Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 22(1):1–15, 2014

Copyright °
C Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 2330-8249 print / 2330-8257 online
DOI: 10.1080/10641262.2013.822463

Tropical Artisanal Coastal Fisheries:

Challenges and Future Directions
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014

VANDICK S. BATISTA,1 NIDIA N. FABRÉ,1 ANA C. M. MALHADO,1

and RICHARD J. LADLE1,2
1
Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil
2
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Artisanal fisheries occur all over the tropics and provide an important source of protein and income for many coastal
communities. However, varied types and magnitudes of anthropogenic impacts threaten the environmental, economic, and
socio-cultural sustainability of this poorly studied fishing practice. This article reviews the scattered literature on tropical
artisanal coastal fisheries, identifying key challenges to ensure future sustainability. Despite huge data shortfalls, there is
considerable evidence that artisanal fisheries have a significant influence on the distribution and abundance of target and
by-catch species, in addition to wider impacts on biodiversity, biomass, assemblage structure, community dynamics, and
ecosystem functioning. Despite these immediate and considerable threats, regulation and management of artisanal fisheries
are problematic. Local communities in the coastal tropics are frequently very poor, and families frequently rely on fishing
for food security and income. Ensuring social and environmental sustainability therefore entails models of governance that
are able to adaptively manage these complex socio-ecological systems. Such models are being developed, but it is unclear
whether there are sufficient resources and technical capacity to widely implement them before the widespread collapse of
fisheries with potentially serious consequences for the communities that rely on them.

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

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

It is difficult to discuss artisanal fisheries without first ad-
dressing the issue of definitions and, more specifically, the per-
ceived differences between “artisanal fishing” and “small-scale
fishing.” Although these two terms are frequently used inter-
changeably in the literature, there is a subtle difference of em-
phasis: whereas artisanal fishing implies a degree of simplicity
or tradition (artisanality) in the chosen fishing method (e.g., sim-
ple traps, poisons, harpoons, lures and, at the most basic level,
hand collection), the term small-scale fisheries typically implies
nothing about gear or methods, focusing almost exclusively on
the size of the fishing unit/operation—in practical terms, often
operationalized in terms of the size of the boat.
Many definitions combine both these elements (artisanality
and size of the fishing operation). For example, the FAO glos-
Address correspondence to Ana C. M. Malhado, Institute of Biologi-
cal and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Av. Lourival Melo
Mota, s/n, Tabuleiro do Martins, Maceió, AL, 57072-900, Brazil. E-mail:
anaclaudiamalhado@gmail.com
as:
[T]raditional fisheries involving fishing households (as opposed
to commercial companies), using relatively small amount of cap-
ital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels (if any), making
short fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption.
In practice, definition varies between countries, e.g. from glean-
ing or a one-man canoe in poor developing countries, to more
than 20-m. trawlers, seiners, or long-liners in developed ones.
Artisanal fisheries can be subsistence or commercial fisheries,
providing for local consumption or export. They are sometimes
referred to as small-scale fisheries.
This definition is rendered somewhat more succinctly by
Hawkins and Roberts (2004) as that “pursued by small-scale
fishers using traditional methods” (p. 216) and by Ruttenberg
(2001) as “small-scale fishing, using simple technology such as
hand lines and hand nets” (p. 1692). In reality, it is inappropriate
to make a clear distinction between small-scale fishing and arti-
sanal fishing (FAO, 2012) or between small-scale/artisanal fish-
ing and industrial/large-scale fishing practices (Chuenpagdee

1
 2 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
Figure 1 Definition of artisanal fishing based on technical investment and size
of the fishing unit (boat/enterprise). Shaded area indicates the main focus of
studies in this review. Black dots indicate examples: 1—small wooden skiff
containing one or two fishers using small seine nets within the inshore reef; the
most common form of artisanal on the northeastern coast of Brazil; 2—fiberglass
boat with outboard motor (50–100 HP) used for trolling artificial lures/live baits
with nylon handlines, characteristic of fishers in the southern Caribbean islands;
3—industrial-scale trawling using a fully crewed boat and the latest fish finding
technology, typical of the developed world and rapidly industrializing nations
(after FAO, 2012).
et al., 2008; Carvalho et al., 2011). Rather, different fishing
practices can be thought of as occupying points on a continuum
of increasing scale and levels of artisanality (Figure 1). Even this
is an over-simplification, since many artisanal fishers are keen
to take advantage of the latest materials and are by no means ad-
verse to incorporating modern technology (if it is inexpensive),
such as mobile phones along with more traditional methods
to improve fishing performance (Salia et al., 2011; Sreekumar,
2011). Likewise, larger crafts are not necessarily engaged in
industrial/large-scale fisheries (e.g., Chacko, 1998).
Due to the differences in fishing methods and the smaller
scale of exploitation, the ecological characteristics of the fish
species exploited by artisanal fishers are typically different
from those exploited by industrial/large-scale fishing. Specif-
ically, species caught by tropical artisanal fishers tend to be
more sedentary and typically include a much higher diversity of
species, including many that attain small adult sizes. This pat-
tern of exploitation reflects the biological characteristics of most
tropical coastal ecosystems, which are highly diverse in com-
parison with highly productive off-shore temperate fisheries.
For example, in tropical northeastern Brazil, artisanal fishers
exploit up to 386 fish species (Haimovici and Klippel, 1999).
The small-scale, spatially structured nature of artisanal fisheries
with its focus on sedentary stocks has led to them being referred
to as “S-fisheries” by some authors (Orensanz et al., 2005).
Moreover, despite no precise delineation between
artisanal/small-scale fishing and industrial/large-scale fishing,
most authors agree that there exists a characteristic dualism in
which most fishers or fishing operators fall into distinct groups
on the basis of both the scale of the operation and the level
of technology utilized, employment generation, and degree of
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
Figure 2 Relationship between yield and species diversity (after Regier and
Henderson, 1973).
investment (Carvalho et al., 2011). The close concordance in of-
ficial definitions of artisanal/small-scale fisheries (Chuenpagdee
et al., 2006) also suggests that the commonalities are sufficient
to make a synthetic review of artisanal fishing meaningful. Ulti-
mately, and in the absence of constraints on economic develop-
ment, the scale of the fisheries may be closely related to type of
fisheries resource being exploited. Thus, industrial/large-scale
fisheries can only exist (in the long-term) where there is suf-
ficient biomass of the target species and where the economics
of extraction are sufficiently favorable. Since yield is frequently
inversely related to species diversity (Regier and Henderson,
1973; Figure 2), industrial fishing tends to predominate in tem-
perate latitudes and pelagic fisheries, while artisanal fisheries
predominate in the species-rich inshore waters of tropical coast-
lines.
In summary, artisanal fishing is typically defined in relation
to the focus of the fishing/economic units, type of fishing ac-
tivity, level of use and cost of technology utilized, and eventual
market or uses of the catch. It should be noted that there are many
related terms such as “subsistence” or “benefit-aimed” fisheries
(Guillemot et al., 2009) that are often used interchangeably
with the more frequently used artisanal or small-scale fisheries.
Nevertheless (and despite the fuzziness of existing definitions),
the ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural consequences of
artisanal fishing (shaded area of Figure 1) have become a ma-
jor focus of research over recent decades, resulting in a large
amount of literature scattered across a diverse array of disci-
plines and sub-disciplines. This review aims to draw upon these
disparate information sources to provide a synthetic review of
tropical artisanal coastal fisheries, highlighting important his-
torical trends and identifying key challenges to ensure future
sustainability.
Why Focus on Tropical Coastal Fisheries?
Artisanal fishing is practiced all over the world but is es-
pecially important in the coastal tropics (Allison and Ellis,
2001) due to high population densities in these areas and the
vol. 22 1 2014
 TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES
reliance of many communities on natural resources as a source of
income and food. Here, Cheunpagdee et al. (2006) is followed
in defining coastal fisheries as those that deploy gear from shore
out to either 50 km in distance or from shore to 200 m in depth.
The simpler and cheaper technology typically employed by ar-
tisanal fishers (see above) means that most fisheries of this type
are considerably closer to the shore and shallower than the upper
limits of this definition.
Precise information on the number and economic contribu-
tion of artisanal fishing in the coastal tropics is very difficult
to obtain (see Béné, 2006, for a discussion of the various es-
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
timates). Most estimates are likely to undershoot due to the
large number of seasonal or “occasional” fishers who do not
show up in official statistics (FAO, 2004). At the broadest scale,
Chuenpagdee et al. (2006) estimated that there are at least 12
million small-scale fishers worldwide (as compared to 500,000
full-time crew on larger fishing vessels), most of whom reside
in the tropics. Using a broader definition, the FAO estimated
that in 2002 about 135 million people are directly or indirectly
employed in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture (marine and
freshwater) (FAO, 2004).
Small-scale artisanal fishing clearly plays an important role
in the economies of tropical coastal regions but is arguably
even more important in the context of food security and health,
as almost all small-scale fisheries catches are used for human
consumption, as compared to only 57% of large-scale fishing
catches (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Due to the low costs of arti-
sanal fishing, it is often one of the only ways that the rural poor
can gain access to high protein food (Kawarazuka and Bene,
2011). Recent estimates suggest that 40–60% of marine fish
production in Brazil comes from artisanal fisheries (Begossi,
2006). The average level of health (e.g., fertility, child mortal-
ity, adult mortality) of artisanal fishing communities in many
developing world countries is no better than equivalent agri-
cultural communities and, in the case of women, may even be
worse (Tietze et al., 2002).
Fishing also has strong cultural associations in many tropical
coastal communities and is frequently an important part of cul-
tural identity rather than an option of “last resort” for the coastal
poor. Thus, the behavior of artisanal fishers cannot be solely
interpreted in terms of economic rationalism. Rather, decisions
about when and where to fish and what species to fish are influ-
enced by a complex interplay of socioeconomic, cultural, and
historical influences (Béné and Tewfik, 2001). In some ways,
this makes the management of artisanal fishing more problem-
atic since policies and mechanisms to improve governance and
management of fisheries resources need to be particularly sen-
sitive to local factors.
Another reason to be concerned about the future of trop-
ical coastal artisanal fisheries is the increasing pressure on
coastal communities through population growth and demo-
graphic shifts. Small and Nicholls (2003) estimated that 1.2 ×
109 people live within 100 km of the coast at densities that are
three times higher than the average global density; in the major-
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
3
ity of the world’s countries, this represents 80–100% of the pop-
ulation. Moreover, between 1992 and 2002, the global coastal
population rose by 56% due to both population growth and
migration. If current demographic trends continue—as seems
likely—the human pressure on coastal zones (and the natural
resources they provide) is predicted to increase dramatically
over the coming decades (Martı́nez et al., 2007). Even so, it is
important to distinguish between general trends in the demo-
graphics of coastal populations and changes in artisanal fishing
communities. Tietze et al. (2002) observed that the number of
coastal fishers was actually declining or stagnating in four out
of the six tropical developing countries they studied. Moreover,
many fishers within these communities were turning, in part or
in full, to other livelihood opportunities due to a combination of
declining resource quality, competition with industrial fishers,
and changes in the governance of fish stocks.
Finally, coastal artisanal fishing merits academic attention
because of its potential influence on fish populations (see be-
low). Although the conservation and sustainable exploitation
literature has, understandably, focused on industrial-scale fish-
ing, it is becoming increasingly clear that artisanal fishing can
also have profound consequences on fish populations, biomass,
and community structure (Coblentz, 1997; Ruttenberg, 2001;
Espino-Barr et al., 2002; Hawkins and Roberts, 2004; Camp-
bell and Pardede, 2006; Goetze et al., 2011). Such evidence
goes against the view of many fisheries and marine protected
area (MPA) managers that artisanal fishing is somehow more
“benign.” Indeed, artisanal fishing is often permitted within the
boundaries of marine parks and other forms of MPAs (Grand-
court et al., 1999; Hawkins et al., 1999; Granek and Brown,
2005).
Even if the effect of artisanal fishing on fish population or
communities is relatively minor within a given area, the com-
bined effects of artisanal fishing activities in the tropics are
enormous given the large proportion of the coastal population
involved in fishing (see above). Thus, it is in the context of
increasing pressures on coastal tropical environments and fish-
eries, demographic shifts in coastal populations, and the social
challenges of poverty alleviation and health in the developed
world that the diverse and often scattered literature on artisanal
fishing is reviewed, while acknowledging that one of the major
challenges of assessing artisanal fisheries is the paucity and low
quality of much data due to the illegal/unregulated/unreported
nature of some artisanal fisheries.
For the reasons given above, the present review is restricted
to tropical coastal fisheries, where fishing pressure is often most
intense and where enforcement of regulations is often weakest.
First, a brief synopsis of the main characteristics of fishing and
fishers in these regions is given, followed by a review of the
evidence for the ecological and social consequences of artisanal
fishing. Finally, the management options are assessed, high-
lighting successful strategies and identifying major challenges
and unifying themes for improving the governance of artisanal
tropical fisheries.
vol. 22 1 2014
 4 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.
Characteristics of Artisanal Fishing in the Coastal Tropics
As outlined above, artisanal fishing is typically defined in
terms of both the scale of the operation and the “artisanality” of
the fishing practices. In practice, there is a suite of common fish-
ing methods (cf., Nédélec and Prado, 1990) that are practiced
across the coastal tropics to catch fish and invertebrates that are
normally defined as artisanal. At the most basic level, collecting
by hand or by rudimentary spears and hooks is universal. Small
beach seines and boat seines, and increasingly gill nets/tangle
nets, are also widely used in artisanal fishing along with a wide
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
variety of fish traps ranging from pots to barriers. Hook-and-
line methods are also popular and vary immensely in level of
sophistication from the use of baited hand-lines on beaches to
the trolling of artificial lures from motorized boats. Jennings and
Kaiser (1998) made the distinction between “active” and “pas-
sive” methods and commented that, while passive methods are
more common among tropical artisanal fishers, active methods,
such as drive netting, spearing, and the use of chemicals and ex-
plosives, are frequently used. Indeed, the use of explosives and
poisons by artisanal fishers, though illegal in most countries,
has caused great damage to coral reefs throughout the world
and has been especially problematic in South East Asia (Fox
et al., 2005), the Caribbean (Hawkins and Roberts, 2004), and
East Africa (Wells, 2009).
Despite considerable variation in methods, there is some gear
(gillnets, trap fisheries, hand harvests) that is almost exclusively
used by artisanal fishers (Crowder et al., 2008). Such methods
tend to be less selective and consequently catch a high diversity
of mainly small species. Moreover, very few species are dis-
carded (e.g., Mangi and Roberts [2006] reported a 6.5% discard
rate), and non-target species are therefore an important part of
the catch.
The main target fish species of artisanal fishers are larger,
commercially valuable species such as groupers (Serranidae),
snappers (Lutjanidae), jacks (Carangidae), snooks (Centropo-
midae), mullets (Mugilidae), and smaller species of the tuna
family (Scombridae). However, in marked contrast to industrial
fisheries, artisanal fishers exploit a much higher diversity of fish
species, many of them small and not always noted for their high
culinary value. Thus, in addition to the above it is not uncommon
for artisanal fishers to target a wide variety of coral reef species
and shallow water species, such as parrotfish (Scaridae), wrasse
(Labridae), grunts (Haemulidae), drums (Sciaenidae), and sea
catfish (Ariidae). Artisanal fishermen also harvest invertebrate
species, especially cephalopods and larger crustaceans. As with
industrial fishing, by-catch may also represent a high propor-
tion of the catch (Rueda and Defeo, 2003) and often includes
large vertebrates, such as cetaceans (Razafindrakoto et al., 2008;
Mangel et al., 2010) and turtles (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2011).
Artisanal fishers are as diverse as the fish that they catch and
cannot easily be labeled and grouped into convenient categories.
Indeed, fishing may be a supplementary activity to provide extra
food or income and may be practiced seasonally or sporadically
depending upon the prevailing socio-economic conditions or
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
cultural preferences within a community. Nevertheless, with the
rise of community-based natural resource management (CB-
NRM) and similar governance frameworks centered on local
groups and communities, there has been a renewed interest in
the economic, social, and cultural dynamics of artisanal fish-
ers (St. Martin, 2001; Kronen, 2004; Guillemot et al., 2009).
Moreover, there has also been an acknowledgement of the im-
portant role played by other actors (indigenous groups, NGOs,
scientists, local and national government, consumers, etc.) in the
governance of artisanal fisheries and the pressing need to build
more sophisticated and socially realistic bottom-up manage-
ment structures that explicitly incorporate the complex social,
economic and geographic drivers underlying fishing behaviors.
Literature Survey
Nine hundred fifty-six articles that were retrieved from Web
of Science were analyzed on 26 February 2012 using the follow-
ing search string: ((“artisanal fishing” OR “artisanal fisheries”)
OR (“small-scale fishing” OR “small-scale fisheries”)). From
this list, conference reports, temperate studies and articles that
were primarily concerned with freshwater fisheries were ex-
cluded, leaving a total of 235 journal papers with a focus on
tropical coastal artisanal fisheries. It should be noted that while
this sample is not exhaustive and should not be considered as an
estimate of the volume of research in this area, it should be rela-
tively representative of research in this area. In this context, the
papers were categorized in order to identify broad geographic
and thematic trends in the literature.
From each paper, the geographic location of the study was
recorded (ranging from small reefs to archipelagos or group
of countries such as the Caribbean region). In total, 62.2% of
studies used continental study areas and 37.8% were from is-
lands. Perhaps surprisingly, given its traditionally low research
capacity and infrastructure, Africa was the continent with the
most published studies (32.6%), followed by Asia (23.9%) and
South America (18.3%). Preliminary analysis suggests that the
high frequency of studies in Africa may be a consequence of
the large number of European and North American researchers
collecting data there. Likewise, tropical oceanic islands may
be particularly attractive research sites for scientists from the
northern hemisphere. At the country level, Brazil, Philippines,
Kenya, India, and Tanzania, respectively, were the most studied
countries (Table 1). The majority of studies were broadly char-
acterized as relating to coastal ecosystems (56.7%), while reefs
were the focus of 21.7% of studies, and 11.1% of articles were
on artisanal fishing in pelagic ecosystems.
As anticipated the thematic focus of articles varied im-
mensely, incorporating studies of ecology, social science, devel-
opment, economics, history, and politics among others. Unsur-
prisingly, fisheries assessment and management were the major
thematic areas (18.4% and 14.2%, respectively). Other themes
that were well represented (3–9% of articles in the sample) were
socio-economic analysis of artisanal fisheries, socio-ecological
vol. 22 1 2014
 TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES 5

Table 1 Worldwide distribution of artisanal fisheries research for: (a) major (2009) estimated that fish biomass is now <10% of baseline
regions of the world, (b) countries with the biggest number of studies, and (c) estimates in tropical Asian countries.
major ecosystem of analyses
Many target species are exploited by both artisanal and in-
Number of papers Proportion (%) dustrial fleets, making it difficult to tease apart impacts. For
example, artisanal fishers may reduce recruitment to the stocks
(a) Region of the world
Africa 75 32.6
of older fish exploited further offshore by industrial fishers,
Asia 55 23.9 while offshore fishing may reduce the inshore stocks of (typi-
Central America 33 14.3 cally) juvenile fish targeted by artisanal fishing (Pauly, 1979).
North America 8 3.5 As with assemblage structure (see below), the clearest evidence
Oceania 17 7.4 for the negative effects of artisanal fishing on populations of
South America 42 18.3
(b) Countries
target species comes from comparisons between areas where
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014

Brazil 24 10.3 fishing is restricted and unrestricted areas. For example, Watson
Philippines 15 6.4 and Ormond (1994) observed significant decreases in popula-
Kenya 12 5.1 tion density of commercially important species of lethrinids,
India 10 4.3 lutjanids, and serranids on Kenyan reefs where only artisanal
Tanzania 9 3.8
Indonesia 8 3.4
fishing is permitted as compared to equivalent no-take areas.
Ghana 7 3.0 In the Caribbean, Stallings (2009) also observed the disappear-
Mexico 7 3.0 ance of several large-bodied fishes in highly exploited areas.
Nigeria 7 3.0 Interestingly, they also recorded increases in smaller serranids,
Malaysia 6 2.6 sea urchins and a butterfly fish, probably as a consequence of
Peru 6 2.6
(c) Ecosystems
a decrease in predation associated with the removal of larger
Coastal 102 56.7 species.
Reefs 39 21.7 Other indicators of the impact of artisanal fishing on popu-
Marine 20 11.1 lations are shifts in size and weight distributions. Specifically,
Estuary 5 2.8 since large individuals are frequently targeted and are more
Lagoon 4 2.2
Inland 3 1.7
heavily exploited, areas of high fishing pressure tend to contain
Others (e.g., mangroves, mud 7 3.9 smaller individuals, as has been observed in studies across a
flats, seagrass, etc.) range of taxa (Diele et al., 2005; Gobert et al., 2005; Aswani
and Sabetian, 2010). For example, a recent study in the Solomon
Islands demonstrated a clear trend of increasing abundance and
average size of parrotfish in areas with stronger forms of custom-
studies of fishing communities, by-catch, livelihood impacts on
ary management (Aswani and Sabetian, 2010). More generally,
communities, impacts on fish populations, stock assessment,
areas with reduced size distributions and low catch per unit effort
co-management, and policy analysis.
are, ipso facto, considered to be suffering from over-exploitation
(Guard and Mgaya, 2002).
It is not only target species that are affected by artisanal fish-
ing. The issue of by-catch has long been recognized as a problem
IMPACTS ON POPULATIONS AND COMMUNITIES for commercial fisheries (Hall et al., 2000; Lewison et al., 2004)
and has recently started to be assessed in the context of artisanal
Studies of the impact of artisanal fishing on specific fish fisheries (Soykan et al., 2008). This historical lack of attention is
populations are less prominent than in the commercial fishing possibly because, of the four general categories of discard (mar-
research literature. This is mainly because artisanal fisheries ketable species too small or otherwise prohibited, species for
are frequently multi-gear with low rates of discard, leading to which no market exists, species-specific fleet sectors discard-
fishing pressure on a wide range of species and where stock ing another fisheries target species, and non-fishery by-catch
approaches are therefore inadequate or unviable. Indeed, the species), only non-fishery by-catch, such as marine mammals,
breadth of species taken by artisanal fishers and their lack of turtles, and birds, is strongly associated with artisanal fishing
specialization mean that they will frequently and rapidly shift practices. The development of effective solutions to the prob-
their exploitation patterns in relation to changes in abundance lems of artisanal fisheries by-catch is currently being held back
of fish species. Such “tracking” of local resources may provide by a general lack of data. Moreover, the data that do exist paint a
some respite for low abundance species but may also impede worrying picture; it was recently estimated that small-scale fish-
population recovery since even low abundance species are ex- eries in Peru accounted for the annual capture of 5,900 endan-
ploited to a certain extent. Nevertheless, there is a broad con- gered South Pacific loggerhead turtles (Alfaro-Shigueto et al.,
sensus that artisanal fishing (combined with industrial fishing) 2011). Moreover, the problem may be widespread throughout
has had serious consequences on the biomass and assemblage the tropics. A recent questionnaire survey of >6,100 fishers in
structure of tropical marine ecosystems (Pauly, 1979); Blaber 7 developing world countries suggests that by-catch of turtles,
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture vol. 22 1 2014
 6 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.
cetaceans, and sireneans may already be at unsustainable levels
(Moore et al. 2010).
Unlike populations, the impacts of artisanal fishing on species
assemblages are not always easy to detect. This is partly because
the variability of fishers and fishing practices make data collec-
tion and analysis difficult, but also because artisanal fisheries
frequently overlap with other potentially damaging inshore ac-
tivities, such as tourism, industrial and recreational fishing, ship-
ping, and mining (Crowder et al., 2008). For example, Campbell
and Pardede (2006) observed that gill-netting had particularly
strong effects on the biomass of seven families in a study from
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
Indonesia. Other studies have been unable to detect any influ-
ence of artisanal fishing on the structure of the fish commu-
nities, arguing that changes in catch composition are probably
attributable to natural environmental fluctuations (Espino-Barr
et al., 2002).
As with population level studies, the best evidence for the
effects of artisanal fishing on fish community structure are from
studies comparing assemblages inside and outside protected ar-
eas (Jennings and Polunin, 1997; Hawkins and Roberts, 2004;
Miller et al., 2007). Among the most prominent effects docu-
mented in these studies is a general decline in abundance and
biomass (Ruttenberg, 2001) and reduced numbers of certain
functional groups, such as piscivorous fishes (de Boer et al.,
2001; Miller et al., 2007), reef-associated demersal fishes (Tse-
haye et al., 2007), and herbivorous fishes (Ruttenberg, 2001).
The removal of key trophic groups can have profound effects
on community structure and ecosystem dynamics. For example,
Hawkins and Roberts (2004) described how the overfishing of
key grazers in the Caribbean caused excessive algal growth. The
net effect of these processes is typically simpler, lower diversity
assemblages dominated by smaller fish species (Crowder et al.,
2008).
SOCIO-ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, AND POLITICAL
ASPECTS
Artisanal fisheries in the tropics are typically associated with
human communities in rural areas but may also be practiced
fishers from more urban settings (McGoodwin, 2001). Many
of these communities suffer from high levels of poverty, and
consequently, any attempt to manage artisanal fisheries faces a
fundamental dilemma: how to reduce over-exploitation of fish
stocks and promote sustainability while at the same time ad-
dressing basic human needs and providing livelihoods (Emmer-
son, 1980). There are no simple solutions to this dilemma, and
it is not uncommon for different actors to promote radically dif-
ferent management strategies for artisanal fisheries depending
upon their social/environmental priorities. Moreover, the arti-
sanal fishers themselves are by no means passive actors within
this process, and there is a constant transfer of technological
and ecological knowledge from older to younger fishermen in
addition to beliefs and taboos related to resource conservation
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
(e.g., Colding and Folke, 2001; Begossi et al., 2004). It is also
interesting to note that research on tropical artisanal fisheries
has had a much greater focus on social and economic themes
than the literature on industrial/temperate fisheries.
Fishing for Survival: Subsistence Fishing
The characteristics and definitions of subsistence fishing vary
according to the motivations of the fishers and their relationship
with surrounding markets (Schumann and Macinko, 2007). The
standard definition is a local, non-commercial, primarily non-
recreational activity focused on fishing for direct consumption
of the fishers and dependents (Berkes, 1990). It should be noted
that this definition does not specify the degree of dependency
on fishing yield. Thus, it includes both fishers for who are sup-
plementing their diet and those with no access to other sources
of protein. This is an important issue, since total dependence
on fishing for protein requirements can put huge pressure on
fisheries. For example, annual per capita fish consumption for
Caribbean was approximately 62 g per day (Coblentz, 1997),
varies from 13 to 110.7 kg in Pacific Island countries (Bell et al.,
2009), and is a staggering 550 g per day in rural communities
in Amazonia (Batista et al., 1998; Fabré and Gonzales, 1998).
Thus, the social and health implications of limitations on catches
for subsistence fishers without alternative sources of protein will
be far more severe than those with access to other food types or
alternative livelihoods. Given the above constraints, the impo-
sition of stricter fishing regulations or a decrease in yield due to
other factors (collapse of stocks, increase in number of fishers,
etc.) may result in emigration to urban centers, switching to
other less regulated forms of fishing, or, at worst, a significant
reduction in protein with the associated health consequences.
Another major barrier to developing and implementing pol-
icy aimed at subsistence fishers is that this sector is poorly
monitored compared to more commercially orientated forms of
artisanal fishing (Zeller et al., 2006); even when it is mon-
itored, under-reported landings are common (Jacquet et al.,
2010). Thus, the true extent and impact of subsistence fishing
is poorly known, compromising the development and imple-
mentation of policies to help this most marginalized segment of
artisanal fishers. It is common to find a negative relationship be-
tween human population size and fish abundance, as was found
in the Caribbean region (Stallings, 2009), but without includ-
ing social or economic variables. Moreover, there is evidence
that subsistence fishers are least likely to stop fishing when
stocks begin to decline. A recent study in East Africa, which
has a high proportion of subsistence fishing, demonstrated that
fishers were more likely to indicate that they would stop fishing
under falling yields if they were from wealthier families and had
alternative livelihood options (Cinner et al., 2009). Thus, many
subsistence fishers in the coastal tropics are caught in a “poverty
trap,” unable to switch to alternative forms of subsistence or
income generation. Extending this logic, any approaches de-
signed to reduce fishing pressure may need to first focus on
vol. 22 1 2014
 TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES
diversifying livelihood opportunities and generating alternative
forms of income generation.
Fishing for Income and Profit
Artisanal fishing is responsible for approximately 90% of all
fishing jobs worldwide and provides critical income for millions
of families. However, as outlined above, there are no clear dis-
tinctions between those who fish for subsistence and those who
fish for income. Moreover, even where fishing is the main liveli-
hood activity within the household, it rarely accounts for the
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
entire cash income; Ninnes (2004) reported that only 40–55%
of the income of coastal fishing households in Mozambique and
Tanzania was generated by fishing activities. Similarly, Wielgus
et al. (2010) estimated 49% of artisanal catches were used for
subsistence purposes in Colombia. Nevertheless, fishing has an
almost unique status among income generating activities within
tropical coastal communities because it is one of the few reli-
able ways to “instantly” generate cash—a kind of “bank in the
water” (Béné, 2006).
The heavy reliance of many families on artisanal fishing to
generate income for buying food and essential services is an
important focus of contemporary debates and has prompted nu-
merous calls for the rapid diversification of livelihoods within
artisanal fishing communities (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Perry
and Sumaila, 2007). Not only does diversification provide an
enhanced level of income (Degen et al., 2010), it consider-
ably increases the resilience of communities to environmental
change, reduces resource conflict, and takes some of the pres-
sure off fish stocks (Fulanda et al., 2011). However, promoting
diversification is by no means simple, and opportunities to ex-
ploit alternative income sources are both geographically and
culturally variable (Kronen et al., 2010). Moreover, where fish-
ing plays an important cultural role, there may be considerable
resistance to the adoption of alternative livelihood activities.
MANAGEMENT
Sustainability Objectives
Sustainability of fish stocks is the general, if elusive, objec-
tive of contemporary fisheries management (Pauly et al., 2002).
The origin of the concept of sustainability, or sustainable de-
velopment, is relatively new. Sustainable development was first
described by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: as “develop-
ment that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987,
p. 43). Many alternative definitions have subsequently been pro-
posed, most of which are based on the idea of the “triple bottom
line” (TBL) concept—the splitting of sustainability into envi-
ronmental, social, and economic factors. It should be noted that
the TBL is also a simplification and that additional sustain-
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
7
ability components (e.g., cultural sustainability) are frequently
incorporated into contemporary sustainability assessment (Pope
et al., 2004).
The objectives and assessment of sustainability is somewhat
different as applied to temperate industrial fisheries and trop-
ical artisanal fisheries. In the former, the traditional approach
to sustainability has been to focus on environmental and, espe-
cially, economic sustainability components. Commercial fish-
eries managers and policy makers have typically focused on the
accurate determination of sustainable stock levels for a small
number of target species using concepts, such as maximum sus-
tainable yield (MSY) or sometimes maximum economic yield
(MEY; Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Murawski, 2000).
Approaches to sustainability in tropical artisanal fisheries
have been broader and less focused on target setting and as-
sessment of population parameters (Hilborn and Walters, 1992;
Berkes et al., 2001). Stock management of artisanal fisheries—if
it occurs—is typically subsumed within broader ecosystem
management approaches (Mathew, 2003; Crowder et al., 2008;
McClanahan and Cinner, 2008). There are several reasons for
this. First, artisanal fishers typically capture a much wider di-
versity of fish species, complicating stock assessment and target
setting measures (Mathew, 2003). Second, there is an enormous
lack of resources for fish population assessment and research in
many tropical areas, and historical records are frequently non-
existent. Finally, fishing is frequently an integral and traditional
part of the fabric of local communities, and fishers may make up
a sizeable proportion of the population of tropical coastal com-
munities (Crowder et al., 2008). Thus, sustainability approaches
to fisheries that focus on environmental and economic compo-
nents of sustainability need to be modified heavily to incorporate
livelihood issues and to acknowledge long-held cultural prac-
tices and societal norms.
Clear objectives are fundamental to fisheries management
(Hilborn, 2007) at both industrial (Hilborn and Walters, 1992)
and artisanal (Berkes et al., 2001) ends of the spectrum of fish-
ing practices. Objectives depend on the profile of users and
managers of the fishery resources, their interests, expectations,
and the characteristics of the fisheries culture of stakeholders
involved. In artisanal fisheries, sustainability objectives are typ-
ically focused on food security issues (Béné et al., 2007), main-
taining traditional ways of life (e.g., Berkes, 1990), and pro-
tecting livelihoods (Pomeroy, 1994). However, the existence
of multiple and often poorly defined objectives, a lack of tar-
get setting, and a focus on development objectives (as opposed
to environmental sustainability) means that exploitation rates
in artisanal fisheries can vary enormously according to factors
such as market demands (Caviglia-Harris et al., 2003), avail-
ability of fishing power technologies (Defeo and Castilla, 1998;
Bald et al., 2006), availability of alternative activities, income
sources, and local culture (McGoodwin, 2001; Kronen et al.,
2010).
More generally, the lack of any sort of regulation or manage-
ment in probably the majority of artisanal fisheries in the coastal
tropics means that, initially, management objectives may need
vol. 22 1 2014
 8 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.
to be stripped down to basic priorities. This is exactly what has
been recently suggested by Cochrane et al. (2011), who rec-
ommended that artisanal fisheries management should be based
on precautionary principles in an attempt to prevent the fishery
crossing undesirable thresholds. Referred to as “primary fish-
eries management,” the authors cautioned that this should be
viewed as a first step to ensure sustainability for data-poor, cur-
rently unregulated fisheries and that ultimately the aim should
be to move toward that sort of adaptive management approach
(e.g. Berkes, 2003).
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
Top Down Versus Bottom Up
The management of tropical coastal resources has undergone
a paradigm shift over the last two decades toward greater pub-
lic participation and stakeholder involvement in resource man-
agement regimes (Christie and White, 1997; Pomeroy et al.,
2004). Old models based on top-down “command and control”
management—often a legacy of colonial centralization (Christie
and White, 1997)—are being increasingly challenged by notions
based around ideas of engaging stakeholders, especially those
that are involved in the day-to-day use of a resource, such as
artisanal fishers and their families, in the management of natu-
ral resource (White et al., 1994; Nielsen and Vedsmand, 1999).
Top-down strategies are also losing favor because, in the words
of one researcher, “it is almost socially immoral to try to impose
fishing effort or catch restrictions on subsistence and artisanal
fishers” (Russ, 2002, p. 421). Thus, traditional management ap-
proaches are being replaced by those that more fully embrace
the inherent uncertainty and complexity of both the fisheries and
the communities that exploit them. This has lead to the creation
of numerous systems of participatory management and cross-
scale governance: human-oriented approaches that also draw
upon ideas of adaptive ecosystem-based fisheries management
(Pikitch et al., 2004; Crowder et al., 2008), providing linkages
between social and natural systems (Berkes, 2003).
Despite the almost universal shift toward greater public par-
ticipation in the management of coastal resources, effective co-
management is by no means a panacea for the problems of
sustainability of artisanal fishing resources in the tropics, and
there are many potential barriers to the successful implemen-
tation (reviewed in Wilson et al., 2003). First, conflicts over
resource use—especially fishing rights—may prove to be in-
tractable problems for which mutually satisfactory resolution
may not be possible. In this context, participation of local stake-
holders may merely give a platform for the legitimization of
vested interests in the guise of community aspirations (Cooke
and Kothari, 2001). Second, existing or historic political, cul-
tural, or administrative structures may not have the flexibility to
enable effective local community involvement and may even re-
sult in disempowerment through channeling local stakeholders
to interact within an intrinsically biased framework (Cooke and
Kothari, 2001). Third, there may be insufficient political will to
facilitate a move toward participatory management, especially if
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
there are many and competing vested interests involved. Fourth,
there may be insufficient interest or engagement of the local
stakeholder community in the management of the resource to
create strong and democratic local organizations (Brown, 2002).
If the participatory process is externally imposed and local stake-
holders do not fully “buy in” to the initiative, then the process
may break down when the initiative finishes or financial support
is withdrawn. Finally, insufficient time may be given for the
creation of local organizations and stakeholder groups and/or
refinement of the participatory process.
Nevertheless, co-management appears the most appropriate
framework for managing artisanal fisheries in the tropics, and
considerable progress has been made in identifying both local
and universal factors that facilitate successful co-management.
Among the most important of these factors is how the co-
management process is initiated and who leads it. Implemen-
tation is necessarily different in contrasting cultures and in-
stitutional settings and success or failure of co-management
is therefore heavily context dependent (Hill and Hupe, 2002).
Chuenpagdee and Jentoft (2007) clearly demonstrated the im-
portance of understanding local context in their review of co-
global management initiatives. They concluded that (1) the pre-
implementation period is of critical importance and may last
several years; (2) practitioners must be aware of how the imple-
mentation of co-management may interfere with “on-going so-
cial system processes that need to be balanced and sustained” (p.
667); and (3) the support of government agencies is often essen-
tial for successful implementation. Indeed, there is often a “legal
vacuum” that surrounds co-management initiatives—something
that only the state can fill.
The necessity for a clear legal framework within which
community-based management initiatives can flourish demon-
strates the continued importance of local or national government
in the governance of artisanal fisheries. It also indicates the false
dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up management sys-
tems. Of course, legal frameworks can also have a customary
basis, and traditional systems of marine tenure may also have
an important role in the management of some artisanal fisheries
(see discussion in Dahl, 1988).
Interventions
As indicated above, there are numerous approaches to the
management of artisanal fisheries that incorporate elements of
both top-down and bottom-up approaches to management. Per-
haps the most emblematic intervention is the creation of ex-
clusion and sustainable use zones, normally created within the
context of an MPA (Roberts and Polunin, 1991). A good exam-
ple is the development of marine extractive reserves (MERs) in
Brazil, defined as “community-based, site-specific, multi-use,
land and sea resource management approach based on claims
of culturally distinct groups with longstanding livelihood ties
to ‘artisan-scale’ production territories” (Cordell, 2003). One
of the most innovative aspects of MERs is the requirement that
vol. 22 1 2014
 TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES
local fishers formally ask for their establishment in addition
to interdisciplinary studies that seek to incorporate traditional
knowledge and management practices into the MER design
(Diegues, 2008). Moreover, the fishers take an active role in
defining boundaries and establishing no-take areas within the
MER.
The success of MERs in Brazil is difficult to assess, although
initial reports suggest that smaller reserves with homogenous
communities of fishers have had fewer problems with enforce-
ment and the establishment of co-management with government
officials (Diegues, 2008). In contrast, larger MERs that contain
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
several distinct communities have had problems with both en-
forcement and managing the expectations of diverse user groups
(e.g., urban fishers and tourism operators). Indeed, the MER case
study is probably indicative of a more general scale dependence
for successful governance of artisanal fisheries.
An alternative or complementary approach to zoning and no-
take areas is to place limitations on the type of fishing that is per-
missible within a given area (e.g., Guzmán and Jácome, 1998) or
on the type and size of fish that are permissible. A common ap-
proach is to formulate recommendations on the basis of studies
of selectivity of different fishing gear. McClanahan and Mangi
(2004) identified the elimination or reduction of beach seines
and small traps as the most effective way to reduce the catch
of small fish and reduce the overlap in selectivity among the
existing gears among coastal artisanal fishers in Kenya. More
generally, gear-based management alone is probably insuffi-
cient to restore sustainability to artisanal fisheries, especially
if implemented on an ad hoc basis; a study of the artisanal sea
cucumber fishery in the Solomon Islands observed that size lim-
its, bag limits, gear restrictions, and seasonal closures generally
failed, possibly due to limited human, financial, and technical re-
sources (Ramofafia et al., 2004). However, gear-based manage-
ment and other fishing regulations could still play an important
role within an adaptive management framework that selectively
imposes restrictions depending on perceived ecological trends
(McClanahan and Cinner, 2008).
Another approach to the governance of artisanal fisheries is
to focus on the consumers, using education or market-based
strategies to influence what species are bought or eaten. How-
ever, since a large proportion of artisanal fishing is for subsis-
tence, these strategies are unlikely to have the impacts of similar
schemes (e.g., eco-labeling, consumer guides, boycotts) aimed
at commercial fisheries (Jacquet and Pauly, 2007); indeed, sus-
tainable fisheries initiatives may even be creating barriers for the
development of more sustainable small-scale fisheries (Jacquet
and Pauly, 2008). One of the simplest strategies to influence
consumption is through sales bans on certain species. How-
ever, a recent study in Micronesia demonstrated that a seasonal
ban on the sale of reproductively active serranids had the un-
intended consequence of increasing fishing pressure on other
equally threatened fish families (Rhodes and Tupper, 2007).
The success of any of these interventions, whether they are
aimed at fishers or consumers, is ultimately dependent upon
levels of support and compliance. However, building sufficient
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
9
levels of community support is by no means easy, especially for
unpopular restrictions on when, where, and how to fish imposed
on fishers who have previously been completely unregulated.
Even when government controls generate population recovery,
the sustainability of the protection is often low. For example,
the abundance of green turtles Chelonia mydas in the Caribbean
region increased from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s as a
consequence of increased regulation but began to decline again
when government controls were reduced (Troëng and Eddy,
2005). Although there are no quick fixes, changing attitudes and
building support can be gradually achieved through targeted ed-
ucation programs, increased professionalism, and broader shifts
in cultural attitudes in the wider community (McClanahan et al.,
2009). A good example of the success of targeted education is
the widespread change in attitudes to turtle conservation among
artisanal fishing communities. In Brazil, Projeto Tamar has
achieved notable success in halting the harvesting of gravid
female sea turtles and their eggs by focusing their efforts on
local participation, even employing ex-egg poachers to patrol
beaches and protect nests (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999).
CHALLENGES AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
One of the greatest challenges in artisanal fisheries research
in the tropics is the enormous shortfalls in data, from basic
information on fishing pressure and the demography of arti-
sanal fishers (cf., Béné, 2006) to the detailed socio-demographic
and cultural research (e.g., Parsram, 2010) that is required to
plan genuinely sustainable co-management initiatives, includ-
ing risks related to the activity (e.g., Quinn and Kojis, 2012;
Salas et al., 2012). Perhaps most critical is the lack of accurate,
geo-referenced estimates of fishing pressure in coastal zone ar-
eas (e.g., Shivlani and Koeneke, 2011), although these may be
somewhat mitigated by the use of indirect indicators such as
population size or coastline length (Stewart et al., 2010). The
lack of historical information is also a considerable challenge for
fisheries managers in the tropics. Given that even low levels of
artisanal fishing can significantly affect slow-growing, late ma-
turing fish species and that artisanal fishing has been practiced
across the coastal tropics for centuries or millennia, it is very
difficult to assess genuine baselines (Pinnegar and Engelhard,
2008). This situation has been exacerbated in many areas that
have undergone a huge increase in fishing pressure over recent
decades, further shifting the baseline for stock assessment.
As a social group, artisanal fishers are relatively understudied
and, in the context of management, are often treated as more or
less static elements within the system. In reality, artisanal fishers
are highly heterogenous with diverse social and economic pri-
orities driving complex behavioral dynamics in relation to the
fisheries resource. Such dynamics largely dictate the flexibility
and responsiveness of fishing tactics and strategies in response
to changes in resource abundance, environmental conditions,
and market or regulatory constraints (Salas and Gaertner, 2004).
vol. 22 1 2014
 10 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.

Understanding the behavior and decision-making processes of
artisanal fishers is therefore essential for the development of
more sophisticated, realistic, and responsive management sys-
tems. Closely related, and possibly of greater immediate im-
portance, is collecting data on fishing effort (rather than simply
yield), as this provides critical information for assessing sustain-
ability in the broader context and for assessing environmental
impacts (Stewart et al., 2010).
Recent decades have seen clear shifts in governance philos-
ophy in artisanal fisheries, from the ad hoc implementation of
(often unenforceable) gear and catch regulations to approaches
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
tored, and the governance structure should be sufficiently flex-
ible to allow adaptive change and modifications to suit local
conditions.
Developing management models that successfully negotiate
social, cultural, economic, and environmental barriers is neither
simple nor rapid, and successful case studies in the tropics are
at a premium. One promising candidate is the sustainable open
system (SOS) approach (Figure 4) developed for rural Ama-
zonian fishing communities (Ribeiro and Fabré, 2003; Fabré
et al., 2012). The SOS approach has five overlapping and inte-
grated phases: (1) the community self-identifies the geographic

based on co-management and adaptive ecosystem management.
These approaches hold great promise, but need to be carefully
adjusted to the local context, which is a time-consuming and po-
tentially expensive exercise that requires robust data on both the
local fishing communities and ecological data on target species
and ecosystems (Fabré et al., 2012). Moreover, effective co-
management requires strong local institutions and decentralized
government (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997; Kaplan and McCay,
2004), conditions that are not always met in tropical countries.
There are also considerable risks associated with failure, as
each failed initiative makes it harder to establish the levels of
trust and cooperation that are essential ingredients of success-
ful management systems (Brockington et al., 2008). This fact
alone suggests that the socioeconomic and cultural conditions
that provide a back-drop for successful governance systems
need to be in place before more traditional interventions are
implemented (Figure 3). Moreover, the consequences of any
interventions (social or ecological) need to be carefully moni-
extent of the management; (2) long-term studies (several years)
are conducted to identify the temporal and spatial dynamics
of extractive practices and norms of use; (3) territories, micro-
habitats, frequencies of use, and other measures of exploitation
are mapped in order to identify key areas and periods of resource
use conflict; (4) observed norms of practice are reified and codi-
fied into an legally binding “agreement of integrated use,” tightly
linking the inhabitants of management units into a partnership
with governmental and non-governmental organizations; and (5)
monitoring and evaluation based on both self-assessment and
external assessment are performed. SOS appears to be working
and has the potential to be implemented in other artisanal fishing
communities. However, SOS and similar models are no quick
fix; researchers, governmental and non-governmental organiza-
tions, and community groups needed eight years to implement
the full program (Fabré et al., 2012).
Ultimately, the greatest challenge for the creation of socially
and environmentally sustainable artisanal fisheries in tropical

Figure 3 Hypothetical decision framework for developing management strategies for tropical artisanal fisheries stressing the importance of creating alternative
livelihood opportunities as an important precursor to species and ecosystem-based management approaches.

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture vol. 22 1 2014

 TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
Figure 4 Schematic representation of SOS methodology for the co-management of artisanal fisheries in Amazonia, including the major steps, activities, and
socio-economic drivers.
coastal areas is probably the lack of time. Fisheries researchers
and managers were relatively slow to realize the importance
of artisanal fishing, both ecologically and socially. The result-
ing data shortfalls limit the effectiveness of prioritization and
monitoring strategies. There is also a lack of cross-cultural and
transnational studies, analyzing how artisanal fisheries and their
governance differ geographically as a result of regional socio-
cultural characteristics. In this context, it would be immensely
valuable to create a global database of management actions
taken and their impacts on coastal fisheries, fishers, and commu-
nity livelihoods; such an “evidence-based” approach has been
adopted with great success in the field of biodiversity conserva-
tion (Sutherland et al., 2004).
Finally, the most effective potential solutions (e.g., co-
management, diverse stakeholder involvement, adaptive ecosys-
tem management) are time consuming and difficult to imple-
ment; there are no short-cuts in the painstaking process of
collecting data, constructing informal and formal organiza-
tions, and building much needed trust among interested par-
ties (Gruber, 2010). Successful, locally tailored governance
models exist (see above), but it is doubtful if the political
will and resources exist to apply these where they are most
needed.
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
11
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the referees for their com-
ments on the manuscript. This study was partially funded by
the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq), the Alagoas
Research Foundation (FAPEAL), and the Coordination for En-
hancement of Higher Education Personal (CAPES).
REFERENCES
Alfaro-Shigueto, J., J. C. Mangel, F. Bernedo, P. H. Dutton, J. A.
Seminoff, and B. J. Godley 2011. Small-scale fisheries of Peru:
A major sink for marine turtles in the Pacific. J. Appl. Ecol., 48:
1432–1440 (2011).
Allison, E. H., and F. Ellis. The livelihood approach and management
of small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy, 25: 377–388 (2001).
Aswani, S., and A. Sabetian. Implications of Urbanization for Artisanal
Parrotfish Fisheries in the Western Solomon Islands. Conserv. Biol.,
24: 520–530 (2010).
Bald, J., A. Borja, and I. Muxika. A system dynamics model for the
management of the gooseneck barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) in the
marine reserve of Gaztelugatxe (Northern Spain). Ecol. Model., 194:
306–315 (2006).
vol. 22 1 2014
 12 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.
Batista, V.S., A. J. I. Silva, C. E. C. Freitas, and D. Freire-Brasil.
Characterization of the fishery in riverine communities in the Low-
Solimões/High-Amazon region. Fisher. Manag. Ecol., 5: 101–117
(1998).
Begossi, A. Temporal stability in fishing spots: Conservation and co-
management in Brazilian artisanal coastal fisheries. Ecol. Soc., 11.
Available from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art5/
(2006).
Begossi, A., N. Hanazaki, and R. M. Ramos 2004. Food chain and the
reasons for fish food taboos among Amazonian and Atlantic Forest
fishers (Brazil). Ecol. Appl., 14: 1334–1343 (2004).
Bell, J. D., M. Kronen, A. Vunisea, W. Nash, G. Keeble, A. Demmke,
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
S. Ponifex, and S. Andrefouet. Planning the use of fish for food
security in the Pacific. Mar. Policy., 33: 64–76 (2009).
Béné, C. Small-scale fisheries: Assesssing their contribution to rural
livlihoods in developing countries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1008.
Rome: FAO (2006).
Béné, C., G. Macfadyen, and E. H. Allison. Increasing the contribution
of small scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 481. Rome: FAO (2007).
Béné, C., and A. Tewfik. Fishing effort allocation and fishermen’s deci-
sion making process in a multi-species small-scale fishery: Analysis
of the conch and lobster fishery in Turks and Caicos Islands. Hum.
Ecol., 29: 157–186 (2001).
Berkes, F. Native subsistence fisheries—a synthesis of harvest studies
in Canada. Arctic, 43: 35–42 (1990).
Berkes, F. Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons from
small-scale fisheries. Environments, 31: 5–19 (2003).
Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. Mcconney, R. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy.
Managing small-scale fisheries alternative directions and methods.
Ottawa: IDRC (2001).
Blaber, S. J. M. Relationships between tropical coastal habitats and (off-
shore) fisheries, pp. 533–564. In: Ecological Connectivity among
Tropical Coastal Ecosystems (Nagelkerken, I., Ed.). Dordrecht:
Springer (2009).
Brockington, D., R. Duffy, and J. Igoe. Nature Unbound: Conservation,
Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas, Chapter 5. London:
Earthscan (2008).
Brown, K. Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr. J.,
168: 6–17 (2002).
Campbell, S. J., and S. T. Pardede. Reef fish structure and cascading
effects in response to artisanal fishing pressure. Fish. Res., 79: 75–83
(2006).
Carvalho, N., G. Edwards-Jones, and E. Isidro. Defining scale in fish-
eries: Small versus large-scale fishing operations in the Azores. Fish.
Res., 109: 360–369 (2011).
Caviglia-Harris, J. L., J. R. Kahn, and T. Green. Demand-side policies
for environmental protection and sustainable usage of renewable
resources. Ecol. Econ., 45: 119–132 (2003).
Chacko, T. Artisanal Fishing along the Alleppey Coast, Southwest
India. Hum. Devel., 57: 60–62 (1998).
Christie, P., and A. T. White. Trends in development of coastal area
management in tropical countries: From central to community ori-
entation. Coast. Manage., 25: 155–181 (1997).
Chuenpagdee, R., and S. Jentoft. Step zero for fisheries co-
management: What precedes implementation. Mar. Policy, 31:
657–668 (2007).
Chuenpagdee, R., L. Liguori, M. L. D. Palomares, and D. Pauly.
Bottom-up, global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
catches. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia Canada
(2006).
Chuenpagdee, R., J. Nielsen, J. J. Dodson, K. Friedland, T. R. Hamon,
J. Musick, and E. Verspoor. Small is beautiful? A database approach
for global assessment of small-scale fisheries: Preliminary results
and hypotheses, pp. 587–595. In: Reconciling Fisheries with Con-
servation: Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress (Niel-
son, J. Ed.), Vancouver, 3–6 May 2004. Bethesda, MD: American
Fisheries Society (2008).
Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. Mcclanahan. Socioeconomic factors
that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery.
Conserv. Biol., 23: 124–130 (2009).
Coblentz, B. E. Subsistence consumption of coral reef fish suggests
non-sustainable extraction. Conserv. Biol., 11: 559–561 (1997).
Cochrane, K. L., N. L. Andrew, and A. M. Parma. Primary fisheries
management: A minimum requirement for provision of sustainable
human benefits in small-scale fisheries. Fish Fisher., 12: 275–288
(2011).
Colding, J., and C. Folke. Social taboos: “invisible” systems of local
resource management and biological conservation. Ecol. Appl., 11:
584–600 (2001).
Cooke, B., and U. Kothari. Participation: The New Tyranny? London:
Zed Books (2001).
Cordell, J. Brazil’s Coastal Marine Extractive Reserves (MER) Initia-
tive: Protected Area Management: Capacity Building, Social Pol-
icy and Technical Assistance. Rio de Janeiro: The Ford Founda-
tion/IBAMA/CNPT (2003).
Crowder, L. B., E. L. Hazen, N. Avissar, R. Bjorkland, C. Latanich,
and M. B. Ogburn. The impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems
and the transition to ecosystem-based management. Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Evol. Syst., 39: 259–268 (2008).
Dahl, C. Traditional marine tenure: A basis for artisanal fisheries man-
agement. Mar. Policy, 12: 40–48 (1988).
de Boer, W. F., A. M. P. Van Schie, D. F. Jocene, A. B. P. Mabote,
and A. Guissamulo. The impact of artisanal fishery on a tropical
intertidal benthic fish community. Environ. Biol. Fish., 61: 213–229
(2001).
Defeo, O., and J. C. Castilla. Harvesting and economic patterns in the
artisanal Octopus mimus (Cephalopoda) fishery in a northern Chile
cove. Fish. Res., 38: 121–130 (1998).
Degen, A. A., J. Hoorweg, and B. C. C. Wangila 2010. Fish traders in
artisanal fisheries on the Kenyan coast. J. Enterpris. Commun., 4:
296–311 (2010).
Diegues, A. C. Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in
Brazil. Chennai: I.C.S.F (2008).
Diele, K., V. Koch, and U. Saint-Paul 2005. Population structure, catch
composition and CPUE of the artisanally harvested mangrove crab
Ucides cordatus (Ocypodidae) in the Caeté estuary, North Brazil:
Indications for overfishing? Aquat. Living Resour., 18: 169–178
(2005).
Emmerson, D. K. Rethinking artisanal fisheries development:
Western concepts, Asian experiences. Washington: World Bank
(1980).
Espino-Barr, E., A. Ruiz-Luna, and A. Garcia-Boa. Changes in tropical
fish assemblages associated with small-scale fisheries: a case study
in the Pacific off central Mexico. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 12: 393–401
(2002).
FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: United Na-
tions Fisheries and Agriculture Organization (2004).
vol. 22 1 2014
 TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES
FAO. Small-scale and artisanal fisheries. Available from http://www.
fao.org/fishery/topic/14753/en (2012)
Fabré, N., V. Da Silva Batista, M. De Albuquerque Ribeiro, and R.
Ladle 2012. A new framework for natural resource management in
Amazonia. Ambio, 41: 302–308 (2012).
Fabré, N. N., and J. C. A. Gonzales. Recursos ı́cticos no Alto Amazonas
e sua importância para as populações ribeirinhas. Bol. Mus. Paraense
Emı́lio Goeldi, 14: 19–55 (1998).
Fox, H. E., P. J. Mous, J. S. Pet, A. H. Muljadi, and R. L. Caldwell.
Experimental assessment of coral reef rehabilitation following blast
fishing. Conserv. Biol., 19: 98–107 (2005).
Fulanda, B., J. Ohtomi, E. Mueni, and E. Kimani 2011. Fishery trends,
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
resource-use and management system in the Ungwana Bay fishery
Kenya. Ocean Coast. Manage., 54: 401–414 (2011).
Gobert, B., P. Berthou, E. Lopez, P. Lespagnol, M. D. O. Turcios, C.
Macabiau, and P. Portillo 2005. Early stages of snapper–grouper
exploitation in the Caribbean (Bay Islands, Honduras). Fish. Res.,
73: 159–169 (2005).
Goetze, J., T. Langlois, D. Egli, and E. Harvey. Evidence of artisanal
fishing impacts and depth refuge in assemblages of Fijian reef fish.
Coral Reefs, 30: 507–517 (2011).
Grandcourt, E., R. Rajaonarison, L. Rene De Roland, and C. An-
drianarivo. Status and management of the marine protected areas
in Madagascar. International Coral Reef Action Network Eastern
African Component (ICRAN PROJECT) UNEP/FAO (1999).
Granek, E. F., and M. A. Brown. Co-management approach to ma-
rine conservation in Mohéli, Comoros Islands. Conserv. Biol., 19:
1724–1732 (2005).
Gruber, J. S. Key principles of community-based natural resource
management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective
approaches for managing the commons. Env. Manage., 45: 52–66
(2010).
Guard, M., and Y. D. Mgaya. The artisanal fishery for Octopus cyanea
gray in Tanzania. Ambio, 31: 528–536 (2002).
Guillemot, N., M. Léopold, M. Cuif, and P. Chabanet. Characteriza-
tion and management of informal fisheries confronted with socio-
economic changes in New Caledonia (South Pacific). Fish. Res., 98:
51–61 (2009).
Guzmán, H. M., and G. Jácome. Artisan fishery of Cayos Cochinos
Biological Reserve, Honduras. Rev. Biol. Trop., 46: 151–163 (1998).
Haimovici, M., and S. Klippel. Diagnóstico da biodiversidade dos
peixes teleósteos demersais marinhos e estuarinos do Brasil. Rio
Grande: Fundação Universidade Federal de Rio Grande (1999).
Hall, M. A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals. By-catch: Problems
and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 41: 204–219 (2000).
Hawkins, J. P., and C. M. Roberts. Effects of artisanal fishing on
Caribbean coral reefs. Conserv. Biol., 18: 215–226 (2004).
Hawkins, J. P., C. M. Roberts, T. Van’t Hof, K. De Meyer, J. Tratalos,
and C. Aldam. Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean
coral and fish communities. Conserv. Biol., 13: 888–897 (1999).
Hilborn, R. Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives.
Mar. Policy, 31: 153–158 (2007).
Hilborn, R., and C. J. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment:
Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. New York: Chapman and Hall
(1992).
Hill, M., and P. Hupe. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in The-
ory and in Practice, Chapter 8. London: Sage Publications (2002).
Jacquet, J. L., and D. Pauly. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns
in an era of collapsing fisheries. Mar. Policy., 31: 308–313 (2007).
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
13
Jacquet, J., and D. Pauly. Funding priorities: Big barriers to small-scale
fisheries. Conserv. Biol., 22: 832–835 (2008).
Jacquet, J., H. Fox, H. Motta, A. Ngusaru, and D. Zeller. Few data but
many fish: Marine small scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and
Tanzania. Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 32: 197–206 (2010).
Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. The effects of fishing on marine ecosys-
tems, pp. 201–352. In: Advances in Marine Biology (Blaxter, A. J.
S. J. H. S., and P. A. Tyler, Eds.). London: Academic Press (1998).
Jennings, S., and N. V. C. Polunin. Impacts of predator depletion by
fishing on the biomass and diversity of non-target reef fish commu-
nities. Coral Reefs, 16: 71–82 (1997).
Kaplan, I. M., and B. J. Mccay. Cooperative research, co-management
and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Mar.
Policy, 28: 257–258 (2004).
Kawarazuka, N., and C. Bene. The potential role of small fish species
in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries:
Building evidence. Public Health Nutr., 14: 1927–1938 (2011).
Kronen, M. Fishing for fortunes?: A socio-economic assessment of
Tonga’s artisanal fisheries. Fish. Res., 70: 121–134 (2004).
Kronen, M., A. Vunisea, F. Magron, and B. McArdle. Socio-economic
drivers and indicators for artisanal coastal fisheries in Pacific is-
land countries and territories and their use for fisheries management
strategies. Mar. Policy, 34: 1135–1143 (2010).
Lewison, R. L., L. B. Crowder, A. J. Read, and S. A. Freeman. Under-
standing impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends
Ecol. Evol., 19: 598–604 (2004).
Mangel, J. C., J. Alfaro-Shigueto, K. Van Waerebeek, C. Cáceres, S.
Bearhop, M. J. Witt, and B. J. Godley. Small cetacean captures in
Peruvian artisanal fisheries: High despite protective legislation. Biol.
Conserv., 143: 136–143 (2010).
Mangi, S. C., and C. M. Roberts. Quantifying the environmental im-
pacts of artisanal fishing gear on Kenya’s coral reef ecosystems.
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52: 1646–1660 (2006).
Marcovaldi, M. Â., and G. G. Marcovaldi. Marine turtles of Brazil: The
history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biol. Conserv.,
91: 35–41 (1999).
Martı́nez, M. L., A. Intralawan, G. Vázquez, O. Pérez-Maqueo, P.
Sutton, and R. Landgrave. The coasts of our world: Ecologi-
cal, economic and social importance. Ecol. Econ., 63: 254–272
(2007).
Mathew, S. Small-scale fisheries perspectives on an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management, pp. 47–464. In: Responsible Fish-
eries in the Marine Ecosystem (Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson,
Eds.). Rome: FAO (2003).
McClanahan, T., J. Castilla, A. White, and O. Defeo. Healing small-
scale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Rev.
Fish Biol. Fisher., 19: 33–47 (2009).
McClanahan, T. R., and J. E. Cinner. A framework for adaptive gear
and ecosystem-based management in the artisanal coral reef fishery
of Papua New Guinea. Aquat. Conserv., 18: 493–507 (2008).
McClanahan, T. R., and S. C. Mangi. Gear-based management of a
tropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capture
size. Fish. Manage. Ecol., 11: 51–60 (2004).
McGoodwin, J. R. Understanding the cultures of fishing communities:
A key to fisheries management and food security. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper 401. Rome: FAO (2001).
Miller, M. W., D. B. Mcclellan, J. W. Wiener, and B. Stoffle. Apparent
rapid fisheries escalation at a remote Caribbean island. Environ.
Conserv., 34: 92–94 (2007).
vol. 22 1 2014
 14 V. S. BATISTA ET AL.
Moore, J. E., T. M. Cox, R. L. Lewison, A. J. Read, R. Bjorkland,
S. L. Mcdonald, L. B. Crowder, E. Aruna, I. Ayissi, P. Espeut, C.
Joynson-Hicks, N. Pilcher, C. N. S. Poonian, B. Solarin, and J.
Kiszka. An interview-based approach to assess marine mammal and
sea turtle captures in artisanal fisheries. Biol. Conserv., 143: 795–805
(2010).
Murawski, S. A. Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspec-
tive. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57: 649–658 (2000).
Nédélec, C., and J. Prado. Definition and classification of fishing gear
categories. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 222, Revision 1.
Rome: FAO (1990).
Nielsen, J. R., and T. Vedsmand. User participation and institutional
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
change in fisheries management: A viable alternative to the failures
of ‘top-down’ driven control? Ocean Coast. Manage., 42: 19–37
(1999).
Ninnes, C. Improving the collection, analysis and dissemination of in-
formation in small-scale fisheries. Bangkok: FAO, Advisory Com-
mittee on Fisheries Research—Working Party on Small-Scale Fish-
eries (2004).
Orensanz, J. M., A. M. Parma, G. Jerez, N. Barahona, M. Montecinos,
and I. Elias. What are the key elements for the sustainability of
“S-fisheries”? Insights from South America. Bull. Mar. Sci., 76:
527–556 (2005).
Parsram, K. People, issues, and networks in Small-scale fisheries in
the Eastern Caribbean. Proc. 62nd Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 62:
128–136 (2010).
Pauly, D. Theory and Management of Tropical Multi-species Stocks: A
Review, with Emphasis on the Southeast Asian Demersal Fisheries.
Manila: ICLARM (1979).
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C.
J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. Towards sustainability in world
fisheries. Nature, 418: 689–695 (2002).
Perry, R. I., and U. R. Sumaila. Marine ecosystem variability and
human community responses: The example of Ghana, West Africa.
Mar. Policy, 31: 125–134 (2007).
Pikitch, E. K., C. Santora, E. A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D. O.
Conover, P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E. D.
Houde, J. Link, P. A. Livingston, M. Mangel, M. K. Mcallister, J.
Pope, and K. J. Sainsbury. Ecosystem-based fishery management.
Science, 305: 346–347 (2004).
Pinnegar, J., and G. Engelhard. The ‘shifting baseline’ phenomenon:
A global perspective. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 18: 1–16 (2008).
Pomeroy, R. S. Community management and common property of
coastal fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, methods and
experiences—introduction, pp. 1–11. In: Community Management
and Common Property of Coastal Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific:
Concepts, Methods and Experiences (Pomeroy, R. S., Ed.). Manila:
ICLARM (1994).
Pomeroy, R. S., and F. Berkes. Two to tango: The role of government
in fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy, 21: 465–480 (1997).
Pomeroy, R. S., P. Mcconney, and R. Mahon. Comparative analysis
of coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean. Ocean Coast.
Manage., 47: 429–447 (2004).
Pope, J., D. Annandale, and A. Morrison-Saunders. Conceptualising
sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 24: 595–616
(2004).
Quinn, N.J., and B.L. Kojis. Occupational hazards of artisanal fishers
in the US Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Instit., 64:
135–141 (2012).
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
Ramofafia, C., I. Lane, and C. Oengpepa. Customary marine tenure
in Solomon islands: A shifting paradigm for management of sea
cucumbers in artisanal fisheries, pp. 259–260. In: Advances in Sea
Cucumber Aquaculture and Management (Lovatelli, A., C. Conand,
S. Purcell, S. Uthicke, J. F. Hamel, and A. Mercier, Eds.). Rome:
FAO (2004).
Razafindrakoto, Y., N. Andrianarivelo, S. Cerchio, I. Rasoamananto,
and H. Rosenbaum. Preliminary assessment of cetacean inciden-
tal mortality in artisanal fisheries in Anakao, Southwestern Region
of Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci., 7: 175–184
(2008).
Regier, H. A., and H. F. Henderson. Towards a Broad Ecological Model
of Fish Communities and Fisheries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 102:
56–72 (1973).
Rhodes, K., and M. Tupper. A preliminary market-based analysis of the
Pohnpei, Micronesia, grouper (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) fishery
reveals unsustainable fishing practices. Coral Reefs, 26: 335–344
(2007).
Ribeiro, M. O. A., and N. N. Fabré. Sustainable Open Systems: Envi-
ronmental Management Alternative in Amazonia. Manaus: EDUA
publications (2003).
Roberts, C. M., and N. V. C. Polunin. Are marine reserves effective
in management of reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher., 1: 65–91
(1991).
Rueda, M., and O. Defeo. Linking fishery management and conserva-
tion in a tropical estuarine lagoon: Biological and physical effects
of an artisanal fishing gear. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 56: 935–942
(2003).
Russ, G. R. Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fishery
management tools, pp. 421–433. In: Coral Reef Fishers: Dynamics
and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem (Sale, P. F., Ed.). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press (2002).
Ruttenberg, B. I. Effects of artisanal fishing on marine communities in
the Galápagos Islands. Conserv. Biol., 15: 1691–1699 (2001).
Salas, S., J. Euan-Ávila, E. Coronado, L. Palomo-Cortés, and L. A.
Muñoz. Análisis sobre Riesgos y Accidentes en Pesquerı́as Arte-
sanales en el Sureste de México. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst.,
64: 294–301. (2012).
Salas, S., and D. Gaertner. The behavioural dynamics of fishers: Man-
agement implications. Fish Fisher., 5: 153–167 (2004).
Salia, M., N. N. N. Nsowah-Nuamah, and W. F. Steel. Effects of mo-
bile phone use on artisanal fishing market efficiency and liveli-
hoods in Ghana. Electron. J. Inform. Syst. Devel. Count., 47: 1–26
(2011).
Schumann, S., and S. Macinko. Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy:
What’s in a word? Mar. Policy, 31: 706–718 (2007).
Shivlani, M., and R. Koeneke. Spatial characterization of artisanal
fisheries in Puerto Rico: Geographic information systems (GIS) ap-
proach for assessing the regional effort and landings. Proc. 63rd
Gulf Caribbean Fisher. Inst., 63: 60–66 (2011).
Small, C., and R. J. Nicholls. A global analysis of human settlement in
coastal zones. J. Coast. Res., 19: 584–599 (2003).
Soykan, C. U., J. E. Moore, R. Zydelis, L. B. Crowder, C. Safina, and
R. L. Lewison. Why study bycatch? An introduction to the Theme
Section on fisheries bycatch. Endang. Spec. Res., 5: 91–102 (2008).
Sreekumar, T. T. Mobile phones and the cultural ecology of fishing in
Kerala, India. Info. Soc., 27: 172–180 (2011).
St. Martin, K. Making space for community resource management in
fisheries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 91: 122–142 (2001).
vol. 22 1 2014
 TROPICAL ARTISANAL FISHERIES
Stallings C. D. Fishery-independent data reveal negative effect of hu-
man population density on Caribbean predatory fish communities.
PLoS ONE, 4: e5333 (2009).
Stewart, K. R., R. L. Lewison, D. C. Dunn, R. H. Bjorkland, S. Kelez,
P. N. Halpin, and L. B. Crowder. Characterizing fishing effort and
spatial extent of coastal fisheries. PLoS ONE, 5: e14451 (2010).
Sutherland, W. J., A. S. Pullin, P. M. Dolman, and T. M. Knight.
The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends. Ecol. Evol., 19:
305–308 (2004).
Tietze, U., G. Groenewold, and A. Marcoux. Demographic change in
coastal fishing communities and its implications for the coastal en-
vironment. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 403. Rome: FAO (2002).
Downloaded by [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] at 08:39 02 January 2014
Troëng, S., and E. Rankin. Long-term conservation efforts contribute
to positive green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero,
Costa Rica. Biol. Cons., 121: 111–116 (2005).
Tsehaye, I., M. A. M. Machiels, and L. A. J. Nagelkerke. Rapid shifts in
catch composition in the artisanal Red Sea reef fisheries of Eritrea.
Fish. Res., 86: 58–68 (2007).
Watson, M., and R. F. G. Ormond. Effect of an artisanal fishery on the
fish and urchin populations of a Kenyan coral reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser., 109: 115–129 (1994).
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
15
Wells, S. Dynamite fishing in northern Tanzania—pervasive, prob-
lematic and yet preventable. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 58: 20–23
(2009).
White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi. The need for
community-based coral reef management, pp. 1–18. In: Collabo-
rative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons
from Experience (White, A. T., L. Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi,
Eds.). West Hartford: Kumarian Press (1994).
Wielgus, J., D. Zeller, D. Caicedo-Herrera, and R. Sumaila. Estimation
of fisheries removals and primary economic impact of the small-
scale and industrial marine fisheries in Colombia. Mar. Policy, 34:
506–513 (2010).
Wilson, D. C., J. R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol. The Fisheries Coman-
agement Experience: Challenges and Prospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers (2003).
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
Our Common Future, p. 43. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(1987).
Zeller, D., S. Booth, P. Craig, and D. Pauly. Reconstruction of coral
reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950–2002. Coral Reefs,
25: 144–152 (2006).
vol. 22 1 2014