Advertisement

Exclusive Fishing Zone for Small-Scale Fisheries in Northern Chocó, Colombia: Pre- and Post-implementation

  • Viviana Ramírez-LunaEmail author
  • Ratana Chuenpagdee
Chapter
Part of the MARE Publication Series book series (MARE, volume 19)

Abstract

Exclusive fishing zones (EFZs) are a type of place-based management tool designed primarily to mitigate conflicts between fishing sectors by granting exclusive rights to one sector to fish the resources that occur in a specific area. As with other tools, several factors can determine effectiveness of EFZs, and knowing what these factors are could lead to improving how the tool is performed. The effectiveness of EFZs depends first and foremost on the way in which they are considered, how they are introduced, and by whom. Such an understanding is especially pertinent when EFZs involve small-scale fisheries in order to avoid violation of rights or the displacement of livelihoods. Learning about the effects of EFZs on small-scale fisheries provides useful insights for the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF Guidelines), which were developed to protect the rights of small-scale fishers and fish workers around the world. Under this premise, this chapter presents a case study of an EFZ established in Chocó, Colombia, in 2008. Specifically, it examines the pre- and post-implementation processes of the Chocó-EFZ, asking questions about what triggered its establishment, who was involved in the process, who was excluded, and what challenges it faced in the implementation. Finally, insights from the case study are drawn, along with a discussion of the implications for the implementation of the SSF Guidelines in Colombia.

Keywords

Small-scale fisheries Fishing conflicts Exclusive fishing zones Pre- and post-implementation processes SSF Guidelines 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This chapter is part of V. Ramírez-Luna’s master thesis (2013); she wishes to thank the support of their Thesis Committee members B. Neis, D. Schneider, and R. Chuenpagdee, as well as the support of SQUALUS Foundation, GIS specialists A. Torres and D. Mercer, local research assistants A. Zita and T. Villalba, and key informants who shared their time, insights, and knowledge. V. Ramírez-Luna also thanks AUNAP for authorizing the use of the Chocó-EFZ/Special Zone map. Production of the thesis benefitted from financial support from B. Neis’ Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation Fellow funds and D. Schneider’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) funds and from fellowship support from the School of Graduate Studies of Memorial University of Newfoundland. V. Ramírez-Luna and R. Chuenpagdee wish to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback.

