Social perceptions of Colombian small

Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Social perceptions of Colombian small-scale marine fisheries conflicts:
Insights for management
Lina M. Saavedra-Díaz a,n, Andrew A. Rosenberg b,1, Berta Martín-López c,2
a
Department of Biology, University of Magdalena, PO Box 2-1-21630, Carrera 32 No. 22-08, Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia
Center for Science & Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
c
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, c. Darwin 2, 28049 Madrid, Spain
b
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 7 May 2014
Received in revised form
30 November 2014
Accepted 30 November 2014
Available online 17 March 2015
There is limited information about Colombian fisheries available from government sources. In
consequence, as is the case for many artisanal or subsistence fisheries, fishermen, local leaders, and
fisheries experts become a primary source of data for identifying priority issues for management
attention. This study describes the problems that currently affect small-scale fishing activity and fishery
resources in Colombia, based upon data collected from these main stakeholders. Data from extensive
interviews and community meetings were carefully coded to produce a quantitative picture of the
conflicts in these artisanal fisheries. Identified issues applied in three ways; across all communities,
germane to one coastal area, or peculiar to individual communities. The results present the opportunity
to focus management attention on key issues that can be addressed with co-management by
communities in cooperation with government.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Fishery conflicts
Fishery management
Fishery problems
Small scale fisheries
Social fishery knowledge
1. Introduction
Most countries worldwide with marine small-scale fisheries
activity share similar difficulties in resource management [1–3].
This paper exemplifies the tropical developing country, Colombia.
Columbia’s multi-species and multi-gear artisanal fisheries consist
of a highly variable number of fishers, depending upon the season
and hour of the day, with weak labor rights, minimum control and
management rules, and low participation in decision-making. In
addition, there is little information regarding the socio-economic
context of fishing that affect the process of decision making [4,5]. In
Colombia, these conditions are exacerbated due to internal national
conditions such as displaced people (who become novice fishers)
due to violent events, conflicts in the fishing territory and fishers’
culture with drug trafficking activities, and fishery administration
instability (over the last decade five institutions have been in
charge). Since most government efforts are concentrated on Colombia’s internal war against drug trafficking, paramilitaries, and
guerrillas, the environment is not considered a national priority,
and the capacity to enforce fishery regulations is limited [6].
At the same time, fishing activity is suffering the effects of
multiple direct drivers of change, including (1) pollution in rivers
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 57 5 4301292.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.M. Saavedra-Díaz),
[email protected] (A.A. Rosenberg), [email protected] (B. Martín-López).
1
Tel.: þ1 603 767 9501.
2
Tel.: þ1 860 405 9215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.026
0308-597X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
and along the coast [7,8]; (2) urban sprawl and displacement from
rural to urban areas [7,8]; (3) climate change [9,10]; (4) loss of
biodiversity [9,11]; (5) invasive alien species [12,13]; and (6) the
destruction of coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats [14,15].
Artisanal fishing activity has been neglected due to its insignificant
contribution to foreign exchange, and there is little incentive to
manage it, even though subsistence fishing activity alleviates unemployment and bad nutrition [16].
There is an institutional and legal vacuum for the management of
marine resources including the establishment of protected areas as a
buffer against overexploitation [17–21]. These factors underlie the
deterioration of Colombia’s coastal and marine environments [22].
Several reports describe the overexploitation of different important
fishing species such as pargos (Lutjanus spp. and Ocyurus spp.) on the
Caribbean [11,23–25], and piangua (Anadara tuberculosa and A. similis)
on the Pacific coast [26–29]. Lack of management is risking not only
fisheries resources but also human well-being in local communities
due to the deterioration of ecosystem services [30]. Despite the
complex relationships between the ecological and socio-economic
factors that affect fisheries in Colombia, no previous studies deal with
the problems associated with small-scale fisheries from an integrated
and interdisciplinary perspective.
The main objective of this research is to analyze social perceptions
of problems and conflicts in Colombian small-scale marine fisheries. In
order to do so, it specifically aims to (1) explore differences of social
perceptions among different stakeholders—i.e., fishermen, local leaders,
and fishing experts, (2) analyze existing relationships between stakeholders’ perceptions of fisheries problems within marine ecoregions,
62
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
Fig. 1. Map of the chosen fishing community per each coastal and marine ecoregions (CME) on the Colombian Caribbean coast (Taken and modified from [8]).
and (3) offer insights for the management of small-scale marine
fisheries on both the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of Colombia.
there are a total of around 40,000 fishers, with 19,000 living on the
Caribbean coast.
2.2. Data sources
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The Colombian Caribbean coastline stretches for 1642 km (Fig. 1),
the Pacific coastline for 2188 km (Fig. 2), and island coastlines for a
total of 52 km. The Caribbean coast supports 2919,348 inhabitants,
while the Pacific coast supports only 543,594 [31]. The coast is divided
into six coastal and marine ecoregions (CMEs) on the Caribbean coast
(Fig. 1) and four CMEs on the Pacific coast (Fig. 2). CMEs are distinguished by different environmental characteristics such as geomorphology, hydrography, sedimentology, and coastal and marine ecosystems [8]. State and CME boundaries are relatively similar, in some cases
nearly overlapping. Since the present study focuses on environmental
conditions, CMEs provide spatial orientation.
Caribbean coast fishing communities selected in each CME for
this study include Ahuyama in the Guajira CME, Taganga in the
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta CME, Las Flores in the Magdalena
CME, San Antero in the Morrosquillo and Sinú CME and El Roto in
the Darién CME.
Pacific coast fishing communities selected in each CME are
Bahía Solano in the Alto Chocó CME, Pizarro in the Baudó CME,
Juanchaco in the Málaga–Buenaventura CME, and Tumaco in the
Llanura Aluvial del Sur CME.
In 1996, FAO estimated around 150 coastal fishing communities
located on the Caribbean coast and 144 on the Pacific [32]. In 1997,
there were approximately 12,000 small-scale fishermen communities on Colombia’s Pacific coast and 12,000 on the Caribbean
coast [33]. Some Colombian marine fisheries experts suggest that
Primary sources of information are local ecological knowledge
(LEK) and “work-experience knowledge” (WEK). Information was
collected from three groups: fishermen, local leaders, and fisheries
experts. LEK was provided by the first two sources, fishermen and
local leaders. Fishermen is defined here as coastal marine small
scale fishermen and fisherwomen, including a great variety of
racial and ethnic groups. Local leaders include presidents of local
fishing associations or persons recognized as influential members
of the fishing community. Finally, fisheries experts are scientists
and technicians from Colombian fisheries institutions and administration, and their WEK is acquired via a mixture of educational background and work experience in Colombian fisheries
management.
In order to collect both LEK and WEK sources as well as the
perceptions of fisheries challenges, semi-structured interviews of
304 people were conducted. Participants came from three stakeholder groups; fisheries experts in regional environmental institutions, local leaders, and marine artisanal fishermen. The same
semi-structured interview was used with the three types of
stakeholders in order to explore the different perceptions about
fisheries problems and conflicts. Table 1 shows the number of
interviews performed in the Caribbean and Pacific coasts per
stakeholder group.
