the second
most abundant species (6 to 24% of annual landings). Annual landings have varied
between 2 000 and 3 600 tonnes, peaking at over 3 000 tonnes between 2000 and
2002. Locally, shrimp is marketed as fresh-chilled, peeled and breaded, or frozen
with heads and carapace removed. Shrimp is also processed into patties or ‘fingers’
(Jobity et al., 1997). Catches from Types III and IV trawlers are mainly exported.
Shrimp exports increased from 288 tonnes valued at US$ 1.1 million in 1992 to
500 tonnes valued at US$3.1 million in 1995, with the United States of America
being the main export market (67% of exports in 1995). Other traditional markets
included the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada and
the Caribbean Community countries. Since 1995, shrimp exports have declined
considerably to less than 100 tonnes by 2004, valued at just over US$0.58 million
(Kuruvilla and Chan A. Shing, 2002; Fisheries Division, 2007a). The decline was
due mainly to price competition in the United States, exclusion from the European
Union (EU) market, and an increase in local sales due to growth in the national
economy.

2.2 The hard-substrate demersal fishery

The hard-substrate demersal fishery targets mainly snappers year-round. The
main species of snappers caught are Lutjanus synagris (lane snapper), L. purpureus
(southern red snapper) and Rhomboplites aurorubens (vermilion snapper).
Other snappers of lesser importance in the catch are L. griseus (grey snapper),
L. jocu (dog snapper) and L. vivanus (silk snapper/vivanot). Epinehelus sp.
and Mycterperca spp. are the main species of groupers caught. Haemulon sp.
is also caught and Panuliris sp. is present in the bycatch. The Trinidad fishery
operates mainly on the continental shelf off the east and southeast coasts of the
island (Figure 2b), while boats from Tobago operate on the continental shelf and
shelf edge northwest of Tobago, as well as the north and northeastern coast of
Trinidad (Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip, 1999a). The fishery is exploited
by both artisanal and semi-industrial multigear fleets, using mainly fish pots and
demersal handlines, with demersal longlines to a lesser extent. The same vessels
of the artisanal, multigear fleet operating in the soft-substrate demersal fishery
also operate in the hard-substrate demersal fishery. There are 15 semi-industrial
multigear vessels in Trinidad and 10 in Tobago. Some of these vessels once formed
part of the trawl fleet but were subsequently outfitted for pot fishing and target
deep-water demersal snappers off the east coast of Trinidad and southeast coast of
Tobago. The vessels in Trinidad are larger (average length of 14.28 m) with engines
of 234 hp, compared to an average length of 6 to 12 m, with engines of 75 to 335 hp
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 321

in Tobago (Fisheries Division, unpublished data; Potts et al., 2002). On average,

there are five crew members per vessel on board the Trinidad fleet, and three on
board the Tobago fleet.
The snapper resource is the most commercially valuable component of the
hard-substrate groundfish fishery. Over the period from 1995 to 2006, estimated
annual landings of snapper by the artisanal, multigear fleet in Trinidad varied
between 200 and 550 tonnes and accounted for between 30 and 74% of annual
landings in the hard-substrate demersal fishery (Figure 3b). Annual landings from
this fishery have varied between 310 and 1 250 tonnes, with a substantial decline
from 1 251 tonnes in 1995 to 392 tonnes in 2006. Exports of snappers are grouped
with shark, croaker, grouper, seatrout and dolphinfish in the records of the Central
Statistical Office. Between 1997 and 2003 average annual exports for the group
declined from 1 329 tonnes to 500 tonnes, with a US$0.98 million reduction in
value. In the 1980s, the fishery expanded to the offshore continental shelf on the
east coast of Trinidad due to the increasing importance of the export market. The
fishery almost exclusively supports the export market for red snapper.
Snappers are also landed as trawler bycatch from the soft-substrate demersal
fishery operating on the west and south coasts of Trinidad or as gillnet bycatch
from the coastal pelagic fishery operating in shallow waters off the south coast of
Trinidad. During periods of consistently low shrimp catches snappers may also
be targeted by industrial trawlers. Snapper resources on the east and north coasts
of Trinidad are, however, illegally caught by vessels from neighbouring countries
which use both handlines and longlines. In the case of Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of), a 1997 bilateral agreement between the governments of Trinidad
and Tobago and this country designated the area outside of two miles from the
southern coastline of Trinidad and northeastern Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic
of) as a Joint Fisheries Management Regime Area (Maharaj and Rivas, 1997). This
arrangement is still in place.

2.3 The coastal pelagic fishery

The coastal pelagic fishery targets Scombridae species, Serra Spanish mackerel
(Scomberomorus brasiliensis) and king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), in
Trinidad, and Exocoetidae (mainly Hirundichthys affinis), Coryphaenidae
(Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), bigeye scad (Selar
crumenophthalmus) and round scad (Decapterus sp.) in Tobago. The bycatch
in Trinidad is comprised of Clupeidae, Engraulidae, Belonidae, Carangidae,
Pomatomidae, Elasmobranchii (e.g. Sphyrna tudes, Rhizoprionodon lalandii,
Carcharhinus porosus and C. limbatus), Selene vomer, Oligoplites saurus, Diapterus
rhombeus, Selene spixii, Caranx hippos and Caranx crysos (Henry and Martin,
1992). As shown in Figure 3c, Serra Spanish mackerel dominates catches from
the fishery in Trinidad, accounting for between 21 and 37% of estimated annual
landings from 1995 to 2006. Overall annual landings in the coastal pelagic fishery
have varied between 4 300 and 10 000 tonnes, but only exceeded 9 000 tonnes in
2002 and 2005.
322 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 3
Time series landings data for (a) the soft-substrate demersal fishery; (b) the hard-
substrate demersal fishery; and (c) the coastal pelagic fishery in Trinidad

4 000
(a)
3 500
Estimated landings (tonnes)

3 000

2 500
Others
2 000

1 500
Catfish
Croaker
1 000 Salmon
Snapper
500
Shrimp
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

1 400
(b)
1 200
Estimated landings (tonnes)

1 000
Barracuda

800

600

400
Others
200
Snapper
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year

10 000
9 000
(c)
Estimated landings (tonnes)

8 000 Serra Spanish mackerel

7 000
6 000

5 000

4 000
Others
3 000
Herrings & anchovies
2 000 Jacks
Tunas & billfishes
1 000 Sharks
0 King mackerel & wahoo
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Source: Fisheries Division databases; groundfish landings from Type IV trawlers prior to 2000 and landings of
the semi-industrial, multigear fleet are not available.

The coastal pelagic fishery is the most widespread in Trinidad, operating off all
coasts (Figures 2c, d and e). In Tobago, this fishery operates mainly off the north
coast from Pigeon Point to Charlotteville (Figures 1 and 2c). These fisheries are
targeted by the artisanal, multigear fleets in both islands using gillnets, beach or
land seines (340 to 660 m long with mesh size of 13 mm at the cod end and 152 mm
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 323

at the wings) and pelagic handlines (lines of either steel, bronze, nylon or nylon
chord 20 to 90 m length, each line with one hook). As well, the semi-industrial,
multigear fleet (iceboats) in Tobago targets the fishery with pelagic handlines and
gillnets. Coastal pelagic fishes are present in the bycatch of the Trinidad semi-
industrial, longline fleet which targets highly migratory pelagic species and the
Types I and II trawl fleets which target shrimp and groundfish.
Most landings from gillnets in Trinidad are sold fresh or chilled. Flyingfish,
caught mainly off Tobago, is also processed and sold as frozen fillets. Large
pelagic species such as dolphinfish, wahoo and tunas may be sold fresh at beaches
or markets; however, large quantities are also processed and sold as frozen steaks
or fillets. Catches from beach seines and bait seines are either utilized locally as
food or as bait. Some clupeids and possibly engraulids are exported. Between 1995
and 2004, average annual export of herrings, sardines, anchovies and flyingfish
declined from 605 tonnes (US$1 191 754) to 216 tonnes (US$806 437) (Fisheries
Division, 2007a). Exports of dolphinfish are grouped with snapper, grouper and
seatrout in the records of the Central Statistical Office. Trends are as previously
described under the section describing the hard-substrate demersal fishery.

3. FISHERS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

In Trinidad, about 6 500 people are employed in the marine fishing sector,
61% of whom are fishers, about 19% are involved in the processing industry,
another 19% in fish marketing and distribution, and the other 1% in vessel and
gear construction and maintenance (Kuruvilla et al., 2002). The participation
of women in the industry is not well documented; however, women are more
likely involved in the processing and marketing activities. Some fishers, employed
with the artisanal fleet in Trinidad, migrate along the coasts, fishing in different
areas depending on the seasonality of the Serra Spanish mackerel. In Tobago,
approximately 228 fishers are employed in the coastal pelagic fishery that utilizes
gillnets and troll lines (Potts et al., 2002).
Social and economic assessments have been conducted on selected fleets and
fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago: the trawl fleet operating from Orange Valley and
Otaheite on the west coast of Trinidad which target the soft-substrate demersal
fishery; the recreational fleet from the northwest peninsula of Trinidad which
target coastal and offshore pelagics; the artisanal, small-scale, multigear fleet
from Tobago which target flyingfish and large pelagic species; and the artisanal
multigear fleet from Ortoire to Guayaguayare on the east coast of Trinidad which
target a variety of fisheries.
The 1993 project on Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management, partly funded
by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), focused
on two fishing communities (Orange Valley and Otaheite) on the west coast of
Trinidad, where activities are strongly dominated by trawl fleets in the soft-substrate
demersal fishery (shrimp and groundfish). Under this project, a review of the 1990
National Population and Housing Census showed that fewer people within the
fishing community achieved senior secondary education (up to age sixteen) or
324 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

training in a trade or skill, and none received tertiary education compared with the
non-fishing community (Mohammed, 1995). The fishing community also had a
greater mean household size (average of five persons compared with four persons
for non-fishing community), with women bearing children at an earlier age and
having more children throughout their life than those in non-fishing communities.
The 1994 household survey, conducted under the project, showed that the average
fisher household size of the two communities had increased to six persons, with
individual households ranging between three and thirteen people, with a slightly
higher ratio of males to females (Camps-Campins, 1995).
Fishing community surveys confirmed that activities at Otaheite were essentially
artisanal and small scale (Boodoosingh, 1995). There was greater diversity in the
occupational structure of the non-fishing population, with employment in the
public service, oil industry, agriculture and the construction sectors. A local
bottling plant also hired both skilled and unskilled labour. At Orange Valley,
however, fishing activities ranged from artisanal, small scale to industrial and
medium scale. The non-fishing community relied considerably on employment by
a state-owned agricultural enterprise which also provided part-time employment
for some fishers. Fishing was restricted to the male members of the household.
Higher priority on formal employment than education at Orange Valley resulted
in young males terminating education at an earlier age than young females (Camps-
Campins, 1995). In many instances, male household members were the sole bread
winners while other family members engaged in subsistence activities such as
home-based food production, agriculture and small-scale animal husbandry. Apart
from fishing, the male household members were generally responsible for hiring
of labour if they were boat owners, supervision of market activities for the sale
of catch, and management of household accounts. In some instances the female
head of the household assisted with supervision at the markets and management
of household accounts.
The average monthly income of the fishing household was generally lower
than the non-fishing household. Average monthly income was less than US$228
in 82% and 84% of fisher households in Orange Valley and Otaheite, respectively
(Mohammed, 1995). However, the distribution of monthly income levels in the
fishing households differed at the two sites, with some households at Orange
Valley receiving more than US$1 404 per month (owners of semi-industrial,
medium-scale trawlers) while no fishing household at Otaheite (artisanal, small
scale) earned more than US$702. Although the fishing community recognized a
potential entrepreneurial activity for the household within the service industry
(e.g. food shops, beauty salon, taxi service, dress-making, handicrafts, etc.),
inadequate or incomplete training, child-rearing responsibilities, lack of cash flow
or limited access to credit, fear of theft and vandalism, as well as lack of demand
for certain services, were major impediments (Camps-Campins, 1995).
The fishing communities at both locations experienced a lower standard of
living than the non-fishing community (Mohammed, 1995). A smaller percentage
of fisher households were supplied with electricity, water and proper sewage
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 325

disposal facilities compared with the national average (Mohammed, 1995). In

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

species were consumed at Otaheite, however, bechine (Sphyraena sp.), salmon

(Cynoscion sp.), Serra Spanish mackerel and king mackerel were the most
popular. The study estimated that 25 921 kg of fresh fish, valued at US$67 788,
was consumed annually by the 250 households at Otaheite. Overall, the majority
of families felt that the local fishery was important to the community, citing the
same reasons as families at Orange Valley. Although 37% of the households
felt that fishing had no negative impacts on the community, some believed that
fishing contributed to pollution as well as drug and alcohol abuse (8% and 5%
of households, respectively). Most households suggested that contribution of the
local fish market to the community could be increased by improvement of the
infrastructural and cold-storage facilities.
Fisher surveys conducted under the project received few responses. At Orange
Valley, where only four fishers were interviewed, 80% sold all of their landed
bycatch, while 20% sold 95% and gave the other 5% as gifts to family and friends.
The average weekly value of total landings, from each two-day fishing trip, ranged
between US$758.83 and US$319.51 at peak and low seasons, respectively. The
corresponding estimated bycatch was 21.25% and 90.88% of total landings in the
peak and low seasons. Fishers estimated that 5% to 10% of bycatch, comprising
mainly eels and rays, was discarded at sea. All landed bycatch was sold to vendors
at Orange Valley, and there was no preference for any particular species of fish.
Bycatch was perceived as an important contributor to income generation (80% of
fishers interviewed), employment (60%), and nutrition and food security (40%).
A survey of seven Type III trawlers estimated an average replacement value of
US$55 435, with vessel painting and net replacement being the main contributors
to annual maintenance expenses (US$1 278 and US$2 019, respectively). Fishers
perceived the unmonitored at-sea purchases of shrimp from foreign vessels with
consequent negative impacts on market prices for catches from local vessels
and acquisition of labour on fishing vessels as the main challenges faced by the
fishery.
The fisher survey at Otaheite identified 50 fishers operating and landing their
catch at the Otaheite Fish Market. Trawlers were all of either Type I or II (pirogues)
and privately owned. These vessels mainly targeted shrimp, but caught fish such as
bechine, sardines and herrings during the low shrimp season. About 250 persons
were directly employed in fishing and 50 persons were employed in support
activities for the sector. Almost all the catch was sold to eight wholesale vendors
who supplied the San Fernando and Orange Valley markets. The estimated average
replacement values of a pirogue, associated engines and nets were US$19 171,
US$6 390 and US$575 respectively. A new pirogue with an inboard engine of
100 hp was estimated to cost between US$15 336 and US$19 171. The cost of
used pirogues (10 years old) varied between US$5 112 and US$6 390 depending
on whether or not an engine and additional furnishings were installed. About two
or three nets were used per year, each at a cost of US$192 and US$80 for repairs.
Boats were repainted every four months with material costs of US$128 per boat.
Fishers perceived pollution (due to industrial, agricultural and domestic activity),
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 327

piracy at sea, as well as inadequate infrastructure and business opportunities in the

sector, as the main challenges faced by the fishery.
A study on the recreational fishery in the northwest peninsula of Trinidad was
conducted in 1993. Forty-seven fishers were interviewed and the results showed
that they lived mainly in Diego Martin and surrounding areas such as Carenage
and West Moorings. The Port of Spain and the townships along the main east-west
thoroughfare of northern Trinidad were also popular places of residence. Most of
the fishers (32%) were over 50 years of age and none were below 20 years. Retired
persons accounted for 9% and senior executives accounted for 41% of the persons
interviewed, while 23% were professionals and 13% middle managers. Most
fishers owned their own boats. Although some recreational fishers sell a portion
of the catch, there is no information on the income generated.
In Tobago, a socio-economic study was conducted on the artisanal, small-scale,
multigear fleet targeting flyingfish and large pelagics. Based on an interview of
50 fishers operating at four main landing areas in Tobago, approximately 68%
attained education up to the primary level (age 11 to 12 years) and 30% up to
secondary level (age 16 to17 years) (Potts et al., 2002). The remaining 2% pursued
post-secondary education. Approximately 77% of the interviewees were 49 years
and under, with more young men entering fishery since the late 1990s (Ferreira,
2002). The livelihood of household members in the fishing communities depended
largely on the flyingfish trade. Unemployed persons also assisted with offloading
the catch, deboning and other similar activities. During the late 1980s, eight
processing plants were in operation in Tobago; collectively, these employed about
200 people.
Coastal communities between Ortoire and Guayaguayare, on the east coast of
Trinidad, were surveyed in 2004 to characterize the biological, technical and socio-
economic attributes of the associated fisheries (Kishore and Clarke-Marshall,
2005; Kishore et al., 2005). Gillnets were the main gear utilized (45.1% of vessels),
except for fish pots and demersal handlines at Ortoire. Pelagic lines, beach
seines, lobster and shark nets were of lesser importance. The area experiences
considerable influx of fishing vessels from other areas, especially the south coast
of Trinidad between December and May. This influx occurs as fishers track the
movement of Serra Spanish mackerel which arrive along the east coast of Trinidad
from the South American mainland. It allows an increase in economic activity as
well as expansion of social networks during the first half of the year.
Eighty-six fisher households were surveyed, of which 87% were headed by
men. Several fishers lived with extended families and as single persons, with the
overall mean household size of 4.4 persons. Many of the fishers had been fishing
since their early teens and about 23% had been fishing for more than 25 years. Few
members of fisher households had achieved tertiary level education (< 4%), while
51% and 25% had achieved up to primary level and secondary level, respectively,
and 14% had acquired technical and vocational skills. Although fishing was the
main source of income for these households (60%), other substantial contributors,
particularly for women, were employment in the government services and private
328 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

companies as well as non-governmental organizations. Women were involved

in the industry as boat owners, net menders, purchasers of fishing equipment,
accounting and financial managers, assisting with deployment of beach seines
and as vendors. Women also performed leadership roles in community groups
and managed the households. About 37% of fishers had no alternative source
of income while boat owners had a wider range of employment opportunities
compared with crew members. Fishing contributed more than 60% of household
income for 80% of the full-time fishers.
Home ownership among fishers (74.7%) compared favourably with the wider
Mayaro/Guayaguayare community (80.6%). A variety of household amenities
were also available to fishers: refrigerators (62–89% of interviewees); freezers
(25–64%); motor vehicles (8–21%); stoves (92–96%); telephones (50–75%);
water tanks (71–86%); televisions (73–89%); washing machines (63–75%); and
computers (4–14%), among other articles. About 50% of 112 persons interviewed
were boat owners and 50% of these boat owners owned more than one boat.
The major concerns of the fishing industry pertained to the lack of fishing
facilities; the declining fish stocks due to overfishing, pollution, damage to fishing
grounds and nursery areas, as well as the harvesting of juvenile fish and berried
lobsters; lack of organization in the fishing industry as there are few formal
organizations; limited involvement of regulatory agencies; and lack of cooperation
among fishers. Despite these concerns, 88% of the interviewees indicated that they
enjoyed fishing because of the excitement of bringing in a catch, self-satisfaction,
and the challenge and serenity of being at sea rather than for the economic reasons
(15%). However, many of these persons indicated that they would discourage
participation of their children in the industry due to declining catches and failure
of the industry to provide a steady income.

4. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SECTORS

In general, the organization of fishers in Trinidad and Tobago is volatile, with
groups set up on an ad hoc basis to address a specific, short-term goal. Once
the goal is achieved the organization attains a state of dormancy until another
threat is identified. Organizations are of two types, fishing associations or fishing
co-operatives. Of the two, the co-operatives are more organized, with formal
registration at the Ministry of Labour and Co-Operatives and managed by a Board
of Directors. Fishing associations are informal groups with no legally binding
commitments. Although it is recognized that issues impacting the livelihood of
fishers can best be resolved by lobbying as a group, lack of trust with regard to
financial matters is usually the main factor negatively impacting the continued
operations of the organizations. In 2003, there were 34 fishing organizations
(9 co-operatives and 25 associations) in Trinidad and Tobago. Of these, 24 were in
Trinidad and the remaining 10 in Tobago. These organizations are generally not
well managed (Picou-Gill, 2003).
Currently the more vibrant fishers’ organizations in Trinidad are the Trinidad
and Tobago Game Fishing Association, Almoorings Fishing Cooperative, Cocorite
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 329

Fishing Association, Moruga Fishing Association, north Coast Multi-Purpose

Society Limited, Cedros Fishing Cooperative, Women in Fishing Association, and
the South East Fishing Association. The latter two associations were established as
a result of initiatives under the 2004 study to develop a co-management framework
(Kishore et al., 2005). The eight organizations are financially viable with effective
organizational structures, goals and planned activities that serve the interests of
their members (Fisheries Division, 2007b). In Tobago, developments in the fishing
sector during the 1980s spurred the Tobago House of Assembly to encourage
the formation of fishers’ organizations. However, the lack of the government’s
financial support has been a major constraint. Investment is almost totally from
the private sector. In 1999, the All Tobago Fisherfolk Association (ATFA) was
formed as a legal entity. In 2007, an ‘umbrella’ fisher organization – Trinidad and
Tobago Unified Fisherfolk – was established to coordinate activities among fisher
organizations and bring issues impacting the industry to the attention of decision-
makers.
The interactions between fishers and other sectors are not well documented.
Within the fishing sector, however, there are conflicts among fishers. During the
mid-1990s conflicts among fishers utilizing gillnets, fish pots and trawls off the
north and south coasts of Trinidad escalated. Fish pot fishermen accused those
utilizing gillnets of entanglement of their pots while gillnet fishers in turn accused
those utilizing fish pots of destruction of their gear. In general, gillnet and fish
pot fishermen accused those utilizing trawls of destruction of the fishing ground
and depletion of fisheries resources. A ministerial committee was established to
address the conflict and to propose recommendations for sustainable utilization
of the fisheries resources (Fisheries Division, 1997). Recommendations included
stricter zoning of trawl activity. Fishers also experience vandalism of boats and
gear as well as piracy at sea. Since there is some association between fishing and
drug activity, it is difficult to ascertain the true reasons for the conflicts. Currently,
the Fisheries Division is without the resources to exercise a greater role in
conflict resolution. As a result, the Division’s intervention is constrained to crisis
situations.

5. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
5.1 Stock assessments, bio-economic analyses and abundance surveys
Stock assessments have been conducted for each of the coastal fisheries of Trinidad
and Tobago since the late 1980s (Table 1). The soft-substrate demersal fishery has
been extensively studied under a Working Group of the Western Central Atlantic
Fishery Commission (WECAFC). This Working Group conducts both stock
assessments and bio-economic analyses. The hard-substrate demersal and small
coastal pelagic fisheries were assessed under an FAO project to improve data
collection systems and to assess marine fisheries resources in Trinidad and Tobago.
Future stock assessments for the soft-bottom demersal and small coastal pelagic
fisheries are facilitated under the respective working groups of the Caribbean
Regional Fisheries Mechanism. As well, an ad hoc Working Group under the
330 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

WECAFC is responsible for assessment of the flyingfish resources in the eastern

Caribbean. Abundance estimates for certain species groups were available from a
1988 research cruise conducted by the Fridtjof Nansen, a Norwegian vessel.
As shown in Table 1, several methods have been used to assess the various
fisheries, including surplus production models, catch-at-age models, length-based
models, virtual population analyses, yield-per-recruit models and abundance
surveys. Some assessments were conducted jointly with Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of), using methods such as biodynamic production models and bio-
economic analyses. Recent assessments indicate that the majority of the fisheries
are either fully or overexploited. Earlier assessments showed that some resources
were either underexploited or inconclusive, such as the lane snapper and sharks,
respectively. However, declining catch quantities and sizes of fish in the catch
suggest that these resources may currently be overexploited.

5.2 Ecosystem analyses

In addition to stock assessments, preliminary ecosystem analyses have been
conducted on the soft-substrate demersal fishery. Ecosystem statistics and
network flow indices were derived, and the possible impacts of trawling on
the biomass of model components were explored using a trophic model for the
Gulf of Paria (Manickchand-Heileman et al., 2004). Almost 80% of the catch
trawl fleet consisted of fish from trophic levels 2 and 3, with an average trophic
level of 2.97. The associated primary production required for the 1997 total
catch was 28.3 tonnes per km2 (about 2% of net primary production). For the
major component of the catch, comprising several shrimp species, the associated
primary production required for the 1997 catch was 8 tonnes per km2 (0.56% of
net primary production). The total system flow of biomass was 2 285 tonnes per
km2, of which 25% was attributed to all consumption, 16% to respiration and
the remaining 59% to input of detritus. Estimated high ecotrophic efficiencies for
many system components suggest efficient utilization of secondary production
by predators. Mean transfer efficiency was 12.2%. The food web was dominated
by the detrital pathway (bottom-up control) and the ecosystem was relatively
mature (Finn cycling index of 7.2%). Simulations showed marked decreases in
fish biomass and conversely increases in invertebrate biomass (notably shrimp
and crab) when fishing mortality rate was increased by 50% over five years. On
relaxation of fishing effort, the fish biomass recovered but that of crabs declined
even further. Except for a decline in the biomass of crabs, a reduction in fishing
mortality rate elicited the opposite response in system components. A comparison
of the 1997 biomass of system components with those obtained from a 1945
trawl survey showed significantly higher biomass in 1945, with the exception of
carangids, penaeids and possibly clupeids, suggesting a possible shift towards a
system dominated by lower trophic levels.
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 331

TABLE 1
Stock assessment, bio-economic analyses and abundance surveys conducted on
fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago
Species
Stock status and Management
(assessment Method Source
reference points recommendations
year)
Farfantepenaeus Biodynamic Overfished: No further increase in Alió et al.
subtilis production MSY = 1 200–1 300 fishing effort beyond (1999)
(brown shrimp) model (joint tonnes the 1996 level for a few
1973–1996 assessment with years
Venezuela)
F. subtilis Surplus Severely overfished: Reduction of fishing Dié et al.
(brown shrimp) production overfishing since 1970; mortality and adoption (2004)
1973–2001 models: Fcurrent = >3 Fmsy of common strategy for
BIODYN and Bcurrent = 0.23 Bmsy effort control by both
ASPIC (joint MSY = 1 000 – 2 000 countries
assessment with tonnes
Venezuela)
F. notialis Catch-at-age Fully exploited Immediate restriction Medley and
(pink shrimp) and Virtual F current = 0.71Fmsy on increased fleet size; Ferreira (2004)
1992–2001 Population BPRcurrent = 0.40 BPR0 future reduction in
Analysis models Mainly young shrimp effort and increased size
caught at capture
Xiphopenaeus Catch-at-age Overexploited Immediate restriction Medley and
kroyeri and Virtual F current = 0.71Fmsy on fleet size; future Ferreira (2004)
(seabob) Population BPRcurrent = 0.20 BPR0 reduction in effort and
1992–2001 Analysis models increased size at capture
F. subtilis, Bio-economic Fully to overexploited Reduction in current Seijo et
F. notialis, analysis Overcapitalized fishing effort by 20% al. (2000);
Litopenaeus Effort current = 17 523 would reduce probability Ferreira and
(joint days at sea (Trinidad: of B < 0.25Bo by 15% for Soomai (2001)
schmitti
assessment with 8 175 days; Venezuela: F. subtilis and increase
(white shrimp),
Venezuela) 9 348 days) profits by 12%.
and X. kroyeri
1995–1998 Bo of F. subtilis = Profits of this shared
481 tonnes fishery could be
At current effort maximized by reducing
39% chance that B of current effort by 61%
F. subtilis will be <0.25 (Trinidad fleet) and 82%
Bo (Venezuela fleet)
Sciaenidae Abundance Biomass = 5 500 tonnes Institute
(croakers) survey using (south Trinidad) and of Marine
1988 demersal trawl 35 500 tonnes (north Research
Trinidad) (1989)
F. subtilis, Biomass Overfished relative to A closed season for Ferreira and
F. notialis, dynamic MSY. trawling (1–4 months) Medley (2007)
F. brasiliensis, (production) MSY = 1 765 tonnes at the time when the
L. schmitti model for B1988 = 10 536 tonnes smallest sizes of shrimp
(white shrimp), the shrimp Binf = 16 706 tonnes are caught. Involve
and X. kroyeri resources Bcurrent = 5 250 tonnes stakeholders in the
(1975;, 1988– shared between R = 0.47 process and investigate
2004) Trinidad and Fmsy = 0.235 the social and economic
Tobago and Fcurrent = 0.300 implications of this
Venezuela measure. Limit the
number of trawlers
in the fishery. Strictly
enforce current
regulations on cod-end
mesh size and permitted
fishing areas. Set
appropriate and specific
reference points for the
fishery.
Micropogonias Yield-per- Fully exploited No further increase in Manickchand-
furnieri recruit analysis Tc = 3 years fishing mortality Heileman and
(Whitemouth F current = Fmsy Kenny (1990a)
croaker) F current = 0.8
1977–1982 YPRcurrent = MSYPR
YPRcurrent = 175g
332 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Species
Stock status and Management
(assessment Method Source
reference points recommendations
year)