References

  1. Agardy T, di Sciara GN, Christie P (2011) Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 35(2):226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AUNAP (2013) Resolución 899. Por la cual se establecen una Zona Exclusiva de Pesca Artesanal—ZEPA, una Zona Especial de Manejo Pesquero (ZEMP) en el Departamento del Chocó y se adoptan otras medidas”. República de Colombia. http://legal.legis.com.co/document?obra=legcol&document=legcol_e3064d405f2e0042e0430a0101510042. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  3. AUNAP (2014) La ZEPA como instrumento para una pesca responsable. NotyAUNAP, Bogotá, D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. AUNAP (Autoridad Nacional de Acuicultura y Pesca) (2012) Resolución 545. Por la cual se amplía la duración del área exclusiva destinada para la pesca artesanal en el Departamento del Chocó, denominada ‘ZONA EXCLUSIVA DE PESCA ARTESANAL – ZEPA’ comprendida entre las localidades de Punta Solano hasta Punta Ardita (zona norte del Chocó) República de Colombia. http://www.avancejuridico.com/actualidad/documentosoficiales/2012/48516/r_aunap_0545_2012.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  5. Barreto C, Polo G, Mancilla B (2001) Análisis biológico pesquero y económico de la fauna acompañante en la pesquería de arrastre industrial colombiana. Contribución biológica y económica para la investigación y el desarrollo en recursos pesqueros colombianos y estimación del impacto de la fauna incidental en la pesca de arrastre del camarón. In: Tropical shrimp fisheries and their impact on living resources. Shrimp fisheries in Asia: Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines; in the Near East: Bahrain and Iran; in Africa: Cameroon, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania; in Latin America: Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. (pp. 234–270). Fisheries Circular. No. 974. FAO, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y2859e/y2859e00.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2016
  6. Bavinck M (2005) Understanding fisheries conflicts in the south – a legal pluralist perspective. Soc Nat Resour 18(9):805–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boudouresque CF, Cadiou G, Le Diréach L (2005) Marine protected areas: a tool for coastal areas management. In: Levner E, Linkov I, Proth JM (eds) Strategic management of marine ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourillón-Moreno L (2002) Exclusive fishing zone as a strategy for managing fishery resources by the Seri Indians, Gulf of California, Mexico. Doctoral thesis, University of Arizona. http://cobi.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2002-c-cie_tesis_doctl_lbourillon.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  9. Cadiou G, Boudouresque C, Bonhomme P, Le Diréach L (2009) The management of artisanal fishing within the marine protected area of the Port-Cros National Park (northwest Mediterranean Sea): a success story? J Mar Sci 66:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castilla JC, Fernández M (1998) Small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile: on co-management and sustainable use of benthic invertebrates. Ecol Appl. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/1051-0761%281998%298%5BS124:SBFICO%5D2.0.CO%3B2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S (2007) Step zero for fisheries co-management: what precedes implementation. Mar Policy 31(6):657–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chuenpagdee R, Pascual-Fernandez JJ, Szeliánszky E, Alegret JL, Fraga J, Jentoft S (2013) Marine protected areas: re-thinking their inception. Mar Policy 39:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis R, Whalen J, Neis B (2006) From orders to borders: toward a sustainable co-managed lobster fishery in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland. Hum Ecol 34:851–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2015) Small-scale fisheries – web Site. International guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries [SSF guidelines]. http://www.fao.org/fishery/ssf/guidelines/en. Accessed 21 Aug 2016
  15. Federación Colombiana de Municipios (n.d.) Bahía Solano. Descifra las cifras de tu municipio. http://www.fcm.org.co/fichamnemotecnica/pdf/choco/bahiasolano.pdf. Accessed 8 Mar 2012
  16. Foster SJ, Vincent ACJ (2010) Tropical shrimp trawl fisheries: fishers’ knowledge of and attitudes about a doomed fishery. Mar Policy 34(3):437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelcich S, Hughes TP, Olsson P, Folke C, Defeo O, Fernandez M, Foale S, Gunderson LH, Rodríguez-Sickert C, Scheffer M, Steneck RS, Castilla JC (2010) Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(39):16,794–16,799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GIC-PA (2001) Lineamientos generales para el ordenamiento de la pesca artesanal en la costa norte de Chocó. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez NL, Hilborn R, Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470(7334):386–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart PJB (1998) Enlarging the shadow of the future: avoiding conflict and conserving fish. In: Pitcher TJ, Hart PJB, Pauly D (eds) Reinventing fisheries management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, pp 227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ICA (Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario) (2008) Resolución 2650. Por la cual se delimita un área exclusiva destinada para la pesca artesanal en el Departamento del Chocó. República de Colombia. http://www.avancejuridico.com/actualidad/documentosoficiales/2008/47068/r_ica_2650_2008.html Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  22. INCODER (2009) Resolución 1051. Por medio de la cual se amplía la duración de la medida en el área exclusiva destinada para la pesca artesanal en el Departamento del Chocó por el término de un (1) año, contado a partir del 31 de julio de 2009 República de Colombia. http://www.avancejuridico.com/actualidad/documentosoficiales/2009/47434/r_incoder_1051_2009.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  23. INCODER (2010) Resolución 2107. Por la cual se amplía la duración de la medida en el área exclusiva destinada para la pesca artesanal en el Departamento del Chocó. República de ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  24. INCODER (Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural) (2004) Resolución 1856. Por la cual se determinan áreas geográficas en aguas jurisdiccionales del Pacífico colombiano con el fin de ordenar, regular, administrar, controlar y vigilar los recursos pesqueros marinos susceptibles de aprovechamiento, garantizando y asegurando su explotación racional y manejo integral. República de Colombia. http://www.avancejuridico.com/actualidad/documentosoficiales/2004/45749/r_incoder_1856_2004.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  25. INVEMAR (2012) Plan operativo cruceros de prospección pesquera en la ZEPA. Proyecto “Prospección y monitoreo de pesquerías clave en Colombia”. Santa MartaGoogle Scholar