The behavior and knowledge of Colombian coastal fishermen
has recently been recognized as an essential element for improving fisheries management [34]. In fact, communities have compiled their LEK through decades of experience fishing in local
marine environments. Currently, many studies around the world
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
63
Fig. 2. Map of the chosen fishing community per each coastal and marine ecoregions (CME) on the Colombian Pacific coast (Taken and modified from [8]).
Table 1
Number of semi-structured interviews performed in each stakeholder group on
each coastal region.
Type of interview
Caribbean
Pacific
Total
Fishing experts
Local leaders
Fishermen
Total interviews
34
19
121
174
27
10
63
100
61a
29
184
274
a
Thirty Interviews performed in 2007 in the feasibility study for the present
research have been included in this study, for a total of 91 fishing experts
interviews in total.
have explored fishery issues using LEK as a source of knowledge,
such as in Ghana [35], Thailand [36], Mexico [37] or Brazil [38].
To collect the fishermen and local leaders’ perceptions about
fisheries conflicts on the basis of their LEK, a representative
sample of small-scale fishing communities in each of the CME’s
were chosen (Figs. 1 and 2). One community for each ecoregion
was selected when: (1) it was not located in a marine protected
area or an island; (2) it was historically recognized as a fishing
community; (3) it relied on fishing as a primary economic or
subsistence activity; (4) there existed some level of fishermen’s
organization (formal); (5) the community was involved previously
in research projects, and (6) there was a low incidence of violence
or drug trafficking (for safety). Fieldwork performed in the fishing
communities took place from August 2008 to August 2009 and
lasted approximately three weeks to one month within each
community.
Community leaders were interviewed first upon arrival at each
community. Local leaders identified the principal fishing gears used
locally and explained the general economic, social, and cultural
conditions in the community. The interview contained 15 standard
questions focused on general subjects pertaining to the local artisanal
fishing community. Questions were divided into 5 main subjects:
(1) the role of local leaders in the community; (2) overview of the
condition of marine artisanal fisheries; (3) fisheries problems;
(4) proposed solutions; and (5) fisheries management.
At least two fishermen from each community were interviewed
for every fishing method (i.e., gillnets, mainline, longline, beach seine
net with bag, harpoon, surrounding net, bottom trawl, among
others). Fishers of different generations were chosen whenever
possible in order to obtain different perspectives on gear use and
fish caught. In this case, the interview consisted of 89 questions
focused on seven main subjects: (1) personal information; (2) demographics and quality of life (family, education, living conditions,
among others); (3) current fishing activity (i.e., time spent fishing,
reasons for fishing, technology employed, fishing locations, marketing, among others); (4) long term changes in fishing activity and
fisheries problems; (5) proposed solutions; (6) fisheries management; and (7) information regarding the community (i.e., relationships with community members, vulnerability to violence or drug
traffic, happiness being a fisherman, among others).
In addition to interviews, hearings were performed in order to
start an informal discussion where fishers brainstormed about the
main problems that affected local fishing activity. Any fisher could
identify a problem facing the community. Once all the problems
were listed, fishers discussed the list amongst themselves, prioritizing problems according to the degree to which they found
themselves affected, and in this manner selected the main problems for analysis (Fig. 3). In general, no more than five problems
were discussed and analyzed in depth for each community. The
number of local community members participating in each hearing varied as follows: on the Caribbean coast, the communities of
Ahuyama (16 community members), Taganga (22), Las Flores (30),
San Antero (40), El Roto (20), and on the Pacific coast, the
communities of Bahía Solano (35), Pizarro (19), Juanchaco (20),
and Tumaco (55).
64
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
Fig. 3. Example of a “fish skeleton” diagram of a priority problem identifying
causes, effects and solutions as discussed by fishers at first in each hearing.
In order to compile WEK knowledge, fisheries experts who
belong to fisheries institutions that are now or have been involved
with artisanal communities in the past were interviewed. Examples of fisheries institutions are national agencies, main coastal
universities, regional autonomous corporations (Corporaciones
Autonomas Regionales—CARs) and non-governmental organizations. The interview consisted of 42 standard questions focused
on six main subjects: (1) suggested model communities; (2) professional status and fisheries experience; (3) overview of the
condition of marine artisanal fisheries; (4) fisheries problems;
(5) proposed solutions; and (6) fisheries management.
2.3. Data analysis
Qualitative information from semi-structured interviews and
fieldwork activities was coded into quantitative data then organized and analyzed using computer-assisted qualitative data
analysis software (CAQDAS), N-Vivo/8 software [39,40]. This software is founded on the concept of content analysis as a research
technique [41–43]. Based on [44] and [39], coding was done by the
meaning of phrases, following the elemental method and incorporated in N-vivo. Then, structural coding and the elemental
method were used to pre-code questions by creating main
categories of common subjects that allow different opinions to
be combined in a single category. Sixteen main categories were
created corresponding to the common subjects under which the
codes are aggregated [6,45]. In order to explore associations
between the perceptions of fisheries problems and the three
groups of fisheries stakeholders, we performed Chi-Squared tests.
Furthermore, Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted to measure
differences in the perceptions of the main categories of fisheries
conflicts among stakeholders. In addition, Mann–Whitney tests
were performed in order to measure differences in perceptions of
the same main categories between the Pacific and Caribbean
regions. Finally, to explore the relationships between stakeholders’
perceptions of fisheries problems and the marine eco-regions,
a redundancy analysis (RDA) was performed.
3. Results
3.1. Principal fisheries problems identified from each stakeholder
separately
Fishermen perceived destructive fishing methods as the most
significant problem with the highest percentage response among
all respondents (70% in the Caribbean coast and 79% in the Pacific).
On both coasts, gillnets or entangling nets (trasmallo, mantas
monofilamento, and mallas) were seen as the most problematic
among the six troublesome fishing methods. Gillnets are followed
by seine beach nets or chinchorro (18% in Caribbean and 13% in
Pacific), surrounding net or boliche, and arpon, buceo con arpon, or
harpoons. The final two methods are modifications of fishing
activity and refer to the use of dynamite and viento and marea
fishing.
The second main problem identified by fishermen is the lack of
regulations (60% in Caribbean and 47% in Pacific). For instance,
fishermen named unregulated fishing on the spawning areas of
fish resources (5% in Caribbean and 20% in Pacific), presence of
foreign fishermen (19% in Caribbean and 33% in Pacific), the
number of fishermen (18% in Caribbean and 27% in Pacific), the
amount of gear (7% in Caribbean and 16% in Pacific), the lack of
established fishing zones or seasons (13% in Caribbean and 11% in
Pacific), fish size limitations (13% in Caribbean and 7% in Pacific),
and quantity of each gear type allowed (8% in Caribbean and 9% in
Pacific), among others.
The third main problem identified by fishermen on both coasts
in the coastal uses and infrastructures category was pollution and
industrial contamination, even though the Pacific coast (29%) is
less developed than the Caribbean coast (42%). Responses on the
Pacific coast were related to specific cases of contamination (i.e.,
petroleum spills and garbage management), while on the Caribbean coast, fishermen distinguished between general contamination and specific cases of contamination (i.e., submarine pipe,
chemical residues, and coal ports).
Local leaders mostly prioritized problems related within the
category of fishermen and communities (75% in Caribbean and 73%
in Pacific). They noted how the quality of life of fishermen is being
affected by the lack of public services (30%) such as the lack of
potable water (15%) and the lack of education focused on environmental awareness (15%). In fact, they recognized that the lack of
education and training among fishermen affects their attitudes
towards fishery activity (70%). They also perceived displacement of
people due to violence or development (19%) as another important
problem on both coasts. For local leaders, priorities in the
organization of fishermen category (69% in Caribbean and 45% in
Pacific) included detected weaknesses in fishermen’s organizations (56%) and in the attitude of leadership (26%). Weaknesses in
fishermen’s organizations includes disagreements among fishermen’s associations within the same community (19%), many
unassociated fishermen in each community (15%), and organizations that become fish shops and forget their original social
agendas (11%).
For fisheries experts, the government-administration (56% in
Caribbean and 45% in Pacific) and institutions (46% in Caribbean
and 39% in Pacific) issues contained more problems with higher
percentages than the other categories. In the first category, fisheries experts believed that the artisanal fishery sector has been
largely ignored by government actions (85%). Experts perceived
that a general lack of governance over fisheries resources by the
Colombian government led to the lack of a fishery policy management plan and effective regulations (50%). Consequently, the
government has taken management measures in immediate
response to particular situations, but does not respond by planning to conserve the fisheries sector, and fishing sustainably for
the future (14% of respondents). This was shown by all the
unsuccessful projects named by the fisheries experts (29%). In
general, experts expressed fatigue and disappointment at investing time and energy in the fisheries sector (21%) without seeing
any progress or positive effects.
In the institutions category, fisheries experts perceived the main
problems as the instability of regulatory authorities and lack of
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
control measures, oversight and monitoring by the agencies in
charge of artisanal fishery activity due to lack of personnel, and the
lack of infrastructure or equipment to facilitate this work. The lack
of institutional presence in communities is directly connected to
these last two problem areas.
3.2. Differences and complementary perceptions of fisheries conflicts
and problems across stakeholders
Three interviewed groups raised a total of 556 problems (fishermen ¼158, fisheries experts ¼312, and local leaders ¼86). The
three groups identified 37 problems in common, the remaining
were unique problems not discussed by the other groups.
Common problems identified by all three groups were divided
into three main sub-groups; the first contained all 37 cross-cutting
problems identified by the three groups, the second with 31 intergroup problems identified by only two groups, and the third with
67 isolated problems named by only one group. Table 2 shows the
existing differences in the perceived cross-cutting problems and
conflicts regarding fisheries in Colombia among the three stakeholders groups interviewed. Results show that 12 primary problems were of similar importance to all three groups, whereas 25
primary problems were ranked at different levels of importance by
different groups.
The 31 inter-group problems are separated into 12 categories.
Two of the three stakeholder groups reported these problems.
Unique problems identified by only one group are labeled as isolated
problems (67 separated in 15 categories). Saavedra-Díaz [6] shows
the detailed inter-group problems and isolated problems.
At category level, differences of perceived conflicts and problems among the three interviewed groups were found (Table 3).
Notably, there were differences among the three groups in all
categories except for fishing equipment and fishing resources. While
fishermen mostly perceived the effect of fishing methods, local
leaders mostly perceived problems associated with industrial fishing activity, coastal uses and infrastructure, and organization of
fishermen. On the contrary, fisheries experts perceived supra-local
scale problems related with governance and management, such
as government administration, regulations, institutions and national
situation.
3.3. Differences in the perception of fisheries conflicts and problems
between Pacific and Caribbean coasts
Table 4 shows the regional differences in perception of the
main categories of problems. Overall, the Pacific coast perceived
more problems than the Caribbean coast except for those related
with coastal uses and infrastructure. On the contrary, the Pacific
coast perceived more problems associated with local scale (i.e.,
fishing equipment, fishing resources, and small-scale fishing) and
supra-local scale (i.e., industrial fishing activity, marketing and
national situation) operation.
In order to relate the ranked importance of these issues with
different stakeholders and regions, the 37 primary problems were
analyzed using RDA (Fig. 4). Through the use of the RDA, it was
possible to establish relationships between the primary problems
and stakeholders, as well as eco-regions. The first three factors of
the RDA explained 70% of the variation. The x-axis (F1) represented 42% of the variation, showing a gradient of perceived
problems by fishermen (negative scores) vs. local leaders and
fisheries experts (positive scores). The y-axis (F2) represented 17%
of the variation, showing a gradient of perceived problems by
fishing communities on the Pacific (negative scores) vs. fishing
communities on the Caribbean (positive scores).
65
3.4. Problems raised from community hearings
The nine community perspectives from both coasts revealed 8
bi-coastal problems that affected almost all of them: the presence
of inappropriate fishing method-gillnet (present in 7 out of
9 communities, 7:9), contamination (5:9), depletion of fishery
resources (4:9), presence of industrial fishing (4:9), weak fishermen’s organization (3:9), presence of inappropriate fishing
method-surrounding net (3:9), presence of inappropriate fishing
method-beach seine net (2:9) and presence of non-local fishermen
(2:9). Once these eight bi-coastal community problems are compared with the 37 primary problems named through the individual perspectives of the three groups (fishermen, local leaders,
and fisheries experts), it is observed that the first five community
problems match primary problems identified in more than 50% of
the interviews of a participant stakeholder group.
Two other bi-coastal problems coincided with participant-detected
problems at lower levels of importance. Inappropriate fishing methodsurrounding net was categorized as a problem of third order named by
only 5.2% of the fishermen stakeholder group, but responses in the
community hearings elevated its importance from third to first order.
The presence of non-native fishermen in local fishing territory was a
second and third order problem according to two stakeholder groups;
however community responses categorized it in the first order. As a
result, these two problems changed status due to opinions expressed in
the community hearings. Interestingly, both are priorities of fishermen.
The only first order problem that was not identified in the
hearings was fishermen’s attitude, even though it was represented
by more than 50% of stakeholder opinions and had the sixth
highest percentage of the 37 primary problems. However, fishermen’s attitude was recognized indirectly in the analysis as a partial
cause of many problems.
As was observed in the analysis of individual perspectives,
some problems were present solely on one coast. On the Caribbean, complaints about coastal infrastructure were expressed in
two out of five communities, 2:5. Other problems identified by one
community are fishing territory limited by marine protected areas,
invasion of fishing areas by scuba divers, sedimentation, tourism,
deforestation, increasing numbers of fishermen and boats, lack of
government presence, no access to financial credit, destruction of
natural coral reefs, catching undersized fish, and lack of fishery
regulations. Even though these particular problems were only
discussed during the hearings by one community, they were also
discussed by individual fishermen in many communities and
categorized as primary problems. For example, the increasing
number of fishermen was discussed in only one hearing, but was
raised by all fishermen interviewed in all nine communities. Lack
of government presence and lack of fishery regulations was named
by fishermen in seven and eight communities, respectively.
On the Pacific coast, problems that were raised during community hearings included: the high price of fuel and fishing (3:4),
lack of training and technical assistance in fisheries (2:4), and
marketing (2:4). Other problems were pointed out by only one
community such as climate change, lack of adequate navigation
equipment for the fleets, harmful fishing methods (beach seine
net, dynamite, and trawl net), lack of employment benefits, lack of
oversight or control of fishing activity, insecurity, and presence of
“viento y marea” fishing or gypsy fishermen.
Viento y marea fishermen don’t restrict themselves to one
region as on the Caribbean, rather they move along the entire Pacific
coast during the year. Trips usually last 3–5 days, or longer, depending upon the time spent traveling to and from the fishing ground.
During a trip, they only land to obtain needed supplies. Even though
the boats are small, they carry gas stoves for cooking and portable
electric generators to provide light at night. Most viento y marea
fishermen live in Tumaco and Buenaventura, municipalities in cities
66
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
Table 2
Chi square tests analyzing differences in the perception of cross-cutting problems ranked by the three interviewed groups: fishing experts, fishermen and local leaders.
Local leaders
(%)
X2
9.04
2.50
37.00
8.00
29.63
3.70
51.85
14.81
11.83
11.70
3.24
14.65
0.003
0.003
0.198
0.001
60.00
30.00
21.25
31.00
9.54
19.00
70.37
18.51
7.40
29.49
18.39
2.63
o 0.001
0.000
0.269
General problems with Colombia boats
High gas prices
C-boats 28.75
Gas
7.50
9.00
7.50
22.22
7.41
18.28
0.00
0.000
1.000
Fishing methods
Destructive fishing methods: gillnet
Dynamite
Destructive fishing methods: beach seine
Destructive fishing methods: changa
Trans
Dina
Chinc
Chang
33.75
11.25
10.53
10.00
52.50
11.06
16.08
2.01
40.74
14.81
7.41
3.70
8.48
0.35
2.72
9.04
0.014
0.841
0.256
0.011
Fishing resources
Declining resources
Fishing overused resources
Down
Over
47.50
32.50
79.50
7.00
66.67
18.52
28.04 o 0.001
30.06 o 0.001
Governmentadministration
Lack of fishery management policy (plan or regulations)
Lack of interest in fisheries and diminished importance over
time
Failed projects
Lack of services
Lman
Linter
50.00
41.25
28.50
10.05
25.93
18.52
12.63
0.002
36.42 o 0.001
Proj
Lserv
28.75
16.25
3.52
5.03
25.93
29.63
39.74 o 0.001
20.47 o 0.001
Industrial fishing activity
Scapegoat for fisheries problems
Indust
52.50
25.50
59.26
25.48 o 0.001
Institutions
INCODER-ICA
Lack of control, oversight and monitoring
Lack of institutional presence
Environmental corporations-CARs
Inst
Lcontr
Linst
CCars
19.74
43.75
28.75
7.50
7.54
5.00
10.05
3.02
33.33
25.93
14.81
7.41
18.64 o 0.001
62.68 o 0.001
15.50 o 0.001
3.21
0.201
Threatened M. ecosystems
Mangroves
Coral reef
Man
CoRef
17.50
7.50
5.00
4.52
22.22
3.70
15.33
1.18
0.000
0.550
Marketing
Middlemen take advantage over piangueras and fishers
Fish price
Bad handling and processing of fishery products
Limitations in marketing
MiMen
Price
BadM
Mklim
8.75
3.75
8.75
30.00
10.00
9.05
1.01
1.50
11.11
18.52
3.70
18.52
0.16
5.88
10.91
51.78 o
0.922
0.053
0.004
0.001
National situation
Drug trafficking
Violence
Drugs
Viol
36.25
20.00
7.50
7.05
25.93
18.52
35.95 o 0.001
9.95
0.007
Organization of fishermen
Lack of fishermen’s organization
Conflicts with leaders
Lorg
10.00
Leaders 22.50
8.50
6.05
55.56
25.93
47.35 o 0.001
18.49 o 0.001
Regulations
Catching individuals that are too small (regulated and
unregulated)
Fishing in spawning areas
Foreign fishermen
Size
11.25
11.50
14.81
0.28
0.871
Repr
Forei
1.25
22.50
4.02
24.50
7.41
18.52
2.50
0.52
0.286
0.768
Categories
Cross-cutting problems
Code
Fishing experts Fishermen
(%)
(%)
Coastal uses and
infrastructures
Climate change
Conflicts between national park and fishermen
Contamination
Coastal development-evicted fishermen
Climate 7.50
Park
12.50
Cont
32.50
Evict
25.00
Fishermen and
communities
Fishermen’s attitude
Lack of recognition of fishermen’s important role
Increase in the number of fishermen
Fatt
Import
Fhigh
Fishing equipment
p-Value
Table 3
Kruskal–Wallis test by the categories of problems through the three stakeholders groups. Mean relative value (and standard deviation in parenthesis) is shown for each
category and stakeholder.
2
Categories of problems
Fishing experts
Fishermen
Local leaders
X
Acuaqulturea
Coastal uses and infrastructure
Fishermen and communities
Fishing equipment
Fishing methods
Fishing resources
Government-administration
Industrial fishing activity
Institutions
Threatened marine ecosystems
Marketing
National situation
Organization of fishermen
Regulations
Small scale fishing
Others
7.50
0.125 (0.139)
0.164 (0.126)
0.073 (0.111)
0.093 (0.12)
0.133 (0.117)
0.089 (0.072)
0.263 (0.251)
0.204 (0.144)
0.063 (0.129)
0.057 (0.094)
0.229 (0.284)
0.175 (0.212)
0.065 (0.078)
0.044 (0.078)
0.000 (0.000)
0.50
0.069 (0.082)
0.044 (0.054)
0.059 (0.113)
0.144 (0.126)
0.144 (0.083)
0.004 (0.017)
0.128 (0.218)
0.030 (0.063)
0.031 (0.090)
0.029 (0.065)
0.072 (0.163)
0.044 (0.138)
0.051 (0.061)
0.000 (0.000)
0.000 (0.000)
0.00
0.156 (0.132)
0.124 (0.078)
0.059 (0.108)
0.111 (0.121)
0.142 (0.110)
0.032 (0.065)
0.315 (0.282)
0.099 (0.122)
0.093 (0.185)
0.054 (0.070)
0.148 (0.214)
0.222 (0.160)
0.024 (0.036)
0.136 (0.191)
0.037 (0.097)
13.26
16.67
80.75
1.63
11.994
1.31
166.28
25.94
107.49
7.18
9.664
29.71
65.97
6.99
71.17
41.89
a
Analyzed by chi-square test.
p-Value
0.0010
o 0.001
o 0.001
0.449
0.002
0.519
o 0.001
o 0.001
o 0.001
0.028
0.008
o 0.001
o 0.001
0.03
o 0.001
o 0.001
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
67
Table 4
Mann–Whitney test by categories of problems comparing Colombia’s Caribbean and Pacific coasts. Mean relative value (and standard deviation in parenthesis) is show for
each category and stakeholder.
Categories
Caribbean
Pacific
U
p-Value
Acuaqulture
Coastal uses and infrastructure
Fishermen and communities
Fishing equipment
Fishing methods
Fishing resources
Government-administration
Industrial fishing activity
Institutions
Threatened marine ecosystems
Marketing
National situation
Organization of fishermen
Regulations
Small scale fishing
Others
0.021
0.101
0.082
0.046
0.121
0.129
0.025
0.128
0.079
0.056
0.022
0.071
0.076
0.051
0.016
0.005
0.025
0.076
0.084
0.089
0.139
0.160
0.035
0.261
0.085
0.027
0.065
0.196
0.122
0.055
0.035
0.000
11,142.0
12,572.5
10,820.0
9,479.5
10,415.0
9,528.5
10,283.0
8,284.0
10,585.5
12,032.5
8,405.5
8,271.0
9,963.0
11,017.0
10,118.5
11,424.0
0.824
0.048
0.612
0.004
0.278
0.009
0.130
o 0.0001
0.374
0.074
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
0.037
0.814
0.007
0.111
(0.145)
(0.112)
(0.098)
(0.092)
(0.121)
(0.090)
(0.053)
(0.219)
(0.124)
(0.130)
(0.054)
(0.164)
(0.155)
(0.061)
(0.071)
(0.038)
(0.157)
(0.100)
(0.096)
(0.135)
(0.133)
(0.100)
(0.062)
(0.259)
(0.119)
(0.078)
(0.093)
(0.262)
(0.203)
(0.071)
(0.089)
(0.000)
Fig. 4. Redundancy analysis of primary problems obtained through semi-structured interviews related to stakeholders and ecoregions (explaining variables). The x-axis (F1)
represents 42.35% and the y-axis (F2) 16.49% of the variation.
with the highest population on the Pacific coast. Both municipalities
also have the greatest number of fishermen concentrated in one
place. Thus, the itinerant fishing strategy likely resulted from very
high competition and good markets. Gypsy fishermen were present
in all four study communities on the Pacific. Local fishermen
occasionally join a gypsy crew, and are therefore included in this
category. This last problem was identified for two reasons: It features
the use of gill nets, and the nets are deployed by non-native
fishermen. As result, the viento y marea fishing style is included in
the analysis of both problems. Even though viento y marea is present
only on the Pacific, gill net use makes it part of the bi-coastal
problem of destructive fishing methods at the national level.
Besides the eight common problems between the hearings and
the interviews, the hearings identified 12 problems on the Caribbean and 10 on the Pacific that were unique to one coast.
However, the fact that some problems were named on one coast
and not the other does not mean that they don’t exist there.
Rather, they affect one coast more than the other. More details
about each bi-coastal, uni-coastal and local problems could be
found in details on the community analysis through causes,
effects, and solutions [6].
4. Discussion
4.1. Fisheries conflicts detected by different fishing stakeholders
Colombian fishermen from both coasts (Caribbean and Pacific)
have found that the gillnets or entangling nets (trasmallo, mantas,
and mallas) result in the greatest conflict because of the following:
the number used, the size of each gillnet, the small mesh size, how
it is used (how long it is in place or how often it is checked), and
where it is used (spawning areas, natural parks, river mouths,
among others). The use of gillnets without any control corresponds to the second main problem also detected by fishers,
the lack of regulations. Unregulated fishery actions allow anyone
to use any fishing method in any place, and to increase these
efforts as they see fit. And though fishermen identify pollution and
68
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
industrial contamination as the last focal problem, it is one of the
problems that is most affecting traditional fishing territories due
to inadequate coal transport and oil spill management by ports
and industries.
However, we found different views about the problems of fisheries
in Colombia among fishing stakeholders (Tables 2 and 3). On the one
hand, local leaders analyzed problems more based on community
common sense. Although most communities rely mainly on fishing
activity, the problems detected by leaders are not only affecting
fishermen but also all inhabitants in each coastal community, such
as lack of public services and presence of forcibly displaced people.
Leaders also prioritized a key conflict that was of lower priority to
fishermen; in order to aim for fishery management actions it is
fundamental that there are structured and robust fishermen’s organizations. On the other hand, fisheries experts pointed out conflicts that
are affecting the ability of the fishery administration to fulfill their
responsibilities properly (control, management, and organization) and
make decisions suitably. For instance, the instability of regulatory
authorities affects the stability of fishery personnel (employees) and
the continuation of research (projects, studies, among others) at
internal or inter-institutional levels. Every institutional change brings
a new administration with new perspectives, and work becomes a
series of attempts without results. The instability that surrounds the
authority of fisheries institutions is shown once more by Decree
No. 4181 of November 2011, which created a new national fisheries
authority called AUNAP (Fishery and Aquaculture National Authority).
In the last decade, four institutions have been in charge of fisheries.
Thus, the lack of control, oversight, and monitoring by the agencies in
charge of artisanal fishery activity is exacerbated by Colombia’s
extensive coastline and inhibited access in certain regions. Control,
oversight, and monitoring are even more difficult due to the absence
of regulation on where fish are landed.
Although there are differences between the opinions of local
leaders and fishermen, the RDA shows that opinions of fishermen
were far apart from the opinions of local leaders and fisheries experts
(Fig. 4). In fact, the three sets of perceptions are complimentary and
each enriches the analysis. Fishermen brought primary problems to
the table that were not considered as important by the other two
stakeholders, such as fishing resources depletion, inadequate fishing
gear (such as chinchorro [beach seine net]), conflicts with non-native
fishermen in each community, and catching juvenile or spawning
fish. The unique perspective of local fisheries knowledge given by the
three stakeholders reinforces the need to include them in both
fisheries research and management [46], even though each stakeholder might have different goals [47].
In addition to different perceptions of conflicts and problems in
Colombian fisheries among fishing stakeholder groups, the present study also demonstrates the geographical differences (Table 4,
Fig. 4). In fact, Fig. 4 shows that problems affecting Caribbean
communities differed significantly from problems affecting communities on the Pacific. Problems central to the Caribbean are
contamination, coastal development, lack of recognition of fishermen’s important role, decreasing government interest in fisheries
over time, and threats to mangrove ecosystems. On the Pacific
coast, principal problems include industrial fishing, non-native
(gypsy) fishermen, violence, drugs, trasmallo, high fuel prices, and
conflicts over fish prices.
These differences are explained by the characteristics of the
communities in both coasts. The eco-regions of Sierra Nevada de
Santa Marta (Taganga fishing community), Magdalena (Las Flores),
and Morrosquillo and Sinú (San Antero) clearly represent the
fishery situation in the Caribbean. While the eco-regions of Alto
Chocó (Bahía Solano), Málaga-Buenaventura (Juanchaco) and
Baudó (Pizarro) represent the Pacific coast. However, there are
some ecoregions where the perceived problems correspond to the
other coast. For example, inadequate access to public services of
two ecoregions (Guajira and Urabá) of the Caribbean coast are
similar to those found on the Pacific. This could explain why the
perceptions of these fishing communities about the main problems are closer to the Pacific than the Caribbean region. Consequently, both ecoregions are plotted on the negative y-axis, even
though they are located on the Caribbean next to the ecoregions of
Alto Chocó (Bahía Solano fishing community), Baudó (Pizarro) and
Málaga–Buenaventura (Juanchaco).
Remarkably, problems such as climate change, fish depletion,
and conflicts with fishing equipment’s owners have greater weight
on the Pacific than on the Caribbean. At the same time, many other
problems affect both coasts equally, such as conflicts due to
fishermen’s attitudes, lack of control, oversight and monitoring,
limitations in marketing, failed projects, dynamite use, conflicts
with local leaders, fishery institutions and regional autonomous
corporations (CARs), conflicts with parks, and problems with
Colombian boats (boats given to fishermen by the National Fishery
Authority in 2007 without considering those particular fishing
features needed in each community), lack of institutional presence, lack of fishery management policy and regulations, inadequate handling and processing of fishery products, and catch
exploitation of undersized and spawning fish.
4.2. Fisheries conflicts and problems that arise through the collective
thinking
Although information on the same question (fishery problems)
gathered in individual interviews can differ from that obtained
during open meetings, clear similarities emerged. Problems
brought up at the hearings often coincided with problems identified by fishermen, local leaders, and fisheries experts in individual
interviews. Although most communities agreed on the same
problem, solutions and points of view varied by community, and
combining these viewpoints can enrich the decision making
process. In merging the results of both methods (individual interviews and community hearings), there were identified five
national bi-coastal problems on which fishery management strategy and fishery decision making can focus. These key problems
are, the adequate use of gillnets, pollution, fishery resource
depletion, presence of industrial fishing, and strengthening fishermen’s organizations. The fishery authority might first deal with
these common problems that are the base of Colombian fishery
conflict, and on which is urgent to establish regulations.
Furthermore, key coast-specific problems that require management focus and can be the basis for immediate regulation were
identified. The presence of non-native fishermen (viento y marea) in
local fishing territory on the Pacific coast and fishing territory conflicts
due to disorganized coastal development on the Caribbean coast.
The qualitative mixed methods used in this study (individual
and community approaches), and the variety of stakeholder input,
allow Colombian fishery decision makers to have a more comprehensive and immediate understanding of coastal and marine
small-scale fisheries. This is critically important in the absence of
available quantitative information about fishery conflicts at the
national level. Although there are developing countries using
these methods as a tool to evaluate their fishery situation and
management decisions [46–49], this is the first work that includes
three different stakeholder groups in the research process, i.e.,
fishermen, local leaders, and fishery experts.
5. Conclusions
Of the 140 countries around the world where coastal communities rely for their living and economic well-being on small-scale
fishing activity, Colombia shares similar difficulties with other tropical
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
countries, particularly those located on the Caribbean and in Latin
America. Salas et al. [5] discovered that 12 countries located in this
region face major problems such as, fishery resources depletion;
increase in fishing effort; poor fisheries knowledge, which increases
scientific uncertainties; limited financial support for fishing institutions; weak government structures; overcapacity stimulated by inappropriate subsidies and incentives; higher demand for fish products
including limited resources; poor living conditions in coastal communities; and, no viable alternatives from coastal development. Though
there are common themes, each problem has different significance to
each country, within each country, and between regions (i.e., coasts).
In Colombia, marine small-scale fishing activity occurs on both the
Caribbean and the Pacific coasts. While many problems are bi-coastal,
other problems are coastally unique, and further, some affect only a
small portion of fishing communities. These general and isolated
problems require establishing a fisheries management strategy that
can prioritize problems at different levels: national, coastal, and local.
In order to move substantially forward, this study suggests an
urgent focus at the national level by Colombian fishery management on the 37 primary problems detected through the three
groups of fishing stakeholder interviews (Table 2) and the community approach-hearings (i.e., inappropriate fishing methods of
surrounding net and non-native fishermen conflicts), which
increased in importance to the first level. However, a multi-scale
management approach is required for addressing the challenges at
the regional and local scale. Analyses such as these can help set
goals for management at different scales.
In addition, this study highlights the need to incorporate knowledge from different fishing stakeholders as their perception of
problems and conflicts emerge on different scales. While fisheries
experts noticed problems on a national scale (i.e., regulations),
fishermen detected problems at local scale (i.e., fishing methods).
Observations and opinions of fishermen, local leaders, and fisheries
experts are complementary and bring a variety of perspectives to
the table that result from personal experiences and knowledge.
Fishermen and local leaders have local traditional knowledge and
are able to describe in detail what is happening in their territory.
Fisheries experts have wide technical knowledge at the level of
regions, but they may miss important issues that fishermen and
local leaders observe. In particular, fishermen and local leaders
viewed the viento y marea fishing style as a big problem because it
represents not only open access to fishing resources but also
unlimited access to fishing territory. However, viento y marea was
not identified by fisheries experts as a problem. Other fishermen
and local leader observations not identified by experts were diving,
lack of fish bait, conflicts with coastal security institutions, coastal
infrastructures and activities that displaced fishermen, conflicts
with non-native fishermen, conflicts with fishing methods (surrounding net and harpoon), and some marketing conflicts. Consequently, the three visions complimented each other and enriched
the analysis. Combining LEK and WEK can create a powerful tool for
fisheries management, marine conservation as whole, and for
setting goals for sustainable resource use, and provides for community buy-in and investment in the solutions.
Finally, the identification of fisheries problems through individual and deliberative methodological approaches seems to be very
useful as some problems affecting the fishing communities were
discovered during the hearings, but did not rise in the individual
interviews. Furthermore, community viewpoints collected during
the hearings showed how each community can have a different
perspective on common problems. Consequently, decision makers
should include viewpoints from different communities and stakeholders in order to have an integrative understanding of circumstances affecting them at local, coastal, and national scales, as well
as a credible, community-supported approach to managing fisheries
resources in the long-term.
69
Acknowledgments
This research was possible because of the participation and
open collaboration through the time and ideas of Colombian
marine fishermen and local leaders from the communities of
Ahuyama, Taganga, Las Flores, San Antero, El Roto, Bahía Solano,
Pizarro, Juanchaco, and Tumaco. At the same time, we thank the
national and regional fisheries experts and fisheries researchers
for their open participation and for giving their life’s work to make
Colombian fisheries better. We also thank Karen Alexander and
Jessica Thomas for their editorial assistance. Comments from the
editor and reviewers help us improve the manuscript.
This study was supported by the Conservation International
Foundation, Universidad del Magdalena, University of New Hampshire and fellowship programs from COLCIENCIAS and Young
Women in Science—2008 (UNESCO—L’Oreal).
References
[1] Béné C. Small-scale fisheries: assessing their contribution to rural livelihoods
in developing countries. FAO fisheries circular no. 1008, 〈ftp://ftp.fao.org/
docrep/fao/009/j7551e/j7551e00.pdf〉; 2006. p. 1–46 [accessed 04.23.14].
[2] Pauly D. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization and some
implications for fisheries management. In: Pikitch D, Huppert D, Sissenwine MP,
editors. Global trends: fisheries management, 20. Bethesda: American Fisheries
Society Symposium; 1997. p. 40–9. 〈http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/
dpauly/PDF/1997/Books&Chapters/SmallScaleFisheriesTropicsMarginalityMarginali
zationSome%20Imp.pdf〉 (accessed 04.23.14]).
[3] Pauly D. Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on
developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Marit
Stud 2006;4:7–22 ([accessed 04.23.14])〈http://www.marecentre.nl/mast/docu
ments/Pauly_Mast2006vol_4no_2_new.pdf〉.
[4] Salas S, Chuenpagdee R, Seijo JC, Charles A. Challenges in the assessment and
management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish
Res 2007;87:5–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.06.015.
[5] Salas S, Chuenpagdee R, Charles A, Seijo JC., editors. Coastal fisheries of Latin
America and the Caribbean. FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper, vol.
544, 〈http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i1926e/i1926e.pdf〉; 2011. p. 1-430
[accessed 04.27.14].
[6] Saavedra-Díaz LM. Towards Colombian small-scale marine fisheries management: Hacia un manejo de la pesca marina artesanal en Colombia. Natural
Resources and Earth System Science. PhD thesis. University of New Hampshire,
〈http://librarycatalog.unh.edu/search S5?/aSaavedra-Diaz/asaavedraþ diaz/1%2C1%2C2%2CB/frameset&FF ¼ asaavedra þdiaz þ lina þmaria&2%
2C%2C2〉; 2012. p. 396 [accessed 04.27.14].
[7] Lacambra CL, Lozano CP, Alonso D, Fontalvo M. Amenazas naturales y antrópicas
en las zonas costeras Colombianas 2003;15:74 (accessed 04.23.14]) Serie de
Documentos Generales Invemar 2003;15:74 (accessed 04.23.14]).
[8] MMA—Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. Política Nacional Ambiental para el
Desarrollo Sostenible de los Espacios Oceánicos y las Zonas Costeras e Insulares
de Colombia. Panamericana, Formas e Impresos S.A., Bogotá, 〈http://www.
minambiente.gov.co/documentos/4268_161009_polit_zonas__costeras_pnaoci.
pdf〉; 2000 [accessed 04.23.14].
[9] Arias E. Año Internacional de la Biodiversidad, Retos y Oportunidades hacia
2020. Memorias. (Contribution IAvH #). In: Guzmán M, Villa C, editors.
Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt y
Ecopetrol, 455. Bogotá: Ediprint Ltda; 2010. p. 156.
[10] Vides M. (ed.). Adaptación costera al ascenso del nivel del mar. NCAP:
Colombia Project. Invemar, Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo
Territorial, NCAP—The Netherlands Climate Assistance Programme. ETC group,
SEI-Stockholm Environment Institute and Ecoversa, 〈http://www.nlcap.net/
fileadmin/NCAP/Countries/Colombia/Colombia_NCAP2_-_Output_4_Insumo
sINVEMAR_SCNVul_Adapt_NCAP_Bram.pdf〉; 2008. 74 pp. [accessed 04.27.14].
[11] Escobar JJ. Síndromes de sostenibilidad ambiental del desarrollo en Colombia
(Taller “Síndromes de sostenibilidad del desarrollo en América Latina”,
Santiago de Chile, 16 Septiembre–17 de Septiembre, 2002). Proyecto “Evaluación de la sostenibilidad en América Latina y el Caribe”. Publicación de las
Naciones Unidas, CEPAL—Serie Seminarios y conferencias, no. 41, 〈http://www.
eclac.cl/publicaciones/xml/5/20965/lcl2202e.pdf〉; 2002. p. 1–120 [accessed
04.23.14].
[12] ECOVERSA. Justificación sobre la necesidad de una nueva estructura para el
manejo y ordenación de la pesca y acuicultura a nivel nacional. Corporación
ECOVERSA; 2007. p. 30.
[13] Lasso C, Agudelo C, Jiménez-Segura LF, Ramírez-Gil H, Morales-Betancourt M,
Ajiaco-Martínez R, Gutiérrez Fde P, Usma JS, Muñoz SE, Sanabria A. editors. I.
Catálogo de los recursos pesqueros continentales de Colombia. Serie Editorial
Recursos Hidrobiológicos y Pesqueros continentales de Colombia. Instituto de
Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH), Bogotá,
〈http://www.invemar.org.co/redcostera1/invemar/docs/RinconLiterario/2011/
octubre/V-389%20Ej.1.pdf〉; 2011. p. 1–715 [accessed 04.23.14].
70
L.M. Saavedra-Díaz et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 61–70
[14] INVEMAR, CVC, CARSUCRE. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. Formulación del
Plan de Manejo Integrado de la Unidad Ambiental Costera Estuarina Rio Sinú—
Golfo de Morrosquillo, Caribe Colombiano: Etapa 1. Caracterización y Diagnóstico. Informe Técnico, Invemar; 2002. p. 802.
[15] INVEMAR, CORPOURABA. Gobernación de Antioquia, CODECHOCO. Cartilla
lineamientos y estrategias para el manejo integrado de la Unidad Ambiental
Costera del Darién (UAC-Darién). López Rodríguez A, Reyes SP, Sierra-Correa
PC, Caicedo Herrera D, Mona Sanabria Y., D. Morales Betancourt, editors). Serie
de Documentos Generales Invemar, No. 24, 〈http://www.invemar.org.co/red
costera1/invemar/docs/CARTILLA_UAC_DARIEN_INVEMAR.pdf〉; 2008. p. 30
[accessed 04.23.14].
[16] Narváez JC, Blanco J, Rueda M, Viloria E. Estado de los Recursos Sometidos a
Explotación—Capítulo IV. In: Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y
costeros en Colombia. Invemar, Serie de Documentos Generales Invemar, No.
8, Santa Marta, 〈http://www.invemar.org.co/redcostera1/invemar/docs/
3801IER_2005_completo.pdf〉; 2005. p. 257–313 [accessed 04.23.14].
[17] Franco VL. Programa de Áreas Marinas y Costeras Protegidas del Caribe y
Pacifico Colombiano—Bases para su desarrollo-. Serie Documentos de Trabajo
XXV. Patrimonio Natural y Embajada del Reino de los Países bajos, 〈http://
www.invemar.org.co/redcostera1/invemar/docs/gap/Plan_de_Accion_SNAMP.
pdf〉; 2007. p. 94 [accessed 04.23.14].
[18] Ramírez LF, Alonso D, Segura-Quintero C, Moreno R, Mendoza S, Maldonado J.,
et al. Viabilidad de una red de áreas marinas protegidas, Caribe Colombiano.
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras—INVEMAR, Sistema Regional
de Áreas Protegidas del Caribe-SIRAP Caribe, Corporación Autónoma Regional
de Sucre-CARSUCRE, Corporación Autónoma Regional de la GuajiraCORPOGUAJIRA y Unidad Administrativa Especial del Sistema de Parques
Nacionales Naturales—UAESPNN. Santa Marta; 2009. p. 24.
[19] Sánchez O, Moreno C. La política del recurso pesquero y acuícola en Colombia.
Contraloría General de la Republica. Sector Agropecuario. Bogotá; 2009. p. 1–54.
[20] Zapata L. El Manejo de los Recursos Pesqueros en los Parques Nacionales.
Estudio Caso: Pacifico Colombiano. Unidad Administrativa Especial del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales—UAESPNN. Ministerio del Medio
Ambiente y Desarrollo; 2005. p. 1–27.
[21] Zapata L. Diagnóstico y caracterización de los recursos hidrobiológicos en el
PNN Sanquianga y su zona de influencia, como parte de una propuesta para la
implementación de un plan de manejo. UAESPNN. Second draft; 2006. p. 1–33.
[22] Alonso DA, Ramírez LF, Díaz JM, Segura C, Castillo P, Chatwin A. Coastal and
marine conservation priorities in Colombia—Chapter 4. In: Chatwin A, editor. In:
Priorities for coastal and marine conservation in South America. Arlington: The
Nature Conservancy, Mosaic Print; 2007. p. 31–9. 〈http://www.invemar.org.co/
redcostera1/invemar/docs/gap/GAP_Analisis_SRAMP.pdf〉 (accessed 04.23.14).
[23] CCI—Corporación Colombia Internacional. Pesca y Acuicultura—Colombia. Informe
Técnico Regional Litoral Caribe y Pacifico. Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo
Rural 〈http://www.agronet.gov.co/www/docs_agronet/20081028112328_Informe_
final_pesca_acuicultura_2007.pdf〉; 2007 [accessed 04.23.14].
[24] CCI. Pesca y Acuicultura-Colombia 2009. Informe Técnico Regional Litoral
Caribe y Pacifico. Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 〈http://biblio
teca.agronet.gov.co:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/3843/1/Informe%
202009-Caribe-Pacifico.pdf〉; 2009 [accessed 04.23.14].
[25] Gómez-Canchong P, Manjarrés L, Duarte LO, Altamar J. Atlas Pesquero del Área
norte del Mar Caribe Colombiano. Santa Marta: Universidad del Magdalena;
2004; 230.
[26] Candelo C, Cárdenas JC, Escobar M, López MC, Maya D, Roldan AM. Los
recursos del Manglar. Manglares, Comunidad y Cooperación. WWF, Pontificia
Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. Colgrapics Ltda; 2002: 1-56.
[27] Díaz JM, Vieira CA, Melo GJ, editors. Diagnóstico de las principales Pesquerías
del Pacifico Colombiano. Bogotá: Fundación Marviva—Colombia, Alianza
Ediprint Ltda—Guerra Editores; 2011. p. 1–241.
[28] Espinosa MF, Delgado H, Orobio B, Mejía-Ladino LM, Gil-Agudelo D. Estado de
la población y valoración de algunas estrategias de conservación del recurso
piangua Anadara tuberculosa (sowerby) en sectores de Bazán y Nerete, costa
pacífica nariñense de Colombia. Boletín de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras,
vol. 39, 〈http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/mar/v39n1/v39n1a09.pdf〉; 2010. p.
161–76 [accessed 04.23.14].
[29] Rebellón C. Relación entre el stock de un recurso de propiedad común y el
crecimiento de la población que lo explota. El caso de la extracción de la
piangua en la ensenada de Tumaco, Colombia. Desarrollo y Sociedad, vol. 54,
〈http://economia.uniandes.edu.co/investigaciones_y_publicaciones/CEDE/Pub
licaciones/Revista_Desarrollo_y_Sociedad/Ediciones/revista_desarrollo_y_so
ciedad_no_54/〉; 2004. p. 170–219 [accessed 04.27.14].
[30] Pomeroy R, Brainard R, Moews M, Heenan A, Shackeroff J, Armada N. Coral
triangle regional ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) guidelines. Honolulu, Hawaii: The USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership; 2013.
〈http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/sites/default/files/resources/Guideline
s_int_NEW_finalproof2.pdf〉 ([accessed 04.23.14]).
[31] Posada BO, Rozo DM. Marco Geográfico. Capítulo I. In: Informe del estado de
los ambientes marinos y costeros en Colombia, INVEMAR. Series de publicaciones periódicas/Invemar, No. 8, Santa Marta, 〈http://www.invemar.org.
co/redcostera1/invemar/docs/3801IER_2005_completo.pdf〉; 2005. p. 3–9
[accessed 04.27.14].
[32] FAO. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions.
Elaborated by the Technical Consultation on the Precautionary Approach to
Capture Fisheries (Including Species Introductions). Lysekil, Sweden, 6–13
June 1995. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries; 1996, 〈ftp://ftp.
fao.org/docrep/fao/003/W3592e/W3592e00.pdf〉; 1995. p. 1–54 [accessed
04.23.14].
[33] Beltrán TC. Aspectos socioeconómicos y técnicos de la pesca artesanal en el
Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá, Ecuador y Colombia. FAO circular no. 957/2,
〈http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AD056S/ad056S00.HTM〉; 2001. p. 1–79
[accessed 04.23.14].
[34] The fisheries co-management experience. Aaccomplishment, challenges and
prospects. In: Wilson D, Nielsen JR, Degnbol P, editors. Fish and fisheries
series, vol. 6. Kluwer Acedemic Publishers; 2003. p. 324.
[35] Mensah JV, Kwabina BK. Problems of artisanal marine fishermen in Ghana: the
way ahead. Singapore J Trop Geogr 2002;23:217–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9493.00126.
[36] Pomeroy R, Viswanathan K. Experiences with fisheries com-management in
Southeast Asia and Bangladesh. Chapter 6. In: Wilson D, Nielsen JR, Degnbol P,
editors. In: The fisheries co-management experience. Accomplishment, challenges and prospects, vol. 6. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.
p. 99–118 (Fish and fisheries series).
[37] Bird KE, Nichols WJ, Tambiah CR. The value of local knowledge in sea turtle
conservation: a case from Baja California, Mexico. In: N. Haggan, C. Brignall, L.
Wood, editors. Putting fishers’ knowledge to work—vol. 11, Conference
proceedings, Vancouver, 27 August–30 August, 2001. Fisheries Centre research
reports, Vancouver; 2002. p. 178–183, 〈http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/webfm_
send/113〉 [accessed 04.23.14].
[38] Leite MC, Gasalla MS. A method for assessing fishers’ecological knowledge as a
practical tool for ecosystem-based fisheries management: seeking consensus
in Southeastern Brazil. Fish Res 2013;145:43–53 ([accessed 04.23.14]).
[39] Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 1st ed.Sage Publications; 2009.
[40] Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 3rd ed.Applied social
research methods series, vol. 5. Sage Publications; 2003.
[41] García-Horta JB, Guerra-Romos MT. The use of CAQDAS in educational
research: some advantages, limitations and potential risks. Int J Res Method
Educ 2009;32:151–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437270902946686.
[42] Ozkan BC. Using NVivo to analyze qualitative classroom data on constructivist
learning environments. The qualitative report, vol. 9, 〈http://www.nova.edu/
ssss/QR/QR9-4/ozkan.pdf〉; 2004. p. 589–603 [accessed 04.23.14].
[43] Thayer A, Evans M, McBride A, Queen M, Spyridakis J. Content analysis as a
best practice in technical communication research. J Tech Writ Commun
2007;37:267–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/TW.37.3.c.
[44] Miles MB, Huberman MA. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
[45] Saavedra-Díaz L, Rosenberg A, R Pomeroy. Why Colombian marine fisher’s
knowledge is a fundamental tool for marine resource management assessment. In: Fischer J, Jorgensen J, Josupeit H, Kalikoski D, and Lucas C, editors.
Fishers’ knowledge and the ecosystem approach to fisheries: applications,
experiences and lessons in Latin America. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
technical paper no. 591. Rome, FAO; 2015, in press.
[46] Gelcich S, Godoy N, Castilla J. Artisanal fisher’s perceptions regarding coastal
co-management policies in Chile and their potentials to scale-up marine
biodiversity conservation. Ocean Coastal Manage 2009;52:424–32. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.07.005.
[47] Soma K. How to involve stakeholders in fisheries management-a country case
study in Trinidad and Tobago. Mar Policy 2003;27:47–58. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00050-7.
[48] Mensah J, Antwi B. Problems of artisanal marine fishermen in Ghana: the way
ahead. Singapore J Trop Geogr 2002;23:217–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9493.00126.
[49] Muallil R, Mamauag S, Cababaro J, Arceo H, Aliño P. Catch trends in Philippine
small-scale fisheries over the last five decades: the fisher’s perspectives. Mar
Policy 2014:110–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.008.