M. furnieri Depletion and Overexploited Limit fishing effort for Soomai et al.
(Whitemouth yield-per-recruit all fleets (trawl and (1999)
croaker) modelling multigear)
1989–1997
M. furnieri Surplus Overexploited No further increase in Alió et al.
(Whitemouth production MSY = 1 500 tonnes fishing effort; limited (1999)
croaker) biodynamic Fmsy achieved between entry in future; reduce
1989–1997 modelling and 1987–1993 fishing mortality to 0.4
yield-per-recruit F1998 = 0.4–3.2 to achieve 0.4 SSB0
analyses (joint Y1998 = 1 800 tonnes
assessment with
Venezuela)
Cynoscion Depletion and Overexploited Limit fishing effort for Soomai et al.
jamaicensis yield-per-recruit all fleets (trawl and (1999)
(Jamaican modelling multigear)
weakfish)
1989–1997
M. furnieri Multispecies, Fully to overexploited Limit fishing effort Soomai and
C. jamaicensis multigear B, 1989 = 6 322 tonnes to 1997 level for all Seijo (2000)
1989–1997 dynamic bio- (M. furnieri) and 602 fleets since this option
economic tonnes = (C. jamaicensis) maximizes the minimum
analysis B, 1997 = 3 754 tonnes final biomass attainable
(M. furnieri) and minimizes loss of
B, 1997 = 273 tonnes opportunity
(C. jamaicensis)
Effort, 1997 = 11 635 days
at sea
Maximum rent
generated in 1997
(US$101 per day per
vessel)
Pomadasyidae Abundance B = 100 tonnes (Trinidad Institute
Grunts survey using south coast) of Marine
1988 demersal trawl Research
(1989)
Lutjanidae Abundance Biomass = 400 tonnes Institute
Snappers survey using (Trinidad north coast) of Marine
1988 demersal trawl and 450 tonnes (Trinidad Research
south coast, 5% biomass (1989)
of all demersal fish)
Lutjanus Abundance Mean catch rate of 10 Institute
synagri survey using kg/hr (south Trinidad) of Marine
(Lane snapper) demersal trawl and 25 kg/hr (east Research
1988 Trinidad) (1989)
86% sampled individuals
on south coast were
1–30 kg and 14%
between 30–100 kg
L. synagris Yield-per- Underutilized (however Increase TC to 2 years Maingot and
(Lane snapper) recruit analysis currently species may (corresponds to 30 cm Manickchand-
1980–1981 of multigear be approaching high TL; average Lm is 28 cm Heileman
fleet which uses level of exploitation or TL) by increasing mesh (1987)
fish pots off overexploited) size of pots, mesh size of
north and east TC = 1.38 years trawlers and hook size
Trinidad Fcurrent = 0.17 on lines. Increase F to
YPR = 70g 0.8. These will increase
year-per-recruit to
122 g. However, need to
consider effects on other
species in fishery
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 333

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Species
Stock status and Management
(assessment Method Source
reference points recommendations
year)

L. synagris Mean size Uncertain. Possibly Preliminary assessment. Soomai and

(Lane snapper) model and growth-overfished due Fishing effort should Porch (2007)
(1908–2004) Catch-free to high proportion be monitored and not
model for of immature fish in increase until further
the fleets the catch. Emigration research on migration
using gillnets, of large fish may patterns, stock structure
handlines and account for the high and status indicate
trawl gear in F estimated. otherwise
Trinidad F(1980, 1997) = 0.94 – 3.69
Constant CPUE trends
despite high F suggest
constant recruitment
L. purpureus Yield-per- Fully to overexploited Restrict fishing effort Manickchand-
(Caribbean red recruit analysis TC current =1.4 yrs (28 cm TL) and increase age at first Heileman and
snapper) of multigear TC current < Tm (Lm = 33 cm capture to 3 years by Phillip (1992b;
1990–1991 fleet which uses TL) increasing mesh size in 1996)
fish pots off Fcurrent = 0.29 pots. This will increase
north and east Fmax = 0.26 yield-per-recruit to 569 g
Trinidad and F 0.1 = 0.15 at Tccurrent at Fcurrent
east Tobago YPRcurrent = 489g
Rhomboplites Yield-per- Overexploited Restrict fishing effort Manickchand-
aurorubens recruit analysis Tc current = 2.1 years and increase TC to 3 Heileman and
(Vermillion of multigear Tc current > Tm (0.6 years) years by increasing mesh Phillip (1992b)
snapper) fleet which uses Fcurrent = 0.79 – 1.54 size in pots. This will
1990–1991 fish pots off YPR current = 350g increase yield-per-recruit
north and east to 401 g at Fcurrent
Trinidad and
east Tobago
Serranidae Abundance Biomass = 200 tonnes Institute
Groupers survey using (Trinidad south coast) of Marine
1988 demersal trawl Research
(1989)
Epinephelus Yield-per- Fully or overexploited Restrict fishing effort, Manickchand-
flavolimbatus recruit analysis Lm = 52.8 cm TL increase mesh size Heileman and
(Yellowedge of multigear TC current = 3.3 years of traps since other Phillip (1992a)
grouper) fleet which uses TC current < Tm species in fishery are
1990–1991 fish pots off F current = 0.1 – 0.12 overexploited, estimate
north and east YPR current = ≈ 235 g impacts of illegal foreign
Trinidad and fishing
east Tobago
Mycteroperca Yield-per- Fully or overexploited Restrict fishing effort, Manickchand-
interstitialis recruit analysis Lm = 38 cm FL increase mesh size of Heileman and
(Yellowmouth of multigear TC current = 3.3 years traps, estimate impacts Phillip (1992a)
grouper) fleet which uses F current = 0.17 of illegal foreign fishing
1990–1991 fish pots off YPR current = ≈ 240 g
north and east
Trinidad and
east Tobago
Scomberomorus Yield-per- Underexploited No increase in the Sturm et al.
brasiliensis recruit analysis (however currently existing mesh size of (1987)
(Serra Spanish for fishery off overexploited) gillnets (11.4 cm)
mackerel) Trinidad F = 0.27
Late 1980s TC = 3 years
YPR < 50 g
S. brasiliensis Length-based Fully exploited No increase in fishing Henry and
(Serra Spanish model for Fcurrent = 0.6 effort, gillnet mesh size Martin (1992)
mackerel) fishery off Ycurrent = 2 815 tonnes should not be < 4.75
1991–1992 Trinidad SSBcurrent = 0.22 SSB0 inch stretched mesh,
SSBcurrent = 6 258 tonnes encourage line fishing
over gillnets
334 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Species
Stock status and Management
(assessment Method Source
reference points recommendations
year)

S. brasiliensis Surplus Bmsy = 8 000 tonnes Study preliminary, Martin and

(Serra Spanish production Fmsy = 0.2 improve time series of Nowlis (2004)
mackerel) model (ASPIC) B2003 = 0.84 Bmsy input data as well as age
1972–2002 using data F2001 = 1.17 Fmsy and size data, obtain
for entire Status quo performed specific management
distribution badly and 0.75 Fcurrent objectives from decision
range of species performed best in the makers
including long run (25 years)
Trinidad
S. cavalla Yield-per- Underexploited (possibly No increase in the Sturm et al.
(King mackerel) recruit analysis overexploited currently) existing mesh size of (1987)
Late 1980s for fishery off F = 0.34 gillnets (11.4 cm)
Trinidad TC = 4 years
YPR > 300g
S. cavalla Biomass Inconclusive - Possibly Study preliminary, Martin and
(King mackerel) dynamic overexploited improve input data Hoggarth
(1996–1998; Schaefer to generate growth (2007)
2004) production F 0.1 = 0.26–0.66 parameters. Reduce
model and F20%SPR = 0.62–1.11 current fishing mortality
yield-per-recruit by 66% or alternatively
model for F 96-98 = 16% below or impose a 6-month closed
the fishery in 80% above F20%SPR season to increase
the southern relative spawning stock
Caribbean F 04 = 85–202% above biomass per recruit from
(including F20%SPR 10 to 22%. Enforce fish
Trinidad) or mesh size regulations
At F0.1 to increase TC. Impose
Rel. YPR = 0.13–0.24 limited entry to replace
Rel. SSBPR = 0.26–.4 current free access.
No increase in fishing
At F20%SPR effort until assessment is
Rel YPR = 0.14–0.25 updated.
S. cavalla Biomass Inconclusive Research to ascertain Martin and
(King mackerel) dynamic stock range and Dié (2008)
(1996–1998; Schaefer F 0.1 = 0.34 – 0.45 migration patterns,
2006–2007) production F20%SPR = 0.66 - 0.80 growth and mortality
model and rate parameters.
yield-per-recruit F 96-98 = Inclusion of catch, effort
model for 149 to 350% of F 0.1 and biological data from
the fishery in 84 to 180% of F20%SPR all countries targeting
the southern the stock into assessment
Caribbean F 06-07 = 182 to 332% analysis. Inclusion of
(including of F 0.1 historical time series data
Trinidad) 103 to 171% of F20%SPR on catch and effort into
assessment analysis.
Hirundichthys Length-based Fully exploited Conservative approach Samlalsingh
affinis model for to increasing local effort, and Pandohee
(Four-winged fishery off TC = 0.6 years restrict foreign effort, (1992)
Tobago Fcurrent = 3.3 consider ecological
flyingfish)
Ycurrent = 433 tonnes role of species in
(1990–1992)
Bcurrent = 906 tonnes management
Clupeidae and Abundance B = 6 000 tonnes Institute
Engraulidae (hydroacoustic) (Trinidad north coast); of Marine
(Herrings, survey 16 000 tonnes (Trinidad Research
anchovies and east coast) and 24 000 (1989)
sardines) tonnes (Trinidad south
1988 coast). Potential yield =
20 000 tonnes
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 335

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

Species
Stock status and Management
(assessment Method Source
reference points recommendations
year)

Carangidae, Abundance B = 12 000 tonnes Institute

Sphyraenidae, (hydroacoustic) (Trinidad north coast); of Marine
Scombridae 14 000 tonnes (Trinidad Research
1988 east coast) and 12 000 (1989)
tonnes (Trinidad south
coast)
Sharks Abundance Biomass = 1 100 tonnes Institute
1988 survey using in waters off Trinidad of Marine
demersal trawl Research
and acoustic (1989)
techniques
Carcharhinus Analysis of Inconclusive Preliminary assessment. Walker (1992)
porosus catch and M = 0.245 Improved data collection
(Small tail effort, length q = 0.22 necessary. Need to
shark) frequency and (however, currently, incorporate catches
1992 age-length data species may be of other countries
overexploited) exploiting the resource
in analyses
C. limbatus Analysis of Inconclusive Preliminary assessment. Walker (1992)
(Blacktip shark) catch and M = 0.303 Improved data collection
1992 effort, length q = 0.44 necessary. Need to
frequency and Underexploited incorporate catches
age-length data (however, currently, of other countries
species may be exploiting the resource
overexploited) in analyses

5.3 Economic analyses: costs and earnings studies

Soft-substrate demersal fishery: Three costs and earnings studies have been
conducted for the soft-substrate demersal fishery. The first focused on Types I
and II trawlers legally operating off Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) during
the 1991/1992 fishing season (Ferreira and Maharaj, 1993). The fleet appeared
marginally profitable. In fact, vessels operated at a little better than break-even
point and at a loss in years when recruitment was particularly low. The average
annual return to owners’ management and capital was estimated at US$723, or 10%
average rate of return on capital. Profit was maximized at 58% of the contemporary
effort. The second study examined operations of all trawl fleets (Ferreira, 1998).
Thirty-three percent of Type II trawlers, 50% of Type III trawlers and 60%
of Type IV trawlers appeared to be operating at a loss. Without accounting for
depreciation, Type II trawlers operated between a loss of US$5 900 and a profit of
US$15 300. Similarly, Type III trawlers operated between a loss of US$4 300 and
a profit of US$17 800. Type IV trawlers had much higher losses, with US$25 500
for losses and US$17 000 for profit. Type II trawlers appeared more efficient than
Types III and IV as the revenue-per-cost ratio, benefits to crew and owner per unit
of revenue and returns on investment were higher. Small trawlers were also more
labour intensive than capital intensive. Mean labour costs to current vessel value
were 0.7, 0.2 and 0.1 for Types II, III and IV trawlers, respectively. The net profit
of a Type II trawler was US$1 800, while Types III and IV trawlers suffered net
losses of US$2 400 and US$19 700, respectively, and returns on investment were
336 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

estimated at 21%, -5% and -20% for Types II, III and IV trawlers (Kuruvilla et
al., 2000). The third study was similar to the second but conducted more recently
(Kuruvilla et al., 2002). In this instance, only the Type III trawlers, on average,
realized a profit (US$8 900), which corresponded to 15% return on investment.
Types II and IV trawlers suffered losses of US$389 (-4% return on investment)
and US$996 (-1% return on investment), respectively. Despite negative cash flows,
vessels continued to operate because owners had ceased repayments on their loans.
Given the expected high maintenance costs (many vessels were between 10 and
20 years old), many owners also opted to reduce costs by working their own
vessel, doing repairs on vessel and gear themselves, and purchasing used engines
and parts (Kuruvilla et al., 2002).
Hard-substrate demersal fishery: A simple cost analysis was conducted on the
artisanal, multigear fleet operating between Ortoire and Guayaguayare on the
east coast of Trinidad (Kishore et al., 2005). The average trip preparation cost
was highest for vessels utilizing demersal longlines (US$170), compared with
fish pots (US$107), and banklines or demersal handlines (US$131). Fuel was the
greatest contributor to overall trip cost (average US$131 for vessels utilizing each
of three gear types), followed by bait (average US$33) and food for crew members
(average US$10). The average cost of ice, ground transport for landed catch and
post-landing cleaning operations per fishing trip was US$8.00, US$3.57 and
US$9.25, respectively. The cost of entry to the fishery for a vessel utilizing fish
pots (primary gear) and pelagic lines (secondary gear) was estimated at US$11 623,
while a vessel utilizing banklines (primary gear) and demersal longlines (secondary
gear) would cost US$7 098.
Small coastal pelagic fishery: Costs and earnings studies were conducted on the
artisanal, multigear fleet (component using gillnets) in Trinidad and the artisanal
and semi-industrial multigear fleets targeting flyingfish in Tobago. Simple cost
analyses were also conducted on the artisanal, multigear fleet operating between
Ortoire and Guayaguayare on the east coast of Trinidad and the recreational fleet
operating off north Trinidad. In the artisanal, multigear fleet (component using
gillnets) of Trinidad, costs and revenues were found to vary significantly between
landing beaches due to differences in the production activities (Parkinson, 1992).
Gross seasonal revenue was US$4 500 per fisher from the sale of an average catch
of 4 200 kg. Average monthly fishing operation costs was US$1 100 per fisher,
with variable costs (boat and engine repair, net repair, fuel, oil and other trip
related expenses) accounting for 93% of total costs. The average monthly net
revenue above the variable and total costs was US$132 and US$68, respectively.
Preliminary studies for the Tobago fleets (Ferreira, 2002; Potts et al., 2002) showed
profits which far exceeded those of other, similar fleets in the region and, therefore,
the results require verification.
The average trip preparation cost was highest for artisanal vessels fishing
off the east coast of Trinidad and utilizing multifilament gillnets (US$107.60)
compared with pelagic lines (US$101.79), monofilament gillnets (US$81.10) and
beach seines (US$23.65) (Kishore et al., 2005). Fuel was the greatest contributor
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 337

to the overall trip cost (average US$50.97 for vessels utilizing each of four gear
types). The average cost of ice, post-landing cleaning, ground transport for landed
catch, and food for crew members was US$6.17, US$6.00, US$4.06 and US$11.69,
respectively. Bait was utilized only by vessels deploying pelagic lines (average cost
of US$10.28 per trip). The cost of entry to the fishery was greater for a vessel
utilizing gillnets (US$13 222) compared to beach seines (US$11 575). Fuel cost per
fishing trip in the Trinidad recreational fleet was greatest for vessels using troll lines
(US$44) and least for those using gillnets and demersal longlines (US$8) (Mike,
1993). Initial gear costs were high for boats involved in line (US$200 to US$300)
and spear (US$210) fishing, while gear replacement costs were greatest for vessels
using troll lines (US$12). Spears and fish pots were replaced infrequently and the
cost of gillnet replacement was negligible.

6. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

Marine fisheries activities in Trinidad and Tobago are evolving in the context of
a dynamic international environment of governmental and non-governmental
organizations towards the sustainable natural resource management objective.
Trinidad and Tobago is signatory to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the Cartagena Convention, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on
Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, the Agreement
for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks,
and a contracting party to the International Commission for the Conservation
of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Trinidad and Tobago adopted the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995. Adoption of these conventions and
other ‘soft-laws’ (i.e. non-binding) place specific responsibilities on the country
for management of marine resources, including fisheries. The implementation and
evaluation of fisheries management measures is the responsibility of the Fisheries
Division of the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs in
Trinidad and the Department of Marine Resources and Fisheries, Tobago House
of Assembly, in Tobago.
Support for administration of the fisheries sector, including resource and
coastal zone management, is provided by a number of governmental agencies,
including the following Ministries: Works and Transport; Health; Trade and
Industry; Finance; National Security; Foreign Affairs; the Office of the Prime
Minister; and the Tobago House of Assembly. Regional organizations such as the
Caribbean Community, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM),
and the University of the West Indies (UWI), as well as international organizations
such as FAO and other United Nations agencies, the Global Environment Facility
and foreign donor governments (e.g. European Union and Japan) also play a key
role in the research and administrative activities of the Fisheries Division.
338 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

6.1 Fisheries management policy

Trinidad and Tobago has recently reviewed its marine fisheries policy and
associated legislation (Moore-Miggins and Company and Scales Consulting
Limited, 2006; University of the West Indies, 2006; Fisheries Division, 2007b). The
draft policy for the fishing sector addresses recommendations from a 2005 review
of the fish and fish processing industry (Fish and Fish Processing Industry Team,
2005) and supports the Government’s Vision 2020 Plan for Trinidad and Tobago’s
achievement of developed country status by 2020. This plan emphasizes the
need to enable competitive business in the agricultural sector while recognizing
the need for sustainable fisheries. The major fisheries-related objectives of the
plan are to improve the management and regulation of fisheries, to improve
product safety for fish and fish products so as to meet international standards, to
safeguard fisheries resources and augment stocks to optimal levels, and to develop
aquaculture as a major enterprise as a basis for diversification, income growth and
enhanced food security (Fisheries Division, 2007b).
The overarching policy objectives support the Precautionary Approach to
sustainable fisheries management and conservation (Fisheries Division, 2007b).
These objectives aim to introduce a management structure with the capacity
and resources to address current national, regional and international issues in
fisheries, including obligations under associated treaties and conventions. To
effect management, attention is given to modernizing the legal and regulatory
framework with introduction of appropriate mechanisms to strengthen the
fisheries surveillance and enforcement capability. In addition, the policy promotes
transparency in decision-making, with participation of stakeholders in the
management process and consideration of the socio-economic implications of
management measures in decision-making. To address the impacts of multisectoral
and competing use of the coastal zone on fisheries, the policy supports an
integrated approach to coastal zone development with mechanisms to reduce
associated conflicts and compensate impacted fishers. The policy objectives also
seek to address environmental issues in fisheries and to promote the protection
of critical fish habitats. Modernization of fisheries infrastructure, with emphasis
on local and international food quality assurance and efficient use of resources, as
well the creation of a safe working environment for fishers, are also promoted.

6.2 Fisheries legislation

The principal legislation governing domestic fishing in Trinidad and Tobago is the
Fisheries Act of 1916 and the subsequent amendments to the Act, the Fisheries
(Amendment) Act 1966, and the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1975. The Act applies
to all rivers and tidal waters in Trinidad and Tobago and to the 12-mile territorial
sea. It empowers the minister responsible for fisheries to make regulations to
prescribe mesh size of nets, to restrict the size of fish, shrimp, crabs and turtles
caught, to prohibit their sale, and to prevent the catching of these species either
absolutely or to limit it by season or area. A Fisheries Management Bill, prepared
in 2006, will repeal the Fisheries Act of 1916 and the relevant sections of the
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 339

Archipelagic Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone Act of 1986. The Bill embraces
the principles outlined in the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention and
the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Bill facilitates the
preparation of fisheries management plans and the establishment of management
systems and will, in accordance with the management plans, facilitate the control
of access to fisheries resources through the establishment of a licensing system for
both local and foreign fishing vessels.
The Fishing Industry (Assistance) Act of 1955 makes provisions for the granting
of financial assistance to the fishing industry. The Marine Areas (Preservation and
Enhancement) Act (1970), through regulations implemented in 1973, provides for
designation of restricted areas and the requirement of the minister’s approval to
enter and remove marine fauna from such areas (limited to coral reef management).
A National Parks and Other Protected Areas Bill has been drafted, which will have
an effect on the Marine Areas (Preservation and Enhancement) Act when enacted.
The Archipelagic Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1986) provides for
the declaration of archipelagic waters, the establishment of a 200-mile exclusive
economic zone (EEZ), the determination of total allowable catch by nationals, and
makes provisions for foreign fishing and associated surveillance and enforcement.
The Fish and Fishery Products Regulations (1998) under Section 25 of the
Food and Drugs Act Chapter 30:01 authorizes the minister with responsibility
for health to grant licences for the import and export of fish which have been
handled and packed under conditions conforming to health and safety standards
prescribed under the Act. The regulations specify the requirements for handling
fish, the general and specific operating requirements for establishments handling
or processing fish, the requirements for vessels used for fishing or transporting
fish, and for vehicles and equipment used for unloading, handling, holding and
transporting fresh fish for processing. As a consequence of non-compliance with
the regulations, fish and fishery products originating in Trinidad and Tobago
were banned from export to the European Union in 1999. Currently, the Fish and
Fishery Products Regulations are under review.
The soft-substrate demersal fishery: Legislation regulating operations of the
trawl fleet targeting the soft-substrate demersal fishery specifies fishing areas and
gear dimensions (the Fisheries Control of Demersal Bottom Trawling Activities
Regulations of 1996 and the associated Amendment Regulations of 1998 and
2004). Within the Gulf of Paria, Types I and II trawlers are permitted to operate
outside of one nautical mile from the coast, Type III trawlers, with engines less
than or equal to 180 hp, are permitted in areas of six fathoms or more in depth,
and Type IV trawlers, with engines greater than or equal to 180 hp, are permitted
in depths of ten fathoms and more. On the north and south coasts of Trinidad
trawling is permitted outside of two nautical miles. However, off the north coast,
the fishing area is further restricted to the region west of Saut d’Eau. Trawling
off the north coast of Trinidad is restricted to the period from 15 November to
15 January, while night fishing is prohibited. Trawling is also prohibited off the
east coast of Trinidad and within 12 nautical miles off the coast of Tobago. The
340 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

minimum diagonal, stretched mesh size on the cod end of the trawlnet is restricted
to 7.6 cm when trawling for fish, and 3.8 cm when trawling for shrimp. The entry
of new trawlers to the fishery is restricted under a 1988 Cabinet decision.
To reduce turtle bycatch in the trawl fishery, the Fisheries (Conservation
of Marine Turtles) Regulations were implemented in 1994. These regulations
stipulate the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TED) on nets deployed by Types III
and IV trawlers and provide the type and design specifications. This conservation
measure facilitates trade between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States.
Conservation of marine turtles is also supported by the Protection of Turtle and
Turtle Eggs Regulations of 1975. Trawlnets are subject to inspection by United
States trade officials, who also grant certification that permits export from
Trinidad and Tobago to the United States. Trinidad and Tobago is also currently
participating in a project funded by FAO, UNEP and GEF aimed at reducing the
environmental impacts of tropical shrimp trawling through the introduction of
bycatch reduction devices.
The hard-substrate demersal fishery: Legislation aimed at the demersal hard-
substrate fishery prohibits the capture or sale of snapper less than 20.3 cm.
Assessment studies on major snapper species confirmed the capture of snappers
prior to maturity. It was recommended that mesh sizes be increased to maximize
yield and to prevent overfishing, and biodegradable panels be utilized in the
construction of fish pots. A study was also commissioned to ascertain the
appropriate mesh sizes for fish pots (Mohammed, 2000).
The coastal pelagic fishery: Prior to 2000, regulations limited gillnet lengths (up
to 272.73 m), minimum mesh size (4.4 cm) and minimum length of several species
marketed, including the Serra Spanish mackerel and king mackerel (30.5 cm).
Due to conflicts among various fishing groups (Fisheries Division, 1997) and the
near full exploitation of the Serra Spanish mackerel (Henry and Martin, 1992),
regulations were amended in 1998 to increase the minimum diagonal stretched
mesh size to 10.8 cm, with exceptions for those nets used to catch mullet and
flyingfish (Ministry of Food Production and Marine Resources, Fisheries Division
and the Monitoring and Advisory Committee on the Fisheries of Trinidad and
Tobago, 2001). In addition, a 0.64 cm incremental increase in the current mesh size
(10.2 cm) was proposed over a three-year period to arrive at the recommended
12.1 cm mesh size for the fishery (Fisheries Division, 2003).
Due to the greater efficiency of monofilament nets compared with multifilament
nets, and continuing conflicts between fishers utilizing gillnets, fish pots and
trawls on the south coast of Trinidad, a ban on the use of monofilament gillnets
was imposed in March 2000. Continuing dissatisfaction by the fishing community
regarding this ban resulted in an amendment of the regulations in 2002. These
regulations again specified a minimum diagonal stretched mesh size of 10.2 cm
for gillnets, but 8.9 cm for nets used to catch mullets and 4.5 cm for nets used to
catch flyingfish. The quantity of any species other than mullet landed by the 9 cm
mesh size should not exceed 15% of the total catch, and vessels are prohibited
from carrying nets of less than 11 cm mesh size together with nets of other mesh
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 341

sizes on the same fishing trip. The main objective of management is to increase
the size at capture, through increased mesh size, in order to avoid recruitment
overfishing.

6.3 Fisheries monitoring and surveillance

A Fisheries Monitoring, Surveillance and Enforcement Unit (FMSEU) was
established within the Fisheries Division in 2004, thereby strengthening the
capability for enforcement of national fisheries regulations as well as for
international fisheries management recommendations for large migratory pelagic
species. The FMSEU has initially played a greater role in management of the
offshore fisheries through implementation of trade-related monitoring and
inspections programmes to ensure compliance with ICCAT regulations, issuance
of the required certificates of eligibility (COE) or statistical documents for export
of swordfish to the United States, compliance with regulations governing the use of
TEDs, monitoring of processing plants and export shipments to deter mislabelling
of goods, and monitoring and data collection from foreign vessels utilizing the
transshipment port at the National Fisheries Company to deter illegal, unreported
and unregulated fishing (Fisheries Division, 2004). Additionally, the FMSEU
acts as liaison between fish processing plants and the Chemistry, Food and Drug
Department of the Ministry of Health, to facilitate inspections for compliance with
sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. Coastal fisheries are monitored at landing
sites and at sea operations investigated to ensure compliance with mesh size and
other fisheries management regulations. The FMSEU is assisted by the Trinidad
and Tobago Coast Guard (at sea) and Protective Services (on land), particularly in
areas of high security risk. An assessment of the impact of the FMSEU on industry
compliance with current regulations is to be undertaken. However, until the unit is
adequately staff with trained and experienced personnel and legislation is updated
to address current issues in fisheries management, the unit’s effectiveness remains
constrained.

6.4 Fisheries subsidies

The Fishing Industry (Assistance) Act of 1955, amended in 1975, provides for
government’s financial assistance to the fishing industry. Subsidies are provided
on fuel and oil used by vessels, cost of vessel replacement, cost of semi-industrial,
multigear vessels and cost of vehicles used in commercial fishing. Duty and taxes
are also exempted on imported engines, vessels, engine parts and marine accessories.
The criteria for the award of subsidies are that applicants must be fishers, fishing
vessel owners or fishing proprietors who are citizens of Trinidad and Tobago
and are registered with the Fisheries Division. The fisher registration system,
though voluntary and not used for management, is linked to administration of the
incentive programme. As a result, most fishers, including recreational fishers, are
registered. The government’s additional support to the fisheries sector is largely
through the provision of services at no cost to the sector. These services include
administration of the incentive programme, implementation of fisheries recurrent
342 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

and development projects, infrastructural development, issuance of import and

export licences for fish and fishery products, assessment of fisheries resources,
provision of fisheries-related information, registration of fishers and fishing
vessels, and monitoring, surveillance and enforcement.

6.5 Marine protected areas

The Buccoo Reef area in Tobago is the only area that has been designated a
restricted area under the Marine Areas (Preservation and Enhancement) Act of
1970. Traditionally a major tourist attraction in Tobago, this reef is impacted by a
number of socio-economic and environmental factors. In 1990, under a cooperative
project between the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) and the Tobago House of
Assembly (THA), ecological surveys of the reefs around Tobago were conducted
and a management plan was proposed for the Buccoo Reef Marine Park. The
project had several components which studied the environmental conditions of
the reef, and included public education and awareness as well as socio-economic
aspects (Institute of Marine Affairs, 1994a, 1994b).

7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

7.1 Research and projects
A research project developed in 1999, which was a collaborative effort between
the University of East Anglia, the University of the West Indies and the THA
(Brown et al., 1998, 1999), attempted to develop and promote sustainable
resource-use strategies through an analysis of the conflicts and trade-offs between
different uses and users of the marine protected area. The project was viewed
by stakeholders and the THA as an important contribution to implementing
sustainable coastal resource use, as outlined in the management plan for the
Buccoo Reef Marine Park, especially since the existing situation was one
of conflicting management, ineffective enforcement and suspicion and non-
communication between stakeholders, including resource managers. The study
used multi-criteria analysis (MCA) as a framework for assessing the resource use
strategies and for quantifying the impacts of coastal zone management options
on the urban and rural communities in the coastal zone. Research included the
collection of economic, social and ecological data to perform an environmental
economic valuation of the Buccoo Reef Marine Park. Social and economic data
collection was based on a survey to estimate consumer surplus from recreational
use of the marine park, a census of informal business vendors, and a series of semi-
structured interviews. Ecological data, including fish counts by species, mangrove
leaf fall, water quality and plankton tows, were used to estimate productivity. The
Tobago tourism sector was modeled to determine the economic costs and benefits
of various tourism development options. Results of the surveys showed a high
degree of consensus among stakeholders which provided the potential action for
co-management. Future work will seek to address how the participatory processes
can be institutionalized.
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 343

Fisheries research is the responsibility of mainly two governmental agencies, the

Fisheries Division in Trinidad and the Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
in Tobago. The Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) and the University of the West
Indies (UWI) also conduct fisheries research. However, these two institutions
share a much broader mandate. IMA operates a regional Fish Age and Growth
Laboratory established under the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism
(CRFM). Although there is collaboration among the government agencies, UWI
and IMA, there is room for improvement in the coordination of research which
would significantly improve the efficiency, relevancy and technical output for
fisheries management in Trinidad and Tobago. Additionally, the Fisheries Division
collaborates with other departments within the Ministry of Agriculture, as well as
other governmental bodies with responsibility for trade, the environment, health
and research. The Division also collaborates with FAO, ICCAT, CRFM and other
regional bodies with common fisheries-related interests.
This report focuses only on data collection programmes implemented by the
Fisheries Division and Fisheries and Marine Affairs Section. These programmes
are designed to collect data on fisheries landings and effort, biology of selected,
commercially important species, and details on fishing boats and gear.
Biological studies have been conducted on several major commercial species.
These include several species of shrimp (Henry, 1987; Lum Young et al., 1992),
groundfish (Dass, 1983; Manickchand-Dass and Julien, 1983; Manickchand-
Dass, 1987; Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip, 1992a, 1992b, 1996, 1999, 2000;
Manickchand-Heileman and Kenny, 1990a, 1990b), flyingfish (Samlalsingh and
Pandohee, 1992), sharks (Chan A. Shing, 1993, 1999b) and mackerels (Sturm,
1974, 1978; Sturm and Julien, 1983; Julien et al., 1984; Sturm et al., 1987; Sturm
and Salter, 1990; Henry and Martin, 1992). Among the biological characteristics
studied are morphometrics, reproduction, age and growth and length-weight
relationships.
The Fisheries Division does not routinely conduct ecological studies. These
studies are usually conducted in association with the IMA and UWI. Further,
there are no routine social and economic data collection programmes. As a result,
studies conducted thus far have been either ad hoc or the subject of short-term
projects funded externally.

7.2 Data and statistics

Fisheries landings and fishing effort: Collection of fisheries landing and fishing
effort data in Trinidad was instituted in the mid-1950s (Kenny, 1955; Kenny
and LaGois, 1961). The early system focused on two major fish markets: one in
the north of the island at Port of Spain, the other in the south at San Fernando
(Figure 1); but this system has since been expanded to include 23 of the 65 existing
landing sites around Trinidad (Ferreira, 2003). The current system records data on
all trawl fleets (soft-substrate demersal fishery) and the artisanal multigear fleet
(all three fisheries), but no data are recorded for the semi-industrial multigear fleet
which targets the hard-substrate demersal fishery. The interview method is used
344 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

to acquire information on the quantity of fish landed by species, ex-vessel price

by species, fishing duration, gears used, areas fished, crew number and ex-vessel
price per species. The system incorporates a formal process for data verification
and editing, as well as regular training of data collectors in species identification
and data collection techniques. Data from 1995 are computerized in an Oracle-
based system which generates estimates of total landings, ex-vessel value and
fishing effort from recorded data. Various institutional capacity impediments
constrain the Fisheries Division’s ability to computerize and analyse historical
data collected between 1960 and 1994. Ad hoc collection of landings data began
in the early 1970s in Tobago. In 1988 the system was regularized but focused
only on the artisanal multigear fleets which targeted flyingfish from about three
landings sites on the island. A 1995 system modification sought to include all
three coastal fisheries through monthly random sampling at 8 of 45 landing sites.
However, institutional capacity difficulties have hindered use of the data for stock
assessment and management.
Biological data collection: Prior to 1991, biological data were collected on an
ad hoc basis to address short-term projects and data needs. Routine collection
of biological data began in 1991 under an FAO/UNDP project to establish data
collection systems and assess marine fisheries resources. The project focused
on five major shrimp species, Serra Spanish mackerel, king mackerel and sharks
(Carcharhinidae) in Trinidad, as well as the four-winged flyingfish (Hirundichthys
affinis) in Tobago. Length frequency data were collected for both shrimp and fish
species. In addition, maturity (including gonad weight) data were recorded and
otolith samples extracted for ageing of fish species. The collection of biological
data was also assisted by the regional Caribbean Community Fisheries Resource
Assessment and Management Programme (CFRAMP). In Tobago, monthly
collection of biological data (length frequency and maturity) for flyingfish began
in 1988 under a regional Eastern Caribbean Flyingfish Project. The FAO/UNDP
project continued and strengthened the data collection between 1991 and 1992.
Biological data collection was reintroduced in 1996 for a year’s duration under the
CFRAMP, and expanded to include dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), yellowfin
tuna (Thunnus albacares), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), albacore (Thunnus
alalunga), king mackerels (Scomberomorus cavalla) and vermillion snapper
(Rhomboplites aurorubens). Institutional capacity difficulties have hampered the
collection of biological data at varying times on both islands.
Fishing vessel and fisher details: The earliest census of fishing vessels was
undertaken in Trinidad and Tobago in 1942 (Brown, 1942; Mohammed and
Chan A. Shing, 2003). A recent study identified several other similar surveys:
1946 (Anonymous, 1948); 1957 (Anonymous, 1958; 1959 (Kenny, 1960); 1968
(Vidaeus, 1970); and 1980 (Fisheries Division Vessel Census, unpublished data).
The level of detail has varied from a simple list of fishing vessels to a list of vessels
by landing site, fishery and gear type. Since then, national vessel censuses have
been conducted in 1991 (under the FAO/UNDP project referred to previously),
1998 and 2003 (Chan A. Shing, 1999a; Fisheries Division, unpublished data).
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 345

These censuses have further expanded the scope of the data collected to include
information on vessel and engine characteristics, associated seasonality of
operations, fishery targeted and species caught. The data are currently used with
catch statistics to generate estimates of total landings. A vessel registration system
captures details on vessel characteristics (e.g. length, width, depth, colour, method
of propulsion, engine horsepower and brand, year of construction, costs of vessel
and engines, dates of purchase). A fisher registration system captures economic as
well as demographic information on fishers (e.g. date of birth, address, physical
characteristics, family size, level of education, fisheries-related training, gear used
and an inventory on the number of boats, engines and vehicles owned). Both the
fisher and vessel registration systems are, however, voluntary and are used mainly
for the management of subsidy claims.

7.3 Information management system

An information management system was established at the Fisheries Division in
1989, with funding from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Although there are three modules, socio-economic, harvest and stock assessment,
only the latter two have been developed. The harvest module contains landings
and fishing effort statistics described previously. The stock assessment module
comprises an electronic bibliographic database on regional marine fisheries
resources and management (in published reports, theses and grey literature) and
data processing methodologies. Approximately 60% of holdings are available in
hard copy form at the Division’s Library/Information Centre. Specific research
projects also contributed to the inclusion of research survey cruise information
and social, economic, ecological and environmental information for the Gulf
of Paria in this bibliographic database. The information is available to the local
public and the Division also responds to requests from regional and international
institutions.

7.4 Education, training and capacity building

Currently, the Fisheries Division presents general information describing fisheries,
stock status, management and conservation through seminars, posters and
exhibitions to the public and at the request of institutions. Conservation-
related programmes, specifically for marine turtles, are implemented by the
Forestry Division of the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine
Affairs. Conservation is generally promoted by a number of non-governmental
organizations in Trinidad and Tobago. However, there is no national database
identifying all such establishments and their focus of interest.
The Caribbean Fisheries Training and Development Institute, based in Trinidad,
provides training in seamanship, navigation, engine repair and fish processing
techniques to members of the fishing community in Trinidad and Tobago and the
rest of the Eastern Caribbean. Fishers can also access a variety of education and
training programmes, implemented by the Ministry of Social Development, which
promote employment in other non-fishing sectors.
346 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

8. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Currently, fisheries management in Trinidad and Tobago is driven by regional and
international initiatives for sustainable utilization of living marine resources, amidst
threats of possible trade embargoes in response to non-compliance. Although
elements of a management system exist, outdated legislation, weak linkages among
key government and non-governmental agencies, limited stakeholder involvement,
inadequate monitoring and enforcement, absence of a mechanism linking science
with policy, exclusion of fisheries consideration in coastal zone management, and
inadequate socio-economic data have contributed to the weak performance of the
current management system. Current management suffers from a lack of planning
and non-implementation of measures already recommended. Some critical
management issues, with emphasis on Trinidad, are discussed below.

8.1 Legislation
The overall fisheries policy embodies international conservation and management
initiatives. However, the legal basis for implementing management recommendations
is limited for the majority of fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago. The new Draft
Fisheries Management Act, when passed by Parliament, will address many
of the country’s fisheries management issues. The proposed new legislation
incorporates all management requirements under international conventions and
regional initiatives to which Trinidad and Tobago is signatory, as well as measures
to ensure sustainable use of fisheries resources, involvement of stakeholders in
the management process, and acquisition of fisheries data and information to
guide future management measures. Between the Fisheries Act (1916) and the
Archipelagic Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1986), there still remains
no control over local fishing in the EEZ area outside the 12 nautical mile territorial
sea, no regulations for the management of freshwater fisheries and no legal basis
for the licensing of vessels as a management measure (Fish and Fish Processing
Industry Team, 2005). As a result, the majority of fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago
have remained open access.

8.2 Institutional structure

The institutional structure of the Fisheries Division in Trinidad has remained
essentially unchanged since the 1980s. The Division, within the last ten years, has
experienced a loss of ‘institutional memory’ and a severely reduced capacity to
address current national, regional and international fisheries management issues.
The Division is comprised of a Marine Fishery Analysis Unit, an Extension Unit, a
Fisheries Monitoring, Surveillance and Enforcement Unit (described previously),
an Aquaculture Unit and an Administrative Unit. The Marine Fishery Analysis Unit
collects fisheries catch and effort and biological data, conducts stock assessments
and other fisheries related assessments, and provides associated management
advice. The Extension Unit conducts vessel inspections, issues fisher and vessel
registrations, implements the subsidies programme, processes fish import and
export licences, and attends to fishers claims for loss of earnings. The Aquaculture
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 347

Unit encourages the establishment of small-scale aquaculture business enterprises

through training of aquaculturists. The Administrative Unit is responsible for
the general day-to-day functions of the Division and matters relating to fisheries
policy and management in consultation with decision-makers at higher levels
within the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs. Development
of the Division’s technical capability to assess the social and economic impacts of
fisheries management as well as the impacts of coastal development on fisheries,
and to undertake long-term policy review and planning, is critical to addressing
current national, regional and international fisheries management issues.
The Fisheries Division receives administrative, financial and technical support
from a number of national, regional and international agencies. However, current
linkages between the Fisheries Division and other government agencies, as well
as non-governmental organizations, are weak. These linkages provide little
support for directed social assistance programmes to the industry, training and
alternative employment opportunities, apart from those already administered by
the Division. The role of fisheries in rural development and poverty alleviation is
also not well articulated.

8.3 Linkage between scientists and decision-makers

Research findings suggest that much of the marine coastal resources are either
heavily or overexploited, yet several management recommendations have not
been implemented. The limited implementation of management recommendations
thus far has been motivated either by regional or international pressure or
extreme dissatisfaction of the fishing community. Current research initiatives and
management could benefit considerably from a formal communication mechanism
among the decision-makers, fisheries scientists and the fishing industry that would
be expected to facilitate policy driven research and industry support for resulting
management measures. The draft fisheries policy and draft Fisheries Management
Act provide for such a mechanism (Fisheries Division, 2007b).

8.4 Monitoring and enforcement

Effective fisheries management, as might be achieved through the monitoring and
surveillance of the industry’s operations, is hampered by the existing legislative
framework, as well as the low priority assigned to fisheries by the standard
regulatory agencies (i.e. Coast Guard and Police Services). The geographical area
covered by current surveillance activities of the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard
is therefore inadequate. Illegal fishing by vessels from other countries continues
(e.g. longline and handline vessels fish off the north and east coasts of Trinidad and
iceboats fish off the north coast of Tobago). The limited national monitoring and
enforcement capability has put local fishers at the risk of piracy, resulting in the
loss of boats, engines and fishing gear, and occasionally the loss of life (Fish and
Fish Processing Industry Team, 2005). The situation is exacerbated by the non-
adherence of fishers to basic safety requirements while at sea.
348 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

8.5 Traditional resource management and stakeholder participation

Rights-based resource allocation or conservation-based traditional management
systems are not implemented for any of the fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago.
However, a ‘turn’ system, based on informal rules which confer the right of a
net owner to operate his beach seine at a specified time and in a specified area, is
in effect. This system reduces the incidence of conflict when several beach seine
owners operate their gear at a beach of limited space.
A forum for stakeholder involvement in policy formulation and decision-
making on matters impacting their livelihoods and the sustainability of fisheries
is provided under the Monitoring and Advisory Committee (MAC), established
in 1997. Representatives from the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine
Affairs, the Institute of Marine Affairs, the University of the West Indies, the
Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard, the Environmental Management Authority,
the fishing industry, and a non-governmental community-based organization
comprise the MAC. Despite this diverse membership, however, there still remains
limited stakeholder participation in the management process since the Committee
is largely public sector driven.

8.6 Integrated coastal zone management

In Trinidad and Tobago, the responsibility for environmental and coastal zone
management rests with the Institute of Marine Affairs, the Environmental
Management Authority (arising from the Environmental Management Act No. 3 of
1997) and the Ministry of Planning, Housing and the Environment. Multisectoral
use of the coastal zone has developed in an uncoordinated manner, resulting
in conflict among users. On the west coast of Trinidad, for example, industrial
activity associated with the oil and gas sector as well as chemical, aluminium
and steel plants, agriculture and human settlement all occur simultaneously with
fishing. In Tobago, fisheries-related conflict occurs mainly with tourism sector
activities. Due to the country’s developmental thrust, access to the coastal zone is
restricted. Future development is expected to further restrict access.
A mechanism for consideration of the impacts of coastal zone development
on fisheries was proposed by a 1993 FAO/UNDP Project on Integrated Coastal
Fisheries Management. Some of these impacts include displacement of fishers from
traditional fishing areas and associated loss of income, pollution of the marine
environment, destruction of critical habitats such as nursery areas and breeding
grounds of marine fish and invertebrate species of commercial importance, and
changes in the distribution of fisheries resources due to seismic activity associated
with the petrochemical industry. The Fisheries Division, along with several other
state agencies, currently reviews environmental impact assessments provided
by developers prior to the issuance of Certificates of Environmental Clearance
(CEC) by the Environmental Management Authority. Developers are required
to modify their plans and include mitigation measures should their activity
have potential to negatively impact the fishing industry. However, appropriate
legislation, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are required to ensure
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 349

industry accountability and effectiveness of the process. The fishing sector

remains marginalized as the petrochemical and natural gas sectors and related
industries take precedent in the development agenda in Trinidad and the tourism
industry takes precedent in Tobago. These sectors are the main sources of foreign
exchange for the country. Zoning use of the coastal area is required to ensure non-
disruption of fishing and related activities by other users of the coastal zone (Fish
and Fish Processing Industry Team, 2005).

8.7 Data availability

Consideration of the social and economic impacts of coastal development and
fisheries management decisions on the livelihood of fishers has been limited.
In addition, there is need for systems which make available information easily
accessible for management decision-making. Currently, there are few established
reporting systems through which the economic performance of fishing fleets,
wholesale and retail sales and regional and international trade can be monitored.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge staff members of the Fisheries Division,
Trinidad, who are responsible for data collection and computerization, report
generation and data quality control. We are extremely grateful to Mr Kieron
Draper who prepared the maps in this chapter and to the reviewers for their
valuable comments and suggestions.

REFERENCES
Alió J., Marcano L., Soomai S., Phillips T., Altuve D., Álvarez R., Die D. &
Cochrane K. 1999. Analysis of industrial trawl and artisanal fisheries of whitemouth
croaker, Micropogonias furnieri, of Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago in the Gulf of
Paria and Orinoco River Delta. In Report of the third CFRAMP/FAO Workshop
on Stock Assessment of Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries of the Brazil-Guiana Shelf,
Belem, Brazil, 25 May–9 June, 1999. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 628: 138–148.
Amos M. 1990. A study of Type III shrimp trawling in the Gulf of Paria. Advanced
Diploma in Resources Management and Environmental Studies. University of the
West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados.
Anonymous. 1948. Administration report of the Director of Agriculture for the year
1947. Port of Spain.
Anonymous. 1958. A reconnaissance agricultural and fisheries survey of the eastern
counties of Trinidad and East Victoria. Report of the team which visited Trinidad
in July 1957. Bulletin of Development and Welfare in the West Indies. No. 38.
Reproduced by the National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago. Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies.
Boodoosingh M. 1995. Community Survey. Summ. Rep. FAO/UNDP Project
INT/91/007 Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine
Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Brown H.H. 1942. The sea fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago. Development and
Welfare Bulletin No. 2.
350 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Brown K., Adger N., Tompkins E., Bacon P., Shim D. & Young K. 1998. A framework
for incorporating stakeholder participation in Marine Resource Management: A case
study in Tobago. Global environmental change working paper 98–23. Centre for
Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University
of East Anglia: Norwich, United Kingdom.
Brown K., Adger N., Tompkins E., Bacon P., Shim D. & Young K. 1999. Evaluating
the trade-offs between users of marine protected areas in the Caribbean. Summary
of the final technical report to DFID NRSP land-water interface programme.
O.D.G. Working Paper. Overseas Development Group, School of Development
Studies Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
(CSERGE), University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Camps-Campins K. 1995. Household survey. Summary report. FAO/UNDP Project
INT/91/007. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine
Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Chan A. Shing C. 1993. The status of shark resources in Trinidad and Tobago. Fisheries
Division Internal Report No. 2. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land
and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Chan A. Shing C. 1999a. Report on 1998 census of fishing vessels (Trinidad). Fisheries
Internal Report No. 3. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine
Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Chan A. Shing C. 1999b. Shark fisheries in the Caribbean: The status of their
management including issues of concern in Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and
Dominica. In Case studies of the management of elasmobranch fisheries. Edited by
R. Shotton. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 378, Part 1. Rome, FAO.
Chan A. Shing C. 2002. Atlas: Marine fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago. Part I:
Trinidad Inshore Fisheries. Fisheries information series 10. Fisheries Division,
Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and
Tobago.
Dass. 1983. Some aspects of the biology of the lane snapper Lutjanus synagris
(Linnaeus, 1758) in Trinidad. IMA Res. Rep. No.12/83. Institute of Marine Affairs.
Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Dié D., Alió J.J., Marcano L., Ferreira L. & Soomai S. 2004. Assessment of demersal
stocks shared by Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela. Stock assessment report of the
Trinidad and Tobago–Venezuela Meeting under the FAO/Western Central Atlantic
Fishery Commission ad hoc Working Group on the Shrimp and Groundfish
Resources of the Guiana-Brazil Shelf. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago, 18–22
November 2002. DRAFT.
FAO. 2006. Fisheries Country Profiles [online document] www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/
TTO/profile.htm. Retrieved on 21 November 2006.
Ferreira L. 1998. Economic analysis of the shrimp trawl fishery of Trinidad and
Tobago with management implications. Thesis: Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada.
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 351

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

Henry C. & Martin L. 1992. Preliminary stock assessment for the carite fishery of
Trinidad. Technical Report of the Project for the Establishment of Data Collection
Systems and Assessment of the Fisheries Resources. FAO/UNDP:TRI/91/001/
TR10. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources.
Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Hodgkinson-Clarke F.M. 1994. The construction and operation of artisanal gillnets in
Trinidad. Occasional Paper Series No. 3, Fisheries Division. Ministry of Agriculture,
Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Hutchinson S.D., Seepersad G., Singh R. & Rankine L. 2007. Study on the
socio-economic importance of bycatch in the demersal trawl fishery for shrimp
in Trinidad and Tobago. Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension,
Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of the West Indies. St. Augustine,
Trinidad, Trinidad and Tobago.
Institute of Marine Affairs. 1994a. The formulation of a management plan for the
Buccoo Reef Marine Park: IMA/THA Coral Reef Project Phase II, Volume IV:
Socio-economic aspects. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Institute of Marine Affairs. 1994b. The formulation of a management plan for the
Buccoo Reef Marine Park: IMA/THA Coral Reef Project Phase II, Volume V:
Public Education and Awareness. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Institute of Marine Research. 1989. Final report: Surveys of the fish resources in the
shelf area between Suriname and Colombia 1988. The Institute of Marine Research,
Bergen, Norway.
Jobity A., Kuruvilla S., Amos M. & Ferreira L. 1997. National report on the shrimp
and groundfish fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago. In National report and selected
papers presented at the Fourth Meeting of the WECAFC ad hoc Shrimp and
Groundfish Working Group of the Guiana-Brazil Continental Shelf and CFRAMP
Shrimp and Groundfish Subproject Specification Workshop. Port of Spain, Trinidad
and Tobago, 8–12 January 1996. FAO Fisheries Paper. No. 544 (Suppl.): 62–95.
Julien M., Salter P. & Sturm M. 1984. Studies on the mackerel fishery of Trinidad. Part
II: A preliminary report on mortality and recruitment of the carite Scomberomorus
brasiliensis (Collette, Russo and Zavala–Camin) in Trinidad. IMA Res. Rep.
IMA/1/84.
Kenny J.S. 1955. Statistics of the Port of Spain wholesale fish market. Journal of the
Agricultural Society, June issue: 3–8.
Kenny J.S. 1960. Some notes on the standardization of fishery statistics with an
outline of the system used in Trinidad and Tobago. Fisheries Division, Ministry of
Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Kenny J.S. & Lagois D.E. 1961. Availability of fish in Trinidad waters in 1960. West
Indies Fisheries Bulletin, 3: 14 p.
Kishore R. & Clarke-Marshall M. 2005. An investigation of the fisheries resources,
resource users and fisheries management by communities to establish a framework
for co-management: Manzanilla to Guayaguayare, east coast Trinidad. Institute of
Marine Affairs. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 353

Kishore R., Ramsundar H. & Clarke-Marshall M. 2005. Development of a fisheries

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

Manickchand-Heileman S. & Kenny J. 1990b. Reproduction, age and growth of the

whitemouth croaker Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest 1823) in Trinidad waters.
Fish. Bull., 88 (Suppl. 3): 523-529.
Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1992a. Preliminary stock assessment for the
fish pot fishery of Tobago. Technical Report of the Project for the Establishment of
Data Collection Systems and Assessment of the Fisheries Resources. FAO/UNDP:
TRI/91/001/TR12. July 1992. Port of Spain, Trinidad.
Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1992b. Resource assessment profiles of the
red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens),
yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus), yellowmouth grouper
(Mycteroperca interstitialis) and grunt (Haemulon melanurum). Tech. Rep. Proj.
FAO/UNDP/TRI/91/001/TR04. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1999a. Description and status of the snapper/
grouper fishery of Trinidad and Tobago. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 45: 189–204.
Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1996. Reproduction, age and growth of the
Caribbean red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus) in waters off Trinidad and Tobago.
In Biology, fisheries and culture of tropical groupers and snappers. Edited by
F. Arreguín-Sánchez, J.L. Munro, M.C. Balgos and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conf. Proc.
48, Manila, pp. 137–149.
Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 1999. Contribution to the biology of the
vermillion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens. Env. Biol. Fish., 55: 413–421.
Manickchand-Heileman S. & Phillip D. 2000. Age and growth of the yellowedge
grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus, and the yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca
interstitialis, off Trinidad and Tobago. Fish. Bull., 98 (Suppl. 2): 290–298.
Manickchand-Heileman S., Mendoza-Hill J., Lum Kong A. & Arocha F. 2004. A
trophic model for exploring possible ecosystem impacts of fishing in the Gulf of
Paria, between Venezuela and Trinidad. Ecol. Model., 172: 307-322.
Martin L. & Dié D. 2008. Assessment of the king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)
fishery of Trinidad and Tobago. In CRFM, 2008. Annual Scientific Meeting Report
– 2007. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincent
and the Grenadines (in press).
Martin L. & Hoggarth D. 2007. The king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) fishery
of Trinidad and Tobago. In CRFM, 2007. Annual Scientific Meeting Report – 2006.
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines. (1): 235-265.
Martin L. & Nowlis J.S. 2004. Surplus production model of Serra Spanish mackerel
(Scomberomorus brasiliensis). Report of the First Annual CRFM (Caribbean
Regional Fisheries Mechanism) Scientific Meeting, 28–30 June 2004. St. Vincent and
the Grenadines.
Medley P. & Ferreira L. 2004. Preliminary assessment of the Farfantepenaeus notialis
and Xiphopenaeus kroyeri stocks in the Trinidad and Tobago trawl fishery. Report
of the First Annual CRFM (Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism) Scientific
Meeting, 28–30 June 2004. St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Coastal fisheries of Trinidad and Tobago 355

Mike A.J. 1993. A survey of the recreational/part-time fishery of the north-west

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

Soomai S. & Porch C. 2007. The lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) fishery of
Trinidad and Tobago. In CRFM, 2007. Annual Scientific Meeting Report – 2006.
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines. (1): 219–232
Soomai S. & Seijo J.C. 2000. Case study for a technologically interdependent
groundfish fishery: the artisanal multispecies, multifleet groundfish fishery of
Trinidad. Fourth FAO/WECAFC Stock Assessment and Management Workshop
on the Shrimp and Groundfish Resources of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf, Cumana,
Venezuela, 2–13 October 2000.
Soomai S., Ehrhardt N., Cochrane K. & Phillip T. 1999. Stock assessment of two
sciaenid fisheries in the west coast of Trinidad and Tobago. In Report of the third
CFRAMP/FAO/Stock Assessment Workshop on the Shrimp and Groundfish
Resources of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf, Belem, Brazil, 25 May–9 June, 1999. FAO
Fisheries Report. No. 628: 124–137.
Sturm M.G. de L. 1974. Aspects of the biology of the Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus
maculatus (Mitchill) in Trinidad, West Indies. Ph.D Thesis. University of the West
Indies. St. Augustine, Trinidad.
Sturm M.G. de L. 1978. Aspects of the biology of Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill)
in Trinidad. J. Fish. Biol., 13: 157-172.
Sturm M.G. de L. & Julien-Flus M. 1983. Studies of the mackerel fishery of Trinidad.
Part 1: the present status of the mackerel fishery. IMA Res. Rep. Institute of Marine
Affairs. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.
Sturm M.G. de L. & Salter P. 1990. Age and reproduction of the king mackerel,
Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier) in Trinidad waters. US Fish. Bull., 88: 361–370.
Sturm M.G. de L., Julien-Flus M. & Maingot J. 1987. Yield-per-recruit analysis of
the mackerel fishery in Trinidad. Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst., 38: 547–554.
University of the West Indies. 2006. Draft Report on Fisheries Public Consultation
conducted during the period May to August 2006. Submitted to the Fisheries
Division based on the agreement relating to consultancy services for the development
of a marine fisheries policy for the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine
Resources. Business Development Office, University of the West Indies, St.
Augustine, Trinidad.
Vidaeus L. 1970. An inventory of the Trinidad and Tobago Fishing Industry. Report
of the UNDP/FAO Caribbean Fishery Development Project. SF/CAR/REG/16
M 7:2.
Walker T.I. 1992. Trinidad and Tobago shark stock assessment. Mission Report. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
 357

13. Coastal fisheries of Uruguay

OMAR DEFEO*, PABLO PUIG, SEBASTIÁN HORTA AND ANITA DE ÁLAVA

Defeo, O., Puig, P., Horta, S. and de Álava, A. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Uruguay. In S. Salas,
R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the
Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 357–384.

1. Introduction 357
2. Description of fisheries and fishing activity 358
2.1 Introduction 358
2.2 Historical fishery phases in Uruguay 360
2.3 Definition of a coastal fishery 363
2.4 Description of artisanal fisheries 364
3. Assessment of fisheries 367
3.1 Methodological framework 367
3.2 Fishes 368
3.3 Invertebrates: crustaceans and molluscs 374
4. Fishery management and planning 376
5. Issues and challenges 377
Acknowledgements 379
References 380

1. INTRODUCTION
Uruguay is a country approximately 176 000 km2, with a population of over
3.2 million. It is the second smallest country in South America, and is located
between Argentina and Brazil and borders the Río de la Plata estuary and
the South Atlantic Ocean. The terrain is mostly plains and low hills, with
718 kilometres of coastline. The capital, Montevideo, is located on the coast and
utilizes its natural harbour to act as an important commercial centre. The country
is highly urbanized, with more than 92% of Uruguayans living in urban areas.
Uruguay is divided up into 19 departments, which are political divisions
with their own administrator elected by popular vote. The Uruguayan fisheries
sector contributes significantly to the country’s gross national product (GNP),
representing more than US$160 million per year in export earnings derived
from catches reaching up to 140 000 tonnes. There are six departments which

* Contact information: UNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias and DINARA. Montevideo, Uruguay.

E-mail: odefeo@dinara.gub.uy
358 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

participate in coastal fisheries: Colonia, San José, Montevideo, Canelones, Rocha

and Maldonado. Uruguayan ecosystems where fisheries are developed are mainly
included within the Uruguay-Buenos Aires shelf ecoregion, which has been
assigned with the highest rank of conservation importance in Latin America and
the Caribbean (Sullivan and Bustamante, 1999).
In this chapter, we provide an overview of coastal fisheries in Uruguay. First,
we describe the temporal extractive phases experienced by Uruguayan fisheries,
and the corresponding socio-economic and managerial scenarios. Second, we
define artisanal and coastal fisheries and the methodological implications when
addressing them for Uruguay. Third, we assess the role of coastal artisanal fisheries
within the global activity of the fishing sector, in terms of temporal variations in
global catch, fleet composition and number of fishers. These fishery descriptors
are compared with those obtained for the industrial subsector. We also address
several bio-socio-economic indicators to characterize the status of the most
important coastal fisheries in the country. Last, we discuss management and policy
alternatives directed to improve the situation of artisanal fisheries.

2. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES AND FISHING ACTIVITY

2.1 Introduction
The Uruguayan Plan for Fisheries Development began in the early 1970s. In 1973,
the signature of the ‘Tratado del Río de la Plata y su Frente Marítimo’ with Argentina
allowed the industrial fishing fleet of Uruguay to have access to shared resources
in the Uruguayan-Argentinian Common Fishing Zone (UACFZ) extended
between 34º south latitude and 39º30' south latitude (Figure 1). In 1975, a legal
and institutional framework was established, which facilitated the development of
the sector through a policy that privileges the promotion of exportations through
incentives and credits. An assessment of the sector (INFOPESCA, 2001) revealed
that the three most important fish resources targeted by the industrial fleet (hake,
white croaker and stripped weakfish) showed signs of overexploitation. In a later
study (Milessi et al., 2005), the application of a multispecies approach (60 stocks
considered) showed declines in: (i) total landings; (ii) the Mean Trophic Level in
major trophic webs; and (iii) the Fishing-in-Balance index (FishBase, 2008) of
Uruguayan landings between 1990 and 2001. These results can be considered as
surrogate indicators of impact and quality of marine ecosystems.
The above concerns have been widely documented in Uruguayan industrial
fisheries, as in many parts of the world (Botsford et al., 1997; Pauly et al., 2002;
Myers and Worm, 2003). However, small-scale artisanal fisheries constitute a
second component for this world fishery crisis, normally ignored or erroneously
lumped into the industrial component (Castilla and Defeo, 2005). In the past,
proximate causes of fishery overexploitation and potential (but ineffective)
solutions, already documented for industrial fisheries, have ignored this artisanal
subsector. This overemphasis on industrial fisheries also occurred in Uruguay,
from the very beginning of the Fishing Plan developed in the 1970s.
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 359

FIGURE 1
Study area comprising the 7 nm from the coast along the Río de la Plata and Atlantic
Ocean waters. The Uruguayan-Argentinian Common Fishing Zone (UACFZ) and the
Uruguayan exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are also shown

Coastal fisheries in Uruguay are mostly artisanal in scale and provide a

broad range of services important to human socio-economic development in
the country’s coastal areas (INFOPESCA, 2001; Puig, 2006; Pin et al., 2006).
Pressure on the country’s artisanal fisheries appear to be continuously growing
due to new entries into the sector; a trend that can be attributable to relatively
high unemployment rates, coupled with low investment and operating costs, and
easy access to stocks even under diminishing catch rates and economic returns.
The above concepts take utmost importance when considering that some coastal
ecosystems of Uruguay constitute essential habitats that include spawning and
nursery grounds for the most important exploited species in Uruguay (Norbis
et al., 2006; Retta et al., 2006), notably the white croaker (Micropogonias furnieri)
and the stripped weakfish (Cynoscion guatucupa), which together represented
360 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

almost 40% of total Uruguayan catches for the period 2001–2003. These coastal
ecosystems are especially labile because they support important artisanal fisheries
of these species in the country. Moreover, coastal lagoons and river mouths along
the coastline constitute nursery grounds for several species artisanally targeted
by fisher communities. Additionally, Atlantic rocky (e.g. Isla de Lobos and Isla
Gorriti) and subtidal soft bottoms support coastal invertebrate fisheries (artisanal
or ‘medium-scale’ industrial) of increasing economic value that are fully exploited
(blue mussel) or under high risks of overexploitation (clams, gastropods: see Rey,
2000), some of them with important discarding rates (Rey et al., 2000) and under
an open access system.

2.2 Historical fishery phases in Uruguay

The historical analysis of the Uruguayan fishing sector revealed three exploitation
phases to describe long-term landing patterns: development, expansive and
overexploitation-diversification.

(1) The development phase extended approximately between the late 1960s and the
second half of the 1970s. It was characterized by relatively low and constant
landings. The fisheries operated primarily under open access regimes and the
products were mostly channelled to domestic markets. There were no major
foreign market openings. Incipient, although not reliable, statistical coverage
of fishery activity was set (Defeo, 1989). Absence of information was not
only restricted to this phase: it actually prevails in some non-traditionally
Uruguayan fisheries subject to increasing effort levels.
(2) The expansive extraction phase occurred during the second half of the 1970s
and early 1980s as a result of the Fishery Development Plan carried out by
Uruguay with the support of FAO. This period included the development of
the industrial fishing fleet, port infrastructure and the concomitant increase
of the processing sector. Uruguayan landings increased sixfold between 1975
and 1981 (Figure 2a), as a result of increasing demand from foreign markets
(e.g. Asia, United States of America) and the steady increase in the unit
prices of fishery products. Landings were mainly based on three demersal
fishes exploited by the industrial fleet: hake (Merluccius hubbsi), croaker
(Micropogonias furnieri) and the stripped weakfish (Cynoscion guatucupa).
Improvements in fishery technology and government credits stimulated
fishery activities (INFOPESCA, 2001). During this phase, employment rates,
income and welfare for the sector exponentially increased. The representation
of the fishery sector in the national economy increased from 0.13% of the gross
national product in 1975 to 0.61% in 1985, constituting the highest increment
of a given sector in the national economy during the 1980s. The Uruguayan
fishing industry was mainly directed to export markets. This phenomenon
persists today: the domestic market constitutes only approximately 5% as
a result of the relatively high prices of fish products when compared with
traditional products for domestic consumption such as meat. Even though not
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 361

all the stocks are subject to external market forces (export), the foreign market
constitutes an important driving force in fishery operations in Uruguay. This
expansive phase was somewhat stabilized in the mid-1980s (Figure 2a) when
management measures were implemented in the three stocks mentioned above,
which reached their respective maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels.
(3) The overexploitation-diversification phase began in the second half of the
1980s, but gained intensity during the 1990s. Two concurrent phenomena
occurred during this phase (Figure 2): (i) the most traditionally exploited
fish stocks displayed a decreasing trend in catches and fishing yield and also
showed signs of overexploitation, which were evident from the early 1990s
onwards and which persist today (Figure 2a); and (ii) new fisheries based
on virgin or underexploited stocks and also on incidental or bycatch species
(Figure 2b) were developed. This did not imply a significant shift of the fishing
effort exerted on traditional demersal stocks; rather, a development of new
fisheries based on virgin resources of high unit value and international demand
occurred (Milessi et al., 2005, and references therein).

Not only traditional demersal resources were fully exploited or even overexploited.
In several coastal artisanal fisheries the increase in unit prices, the lack of employment
and the open access regime stimulated short-term entry in these fisheries (Defeo,
1989). The easy access to resources at open coasts makes regulatory efforts expensive
and ineffective, and signs of overexploitation were detected in species like the yellow
clam (Mesodesma mactroides) (Castilla and Defeo, 2001) and in the blue mussel
(Mytilus edulis platensis) (Defeo and Riestra, 2000).
The diversification trend in fisheries, stimulated by government incentives
directed to promote exportation of products from non-traditional species (Nion,
1985), resulted in a marked increase in their relative representation in the total
catch, especially between 1993 and 1999 (Figure 2b). Indeed, at the beginning
of this time series, total landings were dominated by traditional demersal fishes
(i.e. hake, white croaker), but this trend was reversed during the 1990s, with
landings of non-traditional fisheries representing more than 45% of total landings
(Figure 2b) (see also Milessi et al., 2005). Consequently, total catches fluctuated
around 130 000 tonnes, similar to amounts seen in the early 1980s. However,
the more recent trend was the result of a combination of factors, including
the overexploitation of traditional stocks and a steady rise in exploitation of
non-traditional species. Furthermore, the increased pressure of non-traditional
resources compensated for the depletion of traditional species, hiding the issue of
overexploitation and depletion of once abundant stocks.
362 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 2
(a) Historical fishery landings of Uruguay, total and discriminated by traditional (hake,
croaker and stripped weakfish) and non-traditional stocks. (b) Percentage of non-
traditional catches for the period 1985–2003

The diversification of fisheries was, in some cases, accompanied by

multidisciplinary scientific research, ranging from the basic biology of the species
to economic analyses directed to assess the potential socio-economic benefits of the
activity (Defeo et al., 1994; Gutiérrez and Defeo, 2003). However, in most cases,
the absence of studies about life history traits, demography, and the dynamics of
stocks and the fishery leads to weak management schemes. The impressive increase
in fishing power of industrial vessels that occurred over the last two decades
determined progressive and yet unmeasured changes in catchability, which is also
subject to variations in fishing intensity and stock biomass. These interactions
have resulted in a poor ability to calibrate fishing effort, and hence have added to
the difficulty and uncertainty associated with estimating this variable in the long
term (Milessi and Defeo, 2002).
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 363

In Uruguay, the overexploitation trend in non-traditional resources occurred

during the diversification phase, a pattern that was supported by stock assessments
and percentage of total catch (Figure 2b). In this sense, a sequential depletion pattern,
already observed for Alaskan crustaceans throughout this century (Orensanz et al.,
1998), was also detected in the lapse of only two decades. The depletion of formerly
targeted species determined a shift onto formerly low-value species or newly
developed fisheries, thus shortening the temporal distance between fishery phases.
This phenomenon is actually occurring in the coastal multispecific fishery of the
gastropods (Pachycymbiola brasiliana, Adelomelon beckii and Zidona dufresnei)
(Riestra and Fabiano, 2000).

2.3 Definition of a coastal fishery

It is difficult to generalize on definitions embracing artisanal (often also called
small-scale) fisheries (Berkes et al., 2001; Castilla and Defeo, 2001). Artisanal
fisheries are difficult to define unambiguously and the term tends to cover
different realities in different countries. For instance, in some developing countries
artisanal fisheries include hand-gathering in the intertidal or a one-man canoe,
while 20-m trawlers, seiners or longliners are used in developed regions (Defeo
and Castilla, 2005). Further, the subdivision between artisanal and industrial
fisheries is not an internationally agreed concept. Definitions and associated data
are eventually found in selected national statistics using different criteria. This is
one of the main reasons why FAO, through the Fishery Information, Data and
Statistics Unit (FIDI), has never attempted to allocate systematically world catches
to one or other of the two categories. Here we define a Uruguayan artisanal
fishery as an activity mainly operating in inshore coastal waters, aimed for sale
and/or subsistence, by a single or small group of fishers that may or may not use
boats. If boats are used, they are generally small (wooden or fibreglass boats) and
equipped with oars, or outboard or inboard engines of less than 10 gross register
tonnage (GRT). Fishing trips are normally run during the day, and activities are
usually conducted at short distances from the base port, in the marine coastal zone
or in coastal lagoons. Intertidal hand-gathering fisheries in sandy beaches (surf
clams) or rocky shores (blue mussel) are also included. It should be noted that in
2003, the National Direction of Aquatic Resources (DINARA) did not allow the
incorporation of artisanal vessels with a GRT greater than 3 (Decree-Law No.
149/997) to the artisanal category; however, the figure of 10 GRT is kept here in
order to assess historical variations of the artisanal fishery.
In order to circumscribe the term ‘coastal fishery’, the area analysed here
extended from the intertidal to seven miles offshore. In this setting, it is possible to
assign an artisanal character to most coastal fishing activities developed within the
seven-mile jurisdiction zone. This definition is also supported by administrative
reasons, because the adjacent seven miles to the coast constitutes a fringe of
exclusive jurisdiction for the country included within the Territorial Sea defined
under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the
12 nautical mile zone from the baseline or low-water line along the coast. In this
364 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

coastal area, Uruguay establishes spatial and temporal closures directed to protect
aquatic resources, as well as the proper fishing gears to be used (Art. 37, Decree-
Law No. 149/997). The analyses of coastal fisheries provided in this document give
special emphasis to artisanal activities. However, in the case of sequential fisheries,
where two fleets are spatially segregated (e.g. coastal artisanal and industrial in
open seas), different components of the life cycle of one or more species are
affecting the extent of these technological interdependencies (Seijo et al., 1998).

2.4 Description of artisanal fisheries

Artisanal coastal fisheries in Uruguay are developed in continental waters (rivers),
coastal lagoons, rocky and sandy shores, and in inshore coastal waters extending
from the intertidal to some seven miles offshore. Fishes from continental and
marine-estuarine waters dominate artisanal catches, even though invertebrates are
increasingly exploited. Coastal fishes are exploited by a fishing fleet with a GRT
of less than 10 tonnes and 25 horsepower (hp) outboard engines, operating from
48 small ports along the coast and using a wide variety of fishing gears that include
gillnets, lines, hooks and traps. These fishing gears, as well as the main characteristics
of the fleet, have not been drastically altered during the last decades, with the
exception of a very low number of vessels (approximately 15), with a GRT between
3 and 10. Nowadays, artisanal vessels are less than 3 GRT (Puig, 2006).
Extraction of intertidal or shallow subtidal invertebrates is done by fishers,
who tend to operate individually under benign sea conditions at the intertidal
and/or the near surf zone in these microtidal coasts using shovels or even by
hand-picking. Divers operating from small artisanal boats, usually equipped with
outboard or inboard engines and ‘hookah’ air compressors, harvest subtidal beds
of blue mussels (Defeo and Riestra, 2000). They dive to maximum depths of 12 m
and the extracted shellfish are sold to a middleman. A very small percentage of
the catch is for self-subsistence. In the case of gastropods, the main activities are
performed by coastal bottom trawlers with a higher GRT than artisanal ones. The
fishery could be seen as sequential, even though artisanal fleet activities over these
stocks have been sporadic.
Physiographic characteristics of the coast determine that the most important
coastal fisheries are in fact sequential fisheries where adult stages are exploited
by the industrial fleet in open seas. Figure 3 categorizes all Uruguayan fisheries
according to their mechanization degree: (i) in case of marine fishes, artisanal
fleets mostly operate on resources shared with industrial ones, defining sequential
fisheries; (ii) freshwater fishes from continental waters (not included in this
document) are exploited exclusively by artisanal fleets; and (iii) invertebrates are
exploited by industrial (e.g. deep sea red crab) or artisanal (e.g. blue mussel and
yellow clam fleets) and, in some cases, in a sequential form (e.g. gastropods). In
case (i), the management framework is even more complex because most of these
fisheries are shared with Argentina, as is the case in the most important coastal
fisheries (i.e. white croaker and stripped weakfish).
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 365

FIGURE 3
Uruguayan fisheries by the mechanization degree of the fleets and by resource type

Number of fisheries
15

10

0
Marine Freshwater Invertebrates
fishes fishes

Industrial Artisanal Sequential

The artisanal fishery exhibits comparatively reduced extractive catches and

sometimes competes with the industrial fishery. Catches from traditional industrial
fisheries decreased from 1992 onwards because the three most important
industrial fisheries achieved an upper ceiling close to their MSY (Figure 2a).
The fairly constant catch levels for the period 1994–2003 have been achieved
because of the exploitation of other stocks during the diversification phase.
However, a decreasing trend is also noticed from the historical maximum close to
140 000 tonnes in 1998. In contrast, the artisanal fishery remained fairly constant
(3 000– 4 000 tonnes) during the same period (Figure 4a).
The number of artisanal vessels has been, on average, more than six times
higher than in the industrial subsector (Figure 4b). The number of industrial
vessels registered between 1975 and 2003 has been close to 90, showing a slight
increase from 1997 to present, with a maximum of 116 in 2003 (last year analysed).
On the other side, the number of artisanal vessels increased linearly from 1975
(269) to 1996 (905). In the latter, DINARA updated the information of the fleet to
those with a GRT of less than 3, cancelling permits of those vessels which did not
perform fishing activities during the last years or for a variety of other reasons.
However, the number of artisanal vessels increased again from 1996 to 2003,
reaching almost 600 vessels at the end of the analysed period (Figure 4b). It must
be highlighted that fishers who carry out hand-gathering activities in the intertidal
(e.g. almejeros) are not included here.
Artisanal and industrial fisheries directly engage the same number of fishers:
the industrial fleet registered an average of 1 538 fishers for the period 1997–2003,
whereas the average of artisanal fishers has been close to 1 283 (Figure 4c). Both
subsectors have shown an increase in the number of fishers through time, with
a historical maximum of 1 782 (artisanal) and 1 400 (industrial) fishers for the
366 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

last year of analysis (2003). Taking into account the catch volumes obtained by
both fleets, the mean catch per unit of employment generated has been almost
30 times higher in the artisanal subsector, highlighting its critical socio-economic
importance in Uruguay.

FIGURE 4
Temporal variations in: (a) catch; (b) number of vessels; and (c) fishers
in the artisanal („) and industrial (†) fleets of Uruguay.

160

140
(a)
Catch (tonnes per 1 000)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
1 000
(b)
800
Recategorization
Vessels

600

400

200

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
2 000
(c)(c)
Fishers

1 500

1 000

500

0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Note: The number of stakeholders in related activities (e.g.

processing plants) is not considered here.
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 367

3. ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
3.1 Methodological framework
Most information was collected from the DINARA in Uruguay. The methodological
approach was based on the analysis of the following information (see also
INFOPESCA, 2001): (i) surveys directed to assess the abundance and population
dynamics features of the stocks; (ii) commercial samplings; and (iii) fishery
statistics obtained from logdocuments. In order to assess the status of each
fishery, the following criteria were considered: (i) distributional patterns of stocks;
(ii) mechanization degree of fleets; (iii) exploitation levels and stock status; (iv)
definition of main taxonomic groups; and (v) assessment of scientific knowledge
coming from primary (databases) and secondary (scientific papers and information
from the private sector) sources. The main characteristics of these criteria could be
summarized as follows:
(i) Distributional patterns of stocks. In this document we considered the distributional
patterns of coastal resources within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well
as those shared with Argentina in the Río de la Plata or in adjacent waters of the
UACFZ. Thus, species inhabiting international waters or those in continental
inner waters were left aside from this review unless explicitly stated otherwise.
(ii) Mechanization degree of fishing fleets. We discriminated between artisanal and
industrial (mechanized) fisheries. In the case of sequential fisheries, we described
potential technological interdependencies between them, including a spatial analysis
of overlap areas between artisanal and industrial fisheries in the study area.
(iii) Exploitation levels and stock status. We defined the status of the stocks in
Uruguayan waters as follows: (a) virgin or non-exploited; (b) underexploited;
(c) underexploitation; (d) fully exploited; and (e) overexploited. Fishery
performance indicators (e.g. bio-economic reference points: BRPs) contained
in primary papers or reports were used to define the status of the stocks. In
this context, precautionary approaches were operationalized by limit reference
points (LRPs), such as the MSY, which represents conditions of immediate
concern to management; when MSY is achieved, complete cessation of
fishing, or curtailment of fishing effort to much lower levels, should occur
(Caddy and Mahon, 1995). Thus, fully exploited stocks are defined as those
exploited at levels close to some LRP. The term ‘underexploitation’ makes
special allowance to exploited resources for which the lack of scientific
information precludes the definition of a specific exploitation level. When
quantitative information was lacking, the definition of stock status was
based on judgements derived from technical assistance from scientists and
managers. Decisions as to which indicator to choose, and what value of the
indicator should correspond to an LRP, were chosen by analysis and/or by
sessions between experts and stakeholders, reviewing past annual indicator
values from historical performance (Caddy and Defeo, 2003). Moreover,
under a precautionary management scheme (Caddy and Mahon, 1995; FAO,
1995; Caddy and Defeo, 2003), in data-poor situations we categorized the
corresponding fishery as it was in the immediate stage (in terms of increasing
exploitation) to those judged by scientific experts.
368 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

(iv) Main taxonomic groups. We provide a broad categorization of stocks, as

follows: (a) fishes; and (b) benthic invertebrates (molluscs and crustaceans).
The main reason underlying this classification is that differences in life
histories generate different harvesting strategies (Orensanz and Jamieson,
1998; Castilla and Defeo, 2001).
(v) Scientific knowledge and information sources. Information for each species and
fishery was classified as follows: (a) good quality; (b) out of date; (c) insufficient;
(d) inadequate; (e) absent; and (f) variable according to site. In the latter, explicit
allowance was made to the dissimilar amount of information collected according to
the location/area/habitat considered, particularly in species distributed over a wide
area, which precludes obtaining feasible information all along the distributional
range. Evaluation of the quality of the scientific information available for each
stock was done for the following issues: biomass, growth, reproduction, natural
mortality, fishing mortality, fishing effort (nominal and effective), catchability
coefficient, economic information, and existence of BRPs.

3.2 Fishes
The coastal artisanal fishing fleet targets species distributed in the Río de la Plata and
Atlantic Ocean. The Río de la Plata can be divided into three zones (inner, middle
and outer) with different hydrological characteristics. The main species exploited in
the inner and middle zones are streaked prochilod (Prochilodus lineatus), characin
(Leporinus obtusidens), and catfishes (notably Pimelodus clarias). The two former
ones comprise almost 50% of the total catches in the coasts of Uruguay. In the
outer Río de la Plata and Atlantic coasts, the white croaker is the dominant species
in the catches (Figure 5) and, together with stripped weakfish, represents almost
40% of the total catch. Other exploited species are the Brazilian codling (Urophycis
brasiliensis) and various shark species (Mustelus schmitti, Galeorhinus galeus, Isurus
oxyrhinchus and Lamna nasus).
Table 1 summarizes the information about distribution, mechanization degree
and stock status of the main fishes exploited in the coastal zone of Uruguay.
The historical analysis provided by more than 30 years of information show that
several stocks that were non-exploited or underexploited during the 1970s are now
overexploited. This occurred during the last phase of fishery development depicted
above (Figure 2a). Some 90% of the stocks can be considered fully exploited or
overexploited and the remaining 10% virgin or underexploited. The fact that there
is no accurate scientific information about the status of important stocks exploited
in the inner and middle Río de la Plata (e.g. streaked prochilid, characin) is a major
cause of concern. Moreover, the most important marine stocks (white croaker and
stripped weakfish), which are subject to a sequential exploitation by artisanal and
industrial fleets, are overexploited, especially the white croaker. Several stocks are
defined as ‘underexploitation’, suggesting a dangerous lack of scientific information
needed to properly assess the status of the stocks. In the case of non-exploited
stocks, the absence of stock estimates opens a wide margin of uncertainty about the
possibility of sustainable development of these fisheries.
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 369

FIGURE 5
Main species captured by the artisanal fleet of Uruguay (%),
also categorized by ecosystem inhabit

TABLE 1
Assessment of several coastal stocks exploited by the artisanal and industrial fleets
of Uruguay, based on indicators defined by the distributional extent, degree of
mechanization and phase of fishery development. RdlP: Río de la Plata;
MF:Maritime Front; IW: international waters; CW: continental waters;
Ind-Art: sequential fishery (industrial + artisanal)

Development
Common name Scientific name Distribution Fleet
phase
White croaker Micropogonias furnieri MF–RdlP–IW Ind-Art Overexploited

Stripped weakfish Cynoscion guatucupa MF–RdlP–IW Ind-Art Overexploited

Flounder Paralichthys spp. MF Ind-Art Overexploited

Mustelus schmitti
Galeorhinus galeus
Sharks MF–IW Ind-Art Overexploited
Isurus oxyrhinchus
Lamna nasus
Brazilian menhaden Brevoortia spp. MF–RdlP Ind-Art Underexploited

Wreckfish Polyprion americanus MF Ind-Art Underexploited

Southern eagle ray Myliobatis spp. MF–RdlP Ind-Art Underexploited

Mullet Mugil platalus MF–RdlP Ind-Art Underexploited

Largehead hairtail Trichiurus lepturus MF Ind-Art Non-exploited

King weakfish Macrodon ancylodon MF–RdlP Ind-Art Underexploited

Brazilian codling Urophycis brasiliensis MF Ind-Art Underexploited

Streaked prochlod Prochilodus lineatus RdlP–CW Artisanal Underexploited

Characin Leporinus obtusidens RdlP–CW Artisanal Underexploited

Luciopimelodus pati
Catfish RdlP–CW Artisanal Underexploited
Pimelodus clarias

Adapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

370 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Table 2 summarizes bio-economic information of fish stocks, provided by

primary and secondary sources gathered for the last 30 years. The following
conclusions arise: (i) a relatively good scientific knowledge is found for the white
croaker and stripped weakfish, but this knowledge is mainly based on information
provided by stock assessment and statistical fishery information gathered for the
area of operation of the industrial fishery; (ii) estimates of biomass and BRPs are
circumscribed to these two stocks, and a notorious lack of information (quality
and quantity) is depicted for the remaining ones; (iii) the lack of scientific
information precluded the implementation of solid management schemes; and
(iv) no economic information (i.e. unit costs of effort, unit prices and returns) has
been included in the analysis of fisheries.

TABLE 2
Assessment of information available for the main coastal stocks exploited in Uruguay:
fishes. Information quality: G: good; D: out of date; I: inadequate; R: insufficient;
A: absent; VSS: variable according to the system analysed; M: natural mortality;
F: fishing mortality; Nom: nominal effort; Ef: effective effort; q: catchability coefficient;
BRPs: bio-economic reference points. See scientific names in Table 1

Fishing
Mortality
Resource Biomass Growth Reproduction effort Economics BRPs
M F Nom Ef q

White croaker VSS G G I G G G I I G

Stripped
VSS G G I G G G I I G
weakfish

Flounder G G G I I I I I I I

Sharks G G G I I I I I I I

Brazilian
D–I R-I I I I I I I I I
menhaden

Wreckfish D–I R-I I I I I I I I I

Southern
D–I R-I I I I I I I I I
eagle ray

Mullet D–I R-I I I I I I I I I

Largehead
I R-I I I I I I I I I
hairtail

King weakfish D–I R-I I G I I I I I I

Brazilian
D–I R-I I I I I I I I I
codling
Streaked
D G G G G G G G A G
prochilod

Characin D G G G G G D I A I

Catfish I G G G G G D I A I

Adapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 371

White croaker and stripped weakfish: The above conclusions are of particular
concern for the most important marine stocks exploited in a sequential manner
(white croaker and stripped weakfish). Information gathered for the white
croaker shows that this stock is overexploited; judging from several assessments
based on different population dynamic models (Arena and Rey, 2000; Pin and
Defeo, 2000; Rey and Arena, 2000). The stock is exploited by the Uruguayan and
Argentinian industrial fleets in open seas, whereas the artisanal fleet of Uruguay
exploits the stock at coastal zones, mainly in the middle and outer Río de la Plata
and in Atlantic waters. Pre-adult stages are found in coastal waters (Puig and
Fontenla, 1993; Retta et al., 2006), even though the high selectivity of the fishing
gears employed by the artisanal fleet minimizes the impact of the fishery on this
population component (Norbis and Verocai, 2001; Pin et al., 2006). In contrast,
the trawling activities made by the industrial fleet not only affect the adult stages,
but also the juvenile ones. Increments in fishing power of the trawling vessels
of Uruguay and Argentina have affected the stock, increasing the probability of
overexploitation.
The spatial dynamics of the fleet showed that the main fishing grounds for
artisanal activities that target white croaker are mainly circumscribed to the middle
and outer zones of Río de la Plata, representing, respectively, 71% and 52%
of the artisanal catches (Figure 6). A daily analysis of the artisanal fleet carried
out between 2000 and 2004 showed a decreasing relative representation of this
important species from Río de la Plata to coastal waters in the Atlantic Ocean,
where it represents only 7% of the catch. These results are important in evaluating
potential conflicts between fleets. Indeed, to assess potential interactions between
industrial and artisanal fisheries in Uruguay, we evaluate bottom trawling
fishing effort at the adjacent zone of artisanal activities (Figure 7), expressed as
the number of trawls per vessel in a year (vessel/nm2/year). Daily fishing vessel
activities for 2004 were obtained from the official National Vessel Monitoring
System programme developed by DINARA, with data filtered by trawl velocity
(assumed between 3 to 4 knots). The colours denoting increasing indicator values
of fishing intensity (from green to red), separated by cut-off values as in a Traffic
Light Precautionary Management Framework (Caddy, 2002), show that main
potential conflicts between fleets occurred in areas where the main catches of
white croaker are obtained by the artisanal fishery (orange and red in Figure 7).
The heavily exploited fishing grounds where the industrial fleet operates could
impact benthic habitats and communities, thus affecting the ecosystem as a whole
and generating a negative externality to the artisanal fleet.
372 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 6
Spatial variation in annual mean catch (kg) and relative representation of white
croaker catches obtained by the Uruguayan artisanal coastal fleet from 2000 to 2004.
28 of the 48 artisanal fishery ports ( ) are shown as reference: 1- Arazatí;
2- La Colorada; 3- Pajas Blancas; 4- Santa Catalina; 5- Cerro; 6- Punta Carretas; 7- Buceo;
8- Malvín; 9- La Mulata; 10- Arroyo Carrasco; 11- Shangrilá; 12-Solymar;
13- Arroyo Pando; 14- Atlántida; 15- Parque del Plata; 16- La Floresta; 17- Costa Azul;
18- San Luis; 19- La Tuna; 20- Araminda; 21- Santa Lucía del Este; 22- Cuchilla Alta;
23- Punta del Este; 24- Arroyo Maldonado; 25- Laguna de José Ignacio; 26- La Paloma;
27- Barra de Valizas; 28-Punta del Diablo.

The stripped weakfish occupies third place in Uruguayan landings, after the
hake and the white croaker. Argentinian and Uruguayan catches have fluctuated
between 9 122 tonnes (1985) and 34 414 tonnes (1997), which makes it the
second most important resource in the coastal trawling fishery. The resource
is overexploited (Arena and Gamarra, 2000; Table 1). A minimum landing and
commercialization size (27 cm total length), a prohibition of trawling nets in
coastal waters for vessels higher than 10 GRT, and defined minimum net sizes for
vessels of different categories were implemented. Studies show that it is neither
possible nor recommendable to increase the fishing effort exerted intentionally or
incidentally over this resource. Even though the industrial bottom trawling fishery
is the most important one, the fact that the stripped weakfish is not the target
species of any fleet and that it is captured by fleets of different characteristics and
fishing power generates uncertainty in fisheries management. Also in this case, it is
necessary to integrate information coming from the artisanal and coastal trawling
fleets in order to develop solid management schemes.
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 373

FIGURE 7
Main 2004 bottom trawl zones quantified by number of vessels trawling/nm2/year,
from trawl exclusion zone (lined area) to 12 nm. Data obtained from the National
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) programme. The main artisanal fishery ports ( ) are
shown: 1- Pajas Blancas; 2- Buceo; 3- San Luis; 4- Piriápolis; 5- Punta del Este;
6- La Paloma. Colours denote increasing indicator values, separated by cut-off values,
of fishing intensity (from green to red), as in a Traffic Light Precautionary Management
Framework (Caddy, 2002)

Other fishes: Many species that started being exploited during the last decade
(i.e. the diversification fishery phase) have been subject to increasingly intense
fishing effort (e.g. sole, Paralichthys spp.). These circumstances have caused
overexploitation in the medium term (Tables 1 and 2). Recent research conducted
on non-traditional species show a decrease in the catch per unit effort (CPUE) and
in the average size and age of exploitation, as well as a turnover effect of sequential
target species as a result of a decrease in fishery yields (Fabiano et al., 2000; Spinetti,
2000). In all these cases, population dynamics of the stocks, as well as spatial
dynamics of the fishing fleet, are unknown. This is especially important in other
species, such as the narrownose smooth-hound shark (Mustelus schmitti), which is
endemic to the southwest Atlantic and which has been registered on the red list of
threatened species as ‘Endangered’ (Massa et al., 2005). Indeed, the scarce scientific
knowledge acquired has not been translated in effective management schemes to
prevent the negative effects of fishing (see below). The lack of statistical information
derived from logdocuments is another negative factor common to many coastal
fisheries, which underestimates catch volumes. This is especially noticeable for
the artisanal fleet.
374 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

3.3 Invertebrates: crustaceans and molluscs

The development of invertebrate fisheries was encouraged during the diversification
phase. Table 3 gives information about the invertebrates currently or potentially
exploited in the coastal waters of Uruguay. Several benthic resources that
remained virgin in the 1980s and 1990s are currently fully exploited or suffer
an imminent risk of overexploitation. This trend has also expanded to other
non-coastal species, such as the deep-sea red crab (Chaceon notialis) (Defeo and
Masello, 2000), evidence that the issue goes beyond coastal fisheries. The situation
is particularly worrying for the yellow clam fishery on sandy beaches, which has
been permanently closed to fishery activities during the last decade because of
the occurrence of massive mortalities of unknown origin throughout the Atlantic
coast of South America (Fiori et al., 2004). The blue mussel is fully exploited
and managed with spatio-temporal restrictions of fishing effort and a minimum
harvestable size limit (Defeo and Riestra, 2000).

TABLE 3
Assessment of several coastal stocks exploited by the artisanal and industrial fleets
of Uruguay, based on indicators defined by the distributional extent, degree of
mechanization and phase of fishery development: benthic invertebrates (crustaceans and
molluscs). UW: Uruguayan waters; IW: international waters; Ind-Art: sequential fishery
(industrial + artisanal); UE: underexploitation

Development
Common name Scientific name Distribution Fleet
phase

Crustaceans

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus paulensis UW and IW Artisanal UE

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus UW Artisanal UE

Mole crab Emerita brasiliensis UW Artisanal Non-exploited

Molluscs

Yellow clam Mesodesma mactroides UW Artisanal Overexploited

Erodona clam Erodona mactroides UW Artisanal UE

Hard shell clam Pitar rostratus UW Industrial UE

Purple clam Amiantis purpurata UW Artisanal Non-exploited

Blue mussel Mytilus edulis platensis UW Artisanal UE

Wedge clam Donax hanleyanus UW Artisanal Non-exploited

Black snail Pachycymbiola brasiliana UW Ind-Art UE

Angulate volute Zidona dufresnei UW Ind UE

Giant tun Tonna galea UW Ind UE

Pod mollusc Buccinanops cochlidium UW Artisanal Non-exploited

Whelk Stramonita haemastoma UW Ind-Art Non-exploited

Adapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 375

The gastropods (Pachycymbiola brasiliana and Zidona dufresnei) have been

the target of fishery development during the diversification phase, as the result
of the opening of new markets due to the depletion of similar stocks in other
parts of the word (Masello, 2000; Riestra and Fabiano, 2000). This is a typical
case where fishing methods developed faster than the understanding of scientific
knowledge, leading to a lack of strong management schemes. The resource became
fully exploited even before scientific knowledge was achieved, and scientific
information is still insufficient to provide robust management guidelines (Riestra
et al., 2000). It must be highlighted that the fishery is almost circumscribed to
trawling vessels, and the impact of the artisanal fishery is very low.
The scientific information on coastal invertebrate fisheries is qualitatively and
quantitatively variable (Table 4). With the exception of the yellow clam and the
blue mussel, no spatial management measures have been implemented, and biomass
estimates are out of date or non-existent. The analysis of the spatial dynamics of
the fishing fleet and the resource, a critical issue in coastal fisheries (Castilla and
Defeo, 2001; Salas and Gaertner, 2004), has not been undertaken. This in turn has
precluded the implementation of management areas.

TABLE 4
Assessment of information available for the main coastal stocks exploited in Uruguay:
benthic invertebrates (crustaceans and molluscs). Information quality: G: good; D: out of
date; I: inadequate; A: absent; VSS: variable according to the system analysed; M: natural
mortality; F: fishing mortality; Nom: nominal effort; Ef: effective effort; q: catchability
coefficient; BRPs: bio-economic reference points. See scientific names in Table 3

Fishing
Mortality
effort
Common name Biomass Growth Reproduction Economics BRPs
M F Nom Ef q

Crustaceans

Pink shrimp D I I A A A A A A A
Blue crab A A A A A A A A A A
Mole crab G G G G A A

Molluscs

Yellow clam G G G G G G G G G G
Erodona clam A A A A A A A A A A

Hard shell clam A A A A A A A A A A

Purple clam A A A A A A A A A A

Blue mussel G G G G D G D A D D
Wedge clam G G I G A A

Black snail A A I A A I A A A I
Angulate volute A A I A A I A A A I

Giant tun A A A A A A A A A A

Pod mollusc A A A A A A A A A A
Whelk A A I A A A A A A A

Adapted and updated from INFOPESCA (2001).

376 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Nowadays there is scarce baseline information on few virgin resources that

could withstand the development of small coastal artisanal fisheries, such as the
wedge clam (Donax hanleyanus) and the sand crab (Emerita brasiliensis) in sandy
beaches, and the pink clam (Amiantis purpurata) in the shallow sandy subtidal.
For transient stocks artisanally exploited in coastal lagoons, as the penaeid
shrimps (Farfantepenaeus spp.) and the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), the erratic
occurrence and high abundance fluctuations make them unpredictable to propose
management schemes for solid fishery development.

4. FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

Artisanal fisheries in Latin America are mostly open access regimes, and thus
the risks of overexploitation and dissipation of the economic rent are very high
(Castilla and Defeo, 2001, 2005; Defeo and Castilla, 2005). They are also greatly
unregulated because of the underestimation of the societal role played by this
subsector, directly and indirectly engaging many more people per unit of fish
landed (fishers, co-workers, processing and commercialization sectors) than the
industrial fishery (Berkes et al., 2001; Defeo et al., 2007). Following the same
pattern, many artisanal fisheries in Uruguay could be considered open access,
with eventual operational management measures based on individual sizes and
closed seasons. Fishing intensity increased even under diminishing catch rates
because of low operating and opportunity costs of fishers. This could be the
response of a weak or non-existent dialogue (last 20 years), including transfer of
knowledge between the national government and artisanal fishers, as well as a
lack of commitment among policy and decision-makers towards conservation and
sustainable use issues.
Artisanal coastal fisheries of Uruguay are continuously expanding, despite
longstanding policy support for industrialization of fisheries. This is most likely
due to its critical role as an economic buffer and safety valve for people moving
in and out of the fisheries according to the opportunities in the national economy.
These fisheries exhibit comparatively reduced catches and sometimes compete with
the industrial fishery (sequential fisheries). Several socio-economic factors, both
local and international, have aggravated the artisanal fishery situation in Uruguay,
as in the rest of Latin America (Cabrera and Defeo, 2001; Castilla and Defeo,
2001; DINARA, 2005). These are: (i) high unemployment rates, which favour the
migration of people to coastal zones to work in artisanal fishery activities; (ii) low
operative costs and easy access to coastal resources that justify an increase in fishing
effort even under low stock abundance levels; (iii) an increasing international
market demand in unit prices, partly as a response to the depletion of similar stocks
in Europe, the United States and Asia, which promoted an increase in fishing effort
that was not supported by sound science and management; (iv) weak management
schemes and inefficient enforcement of management measures, especially in the
coasts with easy access to stocks; (v) weak legislation schemes built on a top-down
approach that neglects the active participation of fishers under co-management
schemes; (vi) lack of knowledge, as most fishery systems still remain poorly
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 377

understood regarding the linkages between the structure of the stock, its dynamics
and bio-economic features of the fishing process; and (vii) changes in local political
conditions and a lack of a long-term policy for the subsector, which has generated
uncertainty about future modifications of the management process, and in the
response of fishers to regulations.
In addition to the weaknesses mentioned above, the critical situation of the
Uruguayan artisanal subsector is also due to the lack of capacity and organization
(Defeo, 1989, 1996; Amestoy, 1999; INFOPESCA, 2001; Puig, 2006, and
references therein). Artisanal fisheries development programmes that served as a
basis to the creation of Uruguayan cooperatives in the 1980s were initially well-
structured, involving the construction of cold-storage rooms. These rooms were
an attempt to encourage independence of fishers from middlemen and offered
them a higher negotiation power, as well as a place to store their products for
three or four months (INFOPESCA, 2001). However, these programmes failed,
mainly because of the lack of specialization and qualification of fishers, as well as
their highly individualistic personalities that make it difficult to work together in
cooperative systems. The lack of organization determined that low prices are paid
from middlemen systems. This is particularly important when the products are
not intended to satisfy the local markets, but are resold to middlemen or industrial
processing plants that eventually export the products. These factors together
undermine most fishermen cooperatives in Uruguay.
Major conflicts between small-scale artisanal and large-scale industrial fisheries
have been occurring in different parts of the world, with resulting threats to
food security and local economies and, in some cases, ecosystem health (Berkes
et al., 2001). This also happens in the study area, and these conflicts often
result in disadvantageous competition for the artisanal fleet for fishing grounds
and resources. Industrial and artisanal Uruguayan fisheries usually compete
for resources, notably the white croaker. Thus, management systems must be
strengthened in regards to species target of sequential fisheries. The industrial
fleet that operates outside seven nautical miles catches approximately 80% of the
resources shared with the artisanal fleet. It is essential to evaluate the evolution of the
fishing power of all the fleets that take part in the fishery in order to develop robust
management schemes. The huge improvements of fishing power in industrial vessels
has compensated for nominal reductions in fishing effort, affecting the target species
and any incidentally caught species, as well as the habitat. In addition, this can
generate a de facto ‘legalized’ overexploitation scheme with ineffective operational
management measures based on restrictions of catch, effort (i.e. global quotas,
temporal closed seasons), and individual sizes (Milessi and Defeo, 2002).

5. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

The implementation of management schemes that explicitly take into account
the different fleets acting in coastal stocks is a major challenge to be tackled in
the short term in Uruguay, because overexploitation risks are high and exclusion
of one fleet could occur as a function of the magnitude of effort exerted by the
378 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

competing fleet. However, as industrial and artisanal fisheries operate on different

spatial and temporal scales and with diverse modus operandi, this implies the
need to use different drivers/priorities/governance and institutional arrangements
according to the characteristics of each fishery in order to solve overexploitation
concerns (Castilla and Defeo, 2005; Defeo and Castilla, 2005).
Artisanal fishery information is inconsistent, weak, fragmented, inaccurate
and unreliable. The easy access and dispersed nature of near-shore resources and
landings makes regulatory efforts expensive and ineffective and these areas are
often lacking in site-specific scientific information (Castilla and Defeo, 2001). The
increase in catch volumes has historically contrasted with the rate of acquisition
of scientific information, which has generated weak management schemes. Most
of the world’s fishery science is devoted and applied to large stocks, and is seldom
feasible for small, artisanally exploited resources (Mahon, 1997; Castilla and Defeo,
2005). If sophisticated stock assessment models are to be applied and management
strategies, such as closures, are to be used, then the existence of significant gaps
in scientific knowledge must be filled. In addition, determining the management
systems that are most acceptable for resource users and most successful for
managers is essential (Defeo et al., 2007). These facts preclude the application of
sophisticated assessment models in these fisheries and call for a more simplistic,
short-term approach, based on easy-to-use fishery indicators in a precautionary
management context, which would require strong collaboration among the
scientific, management and fishing communities (Mahon, 1997; Johannes, 1998).
Successful management of artisanal fisheries in Uruguay is a major challenge, but
one of upmost importance.
Operational management measures have not been useful in Uruguay
(INFOPESCA, 2001), a phenomenon that has been verified worldwide (Caddy
and Cochrane, 2001). In this context, marine protected areas (MPAs) have been
suggested as spatially explicit tools that could reduce deleterious effects of the
fishery on coastal habitat and biodiversity (Caddy, 1999; Castilla and Defeo, 2001,
2005; Manson and Die, 2001; Roberts et al., 2001; Pauly et al., 2002; Stergiou,
2002; Caddy and Defeo, 2003). The MPAs could operate in a wide spectrum
of spatio-temporal scales under different judgements and uses that range from
‘no-take’ areas to management areas in which the sustainable use of the resources
is planned (UICN, 1994; SANCOR, 1997). Given that many management
strategies have failed in Uruguay, the MPAs arise as one of the few tools directed
to protect species biomass, maintain biodiversity (including genetic biodiversity)
and diminish the trend on the organisms’ size reduction and on their reproductive
capacity and success (Defeo et al., 2004). Another threat to the artisanal fishery
is the increasing environmental damage in Uruguayan coastal and continental
waters as a result of different sources of anthropogenic activities. Cascade
ecosystem effects have been observed in Uruguayan coastal systems that include
the exploited species, the sympatric fauna and the habitat (Defeo and de Álava,
1995; Defeo, 1998). The existence of several anthropogenic impacts, together with
the absence of integrated management schemes, have affected the whole coast,
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 379

including its biodiversity (Lercari and Defeo, 1999, 2003; Lercari et al., 2002;
Muniz et al., 2002). This highlights the short-term need to implement integrated
management and conservation plans. Consequently, MPAs, if seen and used as
managed areas, should enhance habitat restoration and biodiversity conservation,
and will concurrently have a direct and positive socio-economic impact in the
artisanal fishing communities (Castilla and Defeo, 2001).
One of the main critical aspects that deserves utmost attention in the near future
in Uruguay is the implementation of strategic institutional structures (Charles,
2001), defined as co-management, that include fishers in the decision-making and
in the control and vigilance of the resources (Castilla and Defeo, 2001; Wilson
et al., 2003). Thus, the classic ‘top-down’ management scheme could be changed
to one in which fishers, together with the management agency (DINARA),
are co-responsible in the resource management, and that responsibility would
be institutionalized in the appropriate legal framework (Defeo and Pérez-
Castañeda, 2003; Castilla and Defeo, 2005). This could be in conjunction with
the implementation of MPAs and the concession of territorial rights for fishing to
organized fishing communities. The effective inclusion of the fishers in institutional
management schemes will constitute a positive element that will tend to avoid the
fishery collapse in coastal resources of Uruguay. The successful example of Chile
on the development of institutionalized co-management schemes with active state
participation of the artisanal fishing community in monitoring, enforcement and
evaluation of management plans (Castilla, 1994; Castilla et al., 1998) could set the
basis for developing similar schemes in Uruguay.
The above reflections could only be effectively set if implemented under a long-
term sectorial policy that links biological, social and economic aspects. These long-
lasting actions are directed to rebuild populations to increase chances for success
and to minimize future ecological, social and economic costs. This should rely
on the introduction of efficient multiscale management regimes, effective social
policies and a close follow up of catch and stock status through sound science. In
this setting, the Uruguayan government has begun to recognize the importance of
the artisanal fishery subsector and it is currently developing the National Plan for
the Development and Management of Artisanal Fisheries (DINARA, 2005). This
plan includes the development of a legal framework that will provide recognition
and support to the artisanal fisheries subsector, including fishers’ empowerment
through the implementation of long-term co-management schemes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to express our gratitude to DINARA and the ‘Benthic Ecology Group’
of the Marine Science Unit from the Faculty of Sciences (UNDECIMAR) for
providing valuable information and field and laboratory assistance. The editors
gave useful suggestions that improved the final manuscript. Financial support
from the National Council of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT)
(Projects No. 1018 and 4034), PDT (Project S/C/OP/07/49 and Project UTF/
URU/025/URU) is acknowledged. Part of this chapter is included in the M.Sc.
thesis of S. Horta.
380 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

REFERENCES
Amestoy F. 1999. Acuicultura y pesca continental en Uruguay. Informe Técnico
INAPE-PNUD, Montevideo.
Arena G. & Gamarra M. 2000. Captura máxima sostenible de pescadilla. In Modelos de
producción excedente aplicados a los recursos corvina y pescadilla. Edited by M. Rey
and G. Arena. Proyecto INAPE-PNUD URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 67–89.
Arena G. & Rey M. (eds). 2000. Captura de grandes peces pelágicos (pez espada
y atunes) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental, y su interacción con otras poblaciones.
Proyecto INAPE-PNUD URU/92/003, Montevideo.
Berkes F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R. & Pomeroy R. 2001. Managing small-
scale fisheries. Alternative directions and methods. International Development
Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
Botsford L.W., Castilla J.C. & Peterson C.H. 1997. The management of fisheries and
marine ecosystems. Science, 277: 509–515.
Cabrera J.L. & Defeo O. 2001. Daily bio-economic analysis in a multispecific artisanal
fishery in Yucatán, Mexico. Aquat. Living Resour., 14: 19–28.
Caddy J.F. 1999. Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: will new paradigms
apply? Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 9: 1–43.
Caddy J.F. 2002. Viewpoint: limit reference points, traffic lights, and holistic
approaches to fisheries management with minimal stock assessment input. Fish.
Res., 56: 133–137.
Caddy J.F. & Cochrane K.L. 2001. A review of fisheries management past and present
and some future perspectives for the third millennium. Ocean Coast. Manag., 44:
653–682.
Caddy J.F. & Defeo O. 2003. Enhancing or restoring the productivity of natural
populations of shellfish and other marine invertebrate resources. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No. 448. Rome, FAO.
Caddy J.F. & Mahon R. 1995. Reference points to fisheries management. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 347. Rome, FAO.
Castilla J.C. 1994. The Chilean small-scale benthic shellfisheries and the
institutionalization of new management practices. Ecol. Int. Bull., 21: 47–63.
Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2001. Latin-American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis on
co-management and experimental practices. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries, 11: 1–30.
Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2005. Paradigm shift needed for world fisheries. Science, 309:
1324–1325.
Castilla J.C., Manríquez P., Alvarado J., Rosson A., Pino C., Espoz C., Soto R.,
Oliva D. & Defeo O. 1998. The artisanal caletas as unit of production and basis for
community-based management of benthic invertebrates in Chile. Can. Spec. Publ.
Fish. Aquat. Sci., 125: 407–413.
Charles A. 2001. Sustainable fishery systems. Blackwell, London.
Defeo O. 1989. Development and management of artisanal fishery for yellow clam
Mesodesma mactroides in Uruguay. Fishbyte, 7: 21–25.
Defeo O. 1996. Experimental management of an exploited sandy beach bivalve
population. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat., 69: 605–614.
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 381

Defeo O. 1998. Testing hypotheses on recruitment, growth and mortality in exploited

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

Gutiérrez N. & Defeo O. 2003. Development of a new scallop Zygochlamys

patagonica fishery in Uruguay: latitudinal and bathymetric patterns in biomass and
population structure. Fish. Res., 62: 21–36.
INFOPESCA. 2001. Informe Proyecto Gestión Marítima - Componente Pesquero.
Diagnóstico de los recursos pesqueros en Uruguay. Informe presentado a Banco
Mundial, Washington.
Johannes R.E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples
from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13: 243–246.
Lercari D. & Defeo O. 1999. Effects of freshwater discharge in sandy beach
populations: the mole crab Emerita brasiliensis in Uruguay. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.
49: 457–468.
Lercari D. & Defeo O. 2003. Variation of a sandy beach macrobenthic community
along a human-induced environmental gradient. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 58S:
17–24.
Lercari D., Defeo O. & Celentano E. 2002. Consequences of a freshwater canal
discharge on the benthic community and its habitat on an exposed sandy beach.
Mar. Poll. Bull., 44: 1392–1399.
Mahon R. 1997. Does fisheries science serve the needs of managers of small stocks in
developing countries? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 54: 2207–2213.
Manson F.J. & Die D.J. 2001. Incorporating commercial fishery information into the
design of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast. Manag., 44: 517–530.
Masello A. 2000. Análisis histórico de la pesquería de caracol en Uruguay. Período,
1991-1997. In Recursos pesqueros no tradicionales: moluscos bentónicos marinos.
Edited by M. Rey. Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: 93–113.
Massa A., Hozbor N., Chiaramonte G.E., Balestra A.D. & Vooren C.M. 2005.
Mustelus schmitti. In IUCN, 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
www.iucnredlist.org>.
Milessi A. & Defeo O. 2002. Long-term impact of incidental catches by tuna longlines:
the black escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) of the Southwestern Atlantic
Ocean. Fish. Res., 58: 20–213.
Milessi A., Arancibia H., Neira S. & Defeo O. 2005. The mean trophic level of
Uruguayan landings during the period 1990–2001. Fish. Res., 74: 223–231.
Muniz P., Venturini N. & Martínez A. 2002. Physico-chemical characteristics and
pollutants of the benthic environment in the Montevideo coastal zone, Uruguay.
Mar. Poll. Bull., 44: 956–976.
Myers R.A. & Worm B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish
communities. Nature, 423: 280–283.
Nión H. 1985. Evaluación y perspectivas del complejo pesquero uruguayo. 2.
Análisis de la investigación biológico pesquera en el Uruguay. CIEDUR, Serie
Investigaciones No. 22, Montevideo.
Coastal fisheries of Uruguay 383

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

Rey M., Lorenzo M.I. & Páez E. 2000. Cálculo indirecto del descarte costero. Inf. Téc.
No. 48, Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Montevideo.
Riestra G. & Fabiano G. 2000. Moluscos gasterópodos de interés socioeconómico
para Uruguay. In Recursos pesqueros no tradicionales: moluscos bentónicos
marinos. Edited by M. Rey. Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 75–81.
Riestra G., Fabiano G. & Santana O. 2000. El caracol negro Adenomelon brasiliana
como recurso no tradicional de importancia para el país: análisis socioeconómico
de la pesquería y medidas precautorias de manejo. In Recursos pesqueros
no tradicionales: moluscos bentónicos marinos. Edited by M. Rey. Proyecto
URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 82–92.
Roberts C.M., Bohnsack J.A., Gell F., Hawkins J.P. & Goodridge R. 2001. Effects of
marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science, 294: 1920–1923.
Salas S. & Gaertner D. 2004. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: management
implications. Fish Fisheries, 5: 153–167
SANCOR. 1997. Towards a new policy on marine protected areas for South Africa.
South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research. Republic of South
Africa.
Seijo J.C., Defeo O. & Salas S. 1998. Fisheries bio-economics. Theory, modelling and
management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 368. Rome, FAO.
Spinetti M. 2000. Cuantificación de las capturas de lenguado Paralichthys spp. en
los desembarques del puerto de Montevideo en, 1996. In Recursos pesqueros no
tradicionales: moluscos, crustáceos y peces bentónicos marinos. Edited by M. Rey.
Proyecto URU/92/003, Montevideo: pp. 75–83.
Stergiou K.I. 2002. Overfishing, tropicalization of fish stocks, uncertainty and
ecosystem management: resharpening Ockham’s razor. Fish. Res., 55: 1–9.
Sullivan K., & Bustamante G. 1999. Setting geographic priorities for marine
conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Nature Conservancy,
Biodiversity Support Programme.
UICN. 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. UICN Commission
on National Parks and Protected Areas, with the assistance of the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre. Gland, Switzerland.
Wilson D.C., Nielsen J.R. & Degnbol P. (eds). 2003. The fisheries co-management
experience. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
 385

14. Assessing and managing

coastal fisheries of Latin America
and the Caribbean: underlying
patterns and trends
RATANA CHUENPAGDEE*, SILVIA SALAS, ANTHONY CHARLES AND JUAN CARLOS SEIJO

Chuenpagdee, R., Salas, S., Charles, A. and Seijo, J.C. 2011. Assessing and managing coastal
fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: underlying patterns and trends. In S. Salas,
R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the
Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 385–401.

1. Characteristics of coastal fisheries 386

2. Fisheries assessment tools 388
3. Fisheries management tools 391
4. Prospects in fishery assessment and management 393
4.1 Comprehensive fisheries assessment 394
4.2 Building capacity 395
4.3 Incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerations 395
4.4 Alternative management schemes 396
4.5 Promoting equity, use rights and participation in management 397
5. Concluding remarks 397
References 398

A synthesis of the characteristics of fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean

(LAC), and of the methods and tools used for the assessment and management
of these fisheries can provide some insights and enable comparisons that may be
useful for improving the situation of coastal fisheries in the region. The synthesis
presented in this chapter is drawn largely from the information provided by the
twelve country chapters, supplemented by previously published literature. In the
first section, we present the key characteristics of these fisheries. The second and
third sections provide a comparative description of the various fishery assessment
and management tools employed and discussion on the challenges faced. In the
final section, we summarize needs and prospects for improving assessment and
management of the fisheries in the region.
* Contact information: Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
E-mail: ratanac@mun.ca
386 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF COASTAL FISHERIES

While acknowledging the uniqueness of each coastal fishery, several attempts
to define and characterize coastal fisheries show emerging commonalities (e.g.
Panayotou, 1982; Russel and Poopetch, 1990; Charles, 1991; Agüero, 1992; FAO,
2000; Staples et al., 2004; Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Generally, coastal and small-
scale fisheries share the following characteristics (Salas et al., 2007a):
(a) Multispecies, multiple gears, with changing and flexible target species and
gears employed.
(b) Labour intensive, low-capital investment.
(c) Many small landing sites dispersed along coasts, including remote areas.
(d) Livelihood diversification (including non-fishing) is common among coastal
fishing households.
(e) Significant provision of food, income and jobs for coastal communities.
(f) Migration of people from upland areas to coasts in search of jobs and
income from fisheries is common.
(g) Intricate relationship between fishers and fish traders who often serve as
money lenders.
(h) Health provision and education facilities are generally poor due to
remoteness of the areas.
The complexity of these fisheries is increased by the heterogeneous
characteristics of the fleet among countries and even within countries. This makes
it difficult to evaluate the dynamics of the fleet and its fishery. The fleet has
increased significantly in the last decade; an example of this trend as it applies to
the countries considered in this publication is depicted in Table 1.
Coastal fisheries of LAC are also characterized by a number of challenges and
problems which, while not necessarily universal, are certainly widespread. These
range from the high levels of labour involved and social implications and the lack of
policy support for such fisheries to the marginalization of some fishing communities
due to physical remoteness and economic disempowerment (Agüero, 1992; Pauly,
1997; Thorpe et al., 2000; FAO, 2006). Also commonly found in many coastal
fisheries are open access conditions, which have contributed to the overexploitation
of fishery resources. For instance, in the 1980s, most countries encouraged increases
in fleets as a way of generating jobs and food for coastal communities (Thorpe et al.,
2000; Agüero and Claverí, 2007). At times, governments have also supported the
migration of people to coastal areas, to participate in fisheries as a ‘last resort’ source
of employment (Salas and Torres, 1996). These programmes may have assumed that
it was unnecessary to control fishing intensity, as coastal populations grew, on the
basis that this was not seen as threatening the resources – yet the increased targeting
of such resources has created severe problems with fish stock declines (Agüero,
1992; Salas and Torres, 1996; Pauly, 1997).
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 387

TABLE 1
Number of fishers and fleet size of coastal fisheries in the twelve countries of LAC
included in this publication for the period between 1980 and 2004

Boat size and other 1980s–1990s 2000–2004

Country
characteristics of the fleet Fishers Boats Fishers Boats
Small boats (<10 m) and small
Argentina 2 185 144
vessels (10–18 m)

Barbados Small boats (< 12 m) 2 200 613

Brazil Small boats (< 10 m) 554 000 49 100

Boats with outboard motors of 15,

Colombia 50 000 11 000 9 000
40, 75 hp

Boats fishing in areas up to 100 m

Costa Rica 6 000 2 344 8 000 3 040
from shore

Cuba Boat size 10–23 m 999

Fishing in areas up to 100 m

Dominican Republic 9 500 3 675
from shore

Grenada Small boats (5–15 m) 1 931 560

102
Mexico Small boats (8–13.5 m) 186 000 40 250 138 941
807

Puerto Rico Small boats (4.5–12 m)

Small boats (7–10 m) of 40–75 hp

Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad); small boats (6.7–12 m), 2 146 1 471
of 15–100 hp (Tobago)

Boats < 10 GRT; fishing within

Uruguay 790 250 1 400 571
13 km from shore

Sources: Agüero, 1992; Beltran, 2005; Chuenpagdee et al., 2006; FAO, 2004, 2006, years vary by country (see
Fisheries Profile at www.fao.org./fi/fcn/profile); Quesada Alpízar, 2006; and country chapters in this volume.

Despite their contribution to national economies, the approximately two

million people linked to coastal fisheries in LAC do not appear to have
significantly improved their livelihoods in the last couple of decades (FAO, 2000).
This situation has encouraged people to seek diversification of their activities by
becoming involved in non-fishery coastal activities like tourism (Quesada Alpízar,
2006). In many cases there has been a decline of economically important species in
fisheries, and while economic theory may predict that this would lead to an exiting
of fishers from the fisheries and thus a decline in fishing effort (Smith, 1969),
in fact, resource declines have often been accompanied by a long-term trend of
increasing fishing effort. This has occurred either because fishers have spent more
time and money to catch the same or a reduced amount of fish, or because they
have taken fishing activity farther offshore. Either of these results in the fishery
being less efficient in economic and social terms, and has a consequent impact on
biological systems.
388 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

2. FISHERIES ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Pauly and Agüero (1992) stated that by the 1990s the focus of fishery science
in LAC had traditionally concentrated on the collection of data of total catches
of main fishery resources, and on fish stock evaluations based mainly on fish
growth and mortality estimates. Salas et al. (2007a) observed that currently some
countries in the region still present limited human and logistic capacity to evaluate
their resources, although some changes in these trends are evident in Mexico and
certain South American countries. Another issue regarding stock assessment
that needs attention has to do with the use of old paradigms when evaluating
resources, some of which have already been shown to be inadequate (Caddy,
1996; Caddy and Seijo, 2005). Several authors emphasize the need to go beyond
analysis of information based on the landings and to begin, for example, to explore
the spatial distributions of resources, catch and effort spatial trends, as well as to
assess fishing strategies and fleet dynamics (Seijo et al., 1994; Cabrera and Defeo,
2001; Salas and Gaertner, 2004; Caddy and Defeo, 2003; Caddy and Seijo, 2005). A
more recent trend calls for incorporation of an ecosystem approach in the analyses
(Pauly et al., 1998; Plagányi, 2007; De Young et al., 2008).
Table 2 provides information on fishery data and assessment methods,
drawn from country-specific chapters in this volume, as well as from workshop
discussions held during the CoastFish conference. It is evident that collection
of catch statistics and data on size frequency of fishing resources obtained
from the landings seems a common practice; fishing effort information in most
countries is presented mainly in nominal figures when available. Of the twelve
fisheries reported in this publication, data collection relating to Mexico, Cuba and
Argentina are the most comprehensive.
Bio-ecological studies in the countries are diverse, ranging from basic biology
to stock assessment through modelling. Environmental factors per se are seldom
included. Observer programmes existing in Mexico and Argentina have generated
detailed spatial data on resource distribution. With this seemingly strong data
collection programme, these two countries are able to perform several types of
bio-ecological assessment using different types of models. Ecosystem-modelling
approaches on the other hand have been employed in Brazil, Mexico, and Trinidad
and Tobago.
On socio-cultural aspects, although many countries report a census on the
number of fishers or boats or some general information, four countries of the
twelve – Argentina, Barbados, Brazil and Mexico – have assessed issues such as
social and cultural dimensions, institutional arrangements and fisher perceptions
on resource use, as well as management and compliance for some of their fisheries.
These countries, as well as Cuba, also have performed economic assessment
using methods such as benefit-cost analysis and, in some instances, bio-economic
modelling.
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 389

TABLE 2
Data and assessment methods employed in the twelve LAC countries

Trinidad
Costa Dominican Puerto
Issues/Tools Argentina Barbados Mexico Cuba Colombia Brazil Uruguay Grenada and
Rica Republic Rico
Tobago
DATA
Catch statistics X X X X X X X X X X X X
Size frequency X X X X X X X X X X
Spatial data X X X X X

Types of gears X X X X X X X
Biological surveys X X X X X X X

Observer programme X X

Number of fishers X X X X X X X X
Oceanography information X X X X
BIO-ECOLOGICAL
Growth X X X X X X X X X X X X
Mortality X X X X X X X X X X
Recruitment X X X X X X X X X X
Larval studies X X X X X
Feeding X X X
Reproduction X X X X X X X X
Trophic models X X X
Selectivity X X X X X
Surplus production models X X X X X X X X X X
VPA X X X X X X X X
Yield per recruit X X X X X X X
Biomass dynamic models X X X X X X
Environmental issues X X X
Ecology X X X X
Fishing effort analysis X X X X
CPUE trend analysis X X X X X X X X X X
SOCIO-CULTURAL
Fishers' perception X X X X X
Inst. arrangements X X X X
Fishers' social profile X X X X
Migration X X X
Traditional knowledge X X
ECONOMIC
Cost–benefit analysis X X X X
Occupational structure X X X X X
Economic assessment X X X X X X X X X
Bio-economic models X X X X X
Market X X X

Figure 1 summarizes the use of assessment tools within the LAC region. Data
collection is common in all countries; Caribbean countries also have elements
of bio-ecological assessment and some socio-cultural studies; South American
countries generally cover all aspects of assessment, including those areas covered
by Caribbean countries plus economic assessments as well. Central America seems
to be the area where less comprehensive assessment is undertaken.
The complexity of coastal fisheries systems, given their heterogeneity and high
uncertainty, together with limited capacity for data collection and data analysis,
has generated challenges to the assessment of such fisheries in the region. The
discussion at the CoastFish conference (Salas et al., 2007b), in addition to literature
reviews, reveal limited capabilities within fishery research institutes in the region.
This is due largely to a lack of trained personnel, insufficient financial support for
data collection, and an absence of well-defined programmes for routine assessment
and monitoring of resources.
390 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

FIGURE 1
The range of assessment tools employed in the LAC region

Catch, effort, size frequency (data collected

from landings), prices, costs, fisheries
DATA
independent data collection, spatial
analysis
Central America

Biomass estimates, selectivity experiments,

Caribbean BIO-ECOLOGICAL recruitment, growth, mortality estimates,
reproduction, feeding, trophic models

Occupational patterns, socio-cultural

South America assessment, fishers' profile, management-
SOCIO-CULTURAL
compliance

Cost-benefit analysis, market analysis, bio-

ECONOMIC economic models

The reliability of catch statistics may be questionable in some cases due to

inconsistent format and non-standardized methods of data collection. Usually
only the most important species (by volume or value) are separately recorded, and
separating data on individual species from the mix of species traditionally landed
in coastal fisheries has been problematic. The difficulty in obtaining information
about fishing effort is attributable to the diversity of gears and vessel types, and
fishing seasonality. Thus, using the number of boats and number of fishers to
assess fishing effort may not reflect the actual fishing pressure. The application
of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and other integrated
models is still at an early stage in the region. There is also a general lack of trained
personnel to undertake interdisciplinary research.
Despite the above challenges, some progress in fisheries assessment in the region
has been observed. It has been recognized in recent years that improving scientific
knowledge on coastal fisheries requires a shift in approaches; some examples are
reported in the country chapters included in this volume (Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Mexico). Among the positive efforts to date are the introduction of the spatial
analysis and the conceptual development of meta-populations and connectivity to
address coastal fisheries problems (Caddy and Defeo, 2003; Ehrhardt, 2005; Rios-
Lara et al., 2007; Seijo, 2007). There has also been an increasing recognition of the
need to incorporate social and economic issues, and to engage in multidisciplinary
work on integrated fishery analyses, including stakeholder analysis (Quesada
Alpízar, 2006; McConney and Baldeo, 2007).
Another group of positive experiences in fishery assessment deals with
the progress in: (i) monitoring programmes that include collection of data
independent from the landings; (ii) the involvement of fishers in data collection;
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 391

(iii) improvements in the capacity of research institutes; and (iv) widening the
geographic and spatial coverage of data collection. In several countries, some
international agencies have promoted such initiatives (e.g. FAO, International
Development Research Centre [IDRC], Caribbean Community [CARICOM],
World Wildlife Fund [WWF], World Bank, European Union [EU], etc.).

3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Data availability limits the range of applicable assessment methods. The choice of
management measures is in turn affected, since this choice depends largely on both
the type of data collected and this assessment. The types and range of management
tools employed in the twelve case studies for different types of fisheries resources,
i.e. demersal (D), benthic (B) and pelagic (P) are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3
Common measures and approaches used for the management of coastal fisheries in the
LAC region
Trinidad
Costa Puerto Dominican
Argentina Barbados Brazil Colombia Cuba Grenada Mexico Uruguay and
Rica Rico Republic
Tobago
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Institutional
D P D P,D D,P
management bodies

State management D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P, D,P D D,B,P D,B,P D,B,P B,P D,P

Co-management B,D B,D B D D,B

Sea tenure D

ACCESS RIGHTS AND REGULATIONS (who, when and where have access to the resources)

Open access D(*) X(*) D(*),P

Restricted access D,B B,P D D D P D,B,P P D D

Exclusive fishing area

D B B X D D B B
(TURFs)

Fishing permits B B B D D,B,P D D,B,P D,P

Closed areas D,B,P B,P B D D D D D B

Seasonal closure D B X D D D,B,P D D B D

Marine protected areas X X X

FISHERY POLICY INSTRUMENTS

Restrictions on gear
D D,P D,P D,B D,P
and fishing effort

Minimum legal size D,B B,D,P D D D D P D,B,P D,B,P D B D,P

Total allowable catch

D,B,P D,P D D B
(total quota)

Community quotas D,P D D D

Protection of berried
D D D
females
Fishing restricted
during spawning D D
season
Individual quotas
B B B D D B,P B
(fisher or boat)
Species excluding
D D D D D
devices
Use of explosives or
B,P B D D D,B
pollutants forbidden

Notes: D = Demersal; P = Pelagic; B = Benthic; X = Not specified by resource; *applicable to some species or for subsistence
fisheries.
392 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

When it comes to the range of policy instruments employed to manage all

three types of fisheries, Mexico uses the widest range, followed by Argentina and
Colombia. Barbados employs a wide range of tools as well, but mainly to manage
the dominant benthic resources, as is also the case in Brazil and Uruguay. The
Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Grenada use comparatively fewer tools than
other countries in LAC. The top-down system dominates in the region, although
fisheries co-management has been reported in Argentina, Barbados, Grenada, Brazil,
Mexico and Costa Rica. Such institutional arrangements have proved to be easier to
implement for the management of species with limited mobility. They are becoming
more widespread in the region, along with related schemes such as marine tenure
arrangements and territorial use rights, all of which can provide more practical
mechanisms of enforcement and monitoring (Castilla and Defeo, 2001; Hernández
and Kempton, 2003; Quesada Alpízar, 2006; country chapters in this volume).
Minimal legal size, seasonal closures and fishing permits are the main
instruments applied for most resources in all twelve countries. Mexico is the only
country reporting the use of sea tenure, and together with the Dominican Republic,
it imposes fishing restriction during spawning seasons. Countries reporting use
of marine protected areas (MPAs) are Barbados, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.
Quesada Alpízar (2006) also reports the existence of MPAs in Costa Rica.
Banning of chemical use, poison and explosives are also common for
demersal species, particularly in reef areas. Compared to that for demersal and
benthic resources, management of pelagic species is sparse, with monitoring and
enforcement generally more difficult, especially in cases of strong migratory
behaviour. Management of pelagic fisheries can include restrictions on gears and
fishing effort.
It has been noted that given the uncertainty in fisheries, and the need to apply
a Precautionary Approach, fishery managers need a set of multiple, mutually
reinforcing management tools, to increase the robustness of the system and the
resilience of the fishery overall (Cochrane, 1999; Charles, 2001). At the same time,
not all management tools are appropriate in every situation. For instance, while
the setting of total allowable catches (TACs) as global quotas – i.e. catch (output)
controls – is used in a number of fisheries, concerns over the efficiency of such
an approach arise due to: (i) unreliable biomass estimates; (ii) limitations on the
reliability of catch and fishing effort statistics; (iii) unreported catches; (iv) illegal
fishing; (v) inadequate resources for monitoring and enforcement; and (vi) a more
general lack of institutional capacity. Problems of allocation can also arise. Thus,
a broad set of management tools can be helpful, but careful selection would be
required to fit the situation at hand. Proper enforcement programmes are of
course mandatory in order to be able to implement management plans.
Challenges in the management of coastal fisheries in the region relate largely to
the characteristics of the fisheries and the implementation methods. Generally, the
existence of open access fisheries and a lack of control over fishing effort, combined
with high levels of illegal fishing, make the management tasks difficult. Participation
of fishers is high in some cases but is generally lacking in most. Conflicts between
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 393

coastal and industrial fisheries are still prominent. Weak institutions and lack of
appropriate frameworks to implement management regulations are also limiting
factors as reported in many cases in the country chapters.
Despite the challenges in the management of coastal fisheries in LAC,
some success stories can be noted. Increasingly, involvement of fishers in the
management process has reduced some of the conflicts, and led to successful
allocation of local fishing rights. This is a notable trend in Barbados, Mexico and
Cuba. These advances do not apply, however, to whole countries, but only to a
certain fishery or fisheries in a particular location within those countries (see Seijo,
1993; FAO, 2000; Castilla and Defeo, 2001; McConney and Baldeo, 2007; Sosa
et al., 2008).
Fisheries management often requires a combination of measures, approaches,
and institutional arrangements compatible with the particular situation. Measures
such as marine protected areas may be used in conjunction with stock enhancement
and habitat restoration, as well as restriction of fishing effort in the areas, as is
done in Barbados and Mexico, to increase management effectiveness. For demersal
and benthic species, fishing permits and quotas may be implemented together,
provided that the latter are not excessive and can be accompanied by adequate
monitoring and enforcement. Good examples of this arrangement are found in
Argentina, Colombia and Mexico. In the case of pelagic species, given the high
vulnerability to climate-related environmental change, both risk and uncertainty
analyses are valuable tools when assessing and managing these fisheries, as is the
use of adaptive approaches through which management (and fishing intensity)
responds to changing conditions.

4. PROSPECTS IN FISHERY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Coastal fisheries are facing many problems, and while certainly some of these
are specific to certain subregions within the overall LAC region, several issues
and challenges reported by authors of the country chapters seem common; some
of these have also been reported by other authors working with coastal (small-
scale) fisheries (Staples et al., 2004; Agüero and Claverí, 2007; Béné et al., 2007;
García et al., 2008). The challenges are wide-ranging in LAC fisheries, from those
relating to fishery management (e.g. illegal fishing and a lack of institutional
capabilities – technical, logistical and economic – for enforcing regulations) to
those relating to fishery assessment (e.g. a poor understanding of the dynamics of
the socio-economic relationships in coastal fisheries that arise through interactions
among diverse, complex ecosystems and communities). The challenges also
go beyond the strict boundaries of fisheries themselves, to include concerns
over environmental disturbance and habitat destruction, as well as the need for
attention to factors that contribute to the vulnerability of coastal communities and
small-scale fisheries.
Addressing the problems associated with coastal fisheries in LAC will require a
set of key responses, to be discussed sequentially in this section: (i) comprehensive
fisheries assessment, which requires improved technical and financial support
for research, on a permanent basis, and suitable support for developing and
394 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

implementing appropriate assessment methods; (ii) building capacity for fishery

data collection, assessment and management; (iii) incorporation of social, economic
and livelihood considerations in the broader ecosystem-based and livelihood-
based approaches, (iv) exploration of alternative management schemes, moving
from traditional systems to new governance; and (v) promotion of equitable access
and clear fishery use rights among fishers, fishing communities and other relevant
stakeholders, as well as organization and self-regulation of fishers, to enable full
participation in fisheries management.

4.1 Comprehensive fisheries assessment

Implementation of fishery management plans relies heavily on fisheries assessments,
which are undertaken in most countries of LAC by national institutes of fisheries
or the like. However, in many cases these institutes lack the financial and technical
support to keep up to date with changes arising in the fisheries. Most efforts have
concentrated on gathering basic catch data, size frequency of individual organisms
and, in only a few cases, fishing effort information. Given such data limitations,
scientists are unable to undertake a full and integrated assessment of a given
fishery (including biological, social and economic aspects). Further, single species
approaches are the most common for this region, which may not necessarily
be appropriate given the complexity of coastal fisheries (with their multispecies
and multigear context). In addition to some comments here, this latter point is
examined in more detail later, in Chapter 15, within the context of the ecosystem
approach to fisheries.
While fishing pressure has imposed significant problems on coastal fisheries
and their managers across most of the LAC region, the analysis undertaken here
indicates varying degrees of response in terms of fishery assessment. For example,
major assessment efforts are apparent in parts of South America and some
Caribbean islands like Puerto Rico, while the capacity to implement such measures
is less in Central America – where continuing use of conventional assessment tools
limits the capability to benefit from a broad package of management tools. This
can be a reflection of differences in the economic and human capacity to address
ongoing needs as well as specific problems.
A focus on biological approaches has dominated across much of the LAC
region, but this focus has proven insufficient. Integrated assessment produces
multidimensional advice with a broader perspective (Charles, 2001; García et al.,
2008). García et al. (2008) also emphasize the fact that assessment must be cost
effective, rigorous, timely, integrative of approaches from different disciplines, and
incorporating local knowledge in order to be effective. Of course, the presence and
extent of these attributes will depend on the conditions prevalent in the particular
region where the evaluation takes place (scientific capacity, financial support, etc.)
and the nature of the institutional framework for management.
Finally, the information exchanges that led to, and that are reflected within this
volume, indicate that an open and positive attitude by fisheries scientists to seek
out and implement new approaches for assessment, and a general willingness to
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 395

interact with others across the region in order to generate a suitable knowledge
base, are crucial ingredients in the quest for sustainable fisheries resources.

4.2 Building capacity

A move toward sustainable fisheries management, aiming to maintain healthy
ecosystems and improve fisheries in the Latin America and Caribbean region,
requires the building of appropriate capacity. This in turn necessitates suitable
project development and training for (i) the selection and/or design of appropriate
assessment approaches to match the diverse manpower and financial possibilities
in the region (including, at least initially, designing approaches for data-limited
situations); (ii) design of data collection systems for answering relevant fishery
management questions, notably within the context of ecosystem considerations;
(iii) aiding decision-making in fisheries management in a context of uncertainty
and incomplete knowledge of the fishery and the ecosystem in which it operates;
and (iv) fostering, among fishers and fishing communities, an understanding of
ecosystem dynamics, interdependencies and the effects that various options for
human interventions may have on these over time.
The aid provided by some international agencies has partially helped LAC
countries (e.g. through working groups organized by FAO, like that on spiny
lobster, or training courses or workshops such as those organized by the
Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and the International
Development Research Centre (IDRC). However, it is a common concern that,
when international agencies leave, government agencies do not (or cannot)
take responsibility to maintain the programmes initiated or promoted by the
international agencies, and the results of those efforts fade. Thus, more attention
is required, on an ongoing basis, to build capacity and maintain it within the
region to improve the assessment of fisheries and to promote sustainable fisheries
management.

4.3 Incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerations

A major gap in the information reported in most country chapters within this
volume relates to a poor understanding of how socio-economic, cultural and
legal considerations affect fishing and fisheries. Many fisheries problems are
socio-economic in nature, and many involve aspects of the coastal economy that
extend beyond the fishery (Fraga, 2004; Staples et al., 2004; Agüero and Claverí,
2007; Salas et al., 2007a; García et al., 2008). For instance, while it has been stated
in many cases that coastal fisheries can contribute to food security and poverty
alleviation of local communities (Staples et al., 2004; Béné et al., 2007), a better
understanding of the socio-political circumstances, the legal frameworks and local
conditions of communities is necessary in order to evaluate how government
interventions may succeed or fail with alternative management programmes or
future development assistance in the search for sustainable fisheries and sustainable
coastal communities (Jentoft, 2000; Garcia et al., 2008; Hauck, 2008).
396 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

It is necessary to understand the characteristics and functioning of fishing

communities, the perceptions of people regarding the use and management of
natural resources, the dynamics of fishing operations, the behaviour of resource
users regarding compliance, as well as the way people cope with vulnerability
given an increase in threatening conditions for coastal fisheries and those who
depend on them (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Chuenpagdee et al., 2004; Salas and
Gaertner., 2004; De Young et al., 2007; Hilborn, 2007).

4.4 Alternative management schemes

In complex fisheries systems, where data is scarce, knowledge incomplete,
uncertainty high, and fishers compete heavily for limited resources, conventional
management systems – relying on top-down control by state agencies and based
on narrow approaches – have proved ineffective. Degnbol et al. (2006) call for
a change in the way fisheries managers have been approaching the problems of
complex fisheries. They contend that the main trend in fisheries management has
been to look for solutions in the form of ‘discipline-specific approaches’. These
might involve economic tools (e.g. individual transferable quotas – ITQs) focused
on economic efficiency, bio-ecological tools (e.g. MPAs) promoted by biologists
and focused on resource conservation, or community-based management (CBM),
promoted by anthropologists and emphasizing empowerment. The authors
argue that any one discipline alone cannot fully address the complex and diverse
problems of fisheries management and an integrated vision (transdisciplinary) and
changes in paradigms are necessary to challenge current fisheries problems.
According to Degnbol et al. (2006), when only one criterion (e.g. biological,
economic or social) is used to evaluate or implement management tools, there is a
risk of ‘tunnel vision’. Application of a single management tool may be appropriate
for a particular context, but when promoted as ‘universal remedies’, it ceases to be
useful in tackling fisheries problems (a point highlighted by Charles, 2001). On the
other hand, if several ‘discipline-specific approaches’ can be combined (subject to
concerns over conflicting objectives), the selection of one approach over others,
or a combination of several, will depend on managers’ preferences, political will
and implementation costs, among other factors (Seijo et al., 1998). While the use
of multiple management tools is important for a resilient system, it may be both
possible and more practical for managers to follow a well-known path using a set of
simple tools (ones that are easy to explain to user groups, easy to implement and less
costly to enforce). In some cases, this may limit the use of more complex approaches
such as an ecosystem approach for management (Plagányi, 2007), but may lead to
an adaptive management process (Walters and Martell, 2004), or to move beyond
the traditional biological approach, which has dominated fisheries management of
small-scale fisheries in many countries (Staples et al., 2004).
Employing a mixture of policy instruments and involving fishers in the
decision-making process and policy formulation are necessary steps towards
improved management schemes in the LAC region. There are some positive trends
in developing effective alternative management systems for LAC coastal fisheries,
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 397

as shown in some of the country chapters; these could signal progress for the
region in moving towards resource sustainability and social well-being. There is a
need, however, to expand and, where possible, replicate some positive examples of
self-governance to improve on conventional management systems. Responsibility
for a change of vision and approaches must come from scientists, fishers and
managers. To reach this goal, a broader and more participatory approach to
governance of fisheries is required. This policy direction will be explored in more
detail in Chapter 15.

4.5 Promoting equity, use rights and participation in management

An issue faced across the coastal fisheries of the LAC region is that of providing
equitable access to and distribution of the resource among competing groups, and
keeping fishery access from being concentrated in too few hands. One avenue for
achieving this is the allocation of fishery use rights – i.e. the right to go fishing,
rather than ownership over the resources per se (Charles, 2002). Such schemes
are said to create incentives for those holding rights to safeguard the well-being
of fishery resources (Berkes et al., 2001; Castilla and Defeo, 2001; Castilla and
Gelcich, 2008). However, allocation of fishing rights by themselves will not ensure
good fishery practices, to conserve resources, if the rights holders are not involved
in the management of the fishery. Furthermore, institutional adjustments are also
necessary in order to achieve cooperation from different users’ groups to maintain
healthy resources (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2007).
It is useful to highlight some successful examples in the LAC region, which may
encourage further exploration of options for allocation of fishing rights, whether
by area or by resource, or a combination of both. For example, in Chile and Peru,
marine areas are allocated for fishing to specific groups, who also enforce their
own rules (FAO, 2000; Mendo et al., 2002; CeDePesca, 2005; FAO, 2000; Castilla
and Gelcich., 2008). In Mexico, concessions by species and area are allocated for
lobster fishing to some groups of fishers – these groups have regulated access to
the use of this profitable resource. The security of access through use rights has
encouraged self-enforcement actions in communities in Mexico and Grenada
(Chuenpagdee et al., 2004; Seijo, 1993, McConney and Baldeo, 2007; Sosa et al.,
2008).

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter has provided an analysis of the state of fisheries assessment and
management along the coasts of LAC, as synthesized from the country chapters in
this volume, as well as from additional insights arising in the CoastFish conference.
We have seen that there has been progress in various areas, but also significant gaps
remaining. The final section of this chapter focuses on the future, on the prospects
for LAC coastal fisheries, and some directions forward, with an emphasis on
(i) developing comprehensive fisheries assessment; (ii) building capacity for fishery
data collection, assessment and management; (iii) incorporating social, economic
and livelihood considerations; (iv) implementing alternative management schemes;
398 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

and (v) promoting equity, appropriate use rights and participation in fishery
management. While these directions appear crucial for the future, choosing the
most appropriate approaches for their realization will undoubtedly be crucial in
increasing the likelihood of improving the state of coastal fisheries in LAC.

REFERENCES
Agüero M. 1992. La pesca artesanal en América Latina: una visión panorámica. In
Contribuciones para el estudio de la pesca artesanal en América Latina. Edited
by M. Agüero. ICLARM Conference Proceedings Contribution No. 835, Manila
Philippines. pp. 1–27.
Agüero M. & Claverí M. 2007. Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en América
Latina: una síntesis de estudios de caso. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero
en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO Documento Técnico de
Pesca. No. 461. pp. 61–72. Rome, FAO.
Allison E. & Ellis F. 2001. The livelihood approach and management of small-scale
fisheries. Mar. Pol., 25: 377–388.
Beltrán C. 2005. Evaluación de la pesca de pequeña escala y aspectos de ordenación
en cinco países seleccionados de América Latina: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá,
Colombia y Ecuador. Períodos, 1997–2005. FAO Circular de Pesca. No. 957/2,
Rome, FAO.
Béné C., Macfadyen G. & Allison E.H. 2007. Increasing the contribution of small-
scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper No. 481. Rome, FAO.
Berkes F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R. & Pomeroy R. 2001. Managing small-
scale fisheries. Alternative directions and methods. International Development
Research Centre. Ottawa, Canada.
Cabrera J.L. & Defeo O. 2001. Daily bio-economic analysis in a multispecific artisanal
fishery in Yucatán, Mexico. Aquat. Liv. Res., 14: 19–28.
Caddy J.F. 1996. Regime shifts and paradigm changes: is there still a place for
equilibrium thinking? Fish. Res., 25: 219–230.
Caddy J.F. & Defeo O. 2003. Enhancing or restoring the productivity of natural
populations of shellfish and other marine invertebrate resources. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No. 448. Rome, FAO.
Caddy J.F. & Seijo J.C. 2005. This is more difficult than we thought! The responsibility
of scientists, managers and stakeholders to mitigate the unsustainability of marine
fisheries. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B., 360: 59–75.
Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2001. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis on
co-management and experimental practices. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish., 11: 1–30.
Castilla J.C. & Gelcich S. 2008. Management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas) as
a driver for self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. In Case studies
in fisheries self-governance. Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida.
FAO Fisheries Technical paper. No. 504: 441–451.
CeDePesca. 2005. The imperative of recognizing artisanal fishworkers’ fishing access
rights. http://www.cedepesca.org.ar/
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 399

Charles A. 1991. Small-scale fisheries in North America: Research perspectives. In

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

Hernández A. & Kempton W. 2003. Changes in fisheries management in Mexico:

effects of increasing scientific input and public participation. Ocean. Coast. Manag.,
46: 507–526.
Hilborn R. 2007. Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned? Fish
and Fisheries, 8: 285–296.
Jentoft S. 2000. The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Mar. Pol.,
24: 53–59.
McConney P. & Baldeo R. 2007. Lessons in co-management from beach seine and
lobster fisheries in Grenada. Fish. Res., 87: 77–85.
Mendo J., Fernández E., Orrego H., Rojas J.C., Foy Valencia P. & Solano A. 2002.
Bases técnicas y marco legal para la implementación de áreas de manejo de recursos
hidrobiológicos en la costa peruana. Programa APGEP-SENREM. Convenio
USAID-CONAM. Peru.
Panayotou T. 1982. Management concepts for small-scale fisheries: economic and
social aspects. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 228. Rome, FAO.
Pauly D. 1997. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization,
and some implications for fisheries management. In Global trends: Fisheries
management. Edited by E.K. Pikitch, D.D. Huppert and M. Sissenwine. Bethesda,
Maryland, American Fisheries Society 20, Bethesda Maryland. pp. 40–49.
Pauly D. & Agüero M. 1992. Small-scale fisheries in the Neotropics: research and
management issues. In Contribuciones para el estudio de la pesca artesanal en
América Latina.Agüero. Edited by M. Aguero. ICLARM Cont. No. 835. Manila
Philipines. pp 28–36.
Pauly D., Christensen V., Dalsgaard J., Froese R. & Torres F.C. Jr. 1998. Fishing
down the food webs. Science, 279: 860–863.
Plagányi E. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries
Technical Report. No. 477. Rome, FAO.
Quesada Alpízar M.A. 2006. Participation and fisheries management in Costa Rica:
From theory to practice. Mar. Pol., 30: 641–650.
Ríos-Lara V., Salas S., Bello-Pineda J. & Peniche-Ayora I. 2007. Distribution patterns
of spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). Fish. Res., 87(1): 35–45.
Russel S. & Poopetech M. 1990. Petty commodity fishermen in the Inner Gulf of
Thailand. Hum. Org., 49: 174–187.
Salas S. & Torres R. 1996. Factors affecting management in a Mexican fishery. In
Developing and Sustaining World fisheries resources. Edited by D.A. Hancock,
D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer. The State of Science and Management.
CSIRO. Australia. pp. 767–771.
Salas S. & Gaertner D. 2004. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: management
implications. Fish and Fish., 5: 153–167.
Salas S., Chuenpagdee R., Seijo J.C. & Charles A. 2007a. Challenges in the assessment
and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish.
Res., 87: 5–16.
Assessing and managing coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 401

Salas S., Cabrera M.A., Sánchez J., Ramos J. & Flores D. 2007b. Memorias de
la Primera Conferencia de Pesquerías Costeras en América Latina y el Caribe.
Octubre 2004. Cinvestav U. Mérida, Mexico.
Seijo J.C. 1993. Individual transferable grounds in a community managed artisanal
fishery. Mar. Res. Eco., 8: 78–81.
Seijo J.C. 2007. Considerations for management of metapopulations in small-scale
fisheries in the Mesoamerican barrier reef ecosystem. Fish. Res., 87: 86–91.
Seijo J.C., Caddy J.F. & Euan J. 1994. SPATIAL: Space-time dynamics in marine
fisheries, a bio-economic software package for sedentary species. FAO Comp. Inf.
Series. Fish. No. 6.
Seijo J.C., Defeo, O. & Salas S. 1998. Fisheries bioeconomics. theory, modelling and
management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 368. Rome, FAO.
Smith V.L. 1969. On models of commercial fishing. J. Pol. Eco., 77: 181–198.
Sosa-Cordero, E., Liceaga-Correa M.A. & Seijo J.C. 2008. The Punta Allen lobster
fishery current status and recent trends. In Case studies in fisheries self-governance.
Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.
No. 504. pp. 149–162.
Staples D., Satia B. & Gardiner P.R. 2004. A research agenda for small-scale fisheries.
FAO/RAP Publication/FIPL/C10009. FAO, Regional Office for Asia and Pacific,
Bangkok.
Thorpe A., Aguilar-Ibarra A. & Reid C. 2000. The new economic model and marine
fisheries development in Latin America. World Development, 28(9): 1689–1702.
Walters C. & Martell S. 2004. Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University
Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
 403

15. Toward sustainability for

coastal fisheries of Latin America
and the Caribbean: effective
governance and healthy
ecosystems
Juan Carlos Seijo*, Anthony Charles, Ratana Chuenpagdee and Silvia Salas

Seijo, J.C., Charles, A., Chuenpagdee, R. and Salas, S. 2011. Toward sustainability for coastal
fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: effective governance and healthy ecosystems. In
S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America
and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO.
pp. 403-421.

1. Fishery governance and institutional design 404

1.1 From open access to fishery use rights 405
1.2 Overcoming exclusion costs and transactions costs 406
1.3 Developing effective fishery institutions 408
2. Fishery assessment and the ecosystem approach 409
2.1 Fishery assessment 410
2.2 Ecosystem approach to coastal fisheries 412
3. Concluding remarks 416
References 417

Small-scale fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have tended
to suffer from the same overexploitation syndrome that characterizes many
fisheries of the world today, one that has led to a global pattern of exploitation,
in which there is little room for expansion of the world’s fish catches and, indeed,
many resources are overexploited or even exhausted (FAO, 2008). With the fish
resources and fisheries of LAC so often in a poor state, what can be done about
it? How can fishery sustainability be achieved in a coastal context – whereby
the needs of the present local coastal populations of fishers can be met without

* Contact information: Universidad Marista de Mérida, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico. E-mail: jseijo@
marista.edu.mx.
404 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs – in the same
location and other interdependent locations (Caddy and Seijo, 2005).
Chapter 14 drew on a synthesis of results from the country-specific chapters
in this volume in order to review the overall state of fishery assessment and
management along the coasts of the LAC region. This led to five specific directions
proposed to improve the state of these fisheries, namely (i) comprehensive fisheries
assessment; (ii) building capacity for fishery data collection, assessment and
management; (iii) incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerations;
(iv) adopting alternative management schemes; and (v) promoting equity, use
rights and participation in fishery management. These themes all fit into the
two major policy frameworks being advocated globally as essential to the future
of fisheries – the development of new innovations in fishery governance and
institutional design, and the adoption of an ecosystem approach to fisheries.
In this chapter, we examine in some depth the nature of these two major
frameworks and explore how they can be effectively applied in the context of
small-scale fisheries management, particularly in the LAC region. The chapter
then closes with a synthesis of the key messages of this volume, highlighting in
particular the directions forward in improving the state of coastal fisheries across
Latin America and the Caribbean.

1. FISHERY GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN

A focus on ‘governance’ of fisheries implies a broad perspective that encompasses
activities well beyond the day-to-day routines of management, and that also extends
beyond the responsibility of governments alone. In other words, governance
involves various social actors, including private enterprises, civic organizations,
communities, political parties, universities, the media and the general public
(Costanza et al., 1998; Chakalall et al., 2007). Governance is about the collective,
aggregated and integrative process that these actors explore together in solving
problems and creating opportunities for society (Kooiman et al., 2005).
These interactions can be fostered through communication, learning and
negotiation. Such initiatives will help to rebuild catch levels and ensure sustainable
livelihoods by providing the mechanisms for decision-making needed to initiate
a control on fishing intensity. The resulting improvements will reduce the overall
pressure on the resources and counteract the declines in catches and the consequent
increases in travel and transaction costs that fishers incur when competing for the
most valuable resources. Recognition of the dynamics of the fisheries calls for
adaptive strategies. Institutional arrangements, bio-ecological processes, market
conditions and environmental impacts must be reviewed and revised and then
management strategies adapted accordingly.
Three major themes relating to these challenges of fisheries governance are
explored in this section: (i) the need for, and the evolution toward, clear rights over
access to and use of fishing grounds; (ii) approaches to reducing high exclusion
and transactions costs in coastal fisheries; and (iii) the development of effective
institutions for fishery governance.
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 405

1.1 From open access to fishery use rights

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

management rights. Indeed, as reported by Sutinen (1999), countries that utilize use
rights tend also to move towards co-management, since the latter tends to reduce
administrative costs and improve compliance with management regulations. Many
small-scale fisheries in LAC involve some form of community-based management
or co-management rights (FAO, 2000; McConney and Baldeo, 2007; Salas et al.,
2007; Sosa et al., 2008).
Much has been written about the need for rights in fisheries, but there is much
less discussion of the process for assessing and (if necessary) implementing a rights
system. There is a diversity of approaches to considering the role of use rights,
and of steps in the process of assessing and developing a use rights system. For an
examination of the sequence of events in such a process, see Charles (2002).

1.2 Overcoming exclusion costs and transactions costs

Small-scale fisheries in LAC share many of the same issues of all marine fisheries,
notably high exclusion costs, high information costs and high enforcement costs.
These key challenges and how they can be addressed are described here.
First, an inherent characteristic of a fishery with exploited fish stocks is the high
cost of excluding unauthorized fishers from exploiting the resource and enforcing
regulatory compliance on those authorized to fish. High exclusion costs (sensu
Schmid, 1987, 2004) mean that the use of an existing fish stock is difficult to limit
to only those who have the right to fish it. Just because fishers have the nominal
right to exclude others from harvesting a resource (i.e. through use rights) does
not mean that the exclusion can be done effectively. Furthermore, the mobility
and migratory nature of most fish resources, combined with high uncertainty as
to stock magnitude, means that an individual fisher is unlikely to benefit from
postponing capture of a fish with the expectation of taking it at a larger and more
valuable size later, since others are likely to have caught it in the meantime; that is,
unless all or most fishers also agree to abstain. Consequently, each fisher tends to
maintain a high rate of harvesting, and thus generates high exclusion costs to the
other fishers who tend to behave likewise.
Options for avoiding the effects of high exclusion costs in small-scale fisheries
involve institutional structures and rights systems (Berkes, 1989; Seijo, 1993;
Castilla and Defeo, 2001) such as: (i) implementation of community-based and
co-management systems where the right to harvest the commons during the
fishing season is allocated by the community to small-scale fishers; (ii) pecification
of individual rights through allocation within the fishing community; and
(iii) community-allocated fishing grounds which can be transferred or leased among
members of the voluntary collective organization of small-scale fishers (Seijo, 1993).
All of these approaches involve varying degrees of transactions costs that are faced
by small-scale fishers, costs which may or may not be shared with government.
Second, marine fisheries involve high transaction costs, which also diminish the
efficiency of resource allocation over time. Transaction costs in most fisheries involve
(i) costs of information; and (ii) enforcement or policing costs. First, efficient fisheries
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 407

management implies high information costs, to cope with the major uncertainties
inherent in natural systems, as well as a range of other biological, social, political and
economic factors requiring a precautionary approach to fisheries management (Hilborn
and Peterman, 1996). Second, fisheries management involves high enforcement or
policing costs if management schemes are implemented and/or fishery use rights
allocated and policed. For many shelf fisheries, the areas to be policed are extensive
and conventional patrol vessel operations are ineffective and costly. Under these
circumstances, a non-enforceable right becomes an empty right.
The complexities of managing small-scale fisheries that are subject to high
exclusion costs and high information and enforcement costs are further exacerbated
by a naturally fluctuating environment, changing coastal ecosystem dynamics, and
a lack of solid governance. A set of mitigating strategies is required to deal with
these complexities and move towards fishery sustainability, as described above
(Caddy and Seijo, 2005). To deal with these costs that prevent optimal harvesting
of the resources, some strategies are presented in Table 1 for small-scale fisheries
that target species with different degrees of stock mobility.

TABLE 1
Some strategies for mitigating the effects of high exclusion, information
and enforcement costs in small-scale fisheries, targeting stocks with different
degrees of mobility

Stock mobility Exclusion costs Information costs Enforcement costs

Sedentary or low Establish area-based Costs of stock assessment Emphasis on self-policing

mobility use rights or leases and bio-economic
among community analysis are shared Community-managed MCS1
Resources such as some members between those deriving
invertebrates (bivalves, Co-management with
resource rent and the government
lobster) government
Mobile Limited entry Bilateral/multilateral Bilateral/multilateral
(transboundary or agreed bilaterally or cooperation among cooperation in
shared stocks) multilaterally with parties, along with management and
allocation of a shared standardized data enforcement of common
Resources found in total allowable catch collection and stock or harmonized regulations
waters of multiple assessment, and
neighbour nations coordinated MCS,
(e.g. Caribbean plus cost allocation
area). These include proportional to use
metapopulations rights (e.g. quota)
Highly migratory Harvest quotas are Data collection and Commission members
established by a stock assessment are share enforcement costs
Resources that pass commission organized by the proportional to annual
nearby coastal areas commission. Costs are harvest by individual
targeted or incidentally Members of the shared proportionally to countries
harvested by small-scale commission set catch quotas
fisheries rules for entry to
the fishery, and
arrange allocation
negotiations

Adapted from Caddy and Seijo, 2005.

1 MCS: monitoring, control and surveillance.
408 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

1.3 Developing effective fishery institutions

Latin American and the Caribbean fisheries are by no means alone in needing
to improve their institutional arrangements in order to enhance the efficiency,
equity and overall effectiveness of fishery management. Uncertainty as to future
stock availability, particularly related to a common unsustainability of resources
discussed earlier, has meant that attention tended to focus less on achieving long-
run results and more on short-run benefits.
There are, however, positive measures that could improve governance. Some
small-scale fisheries in the LAC region are very suitable for participatory
institutional arrangements, such as the co-management and community-based
management approaches noted above. Indeed, there are various such fisheries
that already operate using traditional management systems and have established
informal agreements within communities about access to fishing grounds. For
such fisheries, three specific directions noted in Chapter 14 – incorporating social,
economic and livelihood considerations; adopting alternative management schemes;
and promoting equity, rights and self-regulation – are especially relevant.
Geographical remoteness of small-scale fishing communities, while often
resulting in marginalization of this sector (especially in terms of the ability to
influence management and decision-making) can, in some cases, be the incentive
for self-help approaches to fishery sustainability. Whether small-scale fishing
communities have the potential for community-based approaches to fisheries
management, it is recognized that careful discussion is required for the design and
arrangement of appropriate institutions. Discussion about the suitability of such
a management scheme is also needed. As suggested by Chuenpagdee and Jentoft
(2007), how the idea is conceived, communicated and discussed is as important
to success in implementing co-management and community-based management
systems as is the implementation itself.
The main principles for solid and lasting community management institutions in
small-scale fisheries and the factors which contribute to successful implementation
are well captured in Ostrom (1990). For example, clear boundaries and ‘rules of the
game’ for the operation of the community managed fishery need to be identified.
Fishers and other community members need to know who has the right to
withdraw resources and from what areas. Appropriation rules and restrictions such
as closed season and closed area need to correspond with the local environmental
and social conditions, and fit within the capacity of the governing institutions to
monitor and control. The complexity and the dynamics of the ecosystems and the
human components within fishery systems require that these rules are amenable
to being modified through a collective decision-making process.
In such institutional development, a key goal is to overcome individual incentives
that operate counter to desired fishing behaviour. For example, in the absence of
a consensus to respect rules such as catch limit, any single fisher’s decision to
increase their individual catch rate will benefit that individual while also increasing
costs of other fishers. Using Shelling’s (1978) terminology, this constitutes a social
trap, because the micro-motives of an individual fisher in the short-run are not
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 409

consistent with the macro-results that this fisher, and others, desire in the long
run. The short-run micro-motives consist of catching as many fish as possible in
order to increase individual marginal benefits, while the long-run desired macro-
results may involve achieving the maximum economic yield and/or sustaining the
flow of protein-rich seafood. Another incentive to overcome is that of free rider
behaviour, defined as participation in the harvest without participation in the costs
and constraints imposed by management of the stock, which tends to be present in
small-scale fisheries where the number of fishers is very large and fishing grounds
extend widely in the coastal area, making self-policing unfeasible.
Allowing for temporal fluctuations in resource productivity and preferences
of resource use, a sustainable yield from a fishery will tend to be attainable only
when the number of fishers is limited, and they act together to implement a form
of effort regulation. Co-management and community-based management schemes
provide a platform for collective regulatory actions to take place. Furthermore,
the participatory nature of co-management creates an expectation among fishers
of a legitimate process, thus encouraging compliant behaviour (Chuenpagdee
and Jentoft, 2007; Jentoft, 2007). A successful co-management plan requires
that the design of institutions is decided through meaningful participation and
representation of a broad range of stakeholders. For small-scale fishers, this
implies that their rights to locally organize and to devise their own institutions are
not challenged by the government authorities (Ostrom, 1990).
Other factors that may contribute to successful community management and
co-management of small-scale fisheries are robust and transparent leadership,
which also fosters cooperative behaviour, effective and timely conflict resolution
mechanisms at the local level, and access to training and technical assistance to
improve knowledge about ecosystems, use of habitat friendly and selective gears,
and quality control during the harvesting and post-harvesting processes.

2. FISHERY ASSESSMENT AND THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is rapidly becoming one of the most
prominent frameworks with which to assess and manage the world’s fisheries.
The EAF is a fundamentally ‘integrated’ approach that connects ecological,
socio-economic and institutional considerations and which, in turn, requires an
integrated approach to the assessment of fishery systems. The challenge then lies
in simultaneously developing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and
an integrated approach to fisheries assessment.
These two approaches are described in this section, with a focus on coastal
fisheries, particularly in LAC, where many coastal states are already exploring
ecosystem approaches to improving fisheries management, and corresponding
mechanisms for a comprehensive assessment of the fishery systems and the
corresponding coastal ecosystems. Moves toward EAF draw strongly on the range
of policy and management directions described in Chapter 14 – certainly the use of
comprehensive fisheries assessment and the adoption of alternative management
schemes, but also efforts to build capacity for fishery data collection, assessment
410 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

and management, and the incorporation of social, economic and livelihood aspects
into management decision-making.

2.1 Fishery assessment

As noted in Chapter 14, effective management requires integrated approaches
to the assessment of fisheries. However, meeting this need becomes especially
challenging when considering the uncertain conditions faced by coastal small-scale
fisheries (environmental variability, market demands, etc.) and the complexity
involved (multigear, multispecies, resources and fleet interactions). In addition,
application of integrated fisheries assessment and permanent programmes for the
evaluation of stocks is greatly limited in many countries in the LAC region by lack
of both financial support to conduct research and sufficient personnel with the
skills required for that task in many countries in the LAC region.
Several key components of coastal fisheries assessment are important, among
them: (i) assessment of the resource itself; (ii) assessment of habitat and stock
distribution; and (iii) assessment of fishing effort, selectivity and impact of
different fishing gears on resources.

Stock assessment in small-scale fisheries

Two fundamental approaches to evaluate the conditions of the fisheries and the
stocks they depend on are: (i) using data from the fishery itself; or (ii) using
fishery-independent data – and in a few LAC cases – both (Puerto Rico,
Argentina, Mexico). Data collection methods in fisheries involve on-site as well
as off-site methods. The former includes sampling of commercial fisheries and
on-board observers on fishing vessels; the latter comprises reports of fishers about
their landings. Biological sampling of size, age, sexual maturity, etc., of commercial
fisheries is a task most countries in the LAC region report as part of their strategies
to evaluate fisheries, generally because this is relatively cheaper than independent
surveys and on-board observer programmes. The method involving on-board
observers is less common in small-scale fisheries, but involvement of fisheries in
research programmes is becoming more frequent in the LAC area.
Data reported by fishers could at times contain biased reports; however, it is
becoming clearer that information derived from fishers’ logdocuments, especially
if those logdocuments are used for their internal accounting, could be very useful
for fishery analysis, including that involving spatial stock distribution. In some
cases fishers’ logdocument data are recorded by species (Mexico, Salas et al., 2004)
and gear (Costa Rica, Chacon et al., 2007). Other approaches that integrate catch
records at a mostly global level are reported by Chuenpagdee et al. (2006).
As indicated in Chapter 14, the level of fisheries analysis in different countries
varies from the simple catch and effort trend analysis and some aspects of
population dynamics to more complex and sophisticated age structured analyses
using numerical and acoustic methods. For instance, analytical methods, including
acoustic studies combined with development of assessment models (Erhardt and
Deleveaux, 2007), provide applications in the context of constrained data sources.
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 411

Complexity of some stocks like small pelagic fishes will necessarily demand
reliable spatial data in order to incorporate the dynamic behaviour of fishes.
A less complex analysis, including size data and reproduction indicators, has
been applied to demersal or benthic species. For example, fisheries indicators
proposed by Froese (2004) to evaluate overfishing conditions include: percentage
of specimens with optimum length in catch, percentage of mature fish in catch,
and percentage of mega-spawners in catch. The author argues that such simple
indicators have the potential to involve more stakeholders in the evaluation and
management of fishery resources and could easily be considered for small-scale
fisheries. Assessment of time series data, including size distribution, have shown
overfishing patterns where fishing intensity has increased over time (Bené and
Tewfik, 2004).

Habitat assessment and spatial analysis

Habitats are particularly crucial to fishery sustainability, and spatial distribution
of stocks can vary widely if changes occur in their habitat (Caddy, 2007). In
this context, spatial analysis to evaluate the distribution or connectivity of
stocks becomes relevant, especially in cases where meta-populations have been
identified. Studies focused on stock distribution based on habitat characteristics
through survey studies and fishery-dependent data have recently been reported
for the region (Ríos et al, 2007; Jaureguizar et al., 2006). Other research has been
designated to evaluate the effect of port location when spatially managing coastal
fisheries (e.g. Seijo and Caddy, 2008).
It should be pointed out that spatial analysis and sophisticated laboratory
techniques may be prohibitive for scientists in some countries in the LAC region.
Modelling, however, could use simple spreadsheets through to more complex
programming languages without necessarily requiring high technology. In both
cases, improvement of skills for the personnel in charge of stock assessment
may be required. Support from international agencies has been oriented in this
direction (FAO, CIDA, IDRC, WWF, World Bank, UNDP); however, it is the
commitment from the agencies in charge of management in the various countries
that is essential in order to maintain the effort supporting detailed research once
the agencies leave.

Fishing effort, methods and gear

In most cases, the need to properly assess and control the fishing effort of small-
scale fleets has been recognized in the LAC region. Nevertheless, the wide
distribution of fishers along coastal areas makes proper evaluation difficult. An
important consideration when assessing fisheries is the dynamics of small-scale
boats. The operators of these coastal boats make short-run decisions concerning
what to fish for, where to allocate the corresponding fishing effort, matters of
bycatch and discarding, and long-run entry and exit decisions, which may or may
not include changes in fishing power. Studies concentrating on bycatch seem to be
more common in industrial fisheries than in small-scale coastal fisheries.
412 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

The assessment of fishing effort allocations and investment was not common
within the evaluations in this publication, nor among the participants at the
CoastFish conference. However, some work in the LAC region has been reported
(Bené and Tewfik, 2001; Cabrera and Defeo, 2001; Salas et al., 2004; Salas and
Charles, 2008). On the other hand, evaluation of fishing power and gear selectivity
appear to be the most common of the categories referred to above, and seem to be
used especially in those cases where deterioration of fisheries resources has been
acknowledged.
Given the high diversity of fishing methods and gear employed in coastal
small-scale fisheries in LAC, assessment of these fishing gears is particularly
relevant. In addition, the need to improve selectivity – something more than
fishing efficiency – due to the level of deterioration of stocks in many parts of
the region requires studies dealing with the effects of alternative fishing gear on
species and size selectivity. These evaluations involve experiments to test different
types of gears and methods, which can be demanding in terms of time and money.
However, participatory research can be undertaken with small-scale fishers
genuinely interested in sustaining the yield of their fishery (Chuenpagdee et al.,
2003; Rueda, 2007).
To support management decision-making (in addition to supporting bio-
ecological analysis and stock assessment), detailed information on the social and
economic circumstances of the fishers and their communities, marketing patterns
or conservation needs must be gathered in future research efforts in this field. It
should be pointed out that a recent study by Garcia et al. (2008) indicates that
conventional frameworks for fishery assessment do not provide an adequate basis
for informed management decisions and development planning in small-scale
fisheries.

2.2 Ecosystem approach to coastal fisheries

A particularly significant move globally, to build alternative management schemes
in fisheries and to incorporate the other directions noted in Chapter 14, is that of
the EAF. There is international pressure on all fishing nations to implement an
ecosystem approach in their domestic fisheries and in any international fishery
in which they participate. The importance of the EAF was recognized in 2001 by
47 countries participating in the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries
in the Marine Ecosystem. The signing parties declared “that in an effort to
reinforce responsible and sustainable fisheries in the marine ecosystem, we will
individually and collectively work in incorporating ecosystem considerations into
that management…” (FAO, 2001).
The vision of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management is summarized
in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21: “The marine environment – including oceans and
all seas and adjacent coastal areas – forms an integrated whole that is an essential
component of the global life-support system and a positive asset that presents
opportunities for sustainable development. International law … sets forth rights
and obligations of states and provides the international basis upon which to pursue
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 413

the protection and sustainable development of the marine and coastal environment
and its resources”. As pointed out by Cochrane et al. (2004) and Ward et al.
(2002), a number of attempts have been made to translate this ideal into a practical
and feasible approach, including those of the United States National Research
Council (1999), the Convention of Biological Diversity and the World Wide Fund
for Nature.
FAO (2003) developed an interpretation of these and other efforts in the form
of a rationale and a definition. The rationale: “The purpose of an ecosystem
approach to fisheries is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that
addresses the multiplicity of societal needs and desires, without jeopardizing
the options of future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and
services provided by the marine ecosystem.” And the definition: “An ecosystem
approach to fisheries to balance diverse societal objectives by taking account of
the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components
and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecological meaningful
boundaries”. As recognized by Cochrane et al. (2004), the implementation of the
EAF is likely to be slow, and many countries, agencies and individuals are still in
the process of understanding and interpreting just what is intended by the term
EAF. One agreement that is emerging from the discussion is the need to capture
the human and ecological interdependencies relevant for wise management of
coastal ecosystems (De Young et al., 2008). This is particularly relevant in the
context of small-scale fisheries.

Ecosystem considerations in assessment and management of coastal fisheries

Integrated management of marine ecosystems is an approach required to manage
multiple and competing uses (including fish harvesting in this case) of certain
designated marine areas, including managing multiple stakeholders. It also requires,
like EAF, processes of participatory decision-making and conflict resolution. It
requires estimation of externalities involved in using the ecosystem and valuation
of the goods and services of the marine ecosystem. For the valuation of goods and
services of coastal ecosystems, it is important to acknowledge that human welfare
can be derived from them by direct use or by consumption of fish products, by
recognition of the indirect value of a marine ecosystem ecological service to the
production of other goods and services, by the use or consumption of goods and
ecological services by future generations, and by the inherent existence of such
goods and services (De Young et al., 2008).
Two aspects of ecosystems considerations that require attention are the time
needed to learn and acquire knowledge on the ecosystem, including the knowledge
from fishers, and the need to carefully assess the impacts EAF interventions may
have over the distribution of benefits and costs. A recent expert consultation on
the economic and social implications of EAF acknowledged that EAF objectives
and principles needed to be revised and expanded to better reflect social, economic
and institutional implications (De Young et al., 2008). It has also been recognized
that an understanding of EAF in the context of co-management and community-
based management is a priority (Seijo, 2007).
414 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Because of the greater uncertainties involved in considering ecosystem

dimensions as opposed to the single species approach, application of decision
theory to address situations of limited information seems to be the way to proceed
while continuing to build appropriate ecosystem information systems. These
require more extensive coverage of capacity building and also training mechanisms
for applying EAF with appropriate parsimony.
Some of the main issues that will need to be dealt with in small-scale fisheries
in the process of establishing ecosystem approaches for management are the
following (Seijo, 2007):
r
Changes in management measures to implement an EAF are likely to lead to
potential conflicts with stakeholders; this reality needs to be considered and
allowances made in the process of developing an EAF for specific fisheries.
r
Data collection requirements are greater with the EAF than with single
target species analysis of fisheries.
r
In developing coastal states where it is already difficult to implement
adequate data collection for single species, obtaining scientifically-valid data
in support of fisheries management, following an ecosystem approach, could
pose major problems.
r
Costs of building and maintaining data collection and analysis systems for
entire marine ecosystems and their users (i.e. artisanal and industrial fishers,
eco-tourists and non-consumptive users) are likely to be substantial.
r
Information costs may need to be paid for by the multiple users of the
ecosystem in order to meet the basic requirements for implementing an
operational EAF.
r
Managing fisheries, while taking into account limited knowledge and
uncertainties on biotic, abiotic and human components, will require the
development of adequate monitoring approaches.
r
The focus cannot be exclusively on biological monitoring but should also
include the human dynamics involving institutional, economic and social
dimensions.

Data and indicators for an ecosystem approach to fisheries

The complexities of managing fisheries within an ecosystem framework will
require the best science available and sustained input of fishers who have valuable
empirical knowledge of the marine ecosystem with which they interact. In the
transition from single species management approaches to EAF, while there will
remain an inevitable focus on collecting basic data for the economically most
important species, fisheries assessments should also monitor: (i) changes in
the abundance of their prey and predators through appropriate survey-based
indicators; (ii) changes in those environmental factors of importance to their life
histories; and (iii) social, economic and institutional considerations that bear on
the goals of management, and affect its chances of success.
This broadening of management raises some practical research questions to
be considered in managing small-scale fisheries with a scope that goes beyond
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 415

the stock assessment of target species. For example: What are the critical habitat
requirements for targeted marine resources and at what life stage and to what areas
of restricted habitat do they apply? What is the variable extent and status of such
critical habitats and how are these impacted by multiple human activities? What
are the use and non-use values of the ecosystem where species are harvested by
small-scale boats? How should the costs of ecosystem monitoring and surveillance
be distributed among users and coastal states? These and other related questions
could be addressed in the future to enhance the importance of ecosystem
considerations in the management of coastal small-scale fisheries.
A fundamental step in the process of extending beyond the single species
approach to fisheries management is that of building an operational and useful
system of indicators and corresponding reference points. In order for fishery
indicators to become more meaningful, they should explicitly account for changes
in the ecosystem in which they occur, which can arise from such causes as climate
changes, overfishing, environmental degradation due to human activities, or
the destruction of critical habitats. Pikitch et al. (2004) note in particular that
“...we need to develop community and system level standards, reference points
and control rules similar to single species decision criteria”.
It should be pointed out, however, as indicated by Sainsbury and Sumaila
(2003), that before specifying indicators and reference points, there are two
basic questions to answer: (i) Is there a need for explicit reference points for the
ecosystem, such as food web dynamics, ecological community structure and
biodiversity, or are species-based reference points sufficient? (ii) If ecosystem
reference points are needed, should they be based on properties of the undisturbed
coastal ecosystem? There seems to be an additional question: How to proceed in
the absence of baseline studies of early stages of coastal development? The latter is
a common situation in many LAC countries.

Spatial dimensions in an ecosystem approach

In managing fisheries cost effectively and in a way that maintains the integrity of
coastal ecosystems, countries in the LAC region may have to incorporate spatial
structure and dynamic environmental processes to properly account for changes
in habitat and ecosystem function in the context of dynamic change.
Small-scale fishers respond spatially to resource distribution when allocating their
fishing activity over space and time. This should be accounted for when assessing
how small-scale fisheries are targeting species where seasonality in the spatial
distribution of the resource is relevant, and when targeting sedentary resources with
heterogeneous spatial distributions. In this respect, fishery indicators should be
disaggregated over space and time to provide meaningful information to decision-
makers. To progressively move in the direction of spatial management of fisheries,
issues like the setting of an MPA with respect to source and sink areas would need
to be considered (Ríos et al., 2007; Seijo and Caddy, 2008).
416 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

3. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Coastal fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean are remarkably diverse. As
a result, there can be no “one size fits all” answer to the specifics of assessment or
management. Instead, it is crucial to seek out broadly-applicable frameworks and
approaches. Therein lies the importance of moving toward innovative governance
systems, effective institutions, integrated assessment frameworks and broad-based
ecosystem approaches, as described in this chapter.
Along with their diversity, coastal fisheries are also inherently complex. In
developing frameworks and approaches for effective assessment and management
of small-scale fisheries, we must acknowledge the human, ecological and
technological interdependencies present in the multiple use of coastal ecosystems.
This will often require expanding beyond single species thinking into multispecies
and multifleet approaches (Van den Bergh et al., 2007). It is also important to
take into account fisher decision-making in small-scale fisheries, the complexities
of which include flexible switching of target species that may occur seasonally
by artisanal fleets as a function of species availability (catch rates) and markets/
demand. A third key source of complexity in coastal fisheries is spatial
heterogeneity – this suggests the need to pay attention to spatially-explicit
management, such as through seasonally-closed areas or permanently closed areas
(marine protected areas) in areas of particular sensitivity, such as nursery grounds
and critical habitats.
In seeking new directions to cope with the above-noted diversity and complexity
in coastal fisheries, it was noted in Chapter 14, and emphasized throughout this
chapter, that there is a need to broaden the perspective on management. This
includes suitable governance frameworks (including development of alternative
management schemes), more comprehensive fisheries assessments, as well as a
framework for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries that is specifically relevant
to small-scale fisheries management. These moves require incorporating social,
economic and livelihood considerations and paying attention to capacity-building
needs.
Suitable frameworks and approaches for assessment and management must
focus on coping under conditions of uncertainty, through a systematic process
over time. This could be envisioned as including several major steps, such as the
following:
(i) Define fisheries management questions in the context of the multiple users
of the marine ecosystem, and of relevant ecological and technological
interdependencies among species, habitats and fisheries within the
ecosystem.
(ii) Determine suitable performance variables (biological/ecological, economic,
social, cultural and institutional) as well as corresponding performance
indicators and their limit and target reference points.
(iii) Identify alternative management, co-management or community
management strategies for the fishery within a coastal ecosystem context.
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 417

(iv) Design, adapt or select a suitable assessment framework within which

to evaluate management alternatives; this may range from intuitive
approaches through to dynamic models of ecologically and technologically
interdependent fishery systems along with suitable collection of data to
estimate model parameters.
(v) Identify the key sources of uncertainty and risk (including, where possible,
states of nature in uncertain and sensitive parameters, and probabilities
relating to these) and apply decision criteria that take uncertainties into
account.

This process should be adapted and made as simple as possible to facilitate data
collection systems and management frameworks that can progressively deal with
the added complexities of decision-making implied by new governance systems
and ecosystem approaches.
Attention to effective governance and healthy ecosystems, as highlighted in
this chapter, is urgently needed in many coastal fisheries of the LAC region,
facing a combination of difficult problems including depleted stocks, degraded
coastal habitats, excessive catching capacity, a shortage of local livelihood
alternatives, and a lack of empowerment among fishers and fishing communities
to participate in management decision-making. As noted earlier, there is no
magic answer to this set of challenges. However, as pointed out in a number of
contributions in this document, there are some promising mitigating strategies to
the overexploitation syndrome in coastal fisheries. Among those raised herein,
related either to governance or to ecosystem well-being, are management measures
such as: (i) community and co-management approaches; (ii) self-regulation and
self-policing; (iii) increased use of habitat-friendly fishing methods and selective
gear, to protect the ecosystem that sustains the fishery; and (iv) a systematic
planning approach to capacity management, aiming to ensure a desirable ‘mix’ in
the fishery. In combination, such measures have various implications; for example,
capacity management in a multispecies fishery might favour maintaining small- to
medium-sized multipurpose vessels, which would more easily allow for flexible
switching among target species, reducing the incentive to fish depleted species and
thus giving the stocks time to recover.
Whatever the particular management interventions – the choice of which will
be context-specific – adoption of suitable policy frameworks and approaches, as
outlined in this chapter, is crucial. These provide pathways that build on existing
success stories, providing positive directions toward a future of sustainable and
resilient coastal fisheries across LAC.

REFERENCES
Agüero M. & Claverí M. 2007. Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero en América
Latina: una síntesis de estudios de caso. In Capacidad de pesca y manejo pesquero
en América Latina y el Caribe. Edited by M. Agüero. FAO Documento Técnico de
Pesca 461. pp. 61–72.
418 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Bené Ch. & Tewfik A. 2001. Fishing effort allocation and fishermen’s decision making
process in a multispecies small-scale fishery: Analysis of the conch and lobster
fishery in Turk and Caicos Island. Hum. Eco., 29(2): 157–186.
Berkes F. (ed). 1989. Common property resources: ecology and community-based
sustainable development. Belhaven Press, London.
Cabrera J.L. & Defeo O. 2001. Daily bio-economic analysis in a multispecific artisanal
fishery in Yucatán, Mexico. Aquat. Liv. Res., 14: 19–28.
Caddy J.F. 2007. Marine habitat and cover: their importance for productive coastal
fishery resources. UNESCO, Paris.
Caddy J.F. & Seijo J.C. 2005. This is more difficult than we thought! The responsibility
of scientists, managers and stakeholders to mitigate the unsustainability of marine
fisheries. Phil. Trans. R. Soc., 360: 59–75.
Castilla J.C. & Defeo O. 2001. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis in
co-management and experimental practices. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish., 11: 1–30.
Castilla J.C. & Gelcich S. 2008. Management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas) as
a driver for self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. In Case studies
in fisheries self-governance. Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 504. pp. 441–451. Rome, FAO.
CeDePesca. 2005. The imperative of recognizing artisanal fishworkers’ fishing access
rights. www.cedepesca.org.ar/
Chacón A., Araya H., Váquez R., Brenes R.A., Marín B.E., Palacios J.A., Soto R.,
Mejía-Arana F., Shimazu Y. & Hiramatsu K. 2007. Estadísticas pesqueras del
Golfo de Nicoya, Costa Rica, 1994-2005. INCOPESCA-UNA-JICA. Costa Rica.
Chakallal B., Mahon R., McConney P., Nurse L. & Oderson D. 2007. Governance
of fisheries and other living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean. Fish. Res.,
87: 92–99.
Charles A. 2001. Sustainable fishery systems. Blackwell Science. UK.
Charles A. 2002. Use rights and responsible fisheries: limiting access and harvesting
through rights-based management. In A Fishery manager’s guidebook. Management
measures and their application. Edited by K. Cochrane. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper. No. 424. Rome, FAO.
Charles A. 2004. Rights-based fishery management: A focus on use rights. In Who
gets the fish? Proceedings of the New England Workshop on Rights-Based Fisheries
Management Approaches. Edited by M.E. Petruny-Parker, K.M. Castro, M.L.
Schwartz, L.G. Skrobe and B. Somers. Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett,
Rhode Island, USA.
Chuenpagdee R. & Jentoft S. 2007. Step zero for fisheries co-management: What
precedes implementation? Mar. Pol., 31(6): 657–668.
Chuenpagdee R., Morgan L., Maxwell S., Norse E. & Pauly D. 2003. Shifting gears:
assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in United States waters. Front Ecol.
Environ., 1(10): 517–524.
Chuenpagdee R., Liguori L., Palomares M.L.D. & Pauly D. 2006. Bottom-up, global
estimates of small-scale fisheries catches. Fish. Cen. Res. Rep., 14(8). (Available at
www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/).
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 419

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

National Research Council, Committee on Ecosystem Management for Sustainable

Marine Fisheries. 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press.
Washington, DC.
OECD. 2006. Financial support to fisheries. Implications for sustainable development.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris, France.
Pikitch E.K., Santora C., Babcock E.A., Bakun A., Bonfil R., Conover D.O.,
Dayton P., Doukakis P., Fluharty D., Heneman B., Houde E.D., Link J.,
Livingston P.A., Mangel M., McAllister M.K., Pope J. & Sainsbury K.J. 2004.
Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science, 305: 346–347.
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective
action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Ostrom E. & Hess C. 2007. Private and common property rights. Working paper Series
SSRN-id1304699.pdf . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1304699
Ríos-Lara V., Salas S., Bello-Pineda J. & Peniche-Ayora I. 2007. Distribution patterns
of spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). Fish. Res., 87(1): 35–45.
Rueda M. 2007. Evaluating the selective performance of the encircling gillnet used in
tropical estuarine fisheries from Colombia. Fish. Res., 87(1): 28–34.
Sainsbury K. & Sumaila U.R. 2003. Incorporating ecosystem objectives into
management of sustainable marine fisheries, including ‘best practice’ reference
points and use of marine protected areas. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine
Ecosystem. Edited by M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson. CABI Publishing, Rome.
pp. 343–361.
Salas S. & Charles A. 2008. Are small-scale fishers profit maximizers?: Exploring
fishing performance of small-scale fishers and factors determining catch rates. Proc.
Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst., 60: 117–124.
Salas S., Sumaila R.U. & Pitcher T. 2004. Short-term decisions of small-scale fisheries
selecting alternative target species: a choice model. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 61(3):
374–383.
Salas S., Chuenpagdee R., Seijo J.C. & Charles, A. 2007. Challenges in the assessment
and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish.
Res., 87: 5–16.
Schmid A.A. 1987. Property, power and public choice. Praeger, New York.
Schmid A.A. 2004. Conflict and cooperation: Institutional and behavioural economics.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Schelling T.C. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehaviour. W.W. Norton and Company,
New York.
Seijo J.C. 1993. Individual transferable grounds in a community managed artisanal
fishery. Mar. Res. Econ., 8: 78–81.
Seijo J.C. 2007. Considerations for management of metapopulations in small-scale
fisheries of the Mesoamerican barrier reef ecosystem. Fish. Res., 87: 86–91.
Seijo J.C. & Caddy J.F. 2008. Port location for inshore fleets affects the sustainability
of coastal source-sink resources: implications for spatial management of
metapopulations. Fish. Res., 91(2–3): 336–348.
Toward sustainability for coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 421

Sosa-Cordero E., Liceaga-Correa M.A. & Seijo J.C. 2008. The Punta Allen lobster
fishery current status and recent trends. In Case studies in fisheries self-governance.
Edited by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
No. 504. pp. 149–162.
Sutinen J. 1999. What works well and why: evidence from fishery management
experience in OECD countries. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56(6): 1051–1058.
Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Hoekstra J., Imeson R., Nunes P.A.L.D. & de Blaeij
A.T. 2007. Bio-economic modelling and valuation of exploited marine ecosystems.
Springer, the Netherlands.
Ward T., Tarte D., Hegerl E. & Short K. 2002. Policy proposals and operational
guidance for ecosystem based management of marine capture fisheries. WWF
Australia.
 423

16. Concluding thoughts: coastal

fisheries of Latin America and
the Caribbean
Anthony Charles*, Silvia Salas, Juan Carlos Seijo and Ratana Chuenpagdee

Charles, A., Salas, S., Seijo, J.C. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2011. Concluding thoughts: coastal
fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. In S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and
J.C. Seijo (eds). Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. pp. 423–426.

This document has sought to accomplish three goals: (1) to highlight the diverse
nature of coastal fisheries in the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region;
(2) to examine how these fisheries are currently assessed and managed; and (3)
to explore future directions – in policy, management and assessment – that can
improve the state of LAC fisheries. The first two of these goals have been met
largely thanks to the impressive work of colleagues in twelve LAC countries,
spread out across the region. The authors of our ‘country chapters’ have worked
over the past several years to produce a body of material that together paints
a picture of the wide range of coastal fisheries found in the region. This set of
chapters in the document at the same time provides a strong base for the integrated
analysis of fishery assessment and management in the region in Chapter 14 – an
analysis which, to our knowledge, is a first for the region. Finally, the third goal of
the document, to examine options for the future of LAC coastal fisheries, was met,
we hope, in the discussions of Chapter 15, which focuses on linking global trends
in fishery thinking with the specific realities of the LAC region.
The focus on coastal fisheries has represented another unique feature of this
document. Throughout the document, such fisheries have included three main
subtypes: subsistence fisheries, traditional fisheries (artisanal), and advanced
artisanal (or semi-industrial) fisheries. While there are always differences in
perspective – between analysts as well as among countries – over what constitutes
each of these subtypes, the key distinction we have sought to make here is between
coastal fisheries on the one hand and industrial or recreational fisheries on the other
hand. Thus, while some coastal fisheries may involve more capital-intensive fleets
than might be typically seen as ‘small scale’, there is, in many cases, a reasonable
equivalency of coastal and small-scale fisheries. The importance of focusing on

* Contact information: Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. E-mail: tony.charles@
smu.ca
424 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

such fisheries has been increasingly highlighted on a global scale – for example,
through FAO’s Small-Scale Fisheries Conference (2008) and the forthcoming
World Small-Scale Fisheries Congress (2010).
A key rationale for this focus on ‘coastal’ and small-scale fisheries lies in their
typically close connections to coastal communities, and thus the crucial role they
play in supporting community well-being and household livelihoods along the
coasts of the LAC region. In Chapter 1, it was noted that “The major contribution
to the region’s total landings comes from pelagic species landed by the industrial
fisheries”, so in terms of quantities alone, coastal fisheries are not typically the
biggest contributors. But the value added that comes from these fisheries goes
far beyond the size of landings or of GDP figures. This reality calls out for new
or enlarged measures of fishery contributions – ones that involve livelihoods,
regional economic development, community welfare, and so on – if we are to
properly understand the value of coastal fisheries globally.
As noted at the outset, the fishery information presented in this publication
is certainly not exhaustive, since it reflects but a sample of the region’s fisheries.
However, the twelve countries included provide reasonable geographical coverage
of Latin America and the Caribbean, including each of the main subregions:

r
The Caribbean islands (Barbados, Cuba, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Dominican

Republic, Trinidad and Tobago);
r
North and Central America (Mexico, Costa Rica); and
r
South America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay).

Furthermore, as described in Chapter 14, our analyses indicate that the

coverage herein does indeed reflect many issues and challenges shared by fisheries
more widely in the region, especially regarding assessment and management. The
overall state of coastal fisheries in the LAC region was described in Chapter 1,
while Chapter 14 describes the broad features of coastal fisheries globally and the
particular characteristics of such fisheries in each of the twelve countries covered
in the document. Chapter 14 then summarizes both the fishery data available in
each country (from catch and effort data through to institutional and benefit/cost
information), as well as the management methods (from catch limits and access
rights to gear restrictions and closed areas). There are clear indications of which
forms of data, and which management approaches, tend to be most prevalent in
the region – and which are less uncommon or even rare. A synthesis is provided
of these results, including the extent to which each subregion (Caribbean, Central
America and South America) has the four main forms of information discussed
(basic fishery data, bio-ecological, socio-cultural and economic).
In exploring future directions for LAC coastal fisheries, Chapter 14 drew on
the above analysis to highlight five specific fishery assessment and management
approaches to improve the state of these fisheries:
Concluding thoughts: coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean 425

1. Comprehensive fisheries assessment.

2. Building capacity for fishery data collection, assessment and management.
3. Incorporating social, economic and livelihood considerations.
4. Adopting alternative management schemes.
5. Promoting equity, rights and self-regulation.

Options for implementing each of these approaches in a coastal fisheries

context were discussed in Chapter 14, while Chapter 15 moved to a broader policy
analysis, noting that the five themes above all fit into two major policy frameworks
being advocated globally as essential to the future of fisheries:
r
Development of new innovations in fishery governance and institutional
design.
r
Adoption of an ecosystem approach to fisheries.

Chapter 15 explored these two major frameworks in some detail, with

emphasis on how they can be effectively applied in the context of coastal fisheries
management, particularly in the LAC region. It was noted that taking the right
moves toward implementing these approaches, within an appropriate context,
would increase the likelihood of success in efforts to improve the conditions of
coastal fisheries across Latin America and the Caribbean.
A recurring theme in this document has been the reality that effective
assessment and management of small-scale fisheries – and the success of moves
to meet governance and ecosystem challenges – must acknowledge the human,
ecological and technological interdependencies present in the various uses of
coastal ecosystems. This requires an appreciation of the goals, the motivations and
the decision-making patterns of coastal fishers and communities.
As a concrete example of this, consider the switching behaviour that fishers
commonly practice among target species along the coast – often seasonally as a
result of species availability, catch rates and markets. Such behaviour needs to be
taken into account in analysis of these fisheries, as well as in management actions.
From a policy perspective, it may be important (i) to allow fishers to change
target species in relation to abundance and demand, to avoid the incentive to fish
depleted species, and thereby give the stocks time to recover; and (ii) to encourage
the fleets made up of small- to medium-sized multipurpose vessels that are capable
of such flexible switching among species. It is also important to ensure that coastal
ecosystems are kept healthy. Thus it is important that while encouraging switching
behaviour, there is avoidance of unselective fishing gears and/or habitat-unfriendly
gear. Finally, there may be a need to build bio-ecological safeguards as mechanisms
to cope with the complexities of human activity on the coast – such as seasonal
closures, technical measures to avoid capture of unwanted or protected species,
and permanently closed areas (marine protected areas) in areas of particular
sensitivity such as nursery grounds and critical habitats.
Such situations highlight the complex nature both of human uses along the
coast and of coastal ecosystems. There is undoubtedly a challenge to be faced
426 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

in the assessment and management of coastal fisheries, given that complexities

such as these arise typically in situations where there are also major limitations
on data availability – a reality that has been emphasized in Chapter 14 as well as
throughout the country chapters of this publication.
Fortunately, however, the challenge is not insurmountable. Shifts in the
directions summarized above – including appropriate governance arrangements
and an ecosystem approach – can work successfully for the coastal fisheries of
Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as those elsewhere, by drawing on a
key strength – the capabilities of coastal fishers and coastal communities. Their
energy, experience and local knowledge base make fishers and communities crucial
partners in assessment and management, through participatory research and
data collection, as well as community-based and co-management arrangements.
This partnership with scientists and managers can help overcome the range of
shortcomings in ‘official’ data sources and in conventional fisheries management.
In small-scale fisheries around the world, and specifically in the LAC region, if
governmental policy places value on (and shows respect for) the integrity and
well-being of coastal fishers, communities and ecosystems, this will go a long way
to ensuring the health of these coastal systems into the future.
 427

List of contributors
Claudia Carozza Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero
Inés Elías Centro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)
Edgardo E. Di Giácomo Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquerías “Almirante Storni”
Argentina
Miguel S. Isla Secretaría de Promoción Económica y Fiscal
J.M. (Lobo) Orensanz Centro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)
Ana María Parma Centro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)
Raúl C. Pereiro Universidad del Trabajo del Uruguay (UTU)
Raquel Perier M. Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquerías “Almirante Storni”
Ricardo G. PerrottaU Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero
María E. Ré Centro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET)
Claudio Ruarte Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero

Patrick McConney Centre for Resource Management and Environmental

Studies, University of the West Indies

Barbados
Daniela Coswig Kalikoski Universidad Federal de Río Grande
Antonio Carlos Diegues Universidade Estadual de Sao Paulo (usp)
Marcelo Vasconcellos Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG)
Brazil
Anthony Charles Saint Mary´s University
Ratana Chuenpagdee Memorial University of Newfoundland

Canada
Claudia Stella Beltrán Consultora Independiente
Jacobo Blanco Universidad del Magdalena
Juan Carlos Narváez Universidad del Magdalena
Colombia
Mario Rueda Instituto de investigaciones Marinas y Costeras
Efraín Vitolia Instituto de investigaciones Marinas y Costeras
Angel Herrera-Ulloa Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica
Guillermo Oro-Marcos Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje
José Palacios-Villegas Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Luis Villalobos-Chacón Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica
Rigoberto Viquez-Portuguéz Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica
Regla Duthit Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras
Luis Font Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras
Rafael Puga Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras
Cuba
Mireya Sosa Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras
Servando V. Valle Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras
Liliana Betancourt Programa EcoMar
Alejandro Herrera Programa EcoMar

Dominican Patricia Lamelas Centro para la Conservación y el Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía

Republic de Samaná y su Entorno

Alba Melo
Miguel Silva
428 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Roland Baldeo Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

Grenada
Porfirio Álvarez-Torres Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(SEMARNAT)
Enrique Arcos-Huitrón Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN
Mexico Francisco Arreguín-Sánchez Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN
Antonio Díaz-de-León Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(SEMARNAT)
Pablo del Monte-Luna Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(SEMARNAT)
José Ignacio Fernández Instituto Nacional de la Pesca-SAGARPA
Luís G. López-Lemus Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(SEMARNAT)
Germán Ponce Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN
Silvia Salas CINVESTAV del IPN
Juan Carlos Seijo Universidad Marista de Mérida
David J. Die Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies,
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,
University of Miami

Puerto Daniel Matos-Caraballo Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental

Resources
Rico
Manoj Shivlani Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies,
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,
University of Miami
Mónica Valle-Esquivel MRAG Americas, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida

Christine Chan A. Shing Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs
Lara Ferreira Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs
Elizabeth Mohammed Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs
Trinidad
and Suzuette Soomai Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs
Tobago Louanna Martin Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs
Anita de Álava UNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias
Omar Defeo UNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias and DINARA
Sebastián Horta UNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias and DINARA
Uruguay
Pablo Puig DINARA
 429

Editors’ profile
Dr Silvia Salas is a professor at the Yucatán research centre of the Centro de
Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV) in Mexico. She has worked
on various projects relating to bio-economic analysis and assessment of fisheries
in Canada and Mexico, and has taught courses on fisheries biology and fisheries
bio-economics in Mexico and Costa Rica. She is engaged in connecting research to
management, ranging from coastal community initiatives to general management
programmes, and by participating in advisory committees of governmental
agencies in Mexico. She is a member of the advisory scientific board for the FAO
WECAF region, and has participated as an expert in several scientific meetings
organized by FAO. She has worked as a consultant for the National Commission
of Fisheries in Mexico and the main oil company in Mexico, looking at different
types of impacts of anthropogenic activities on fisheries. Her current research
involves bio-economic analysis of small-scale fisheries, evaluation of fishing
strategies of fishers, dynamics of fishing fleets and implications for management,
as well as evaluation of perceptions concerning the use and management of coastal
resources.
Dr Ratana Chuenpagdee is Canada Research Chair in Natural Resource
Sustainability and Community Development at Memorial University of
Newfoundland, Canada. Her research emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches to
fisheries and coastal ecosystems management, focusing particularly on small-scale
fisheries, marine protected areas, community-based management, food security
and fisheries governance. Dr Chuenpagdee has developed two tools for integrated
coastal management, i.e. the ‘damage schedule approach’ for non-monetary
valuation of natural resources and the ‘Coastal Transects Analysis Model’
(CTAM), an online visualization and interactive decision-support software.
As a member of the Fisheries Governance Network based in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, she has contributed to the production of the book Fish for Life as
well as to the practitioner handbook Interactive Fisheries Governance: A Guide to
Better Practice. Dr Chuenpagdee is also co-director of the Coastal Development
Centre in Thailand, which serves as a secretariat for the Coastal Zone Asia-Pacific
Association and is responsible for the organization of its biennial conferences.
Dr Juan Carlos Seijo is a professor of Fisheries Bio-economics at the School
of Natural Resources, Marista University of Mérida, Mexico, where he was
university president from 1996 to 2004. His academic work has been published in
scientific journals that include Marine Resource Economics, Journal of Aquaculture
Economics and Management, Fisheries Research, Marine and Freshwater Research,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, among others. He is author and
co-author of three documents in his field of specialization, and is currently
working on spatial modelling and management of marine fisheries, and risk and
uncertainty in fisheries associated to climate change. He has taught specialized
courses in fisheries bio-economics in Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Taiwan Province
of China, Colombia, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Panama, Trinidad and
430 Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean

Tobago, Costa Rica, Cuba and Guatemala, and has participated in a number of
international expert consultations. He is currently Chairman of the Scientific
Advisory Group of WECAFC (Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission of
FAO), Board Member of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and
Trade (IIFET) and President Elect of the North American Association of Fisheries
Economists (NAAFE).
Dr Anthony Charles is a professor of Management Science and Environmental
Studies at Saint Mary’s University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, where
he focuses on interdisciplinary research in fisheries and coastal management.
Dr Charles’ work ranges from fishery policy analysis, to socio-economic studies,
to bio-economic modelling of fishery and aquaculture systems. Current research
interests include community-based fishery management, integrated fishery and
marine indicators, and analysis of sustainability approaches in fisheries. He is
the author and co-author on a range of publications, including the documents:
Sustainable Fishery Systems (Blackwell Science), Integrated Fish Farming (CRC
Lewis) and Community Fisheries Management Handbook (Gorsebrook Research
Institute). Dr Charles has a longstanding interest and involvement in fishery,
aquaculture and coastal projects in developing regions, notably Latin America and
the Caribbean. He has worked as a visiting scientist with FAO, as a consultant
with FAO and OECD, as director of Canada’s Ocean Management Research
Network, and as an adviser to community fishery organizations and to First
Nations in Atlantic Canada. Dr Charles has received a Pew Fellowship in Marine
Conservation and a Gulf of Maine Visionary Award in recognition of his work.

From left to right: Anthony Charles, Silvia Salas,

Ratana Chuenpagdee, Juan Carlos Seijo.
This state-of-the-knowledge document examines the assessment and management
of coastal small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean (which are
inherently interdisciplinary and integrated in approach), covering biological,
socio-economic and policy aspects. It includes an introductory overview chapter, a
set of 12 chapters each examining fisheries of a particular country, and two major
conceptual and analytical synthesis chapters. The country chapters cover the main
subregions of Latin America and the Caribbean: the Caribbean Islands (specifically
Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago),
Central America (Costa Rica, Mexico) and South America (Argentina, Brazil,
Colombia, Uruguay). The analysis in the document contributes to a better
understanding of these coastal fisheries, of the information available on them, of
the gaps that exist in fisheries assessment and of trends in fisheries management.
Through its knowledge sharing, the document will lead to more effective
approaches to managing coastal fisheries in the region, as well as identification of
priorities for information collection and research – thus leading to more
sustainable fisheries across Latin America and the Caribbean.