  26. Jentoft S (2014) Walking the talk: Implementing the international voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. Mar Stud 13(1):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jentoft S, McCay B, Wilson D (1998) Social theory and fisheries co-management. Mar Policy 22(4–5):423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jentoft S, Pascual-Fernandez JJ, de la Cruz Modino R, Gonzalez-Ramallal M, Chuenpagdee R (2012) What stakeholders think about marine protected areas: case studies from Spain. Hum Ecol 40(2):185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johannes RE (1981) Words of the lagoon. University of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaiser M, Spence F, Hart P (2000) Fishing-gear restrictions and conservation of benthic habitat complexity. Conserv Biol 14(5):1512–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LeDrew B (1988) A study of the conflict between fixed and mobile gear in Western Newfoundland. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. John’sGoogle Scholar
  32. Ley 70 (1993). Por la cual se desarrolla el artículo transitorio 55 de la Constitución Política. República de Colombia. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/46d59b7a2.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  33. Mascia MB, Claus CA, Naidoo R (2010) Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing communities. Conserv Biol 24(5):1424–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matallana M (2000) Hacia el ordenamiento de la actividad pesquera artesanal en los Golfos de Cupica y Tribugá, Pacífico colombiano. In: Fundación Natura, Proyecto “Comunidades indígenas y negras: desarrollo regional para la conservación de los recursos naturales en el Chocó Biogeográfico – Colombia” [CD], Final report. Bogotá: Fundación NaturaGoogle Scholar
  35. McCay BJ (2002) Emergence of institutions for the commons: contexts, situations and events. In: Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern PC, Stonich S, Weber EU (eds) The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 361–402Google Scholar
  36. Murawski SA, Brown R, Lai HL, Rago PJ, Hendrickson L (2000) Large-scale closed areas as a fishery-management tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank experience. Bull Mar Sci 66(3):775–798Google Scholar
  37. Navia AF, Mejía-Falla PA, Gómez LS, Payán LF, Ramírez AV, Tobón A (2008) Pesquerías y cadena productiva del recurso tiburón en el Pacífico colombiano: análisis y perspectivas. Fundación SQUALUS Technical report. Fundación SQUALUS, Santiago de CaliGoogle Scholar
  38. Navia AF, Mejía-Falla PA, López-García J, Muñoz LA, Ramírez-Luna V (2010) Pesquería artesanal de la zona norte del Pacífico colombiano: aportando herramientas para su administración. Fase 2. Fundación SQUALUS Technical report. Fundación SQUALUS, Santiago de CaliGoogle Scholar
  39. Neis B, Kean R (2003) Why fish stocks collapse: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the dynamics of ‘fishing up’. In: Byron R (ed) Retrenchment and regeneration in rural Newfoundland. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 65–102Google Scholar
  40. Nielsen JR, Degnbol P, Viswanathan KK, Ahmed M, Hara M, Abdullah NMR (2004) Fisheries co-management—an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Mar Policy 28(2):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Olsen E, Kleiven A, Skjoldal H, von Quillfeldt C (2011) Place-based management at different spatial scales. J Coast Conserv 15(2):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Orensanz JM, Seijo JC (2013) Rights-based management in Latin American fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical paper, no. 582. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3418e.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  43. Pinkerton E, John L (2008) Creating local management legitimacy. Mar Policy 32(4):680–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pomeroy R, Douvere F (2008) The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar Policy 32(5):816–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramírez-Luna V (2013) The exclusive fishing zone for the artisanal fishery in Chocó Colombia: origins, development, and consequences for artisanal fisheries and food security. Master’s thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’sGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramírez-Luna AV, Gómez LS, Tobón A, Mejía-Falla PA, Navia AF (2008) Pesquería artesanal de la zona norte del Pacífico colombiano: aportando herramientas para su co-manejo. Fase 1. Fundación SQUALUS, Colombia Technical Report. Fundación SQUALUS, Santiago de CaliGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruddle K, Hviding E, Johannes RE (1992) Marine resources management in the context of customary tenure. Mar Resour Econ 7(4):249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rueda M, Rico-Mejía F, Angulo W, Girón A, Rodríguez AL, García LM, Arenas L (2010) Evaluación biológico-pesquera del estado de las poblaciones de camarón de aguas profundas, mediante la aplicación de métodos directos (prospección pesquera) e indirectos (estadísticas de captura y esfuerzo) en el Pacífico colombiano. Informe Final de Proyecto código 031 2007 T6650-909-07. MADR. INVEMAR, Santa Marta, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  49. Saavedra-Díaz L, Jentoft S (2017) The role of the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines in reclaiming human rights for small-scale fishing people in Colombia. In: Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R, Barragán-Paladines MJ, Franz N (eds) The small-scale fisheries guidelines. Global implementation, MARE publication series 14. Springer, Cham, pp 573–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wielgus J, Zeller D, Caicedo-Herrera D, Sumaila R (2010) Estimation of fisheries removals and primary economic impact of the small-scale and industrial marine fisheries in Colombia. Mar Policy 34(3):506–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fundación Colombiana para la Investigación y Conservación de Tiburones y Rayas SQUALUSCaliColombia
  2. 2.Department of GeographyMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations