avoiding sardine fishing are related to the type of gillnets used during the activity (non-selective and small mesh sizes) rather than because of worries about the state of the sardine stock. However, sardines are an important source of food for various predators, including sharks and rays (Alms and Wolff, 2019), functioning as a link in the food web (Wolff et al., 1998; Alms and Wolff, 2019). In this respect, the adequate management of sardines should be a topic of further discussion and clarification with local fishers. Catches of shrimps (same trophic level as sardines; Baum and Worm, 2009) have decreased significantly over the past two decades, causing a severe reduction in the total value of the catches as well as effecting the Gulfs' ecosystem (Alms and Wolff, 2019). Since the different life stages of shrimps are key food items for a great variety of species, their progressive decline in abundance over time will definitely cause a great system impact and therefore requires further research and management.

It is important to emphasize that the reduction in the inshore resources mentioned by the fishers and described in Alms and Wolff (2019) has resulted in a decrease in the revenues of artisanal fishers, who are unable to compete with the semi-industrial fishing fleet for offshore resources because of vessel size, travel distance, and storage capacity. The same holds true for those (alternative) species that migrate to cooler and deeper waters (Biomarcc-SINAC-GIZ, 2013).

The management problems of the gillnet fisheries in the GoN are complex. Most of the interviewed fishermen are only engaged in fisheries, lacking alternative income sources (Fernández-Carvajal, 2013). The use of prohibited nets (pores less than 3 inches) and the increase in the size and number of nets are common features of this type of fishery, and even illegal fishing gears such as rastras and artisanal fences are being employed (Marín-Alpízar and Vásquez, 2014). The development of economic alternatives to fishing in the Gulf thus seems imperative (Biomarcc-SINAC-GIZ, 2013). However, fishing is a deeply rooted activity among fishers, and a transition to other jobs is often difficult, especially for older fishers (Fernández-Carvajal, 2013), which is the case of many of our workshop participants with more than 10 years of fishery experience. As a result, one important challenge is to choose those alternatives that deliver the best trade-offs to the gillnet fishing sector while maintaining the health of the ecosystem (Biomarcc-SINAC-GIZ, 2013), and ensuring that these alternatives are accepted by a critical number of fishers (searching for consensus).

As revealed by our study, the model and its features as a holistic tool for ecosystem description and scenario simulation, were useful to both fishers and fishery managers, to address some of the multiple challenges in the GoN. We are confident that this exercise contributed to identifying and filling gaps in the knowledge on the fisheries system of the GoN (Mackinson et al., 2011). We hope that this study will also stimulate future collaborations of fishers (Power et al., 2004), as part of a cumulative and iterative learning process (Tengö et al., 2014).

Our study suggests that the workshop-mediated integration of LEK and scientific data reduced conflicts between stakeholders and may help to foster the compliance of fishers (Leite and Gasalla, 2013; Msomphora, 2015). Management proposals that local resource users do not agree or comply with will be hard-pressed to meet management goals (Fujitani et al., 2012). We hope that the outcomes of this study can contribute to new narratives of decision-making in the GoN based on stakeholder participation (including the LEK) and the best scientific evidence available.

## DATA AVAILABILITY

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

## ETHICS STATEMENT

This study follows the standards of good scientific practice outlined by the German Science Foundation. The protocol was assessed for ethical human research by the Ombudsperson, who is the point of contact for good scientific practice at the ZMT, the institute for which authors conducted the research.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

AS-J, MF, DM, AS, and MW conceived the research. AS-J conducted the field work, accompanied in some opportunities by MF, AS, and MW. AS-J analyzed the data in collaboration with MW and MF. AS-J wrote the draft of the paper. All authors participated in the improvement and revision of the document.

## FUNDING

This study was funded by the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) through the project 3601, Leibniz Chair of Environment, ZMT, Bremen.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We deeply thank all the fishing communities for their participation. We are grateful to E. Ledezma, E. Alvarez, D. Ledezma, S. Cruz, L. Marín, G. Pérez, D. Pérez, O. Quesada, A. Pérez, and A. Montiel for their help with the logistics for the workshops and interviews, as well as to K. Quirós for her valued assistance with data collection and entry. Support was also provided by the ECMAR, Universidad Nacional (Costa Rica), through G. Ulate and O. Pacheco, who offered guidance during the research. We thank L. Artavia for his collaboration with the SIG/maps component of this study and to the reviewers for their valuable feedback.

## SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019. 00126/full#supplementary-material

## REFERENCES

**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2019 Sánchez-Jiménez, Fujitani, MacMillan, Schlüter and Wolff. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Fishers' Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) on Connectivity and Seascape Management

Charlotte Berkström1,2 \*, Myron Papadopoulos1 , Narriman Saleh Jiddawi3 and Lina Mtwana Nordlund4

1 Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2 Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Coastal Research, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Öregrund, Sweden, 3 Tropical Center of Oceanography, Environment Science and Natural Resources, State University of Zanzibar, Zanzibar, Tanzania, 4 Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

In developing countries where data and resources are lacking, the practical relevance of local ecological knowledge (LEK) to expand our understanding of the environment, has been highlighted. The potential roles of the LEK varies from direct applications such as gathering environmental information to a more participative involvement of the community in the management of resources they depend on. Fishers' LEK could therefore be useful in order to obtain information on how to advance management of coastal fisheries. Many targeted fish species migrate between habitats to feed, spawn or recruit, connecting important habitats within the seascape. LEK could help provide answers to questions related to this connectivity and the identification of fish habitat use, and migrations for species and areas where such knowledge is scarce. Here we assess fishers' LEK on connectivity between multiple habitats within a tropical seascape, investigate the differences in LEK among fisher groups and the coherence between LEK and conventional scientific knowledge (CSK). The study was conducted in 2017 in Zanzibar, Tanzania, a tropical developing country. One hundred and thirtyfive semi-structured interviews were conducted in six different locations focusing on fish migrations, and matching photos of fish and habitats. Differences between fisher groups were found, where fishers traveling further, exposed to multiple habitats, and who fish with multiple gears had a greater knowledge of connectivity patterns within the seascape than those that fish locally, in single habitats and with just one type of gear. A high degree of overlap in LEK and CSK was found, highlighting the potential benefits of a collaboration between scientists and fishers, and the use of LEK as complementary information in the management of small-scale fisheries.

Keywords: small-scale fisheries, seascape, fish migrations, data-poor, participatory research, coral reef, mangrove, seagrass

## INTRODUCTION

Small-scale fisheries are critically important for the provision of food security and sustained livelihoods, especially in developing tropical countries (FAO, 2012; Unsworth et al., 2018b). However, many marine coastal systems are intensely and synergistically affected by human activities and fish stocks have declined globally at an alarming rate, calling for management actions

#### Edited by:

Beatrice Irene Crona, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden

#### Reviewed by:

Fabio Fiorentino, Istituto per le Risorse Biologiche e le Biotecnologie Marine (IRBIM), Italy Germana Garofalo, Istituto per le Risorse Biologiche e le Biotecnologie Marine (IRBIM), Italy

> \*Correspondence: Charlotte Berkström<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture and Living Resources, a section of the journal Frontiers in Marine Science

Received: 12 November 2018 Accepted: 04 March 2019 Published: 22 March 2019

#### Citation:

Berkström C, Papadopoulos M, Jiddawi NS and Nordlund LM (2019) Fishers' Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) on Connectivity and Seascape Management. Front. Mar. Sci. 6:130. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00130

(Pauly and Zeller, 2016). Many fisheries appear to be failing in achieving yields or conservation goals where healthier oceans supporting more fish, feeding more people, and improving livelihoods are prioritized (Karr et al., 2017; Unsworth et al., 2018a).

Within the marine conservation community there is considerable interest in combining local and scientific knowledge to achieve management objectives. However, few studies have examined the merits and caveats of local ecological knowledge (LEK) or have shown how combining both knowledge systems would result in better management outcomes (Hamilton et al., 2012). In developing countries, where data and resources often are lacking, authors have highlighted the practical relevance of LEK in order to obtain useful information (Taylor et al., 2011; Silvano and Begossi, 2012; Thornton and Scheer, 2012). Since biologists do not always have the means or funds of gathering knowledge on ecological systems directly, the classical approach to management of natural resources, which is solely based on scientific knowledge, is destined to be unsuccessful (Davis and Ruddle, 2010). Although rare, examples suggest that the inclusion of LEK and the involvement of local fishers, increases the chances of success (Ruddle, 1995; Shephard et al., 2007; Nenadovic et al., 2012). Conventional scientific knowledge (CSK) is gained from data collected according to a scientific design and theoretically interpreted (Mackinson, 2001; Gaspare et al., 2015). LEK, on the other hand, is accumulated over one's lifetime from observations and hands-on experience in interacting with ecological systems and utilizing natural resources for one's livelihood (Olsson and Folke, 2001). Another aspect of LEK, which can also be denoted as indigenous or traditional ecological knowledge (IEK or TEK), is that it is also a cumulative body of knowledge that transcends generations, through cultural transmission and can often be associated with elders within the local community (Berkes et al., 2000; Johannes et al., 2000; García-Quijano, 2007; Davis and Ruddle, 2010). Fishers can provide novel information on the biology and ecology of species and help answer questions related to the identification of fish habitat use, nursery areas and migrations of species where such knowledge is scarce (Begossi et al., 2016). Le Fur et al. (2011) demonstrated that fishers in West Africa were able, collectively, to develop maps of nursery locations including specific details for each estuary. Moreover, fishers identified periods during which mature adults migrated toward spawning grounds and periods of juvenile recruitment. This information is crucial in fisheries management and can also be used in the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs), particularly to determine the location and size of protection to maximize conservation, biodiversity, and fishery benefits. LEK was also compared with scientifically gathered data showing that the two data sets were similar (Le Fur et al., 2011), highlighting collaboration between scientists and fishermen and the use of LEK as complementary information.

Tropical seascapes are comprised of a mosaic of habitats including mangroves, seagrass meadows, macroalgal beds and coral reefs (Ogden, 1988). Many coral reef fishes, targeted by the local fishers, migrate to seagrass and mangrove areas to feed during dusk or dawn or during tidal fluctuations (Dorenbosch et al., 2004; **Figure 1a**; Unsworth et al., 2007). Similarly, many fishes utilize these adjacent habitats as nursery areas before migrating to coral reefs as adults (Berkström et al., 2013a; **Figure 1b**). These migrations transfer nutrients and energy between the ecosystems within the seascape and contribute to a shifting biomass that accumulates within the organisms throughout their different life stages (Berkström et al., 2012; Hyndes et al., 2014). Several species also undergo reproductive migrations, gathering in large schools in spawning areas (Claydon, 2004). The connectivity between different habitats where the species cover their full life cycle is important for the replenishment of fish stocks and the provisioning of ecosystem services vital to local human populations. Research on seascape connectivity suggests that connectivity can effectively increase the resilience of marine ecosystem functions and services (Mumby, 2006; Olds et al., 2013) and has recently been highlighted as important in the management of aquatic resources (Berkström et al., 2012; Nagelkerken et al., 2015; Sheaves et al., 2015; Olds et al., 2016). Although the tropical seascape supports a high biomass of fish in total, species-specific biomass is relatively low, causing artisanal fisheries to target several fish species by using many types of gears (Garcia-Quijano, 2015). Tropical fishers have thus adapted to this by incorporating different fishing methods across local habitats in order to try and maintain high levels of yields. Also, with fish stocks depleting, fishers have to move further to exploit more productive fishing grounds (García-Quijano, 2007). Since LEK is acquired by an individual's hands-on-experience and observations of the environment in which they work, heterogeneity of ecological knowledge between fishers can arise between different groups of fishers (Crona, 2006; Crona and Bodin, 2006). Furthermore, Davis and Wagner (2003) highlighted the importance of identifying "experts" when researching LEK, in order to be able to use the most reliable and comprehensive LEK in fisheries management. The present study therefore sets out to distinguish whether there are differences in LEK between different groups of fishers that: (i) utilize single and multiple habitats, (ii) fish locally (within 5 km of their village) or distantly (>5 km away from their village), (iii) use different types of fishing gears, and (iv) fish in ancestral fishing grounds or not. Furthermore, LEK is compared with CSK on connectivity from the same area. It is hypothesized that fishers utilizing multiple habitats, move to fish, use multiple gears and fish in ancestral fishing grounds will have more comprehensive LEK than those that fish in single habitats, fish locally, use single gears and fish in non-ancestral fishing grounds.

## MATERIALS AND METHODS

## Study Area

The study was conducted on Unguja Island within the Zanzibar archipelago, Tanzania, off the coast of East Africa. It is the main island of the archipelago and is most commonly referred to as Zanzibar. Zanzibar is surrounded by rich marine resources from the Western Indian Ocean (WIO), where small-scale artisanal fishing and tourism take place. The fishery applies a variety of fishing techniques targeting a large number of species (Jiddawi and Öhman, 2002). The tropical seascape around

Zanzibar is comprised of multiple habitats including mangrove forests, seagrass meadows, macroalgal beds, and coral reefs (Berkström et al., 2012; Khamis et al., 2017). It experiences large tidal fluctuations of up to 4m and is subjected to the northeast (kaskazi) and the southeast (kusi) monsoon seasons (McClanahan, 1988). The study was conducted in six locations: two sites located in the north-west part of the island, two sites in Menai Bay, the south-west part of the island and two sites on the eastern side of the island (**Figure 2**).

## Data Collection

Data on LEK was collected through semi-structured interviews with local fishers between September and November 2017. The interviews were conducted in Uroa, Ungunja Ukuu, Paje, Fumba, Nungwi, and Makoba (**Figure 2**). Fumba and Unguja Ukuu were chosen because both these locations are situated in Menai Bay, where scientific information on connectivity has previously been collected (Berkström et al., 2012; Berkström et al., 2013b; Tano et al., 2017). These areas were also chosen because they are comprised of multiple habitats (mangroves, seagrass, macroalgae, and coral reef).

A questionnaire was used for gathering information from local fishers. Interviews were conducted in Kiswahili via an interpreter and after conducting interviews in each village the answers were translated to English by the same interpreter. For each site, a beach recorder was used to find fishers willing to be interviewed. A minimum of 20 interviews were performed at each site. First, questions were asked to gather the demographics of the respondents. Second, questions were asked to gather data on LEK about habitat use and connectivity of selected species of fish. Three general questions regarding different types of fish migrations between habitats (diurnal/feeding, spawning, and ontogenetic) were asked. This section also contained pictures of fish species (juveniles and adults) and different habitats for the respondent to match the fish species to the habitats in which they are found. An array of fish species was included that either use single or multiple habitats. Toward the end, an open dialogue was held to better understand the level of ecological knowledge that the respondent possessed. Lastly, respondents were asked how they gained their knowledge that they demonstrated in the interview.

## Data Description

There were four variables of interest; type of fisher (local or distant), habitat usage (single or multiple), ancestry (if forefathers fished in the area), and gear usage. Based on the distance they moved to fishing grounds, fishers were classified as either local (<5 km), or distant (>5 km). Ancestry described if the respondents have been fishing in an area for generations or are new to the area. Gear usage was divided into five categories: multiple gears and the individual single gears dema traps, handlines, nets, and spears/sticks. Fishers that used either drag nets, seine nets, gill nets or mosquito nets or a combination of nets were classified under the general term "nets." Fishers were also classified as either using a single habitat to fish in or multiple habitats to fish in. Fishers who said that they used multiple habitats, but where the second habitat was "open ocean" were changed to single habitat users.

Connectivity knowledge was assessed by asking three questions regarding diurnal/feeding, ontogenetic and spawning migrations. Respondents were asked if they knew of fish that move between habitats to feed, spawn or live in as juveniles, and were also asked to give examples. The more "yes" answers to the three questions represented a higher knowledge on connectivity

the six sites, where interviews were conducted, are indicated with red markers.

and were scored (0–3). A score of "0" represented that all three questions were answered with a "no."

Ecological data on habitat use and connectivity by fish in Menai Bay (Berkström et al., 2012, 2013b; Tano et al., 2017) was used to compare CSK data with LEK data by local fishers. Four habitats within the tropical seascape were in focus: (1) coral reefs, (2) seagrass meadows, (3) macroagal beds, and (4) mangroves. However, it was challenging to be certain that the local fishers were distinguishing between seagrass and macroalgae, therefore the two habitats were combined and referred to as submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Habitat scores were allocated to each fish species, which corresponded to the number of habitats used by each fish species. LEK habitat scores represented that of which the fishers were aware of and CSK habitat scores represented that of which the scientific community were aware of. Mean LEK habitat score was calculated for each fish species by averaging all the respondent's answers for each fish species. The total number of fishers that mentioned that a particular fish species was present in one of the three habitats (coral, SAV, and mangrove) was also recorded. If more than 25% of fishers stated that a particular fish species was seen in a habitat, then that fish species was deemed to occur there. The fish species might occur in that habitat if 10– 25% of fishers stated that they do. If less than 10% of fishers stated that they do occur, they were deemed not to occur there. In order to verify that the LEK data for habitat score can be counted on, an index of inaccuracy was created (**Supplementary Figure S1**).

## Data Analysis

Difference in LEK scores between type of fisher, fisher's habitat usage and gear choice were analyzed with permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA). The assumptions of normality were not met so data was fourth root transformed. The PERMANOVA was performed on unbalanced data, although PERMANOVAs are robust in dealing with unbalanced data (Anderson, 2001). However, to make sure that differences found were not due to unbalanced data, data points were randomly taken out by using the "RANDBETWEEN (1;135)" function in Excel to get equal data sets for the different groups of fishers. PERMANOVA tests were rerun with the reduced, equal sample sizes. The results were similar, confirming that all of the data could be used in the analysis. The PERMANOVA test was performed using 999 permutations under a reduced model. A non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination with Euclidean dissimilarity index was performed in order to see patterns in the multivariable data. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test with continuity correction was used to compare the differences between the mean habitat scores for the different knowledge sources (CSK and LEK) and the different subcategories of LEK (migratory and local fishers, multiple, and single habitat users).

## RESULTS

## Demographics

In total, 135 fishers were interviewed. The respondents were all male and between the ages of 17 and 75 years. On average, there were more respondents in the age class 25–34 years of age. Eighty-four percent of respondents had a formal educational background, whether it was primary education (23%), secondary education (59%), or tertiary education (2%). Most of the respondents had children (74%) and out of those respondents; 1–3 children (41%), 4–6 children (31%), or 7+ children (28%). For fishing gear, handlines and nets were more commonly used by fishers, as well as combinations of different fishing gears. Out of the total number of respondents, there were more fishers that utilized multiple habitats (n = 101) than a single habitat (n = 21). There were also more fishers that fished in non-local fishing grounds (i.e., distant fishers, n = 72) than fishers that fished locally (n = 50). Respondents' knowledge of their environment was gained mainly through: hands-on experience (63%), experienced and shared knowledge (29%), and fishing seminars and formal education (8%) (**Figure 3**).

## Differences in LEK Between Fishers

There were differences between fishers with regards to type of fisher (distant/local), habitat usage (single/multiple), and gear usage. More than half of the respondents received the highest LEK score that can be allocated. There were significant differences in LEK scores between multiple and single habitat

∗ indicates significance.

users [F(1,39) = 14.427; p = 0.005] and between fishers using different gears [F(4,39) = 3.679; p = 0.027, **Table 1**]. On average, fishers using single habitats had higher LEK scores than those fishing in multiple habitats. Dema trap fishers had the lowest LEK scores, whereas the other fishing gear users had similar LEK scores. Local fishers generally had higher LEK scores compared to distant fishers, however there was no significant difference found between the two types of fishers [F(1,39) = 3.777; p = 0.061, **Table 1**]. There was no significant difference found for ancestry [F(1,39) = 0.609; p = 0.64] and no interactions were found between the different variables (**Table 1**). On average, fishers knew less about spawning migrations compared to diurnal and ontogenetic migrations. A similar trend was seen across the different types of fishers, habitat usage, ancestry and gear usage.

## Differences in LEK and CSK

There were significant differences found between CSK and LEK (**Table 2**). On average, CSK had higher habitat scores than LEK (**Supplementary Table S1**). There was a significant difference between CSK and LEK in multiple, single, local, and distant fishers (**Table 2**). It was also found that distant fishers had higher scores than local fishers and that multiple habitat users had higher scores than single habitat users (**Table 2**).

Local ecological knowledge and Conventional scientific knowledge corresponded with each other regarding the fish

species that utilized coral reef habitats (**Figure 4**). LEK stated that SAV habitats were utilized by all the fish species that were shown, which did not correspond to CSK for some of the fish species. Most of the species that occur in mangroves, known by CSK, did not correspond with LEK (**Figure 4**). However, for the fish species Sphyraena flavicauda (barracuda) both CSK and LEK stated that it occurred in mangroves (**Supplementary Table S1**).

## DISCUSSION

A large majority of fishers demonstrated high knowledge of fish migrations between various habitats around Zanzibar. Knowledge on feeding and ontogenetic migrations were the highest while less was known about spawning migrations. At least half of the fishers had similar knowledge about connectivity as that of scientists. However, LEK on connectivity, differed between different groups of fishers. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to specifically assess fishers' LEK on connectivity between multiple habitats within a tropical seascape. However, other studies have touched upon the topic of connectivity related to spawning migrations (Robinson et al., 2004; Silvano et al., 2006), fish habitat use (García-Quijano, 2007; Valdés-Pizzini and García-Quijano, 2009; Silvano et al., 2010; Gaspare et al., 2015), and comparison of habitat maps created by local fishers with satellite images (Aswani and Lauer, 2006b; Aswani and Vaccaro, 2008; Lauer and Aswani, 2008, 2010; Selgrath et al., 2016). The results from the present study may be highly valuable due to the lack of studies from Africa, with only 2–8% of the published articles on marine LEK from this region (Thornton and Scheer, 2012). The majority of studies have focused on North America and Oceania. Furthermore, tropical seascapes have a high diversity of target species for which the biological and ecological knowledge is limited (Silvano et al., 2006).

## Differences in LEK Between Fishers

Overall, there were differences between all of the fisher groups except for those that fish in ancestral fishing grounds or not. When asked whether fish migrate to feed, spawn or during ontogeny, significant differences in LEK were found between fishers that fish in multiple and single habitats, and between fishers that use different types of gears. In contrast to what was hypothesized, single habitat users had higher LEK scores, meaning they knew more about fish migrations, than that of multiple habitat users. It was thought that multiple habitat users would have greater knowledge on seascape connectivity than single users, due to the fishers interacting with many different habitats within the seascape when fishing and at the same time developing localized knowledge based on those interactions, experiences, and observations. A possible reason for this result may be due to social intergroup dynamics, where ecological knowledge on fish migrations and fishers' own experiences might be shared freely between the two different groups. Crona and Bodin (2006) found that fishers, despite fishing in different areas, had similar knowledge to each other due to frequent relations. However, at a more detailed level, multiple habitat users did have on average a greater knowledge of fish habitat usage than single habitat users when asked to match photos of individual fish species with photos of habitats. Even though the knowledge is shared between the two groups of fishers, the knowledge that is conveyed might consist of general behaviors of fish rather than detailed information on fish ecology, which may explain observed differences. A similar consensus can be seen in fishers that are grouped by fishing gears used. Fishers fishing with basket traps (dema) on average knew the least about fish migrations, which may be explained by the nature of how the fishing gear is utilized. Fishers can have a minimum of 5 basket traps and a maximum of 10 basket traps left at different sites in an area for long hours in order to increase catch probability (Jiddawi and Öhman, 2002). Since this method of fishing allows fishers to leave the trap at a particular time and then return to the trap after a few hours, fishers might not be very observant of fish behaviors during this period, unlike fishers that use gears that require the fisher to be present and vigilant at all times during the fishing period (e.g., fishers that use nets, handlines, spear/sticks and a combination of gears). Furthermore, handline and multiple gear fishers typically catch coral reef dwelling fishes that also utilize multiple habitats, e.g., fishes from the family Lutjanidae and Lethrinidae (Jiddawi and Öhman, 2002) and may therefore have a greater knowledge on the ecology of these families. A similar result was reported by Crona (2006), where groups of fishers were distinct from each other based on the type of gear that was utilized. Deep-sea fishers and seine-net fishers had the broadest concept on fish migrations, and in extension seine-net fishers also acknowledged the population dynamics of sea urchins, declining seagrass meadows and fish abundances (Crona, 2006).

When asked general questions about fish migrations, there were no significant differences found between fishers that fished

locally and distantly, and those who fished in ancestral fishing grounds and those who did not. However, when asked to match photos of fish species with habitats in which they are found, significant differences were found between local, and distant fishers. As hypothesized, distant fishers knew more about connectivity, in terms of fish migrations, than local fishers on this more detailed level. This is in accordance with Crona and Bodin (2006), who also found that distant fishers were the most knowledgeable. This may be explained by distant fishers moving from one seascape to another, acquiring information on more fish species with varying habitat requirements compared to fishers that are more restricted to areas adjacent to their villages (Jiddawi and Öhman, 2002). Their experience of interacting with these multiple seascapes in different areas and with the fish species could add to their knowledge on fish ecology and on connectivity in general. On the other hand, this may differ in different seascape settings depending on which habitats are available within the local fishing grounds. If all habitats are present within the local fishing grounds, local fishers may be expected to acquire a deeper knowledge on connectivity than distant fishers since they spend more fishing time within their local seascape and less time traveling.

Tropical fish migrations occur on a daily, seasonal or annual basis and within an individual fisher's lifetime (Berkström et al., 2012). Hence, the result of having no difference found between fishers that fished in ancestral fishing grounds and those who did not may be due to fishers observing the different types of migrations (diurnal/feeding, spawning, and ontogenetic) that fish undergo over their lifetime and do not necessarily depend on ancestral knowledge to know whether fish migrate or not.

## Differences in LEK and CSK

Since conventional science is currently the presiding epistemological knowledge system that is widely used in resource management plans (Davis and Ruddle, 2010), LEK on connectivity was compared with CSK from the same area. CSK was collected in Zanzibar by scientists during a number of field trips where fish communities and habitats were studied directly during diving and snorkeling excursions (Berkström et al., 2012; Berkström et al., 2013b; Tano et al., 2017). LEK was found to correspond with CSK in 50% of the respondents' answers, while LEK and CSK were completely different in only 8% of answers. This indicates that, even though there was a significant difference found between the two different epistemological knowledge systems due to the different approaches of acquiring ecological knowledge, both LEK and CSK can be used to complement each other. This was in accordance with other studies comparing LEK and CSK on fish biology and ecology in Tanzania (Gaspare et al., 2015), Brazil (Silvano et al., 2006, 2010; Silvano and Begossi, 2012; Begossi et al., 2016; Lima et al., 2017), and the Philippines (Selgrath et al., 2016). Multiple research papers advocate that local knowledge should be used in conjunction with scientific knowledge (Berkes et al., 2000; Johannes et al., 2000; Garcia-Quijano, 2015). However, Davis and Ruddle (2010) emphasized the point that LEK needs to be assessed for accuracy and validated with CSK. In the present study, the main discrepancy was between LEK and CSK on fish in mangrove habitats for 25% of the fish species. For these, LEK indicated that fish did not use mangrove habitats while CSK indicated that they did. This discrepancy may be explained by the fact that none of the fishers that were interviewed actively fished in mangrove habitats. Fishers would not have had observational experience with mangrove dwelling or migratory fishes and hence reflecting the lack of knowledge regarding this habitat. As García-Quijano (2007) stated: "fishers' knowledge and experience are based on thousands of hours "sampling" local ecosystems with their fishing gear" and hence the lack of connectivity knowledge in mangrove habitats is likely due to the lack of "sampling" this habitat with their fishing gear.

Regarding SAV habitats (seagrass and macroalgae), LEK stated that fish utilized SAV habitats and CSK stated the opposite for 17% of the fish species. This may be due to fishers grouping seagrass and macroalgae together under the general idea that they are vegetation growing underwater and not distinguishing between the two. Furthermore, scientific surveys of fish in the seascape are likely to underestimate the number of fish species present due to field sampling only capturing a snapshot in time. For the fish species Gerres oyena (common silverbiddy), fishers overwhelmingly underscored the habitats that this particular fish uses, due to majority of fishers indicating that this particular species used sand habitats as its primary habitat. Although Berkström et al. (2012, 2013b) and Tano et al. (2017) (from which the scientific fish data was taken) only looked at fish species that utilized coral, seagrass, macroalgae and/or mangrove habitats, Allen and Erdmann (2012) concurred that common silver-biddy do indeed utilize sandy bottoms in sheltered waters near coral reefs. The fishers also indicated that the species might occur in coral and SAV habitats, which was similar to that of CSK stating that they do occur in those habitats.

## Combining LEK and CSK for Natural Resource Management

Tropical local resource users are constantly feeling the ramifications of increased anthropogenic pressures on the tropical seascape and are experiencing decreased fish stocks and catching smaller sized fish (Jiddawi and Öhman, 2002). Fisheries management is, however, complex and often lacks accurate and viable data due to the costs and inaccessibility of areas to biologists (Garcia-Quijano, 2015). The present study highlighted that local resource users are knowledgeable in ecological processes and more importantly are familiar with fish migrations and the key habitats that different species of fish utilize, which could be used in fisheries and seascape management as well as providing valuable information for the design of MPAs. Information on fish connectivity within the seascape will facilitate in the siting of MPAs, which habitats to include, and what size and spacing is needed to maintain healthy fish populations (Johannes et al., 2000). A few studies

in Turks and Caicos Islands (Close and Brent Hall, 2006) and in the Solomon Islands (Aswani and Lauer, 2006a,b; Lauer and Aswani, 2008) have coupled LEK and benthic mapping with a geographical information system (GIS) to aid in fisheries management and the implementation of MPAs. Aswani and Lauer (2006a) showed how indigenous people assisted in the design of MPAs by identifying marine habitats and related resident taxa on aerial photos which were then incorporated into a GIS database along with dive surveys from the same area. Converting fishers' knowledge and socioecological behavior into geo-spatial data, aids in designing and implementing resource management strategies in a cost-effective and participatory way, bridging the gap between LEK and CSK (Aswani and Lauer, 2006b).

Although some progress toward the inclusion of LEK and bottom-up management systems have occurred, fishers' knowledge has long been ignored by scientists, policy-makers, and governance institutions (Hind, 2015). Some of this lack of inclusion is likely an issue of utility. Natural scientists have found it difficult to integrate a knowledge culture, which is often qualitative and in non-standard format and different from their own (Soto, 2006). However, Valdés-Pizzini and García-Quijano (2009) showed that Puerto Rican fishers think in the same ecological way as fisheries scientists and managers by coupling fish species to different habitats. Furthermore, Begossi et al. (2016) found that fishers in Brazil classify fish taxonomy by the generic level and in a similar hierarchical fashion as that of scientist, analogous to the Linnean classification of genus. The fishers were also able to give detailed knowledge on fish diets, facilitating scientists with gaps in food-web ecology. Similarly, the fishers in the present study demonstrated relevant ecological knowledge by matching fish species to habitats and acknowledging fish migrations. As fisheries science and management evolve, current perceptions about fishers' knowledge and their role in this area need to change (Baelde, 2007). LEK may not only fill scientific knowledge gaps, complementing CSK, but also contribute to higher success in fisheries management by making local resource users feel important and included in the process. The inclusion of LEK can also improve the political position of small-scale fishers which is often a disadvantaged stakeholder group for access to coastal resources (García-Quijano, 2007). Carmack and Macdonald (2008) argued that where focus and scale of inquiry is the same, collaborative research should take science and LEK as equals. This "conscience" approach assumes that both CSK and LEK is valid within its own set of rules and neither replaces the other. In this way the joint enquiry will have a joint focus on what is important for the local natural resource users.

In conclusion, it was deemed that the local fishers of Zanzibar had a high knowledge of connectivity which led more toward a general understanding of connectivity than an in-depth knowledge of connectivity, which scientists possess. However, the knowledge that local users possess (LEK) would aid fisheries management with valuable information regarding fish ecology and behaviors when used in conjunction with the knowledge gained from scientists (CSK). Results suggest differences between fisher groups, where fishers traveling further, exposed to multiple habitats, and fish with multiple gears have a greater knowledge on connectivity patterns within the seascape than those that fish locally, in single habitats and with just one type of gear. This should be recognized when finding "experts" within the local fishing community to consult in fisheries management. We suggest that a co-management approach to devising and implementing management proposals that incorporates both epistemological knowledge systems of LEK and CSK regarding seascape connectivity, would increase the effectiveness of natural resource management in aquatic environments.

## DATA AVAILABILITY

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

## ETHICS STATEMENT

All participants provided written informed consent to participate in this study. In Tanzania, at the time of the study, no ethics approval was required. No ethics approval was required in Sweden based on the nature of the interview data and the fact that the data was collected and analyzed outside of Sweden.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors conceived the research. MP conducted the fieldwork and analyzed the data. CB and MP wrote the draft. LN and NJ provided edits and feedback.

## FUNDING

This work was provided by the Swedish Research Council VR, Grant: E0344801 and 2015-05902. LN acknowledges funding from the Swedish Research Council Formas Grant: 2014-1288.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank the individual fishers and fishing communities of Uroa, Ungunja Ukuu, Paje, Fumba, Nungwi, and Makoba for their valuable knowledge. We also wish to thank our interpreter Khamis for his help during data collection and Maria Eggertsen for statistical advice.

## SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019. 00130/full#supplementary-material

## REFERENCES

fmars-06-00130 March 21, 2019 Time: 16:26 # 9

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: Applications, Experiences and Lessons in Latin America, eds J. Fischer, J. Jorgensen, H. Josupeit, D. Kalikoski, and C. Lucas (Rome: FAO), 19–40.

Brazilian coastal fishes. Environ. Biol. Fish. 76, 371–386. doi: 10.1007/s10641- 006-9043-2

**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The handling Editor declared a past co-authorship with one of the authors NJ.

Copyright © 2019 Berkström, Papadopoulos, Jiddawi and Nordlund. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Inclusive Management Through Gender Consideration in Small-Scale Fisheries: The Why and the How

### Maricela de la Torre-Castro\*

Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

In a world in which ocean degradation is widespread and aggravated by the effects of climate change, there is a need to contribute with new management approaches to ameliorate the situation. Here, inclusive management is proposed as such an alternative. This contribution argues that including all genders in the management process is needed and the inclusion itself can generate new ways to solve problems. An assessment of findings from literature of the positive aspects when considering gender in environmental governance is presented and related to the specific situation of small-scale fisheries (SSF). These positive findings are explained in terms of (1) Participation, (2) Space, actors and activities, (3) Economic power, and (4) Equity and environmental stewardship. Further, a practical approach is taken and a model for gender inclusion in coastal/ocean management for SSF is presented and illustrated with a case of seagrass SSF in East Africa. The central argument is that in view of ongoing coastal/ocean degradation and the moderate governance and management success, it is worth trying management approaches that consciously and explicitly consider gender and diversity of actors. This will bring central actors (e.g., women not previously considered) into the management process and will provide the base for better governance and policy reform.

Keywords: gender, gender and environment, small-scale fisheries, coastal management, ocean governance, marine spatial planning, seagrass conservation, Zanzibar

## INTRODUCTION

In the current situation of ocean/coastal degradation as well as the uncertainty of human fate due to climate change (IPCC, 2018) it is urgent to provide new angles and solutions to ocean/coastal problems. In this contribution, the benefits of adopting an inclusive ocean/coastal management approach, which incorporates gender aspects for small-scale fisheries (SSF), are presented. Inclusive management is defined here as any management initiative that strives toward sustainability while consciously and explicitly considering the diversity of actors who have a stake in the social-ecological system. Inclusive management considers men, women, children, elders and minorities. This approach is a new proposition and, as such, is not yet tested although it shares commonalities with established participatory approaches and co-management as well as with inclusive development (Koralagama et al., 2017). The main particularity of this approach is that it brings to the table "gender analysis" for governance and management enhancement (de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017). The key argument is that given previous experiences, it seems fruitful to have a gender perspective in SSF governance, management and conservation. This contribution develops the argument using knowledge from the vast field of gender and environment and through the author's own experience working with gender and SSF associated with seagrasses in East Africa. This research does not cover each idea presented on gender and environment nor all schools of thought and ways to approach

#### Edited by:

Robert Pomeroy, University of Connecticut, United States

#### Reviewed by:

Brett W. Molony, Oceans and Atmosphere, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia M. Cristina Mangano, Bangor University, United Kingdom

#### \*Correspondence:

Maricela de la Torre-Castro<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture and Living Resources, a section of the journal Frontiers in Marine Science

Received: 15 December 2018 Accepted: 11 March 2019 Published: 29 March 2019

#### Citation:

de la Torre-Castro M (2019) Inclusive Management Through Gender Consideration in Small-Scale Fisheries: The Why and the How. Front. Mar. Sci. 6:156. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00156

it. Instead, the focus of the contribution is on exposing the various positive arguments for gender inclusion, which provide evidence for ways in which governance, and management approaches can be improved, and policy reformed.

The contribution draws attention to the importance of increasing the diversity of actors and voices involved in order to improve SSF governance and management. The article is organized as follows; first, key aspects related to gender are introduced, then arguments from the literature which support gender and diversity are presented, this is followed by the presentation of a hands-on generic model to accommodate and study gender in ocean/coastal areas with SSF and a specific application of the model to the case of SSF associated with seagrasses in Zanzibar, Tanzania. The article ends with conclusions and thoughts for the future.

 Exemptions, however, do exist and in some countries, law recognizes a "third sex" (for example in South Africa and Australia); other countries have an even more complex view of the issue. Here, the focus is on men and women, but the same arguments can be extended to minorities if wanted/needed.

For humans, which are in essence complex creatures, sex is not enough to understand behavior; and behavior is a key variable for understanding natural resource use and management. As such, considering gender has deep policy implications. Gender is useful as it refers to the cultural, normative and social attributes of being a man or a woman. There are different definitions of gender, but all of them incorporate the social construction of being a man or a woman and the power differences associated to them. The history of the concept can be traced all the way back to Plato and later on to John Stuart Mill, and in the 1970s and 1980s to Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin (Nussbaum, 1999). Gender takes into consideration the contextual factors framing actions, attitudes, aspirations, capabilities, etc. of a man or a woman (Harding's, 1986; Gregson et al., 1997). It also considers what is expected from different sexes from a societal perspective. In addition, gender considers the interrelationships between and within categories; who has power to do what, how and why, who benefits and who do not. As such, gender analysis is a powerful tool to understand society and identify areas that need improvement (Davis and Nadel-Klein, 1992; Jackson, 1994; Bennett, 2005; Sprague, 2005).

During the last decades, gender has gained importance due to the historical inequalities between men and women (e.g., Bryson, 2003; Lykke, 2009). There is an honest effort to try to reverse such inequalities, and although concrete results have been moderate and not as tangible as desired, advances have been achieved and practically all important high level global institutions consider gender as central to their own organization and areas of work (e.g., UN, EU, UNDP, WB, etc.).

In relation to SSF, the FAO voluntary guidelines for SSF (FAO, 2015) includes a section on gender equality. The text makes clear that discrimination against women in SSF should be challenged and that gender mainstreaming should be an integral part of SSF policy. A whole handbook for implementation was created 2 years later (FAO, 2017). These recent events will certainly bear fruit in the coming years, especially as the number of scholars working with gender and SSF seems to be growing (see for example Vol. 17, in Maritime Studies Journal 2018).

## ASSESSING THE LITERATURE FOR POSITIVE FEATURES OF GENDER INCLUSION: THE WHY

This section presents the positive aspects found (in the literature and in author's experience) when including a gender perspective in environmental policy, governance and management1 . The section is organized into the following categories; (1) Participation, (2) Space, actors, and activities, (3) Economic power, and (4) Equity and environmental stewardship.

## Participation

Participation is one of the major reasons to include women in management efforts. How fair, effective and realistic can management be when excluding half of the population? Different projects show that including gender in management and allowing women to participate in decision-making, monitoring, implementation and evaluation is positive (e.g., Westermann et al., 2005; Agarwal, 2010; Barclay et al., 2017). One of the main arguments put forward in the literature is that women have different types of knowledge, observations, experiences and interpretations that may enrich management and provide new perspectives when analyzing problems and when tailoring solutions (e.g., World Bank [WB], 2010, 2015; Klugman et al., 2014). Women's participation also leads to a different kind of leadership that can facilitate the navigation of difficult policy issues (UNEP, 2015). Women's participation, and gender analysis more generally, are matters of justice and equity (Di Chiro, 2008) and may lead to the recognition of different arenas in which different actors (co-) work and (co-) produce, as well as the different contributions by different actors, for example in terms of conservation efforts, marketing, direct extraction, etc. Participation has also been a way to foster emancipation and empowerment and in some cases has led to building coalitions between different and previously disaggregated groups (e.g., Kleiber et al., 2015). It has created a novel and open space for networking (Arora-Jonsson, 2014) and not seldom has expanded the focus of the problems from environmental management to broader societal issues (e.g., Onyango and Jentoft, 2011; Arora-Jonsson, 2014). Participation is considered a key point for future sustainability agendas (Agenda 2030, 2015).

## Space, Actors and Activities

Obviously, in order to manage a system, knowledge about the system is a prerequisite (Kooiman et al., 2005; Schultz et al., 2007).

1For a view, also discussing negative gender experiences and challenges see Arora-Jonsson (2014).

From a social-ecological perspective, social and ecological parts of a system are equally important and thus, relevant information about both is needed. First, a social-ecological mapping or inventory is needed (Schultz et al., 2007). It is important to have information about the characteristics of the ecosystems in question, together with the resource users and their relation to management plans. In addition, it is critical to know/understand images, norms and attitudes in the local context (Song et al., 2013). Women have been largely excluded as users and stewards of natural resources, at least in contemporary approaches to resource management taking place in different governmental agencies. It is possible to find examples of matriarchies and traditional or local ecological management systems, but these have not been dominating lately.

In coastal management, Diamond et al. (2003) advocates for a gender perspective. Adding a "gender lens" in SSF will provide a clearer picture of the whole system (Williams, 2008). It is critical to know who is doing what in the coastal zones (in specific ecosystems and within larger seascapes). This includes information about the roles of the people using the different coastal spaces, the resources used and the relations of power over places and resources. People work in the various ecosystems of the coastal zones. This work can be defined as "the active labor-based interaction of human beings and the material world" (Menon, 1991). Women and men perform different activities. Men normally "fish" as their main occupation (sometimes combined with other activities) while women normally have many roles such as invertebrate collector, fisherwoman, trader, processor, etc. (Weeratunge et al., 2010). Without doubt, mapping the actors, resources and activities will increase the general knowledge of the coastal zone and help in the identification of critical management and policy gaps. It will provide a visualization and understanding of the work and movement of people. For example, in Mayotte, aerial pictures taken at different times and seasons were used to investigate the activities and uses in the intertidal areas. The gendered differentiated practices can be analyzed in such a way too. Recent mapping of seascapes has been an important tool to identify key ecosystems and areas of conservation (Palafox-Juárez and Liceaga, 2017). One issue that becomes clear when working with gender and coastal resources is the lack of existing genderdisaggregated data (Williams, 2002; Bennett, 2005; FAO, 2012; Fröcklin et al., 2013; Kleiber et al., 2015). In some parts of the world, attention to gender aspects is higher and has been very positive particularly in community-based management; see for example, initiatives taking place in the Pacific, South East Asia and East Africa (2,3 and Fröcklin et al., 2018, respectively).

Having clear information about defined spaces, actors, activities and their overlap may facilitate the acquisition of such data. Spatial analysis also has the potential to reveal issues of environmental justice; who has access to the most valuable resources and ecosystems? Why are specific patterns found? Who decides what? In what way? How do the decisions and interrelations at the household level affect the use of coastal spaces and resources and vice versa?

Studies considering natural and social domains have received much attention in gender and environment (e.g., Rocheleau et al., 1996) but actual mapping and linking between the ecological and the social dimensions have not been prominent in the literature. It can be argued that in gender and environmental studies there is bias toward consideration of the social side rather than the ecological side. There is also a bias about studied systems; gender and environment research has tended to focus on forests, fresh water provision and disaster management and far less on ocean/coastal systems and their associated fisheries (SSF or others). Studies that have considered space, actors and activities have found that gender is a key factor that cannot be ignored in management and policy (Thyresson et al., 2013; de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017; Drury O'Neill and Crona, 2017; Picaulima et al., 2017; Drury O'Neill et al., 2018).

## Economic Power

At the core of gender studies, analyses of economic inequalities are found. Historically, men have been seen as breadwinners and women as caretakers of the household and children. A key focus in feminism is to achieve women's economic independence and, as a consequence, the power of decision-making. Boserup's work (Boserup, 1970) constitutes a keystone study. Boserup analyzed the economic contributions of women and linked them to development. Since then, a common result of research in this area has been the clear existence of economic asymmetries between men and women dealing with natural resources (e.g., World Bank [WB], 2012, 2015). These economic concerns have been reflected in paradigms of thought from women in development (WID) to women and development (WAD) and later to gender and development (GAD); it is beyond the objective of this article to review all of them (see for example Rathgeber, 1990), but suffice to say that economic inequality has been given a lot of attention. Issues of economic inequality are important in both developed and developing nations. Naturally, the World Bank addresses this agenda (World Bank [WB], 2006, 2010, 2012). In general, economic equality and gender integration in labor and markets is highly beneficial (Cotter et al., 1997). In addition, women's missing potential in development can be considered a deep loss (Duflo, 2012). Economic development normally decreases inequality and benefits the whole society but specially women. So, still policy interventions are needed to assure gender equality (Duflo, 2012).

Recent research in SSF found that economic asymmetries are a common feature in both finfish and shellfish associated SSF and constitute huge management challenges (Barclay et al., 2018; Drury O'Neill et al., 2018). Fröcklin et al. (2013) analyzed the market activities of fish traders and concluded that economic gender inequalities were present in the system, but additionally that, gender insensitive policies masked the feedback needed for learning and adaptive management by missing key actors, in this case women fish traders and their activities. A recent study also shows that, globally, women are commonly economically active in the coastal zones, but their contributions are neither registered in official records nor recognized by society (Kleiber et al., 2015). In SSF it is thus necessary to analyze what the critical assets are, not only in terms of direct ecological goods (such as fish and

2https://www.spc.int/resource-centre

3www.genderaquafish.org

shellfish) but also in terms of conservation or potential ecosystem services that may provide higher revenues (for example as carbon sinks or as sites for ecotourism). Linked to the point above on mapping, who has the access to assets and resources with higher economic value and how the distribution of wealth looks like? Who has the access to markets and information? How can economic development be created in an equal and just way? Therefore, integrating economic aspects and gender in analysis of SSF will highlight the aspects explained above. There is also a need to go beyond the gender/ecosystem link and analyze the whole living situation, especially in tropical rural communities, paying attention to both productive and reproductive work, and from the individual level to whole household dynamics. The potential of gender inclusion for progress toward a green economy and overall sustainable development has also been identified (Agarwal, 2012).

## Environmental Stewardship and Equity

Ecofeminism has argued that there is a natural connection between women and environment (e.g., King, 1983; Shiva, 1989). This school of thought argues there is a naturalistic caring inclination; since women are "birth givers" and have an intimate connection with children it is argued that this is extended to nature. Because of pregnancy and childcare, women also are less likely to move; and therefore considered as the primary actors in environmental care with high levels of local ecological knowledge. Ecofeminism has been criticized and marginalized for its essentialism and lack of stringent analysis (e.g., Jackson, 1993; Jackson, 1994; Leach, 2007). However, Thompson (2006), revising the early work of Merchant (1980) argues for a reevaluation of ecofeminism. Thompson's argument is that ecofeminism's central thesis is still valid; since it explains the commonalities of human (women) and nature domination that stem from positivistic science and capitalism. The objective of this section is not to defend ecofeminism, but to problematize and link to empirical studies showing that in many cases women do care for the environment. Women have been shown to: be more supportive to wildlife (Arjunan et al., 2006); improve forest management (Agarwal, 2009a,b); promote positive collective action and social norms for better management (Westermann et al., 2005); include more ethical aspects for holistic management (Lauber et al., 2001); and to be more cooperative in different settings with environmental importance (Revollo-Fernandez et al., 2016). Elderly women have also been found to be crucial to retaining and passing down traditional ecological knowledge (Singh et al., 2013). It has also been found that women university students have smaller ecological footprints than male counterparts (Medina and Toledo-Bruno, 2016), women engage in more pro-environmental behaviors (Hunter et al., 2004) and in countries with higher proportion of women in their parliament, the likelihood of ratification international environmental treaties increases (Norgaard and York, 2005). Ecofeminism and Political Ecology have emphasized the role of women as leaders in conservation. This type of strong leadership with local resistance has also been found in coastal systems; in Peru, for example, women were leaders to defend shrimp farming developments through grassroots mobilizations (Veuthey and Gerber, 2012).

However, the reasons for caring about the environment may vary, and in many cases fulfill material and work needs (Jackson, 1993; Dankelman, 2001). Additionally, there is little information about the actual impacts of those actions on the environment (positive or negative). Evidence presented by Agarwal from forests in India and Nepal is positively convincing (Agarwal, 2010), but other studies have not found clear links between women and better environmental conditions or conservation (e.g., Nugent and Shandra, 2009). A review of ecological restoration and gender found positive evidence that integrating gender in restoration efforts giving higher efficiency and effectiveness, but as gender is generally not taken into consideration in restoration, it is difficult to draw overall conclusions (Broeckhoven and Cliquet, 2015). In development, women are often considered as agents of change and drivers of sustainable development (e.g., Braidotti et al., 1994; UNEP, 2015). But there is a warning here; women are already facing the so called "double burden" of work and household duties (or the "triple burden" of productive, reproductive and community work according to Moser, 1989). Should they take one more task of being better environmental stewards? Dankelman (2001) answers with a clear no; "care for the environment should not be added to the long list of tasks for which women are already responsible." Here, gender analysis is useful to place the burden (and joy) of environmental care in more equitable terms. It may also open up the possibility of addressing inequitable food security and childcare provision. Women have had enormous responsibility related to food security and meeting wider societal needs (Boserup, 1970), especially in fisheries where they play a key role in poverty alleviation and provision of high quality protein (Harper et al., 2013; Béné et al., 2016). Gender analysis may help to identify areas in which men can contribute more. Needless to say, this implies a reconsideration of management, conservation and policy, in which both men and women and their interrelations are important, as well as how those interrelations relate to the environment. This new way of linking gender, management, conservation and policy necessarily deals with equity and justice, and clearly links to the first point of participation.

## ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS. A SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL MODEL FOR GENDER INCLUSION IN OCEAN/COASTAL SSF MANAGEMENT: THE HOW

While the previous section uncovers the positive aspects of using gender in environmental management and governance, it says little about the practical way to do it and about the difficulties of working with gender. Some of the difficulties when working with gender are explained briefly below.

Gender is not completely unproblematic (Hawkins et al., 2011; Arora-Jonsson, 2014); there are methodological, ideological and philosophical challenges when working with gender. At the core, the main difficulty is defining what gender really

is (Arora-Jonsson, 2014), considering the context and posing adequate relevant questions (Scott, 2012). Gender has to be understood in its historical context. While the concept was created to avoid biological determinism, recent work problematizes the indivisibility of the biological and the sociocultural. There is a need for new categorizations that allow us to deal with duality without falling into old simplifications (for a discussion see for example Lykke, 2009). Another difficulty when working with gender is that gender is not a static category, rather a process changing over time and space. This conceptualization becomes useful to analyze history and transformation and to dive deeper into interrelations between gender, the physical environment and socio-cultural processes (Nightingale, 2006). In addition, gender research has been shifting the focus of the analysis. It has been argued that gender analysis has moved the focus from men to women and then to men again. However, Kabeer (1994) refutes this dilemma, stating that gender analysis is not in opposition to highlighting the oppressed gender (normally women) and inequalities. She makes a parallel with class analysis in which the situation of the poor and disadvantage is naturally emphasized and argues that, therefore, there is no real tension between gender analysis and a fight for women's rights and emancipation.

In coastal/marine environments, studies of gender are scarce, so the initial focus needs to be around mapping and characterization of the social-ecological setting. As basic knowledge is acquired, steps toward more complex socialecological analysis can be taken. Here, a practical approach is adopted by providing a generic model to integrate the different aspects of the management process into a comprehensive unit including gender. How to go on? How a can a researcher or a management agency work with these factors in a hands-on way? The intention of the model is to facilitate the process and to consider the whole setting, incorporating biophysical, ecological, social and economic elements. The model is built upon layers of knowledge that are superimposed on each other (similar to a GIS model). It departs from the biophysical reality and builds on complexity with higher levels of social understanding and interrelations between humans-nature and humans-humans. To acquire knowledge about the different layers, different epistemologies can be used. The challenge for the researchers and/or managers is to link and understand the rich information in a holistic way. **Table 1** presents the different layers and key aspects of the model. Parts of the model has been applied for the case of SSF associated with seagrasses in Zanzibar, Tanzania. A brief presentation of the case and the novel information that the inclusion of gender provided for management enhancement is given after the table.

## GENDER IN SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES ASSOCIATED WITH SEAGRASSES

The model (**Table 1**) has been partially applied to the case of SSF associated with seagrasses in Zanzibar, Tanzania. The knowledge generated corresponding to the different model layers can be found in specific publications (Fröcklin et al., 2012/Seaweed farming and farmers' health, 2013/Fish traders, 2014/Invertebrate collection, 2018/Small-scale innovations; Nordlund et al., 2014/Invertebrate collection; de la Torre-Castro, 2012/Governance; de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017/Gender analysis and seascape). Here, only the main findings and benefits of including gender in SSF research are highlighted and illustrated.

Seagrasses are an important fishing ground all over the world (Nordlund et al., 2018) in which SSF are highly represented. Particularly in Zanzibar, Tanzania, they provide a large amount of ecosystem goods and services, such as seagrass associated fish and invertebrates, bait for fishing, fishing grounds and substrate for seaweed farming. Other services were the use of seagrass as fertilizers, for traditional medicine and in cultural activities (de la Torre-Castro and Rönnbäck, 2004). Since seagrasses are part of larger biophysical units (i.e., seascapes) providing an even larger amount of services, the characterization of the seascape was a major part of the gendered social-ecological analysis and was done through transects, satellite pictures, aerial pictures and observation in selected places in Zanzibar (de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017). Mapping of the people allowed the collection of disaggregated data on men and women and using interviews and diaries enabled the performance of a thorough gender analysis. The key factors for understanding the gendered social-ecological situation were: (1) To have a spatial view of resources and resource users along the seascape, (2) To identify the key goods and services that differ between men and women, (3) To identify key ecosystems for subsistence and income provision, and (4) To identify management gaps and/or biases (see **Table 1**). The seascape characterization provided the first layer of knowledge (the biophysical space and its condition with related natural resources). The mapping of the people and the management options were then superimposed on this (layers 2, 3, and 4). The result provided a robust understanding of the situation. The most important management result was that men-dominated activities – in this case, coral-associated SSF - are the ones given attention and are backed up economically by governmental agencies (**Figure 1**). In addition, gendered inequalities were found in income. In almost all cases, men earned more than women for all coastal/marine related activities. Another key finding was that the importance and perception of ecological goods and services was also gendered (recently the gendered nature of ecosystem services has been highlighted e.g., de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017; Fortnam et al., 2019; Nagoli et al., 2019). Women participation in management and decision-making was low and inequalities were found not only in economic terms but also in terms of household chores distribution, traded fish, access to markets, etc.

Specifically in relation to management of seagrass meadows, it was found that management plans tend to focus on men and finfish fishing in corals, whilst in fact, many of the activities with the greatest impact on seagrass meadows were womenrelated in form of invertebrate collection (Nordlund et al., 2010; Fröcklin et al., 2014), growing of red seaweed over the meadows (Fröcklin et al., 2012) and subsistence fisheries (Williams, 2002; Matsue et al., 2014; de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017). Fröcklin et al. (2014) showed that collection activities could cause negative changes in invertebrate populations in a relatively short time span (e.g., 5 years). Seaweed farming

TABLE 1 | A generic social-ecological model for inclusive management through gender integration in ocean/coastal settings with associated small-scale fisheries (SSF).

actors

of red Euchemoid species is traditionally done over seagrass meadows (de la Torre-Castro and Rönnbäck, 2004) and negative effects have been identified for seagrasses and macrofauna (Eklöf et al., 2005); farms hinder potential seagrass biomass increase, especially in tall and large seagrass species (Eklöf et al., 2006b) and they change seagrass fish community composition (Eklöf et al., 2006a). In addition to the ecological changes, farming had a detrimental effect on farmers' health (Fröcklin et al., 2012) and income provision was too low to be able to break poverty traps (de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017).

Gender inequalities were found in access to ecosystems and management focus (management was always androcentric), but seagrasses were of high value to both men and women and, relative to other ecosystems, provided good income generation (de la Torre-Castro et al., 2017). The study also shows that women have a strong spirit of entrepreneurship. Literature has found that women are normally "motors" of economic development (e.g., Jerneck, 2018). There is a lot to do in this regard and attention has been given to, for instance, the role of women in fish markets (Fröcklin et al., 2013) and for the whole fish value chain (Drury O'Neill and Crona, 2017). Fish associated with seagrasses seem to dominate catches in the Western Indian Ocean, so these points are central to policy (e.g., Wanyonyi, 2018).

In terms of seagrass conservation, both men and women were concerned for their status. However, the need to perform economic activities that in many cases damage the meadows (e.g., aquaculture, fishing with drag-nets) hinders conservation. Here the intersectionality perspective (Crenshaw, 1991; Lykke, 2009 chapter 5); could be of great value. Intersectionality refers to the analysis of how gender and other categories such as class, race, etc. interact, and it has been identified as a key issue for future research in gender and environment (Hawkins et al., 2011; Nightingale, 2011; Ravera et al., 2016). In tropical seagrasses settings, problems of gender and poverty are deeply intertwined. In temperate settings, other issues like gender and education may play an important role.

For seagrass ecosystems in general, there is an imbalance between knowledge of the ecological system vs. the social one. There is a lot of knowledge about the ecology of seagrass meadows, but relatively little about their fisheries and other types of societal goods and services (Nordlund et al., 2018). The gendered social-ecological analysis proposed here is just at the beginning, thus replication of these type of studies is urgently needed for the improvement of management and for policy reform.

The research described above covered the three first layers of knowledge and partly the fourth layer of the model (see **Table 1**). However, the next layers require cooperation with local people, managers and civil society organizations. Scientific research alone is not enough to fulfill the whole management cycle, which includes other actors than researchers and other processes than just scientific enquiry. Managers, resource users, organizations, testing and reevaluation are structures and processes of management cycles. There is a need to include scientific work in formal management processes in new and productive ways. Research-financing bodies can play an important role supporting initiatives linking science with real management situations.

## CONCLUSION

As discussed above, dealing with gender and coastal/marine management is a complex task putting high demands on the way SSF should be handled. Gender inclusion in governance,

management and policy requires a new way of thinking and significant knowledge about how to understand gender both vis-à-vis nature and social relations.  In this text, it is argued that gender inclusion seems to be positive for promoting ocean/coastal sustainability. The text provides the basis for this argument; the why, based on evidence of previous experiences with other systems (e.g., forestry, water, agriculture, etc.) where gender inclusion has been positive and desirable, The inclusion of women has been found to be positive in terms of participation; space, actors and activities; economic power, as well as equity and environmental stewardship. Based on this knowledge, it is concluded that "inclusive management" which integrates gender and the involvement of women might be a way forward to help to address the bad situation of ocean/coastal resources. Inclusive management is considered here as any management option that explicitly and consciously considers a diversity of actors (and the first obvious ones are men and women). Knowing the why is necessary but not sufficient; there is also a need to address the how. This contribution provides an organized way to address gender integration for management enhancement and policy reform. A social- ecological model to understand gender is proposed as a hands-on way to work with inclusive management and to facilitate gender analysis. The model is built by superimposing layers of knowledge in which gender analysis is embedded. The social-ecological nature of the model, by considering both social/cultural factors and the access to and use of ecosystems and ecological resources, makes it a good candidate to facilitate the understanding of gendered situations and to visualize management and policy reform.

## A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE FUTURE

As the "Anthropocene" continues unfolding, instability, shocks and disturbances are expected to increase (e.g., Steffen et al., 2011). New institutions and environmental management regimes are urgently needed to curb degradation and boost optimism. In this regard, resilient systems are needed in order to be able to tackle disturbance. Since resilience is enhanced by diversity (e.g., Folke et al., 2004) adding gender has great potential to facilitate progress toward positive pathways.

However, gender and resilience research is still in its infancy. Two recent studies reach opposite conclusions; one states that it is better to maintain a pluralistic approach and diversity of methods, i.e., not only using resilience thinking (Kawarazuka et al., 2017), whilst the other study advocates for linking resilience

## REFERENCES

and critical feminist social theory (Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2016). There is a clear need to develop more gender research in Natural Resource Management and link to key approaches such as resilience, vulnerability, limits of growth and the relatively new approach for Earth sustainability, i.e., the planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015).

For SSF it is imperative to advance gender knowledge. Quantitative as well as qualitative data is needed. Quantitative studies are crucial for economic analysis for example, while qualitative research, for example in the form of rich narratives, are key for in-depth understanding of the gendered socialecological situation. SSF are context specific, but in the contemporary world, they are connected to global markets and peoples' lifestyles. So cross-scale considerations are needed too. Moreover, since a vast majority of SSF take place in the tropics, clear links to the Sustainable development goals (SDGs) are necessary (Agenda 2030, 2015). In this regard, the most obvious links are between goal no. 14 "Life below the water" and goal no. 5 "Gender equality." As gender research in SSF grows stronger, the FAO voluntary guidelines for SSF (FAO, 2015) will gain in legitimacy and knowledge acquisition, bringing a positive development for global SSF's future.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

MdlT-C conceived the idea, wrote the whole manuscript, and analyzed the literature.

## FUNDING

The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) supported this research through the grant number: 344-2011-5448. Publish open access support was provided by Stockholm University.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was possible with grant funds provided by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet). Dr. No. 344-2011- 05448. Prof. Lars Lindström and Dr. Sara Fröcklin provided valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript as well as two reviewers. Caitlin McCormack and Astrid Max gave important inputs in language and edition. Thanks to colleagues in Tanzania, authorities and local people, who has supported our research over time.

**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2019 de la Torre-Castro. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Securing a Just Space for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Blue Economy

Philippa J. Cohen1,2 \*, Edward H. Allison1,3, Neil L. Andrew4 , Joshua Cinner2 , Louisa S. Evans2,5, Michael Fabinyi6 , Len R. Garces1 , Stephen J. Hall1 , Christina C. Hicks2,7,8, Terry P. Hughes2 , Svein Jentoft9 , David J. Mills1,2, Rosalie Masu10 , Emmanuel K. Mbaru2,11 and Blake D. Ratner1

Edited by:

Steven W. Purcell, Southern Cross University, Australia

#### Reviewed by:

Kevern Cochrane, Rhodes University, South Africa Xavier Basurto, Duke University, United States Robert Pomeroy, University of Connecticut, United States

\*Correspondence:

Philippa J. Cohen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture and Living Resources, a section of the journal Frontiers in Marine Science

Received: 02 November 2018 Accepted: 18 March 2019 Published: 18 April 2019

#### Citation:

Cohen PJ, Allison EH, Andrew NL, Cinner J, Evans LS, Fabinyi M, Garces LR, Hall SJ, Hicks CC, Hughes TP, Jentoft S, Mills DJ, Masu R, Mbaru EK and Ratner BD (2019) Securing a Just Space for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Blue Economy. Front. Mar. Sci. 6:171. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00171 1 WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, Malaysia, 2 Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia, 3 School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States, 4 Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 5 Geography Amory Building, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom, 6 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia, 7 Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, United Kingdom, 8 Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, Monterey, CA, United States, 9 Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway, 10 Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 11 Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Mombasa, Kenya

The vast developmental opportunities offered by the world's coasts and oceans have attracted the attention of governments, private enterprises, philanthropic organizations, and international conservation organizations. High-profile dialogue and policy decisions on the future of the ocean are informed largely by economic and ecological research. Key insights from the social sciences raise concerns for food and nutrition security, livelihoods and social justice, but these have yet to gain traction with investors and the policy discourse on transforming ocean governance. The largest group of ocean-users – women and men who service, fish and trade from small-scale fisheries (SSF) – argue that they have been marginalized from the dialogue between international environmental and economic actors that is determining strategies for the future of the ocean. Blue Economy or Blue Growth initiatives see the ocean as the new economic frontier and imply an alignment with social objectives and SSF concerns. Deeper analysis reveals fundamental differences in ideologies, priorities and approaches. We argue that SSF are being subtly and overtly squeezed for geographic, political and economic space by larger scale economic and environmental conservation interests, jeopardizing the substantial benefits SSF provide through the livelihoods of millions of women and men, for the food security of around four billion consumers globally, and in the developing world, as a key source of micro-nutrients and protein for over a billion low-income consumers. Here, we bring insights from social science and SSF to explore how ocean governance might better account for social dimensions of fisheries.

Keywords: Blue Growth, conservation, economic, development, human-rights, ocean governance

## INTRODUCTION

fmars-06-00171 April 16, 2019 Time: 17:58 # 2

The world's coasts and oceans offer vast opportunities to support economic development and are increasingly prominent in the discourse on global environmental futures (Lubchenco et al., 2016). A critical challenge for adapting ocean governance for the 21st century is to balance competing interests, to realize economic potential while avoiding irreversible environmental change. Simultaneously, ocean governance transformations must ensure that the human rights of those who depend on the sea for their livelihoods are respected, that benefits of growth are equitably distributed and that human well-being of coastal and marine-resource dependent people is maintained or enhanced (Leach et al., 2012). This is the "safe and just space" that defines the scope for sustainable development more broadly (Dearing et al., 2014). Small-scale fisheries (SSF) provide a powerful example of the way in which contemporary changes to ocean governance are balancing, reconciling and trading off multiple interests and objectives.

In developing countries oceans support 47 million women and men engaged in small-scale fishing and fish-trading (World Bank et al., 2012). However, SSF are increasingly squeezed by industrial fishing fleets and large-scale aquaculture servicing global seafood buyers, the establishment of no-fishing reserves for conservation, coastal development and industrialization of seascapes, and the pursuit of mineral wealth (Bavinck et al., 2017; Said et al., 2017; **Figure 1**). The economic promise of oceans has captured the attention of conservationists, business leaders, funders, governments, and multi-lateral organizations including the United Nations and the World Bank. This is illustrated by an uptick in global ocean-focused conferences that have previously framed conservation as the leading agenda, which now emphasize a focus on the "Blue Economy" (Bennett, 2018). The "Blue Economy" and "Blue Growth" agendas frame the ocean as the new economic frontier. For example, the now annual World Ocean Summit, hosted by The Economist (the most recent one took place in Abu Dhabi in March 2019) is attended by business leaders, big international conservation non-government organizations and economists who aim "to deepen engagement with the private sector and particularly private capital's involvement with the ocean" (Project AWARE, 2018) with a vision of "an ocean in robust health and a vital economy." The Blue Economy aims to tap into the estimated USD 24 trillion in potential goods and services (i.e., energy generation, mining, tourism, maritime transport, aquaculture, and capture fisheries), derived from the world's oceans, and to balance industrialization of oceans with environmental protection (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2015; The Economist, 2015). Initiatives framed around the Blue Economy or Blue Growth purport that economies, societies and marine environments will all benefit; however, the logic for reaching these win:win:win outcomes through the strategies described has been contested (Silver et al., 2015; Barbesgaard, 2018; Brent Z.W. et al., 2018). It has been argued that these same strategies have not led to environmentally sustainable and equitable outcomes on land (e.g., Clark et al., 2018), so there is little reason to expect them to perform better at sea.

Oceans provide broad-based public goods; the governance strategies and management practices proposed in Blue Economy initiatives may lead to, or accentuate, inequitable capture of these goods to generate private wealth for a relative few (Béné et al., 2010). There are concerns expressed by small-scale fisher groups that the Blue Economy agenda undervalues social objectives, and in doing so threatens the basic imperative of providing both livelihoods and affordable, nutrient dense food for those who need it most (e.g., Pamalakaya-Pilipinas, 2015). To date, considerations of food security and human rights have not been front and center in high-level dialogue around the Blue Economy. Small-scale fishers have been notably underrepresented (e.g., World Ocean Summit held in 2017; Our Oceans Conference held in 2018) considering that SSF employ more women and men than all other ocean economic sectors combined (World Bank et al., 2012; OECD, 2016) 1 . This imbalance has raised considerable concern from small-scale fisher associations, other civil society groups, social scientists and development practitioners (Brent Z.W. et al., 2018). These actors have spearheaded strong resistance to ocean initiatives that were viewed as driving economic reforms (WFFP and WFF, 2013) and more recently those specifically aligned to the Blue Economy agenda (Pamalakaya-Pilipinas, 2015; Brent Z. et al., 2018; World Forum of Fisher Peoples, 2018).

The Blue Economy and other initiatives frame transformation as necessary to "fix" an ocean that is in an environmentally degraded and economically underperforming state. Here, we offer three additional considerations for the Blue Economy, or other initiatives grounded in 'environmental crisis' and 'untapped economic frontier' narratives. Firstly, we explain why marketbased trajectories of change put forward as part of the Blue Economy pose risks to the benefits that SSF provide to society. Second, we emphasize SSF as uniquely placed to produce and distribute food and income to those whose nutritional and financial needs are greatest. Finally, we call for more meaningful uptake of well-developed inclusive governance principles by engaging emergent governance platforms to ensure that the course navigated is one toward sustainable, equitable and just ocean futures.

## BLUE GROWTH TRADE-OFFS

As the use of ocean and coastal resources and space intensifies, and particularly as the idea of Blue Growth and the Blue Economy takes a prominent place in policy discourse, the need to identify and manage tradeoffs becomes increasingly urgent. Governance of the oceans is frequently represented as failing, and SSF are often portrayed as disparate, disorganized and dysfunctional (Cunningham et al., 2009), or as intensely exploitative and environmentally destructive (Vincent and Harris, 2014). Indeed, ocean governance propositions must account for the adverse social and ecological impacts that SSF can have (Johnson, 2006), and poverty and low human well-being that reside within some

1There are an estimated 60 million workers engaged in SSF (World Bank et al., 2012) while other sectors combined employ ca. 31 million (OECD, 2016).

permission), Lee County, FL, United States, 2012].

SSF systems (Béné,, 2006). To balance this perspective, smallscale fishers are also considered for their potential as resource stewards (Bennett et al., 2018) and as small-scale entrepreneurs whose aggregate activities have "multiplier" effects in local and regional economies (Bavinck, 2014). In this section we draw attention to the risks that emerge from either "crisis" or "new economic frontier" narratives, and the Blue Economy tactics proposed.

Currently, a dominant policy response to improve governance is marine spatial planning to delineate ocean space and allocate it among different sectors (Jones et al., 2016; Said et al., 2017; Bennett, 2018). Marine spatial planning defines spaces for industrial development, for fishers, energy, land reclamation for development (Ding et al., 2014), and marine reserves that separate conservation from other uses (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). While marine spatial planning is a practical strategy to manage multiple uses, there are risks in how spatial allocation plays out politically (Kerr et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2016). These risks include marginalization of small-scale fishers from decision processes, and in the allocation of space for tourism and conservation, for example (Segi, 2014; Hill, 2017). Technical or evidencebased approaches are valuable to planning, yet can be misused in ways that, rather than highlighting tradeoffs and identifying winners and losers, promote the appearance of being benign and

apolitical (Li, 2007). Yet, research suggests that marine spatial planning, and the often embedded establishment of marine protected areas, are too frequently implemented through topdown processes underpinned by sectoral objectives, such as biological conservation and promotion of offshore energy (Jones et al., 2016; Flannery et al., 2018). Better use of the collaborative and integrative elements, and data on multiple dimensions of the trade-offs being negotiated, would enable marine spatial planning to be a useful part of a process to navigate toward both inclusive and sustainable development (Bennett, 2018).

On current trajectories, efforts to delineate ocean and coastal space hold strong parallels with other significant conversions of a public or community-held resource into private goods (such as those that took place through colonization) and risks a similar disenfranchisement of the maritime equivalent of peasant farmers (Araghi, 1995; Bernstein, 2010; Linebaugh, 2014). This trend is known among its critics as "ocean grabbing" or "coastal grabbing," and attracts similar concerns for food and nutrition security as those expressed regarding contemporary large-scale land acquisitions (Franco et al., 2014; Bennett et al., 2015; Bavinck et al., 2017; Barbesgaard, 2018). Driven by economic interests relating to newer industrial developments such as aquaculture, mining and tourism, as well as conservation of the coasts (e.g., mangrove conservation for blue carbon), this trend contributes to the growing squeeze that small-scale fishers face (Cormier-Salem and Panfili, 2016; Said et al., 2017; Bavinck et al., 2018; Brent Z.W. et al., 2018).

To optimize wealth creation, spatial allocation is often packaged with market-based instruments (Anon, 2014; Holmes et al., 2014), including fostering links to global markets (Sampson et al., 2015), and institutionalizing licenses and taxes to maximize revenue (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2015). A convincing argument for some is that replacing or consolidating SSF into larger industrial operations will streamline management, improve productivity, and increase economic return (Cunningham et al., 2009). These are the fundamental building blocks of what are described as rights-based approaches that prefer transferable quotas or purchasable rights. In sum, these approaches are based on assumed economic incentives that come when community or individual rights of ownership or access to a fisheries resource or fishing ground have been clearly defined (Allison et al., 2012). The view that this is the best approach to manage fisheries is influential in ocean governance policy and dialogue (Barner et al., 2015; Barbesgaard, 2018).

A rights-based approach rolled out using individual transferable quotas fundamentally differs in its underpinnings and implementation from a human-rights approach; the latter being advocated by small-scale fishers and their supporters (Allison et al., 2012; World Forum of Fisher Peoples et al., 2016) and which stresses alignment to a broader human-rights based approach to international development, adopted by many international development agencies since the late 1990s (Ratner et al., 2014). For those with an eye on human rights and wellbeing, the implementation of (fishing) rights-based strategies designed strongly toward an economic rationale raise serious concerns that fisheries benefits will largely be captured and controlled by a relatively few powerful entities (Béné et al., 2010; Cardwell, 2015; Høst, 2015). An additional challenge is that the economic rationale and objectives of powerful actors and wellresourced (economic or environmental, for example) initiatives may not be as transparent as they need to be. Deeper analysis of the different ways in which the terms "Blue Economy" or "rights" are invoked illustrate that fundamental divides remain in ocean governance objectives and the proposed mechanisms through which they will be realized – even where discourses appears, on the surface, to align (Silver et al., 2015; World Forum of Fisher Peoples et al., 2016; Voyer et al., 2018).

Global markets undeniably present opportunities for SSF but pose similar risks as privatization. In servicing global markets, intermediaries who control distribution may capture increasing benefits at the expense of fishers (Purcell et al., 2017), at the same time making fish less accessible to the poor. Breaking the connection between consumers and their local food system introduces new vulnerabilities generated by volatilities in global food markets and distribution channels. There is also strong evidence that gains generated in distant markets, and the income from large scale enterprises and centralized revenue collection rarely trickle down to benefit local producers and those most in need (Wilson and Boncoeur, 2008; Béné et al., 2010, Béné et al., 2016). The governments and funders backing the Blue Economy must weigh fisheries governance models driven by narrow economic rationale, as well as non-fisheries developments, against the risks they bring to local food, nutrition and livelihood systems, and the control that local women and men have within those systems.

## BENEFITS OF SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES

Fish are a source of essential micro-nutrients for more than four billion consumers and provide more than one sixth of the global demand for animal protein (Béné et al., 2015). Growing populations and greater prosperity escalate demands for fish globally (Béné et al., 2015). The Blue Economy is concerned with increasing food production from the sea, but there is little evidence of the consideration given to whether this production will benefit those with the most pressing food and nutritional needs.

Aquaculture is the fastest growing food sector globally and the potential to achieve large increases in production sit well with the Blue Economy agenda (European Commission, 2012). Yet, aquaculture developments can compete for geographic space, fisheries resources, and impact environmentally upon fishing grounds of SSF. The potential for aquaculture to generate income, produce food, and even conserve species and habitats is lauded without explicit recognition of these interactions and tradeoffs (e.g., Froehlich et al., 2017). There are concerns that growth in aquaculture responds to market demand for particular types of fish from those most able to pay, or that farmed fish do not meet, or reach, the nutritional needs of the most nutritionally vulnerable children, women and men (Golden et al., 2016; Bogard et al., 2017). However, where aquaculture does lead to greater supplies of fish in domestic markets of developing nations, to realize optimal social benefits, aquaculture

can indeed complement rather than replace fish supplied by SSF (Toufique and Belton, 2014; Belton et al., 2016).

Despite aquaculture expansion in some regions, capture fisheries still produce about half the world's fish, much of which is consumed locally or by those who catch it. Some 97% of the world's fishers live in developing countries, of which 90% are engaged in the small-scale sector (World Bank et al., 2012). Increases in supply from aquaculture and wellmanaged industrial fishing will help meet increasing global demand, particularly from relatively affluent consumers or where assumptions about redistribution can be met. Yet, poor and marginalized women and men around the world will continue to rely on SSF for food and livelihoods for decades to come – particularly those living in sub Saharan Africa, the mega-deltas of Asia and the small island states of the Pacific (Golden et al., 2017).

Many SSF operate in regions where infrastructure is limited, government accountability and regulations are weak, and in some cases, where conflict disrupts formal trade and food security. A strength of SSF lies in their ability to persist in many of these contexts and continue to generate and distribute food and income where formal markets and global supply chains function poorly. For example, the relatively isolated and rural populations of the Pacific small island developing states exhibit high rates of participation in SSF which provide a foundation of local economies, a principle animal-source protein in diets (Gillett, 2016) and provide a key coping strategy in the face of shocks (Eriksson et al., 2017). Although some SSF may be considered economically dysfunctional and ecologically unsustainable (Cunningham et al., 2009; Vincent and Harris, 2014), the sector continues to generate income and serve the nutritional needs for millions of families worldwide. In some instances, SSF provide routes out of poverty for both men and women, and act as engines of growth at local and national levels (Bavinck, 2014). Furthermore, SSF also have broader nonmonetary values, and play an important role in maintaining the identity, culture and the wellbeing of coastal communities (Jentoft and Eide, 2011; Weeratunge et al., 2014).

Resilient SSF have adapted and modernized, and in many instances are both sophisticated and highly efficient – although not always moving in the direction of improved ecological sustainability. Despite some SSF having long histories and cultural connections, SSF are not necessarily antiquated or outmoded, and cannot be dismissed simplistically as historical relicts of a bygone age. Small-scale fishers in poor countries have been early adopters of technologies such as mobile phones, e-money and global positioning systems (Jensen, 2007), and have responded to demands from new markets, such as the emergence of live reef fish exports from the Philippines to China (Fabinyi et al., 2014). SSF contribute to diversified livelihood systems that enable coastal people to benefit from fluctuating fisheries (e.g., Allison and Ellis, 2001; Cinner and Bodin, 2010), while simultaneously benefitting from opportunities in agriculture, tourism and the urban economies of rapidly changing coastlines (Betcherman and Marschke, 2016; Lowe and Tejada, 2019).

The dynamic nature of SSF has seen them persist despite ever-increasing and diverse pressures. As with every industry that draws on ecosystem services, SSF will need to continue a trajectory of change to sustain ecological, economic and social outcomes. Where seascapes are rapidly transforming, SSF must also adapt to coexist with potentially competing sectors such as tourism, conservation, offshore energy and industrial fishing. Yet, despite their adaptability, there is a limit to how far SSF can be squeezed without substantial loss of the benefits they provide. A physical, economic and political operating space for SSF must be maintained if they are to continue to deliver nutritious food to those in need, to efficiently distribute economic benefits widely, and remain adaptive and flexible.

We do not know if replacing the food and employment provided by SSF would cost more than the potential economic gains that arise from governance reforms to maximize efficiency. Calculations of the aggregate gains that could be made by optimizing global fisheries toward their maximum economic yield (Srinivasan et al., 2010; Costello et al., 2016) are optimistic, in that they rely heavily on the assumption that gains made will trickle down and will be equitably distributed in such a way that, for example, brings benefit to the poor and malnourished. Further, the cost and delayed rewards of such reform may be beyond the capacity of many poor countries (Béné et al., 2010) and may meet with strong political resistance which would increase social and economic costs.

## OCEAN FUTURES

Sustainable development policy in the anthropocene must navigate the space between the environmental ceiling or "planetary boundaries" (Steffen et al., 2015) and a "social foundation" (Raworth, 2012). To date oceans and coasts have not been well accounted for in the calculation or conceptualization of planetary boundaries; yet data and approaches to integrate marine systems have been laid out (Nash et al., 2017). Governing within planetary boundaries that account for marine systems will require collaborative approaches that may be guided by quantitative and participatory foresight models and scenario development, within which tradeoffs between different objectives and amongst different sets of actors can be explicitly examined and negotiated (Nash et al., 2017). Lack of data exacerbates the low visibility of SSF in ocean policy. The on-going Illuminating Hidden Harvest initiative (WorldFish et al., 2018) will provide the data required to ensure global reviews and foresight studies properly include SSF. With awareness of power differentials between actors and relative priority given to different objectives, addressing this global environmental governance challenge provides an opportunity to more closely examine transformative ocean governance initiatives, such as those within the Blue Economy.

In efforts to ensure that the rights, interests and voices of SSF are respected in this challenge, the Food and Agriculture Organization facilitated the production of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (FAO, 2015), incorporating the input of some 4000 fisher, government and community representatives. In 2014 the "SSF Guidelines" were formally adopted by 143 member states. These guidelines propose

principles that are sensitive to food security, and human rights, and that promote empowerment and inclusive decision-making. This is a substantial step forward in ensuring SSF perspectives are addressed and it is encouraging to see the guidelines being referred to not only by fisherfolk organizations, but by conservation non-government organizations and governments (Jentoft et al., 2017; Singleton et al., 2017).

The development and mainstreaming of the SSF Guidelines are a major achievement for SSF – representing their economic, social and ecological objectives. These principles provide timely guidance for governments, international institutions, civil society and industry dialogue around the future of the Blue Economy. A just operating space for SSF within the Blue Economy, in accordance with these guidelines, will help ensure that the production and distribution of nutritious, affordable food from the sea – a public good – is not traded off against the pursuit of exclusive conservation or more concentrated wealth. The challenge now is for states and civil society organizations to lead fisheries governance increasingly toward implementation of these principles (Jentoft, 2014). The implementation challenge will be greater where ocean space and resources represent interests for powerful corporate and state actors external to the fisheries and conservation sectors. A recent global meeting of SSF, their supporters and the research community (Too Big To Ignore, 2018) reported progress on the implementation included the preparation of national plans of action, philanthropic and development investment, growing capacity of civil society organizations, and the emergence of new SSF stakeholder platforms (e.g., newly formed fisher civil society platforms in Africa). These initiatives signal a growing social movement amongst a diverse and numerous set of actors, but also demonstrate that there are organized and legitimate representative bodies with which the proponents of the Blue Economy agenda can hold dialogue to bring better alignment with a social justice agenda.

Small-scale fisheries are diverse, dynamic, and complex. Governance scenarios for ocean futures must accommodate this diversity without overly simplified or "blue print" approaches. The future of the ocean will likely include some forms of rights-based approaches, and where these are embedded within a human-rights approach, alignment with the SSF Guidelines is possible (Song and Soliman, 2019). Ocean governance will however, require an expanded set of management approaches (e.g., adaptive co-management), decision supporting tools (e.g., foresight, scenario and trade-offs), engagement strategies (e.g., multi-stakeholder platforms and governance networks) and accountability and monitoring mechanisms. A safe and just space will rely on there being a good fit between the nature of fishery systems and the institutions that govern (Folke et al., 2007). A range of examples demonstrate that inclusive and interactive governance can successfully manage the tensions between national and regional economic growth, local livelihood resilience, and food and nutritional security for those most in need (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2015). There are examples emerging of where SSF have sustained ecological resources even under relatively high pressure, for example, in coastal areas where local governance institutions persist and are suggested to contribute to sustained ecosystems (Cinner et al., 2016). Whilst the social, ecological or economic achievements of such examples must still be subject to ongoing critical evaluation, they illustrate some successful pathways to negotiate among societal actors at multiple scales. Research can continue to contribute by offering an enquiry that is sensitive to equity and power, and by making explicit successes, and trade-offs, in changes to ocean governance.

## CONCLUSION

Contemporary ocean governance reforms commonly recognize the potential for economic wealth alongside the risks of ecological sustainability. We argue that it must also account for the potential social impacts that a focused drive toward economic wealth will have. Avoiding these social impacts, and retaining the benefits SSF provide to society, requires improved representation of SSF in international, national and multistakeholder policy and investment arenas – this has been a substantial challenge given the sector's dispersed, diverse and dynamic nature. The more recent formations of regional and sub-regional SSF platforms (that engage with and/or nest within existing global groups) now make this a surmountable challenge. More inclusive dialogue may uncover the nature and extent of concerns over the current array of economic reforms and bring forward a broader suite of ocean and fishery governance solutions, including those that maintain traditional systems of communal or common property resource management. Determining and implementing the suite of approaches that consider social objectives alongside wealth generation and conservation, and that are adaptable to the diverse contexts in which SSF operate, will benefit from scrutiny of scenarios through participatory processes. If the Blue Economy is to be a legitimate vision for governing the oceans, then alongside industry and conservationists, the voices, interests and human rights of the largest groups of ocean-users – women and men who service, fish and trade from SSF – must be represented and recognized from the outset of the solution design. These are primary rights holders to whom ocean governance must be accountable.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

PC, EA, NA, JC, LE, MF, LG, SH, CH, TH, SJ, DM, RM, EM, and BR conceived, wrote, and edited the manuscript.

## FUNDING

This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish. The program was supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. This work was supported by the Australian Government and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research grant FIS/2012/074 and FIS/2017/003, the Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP 180100965 and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

## REFERENCES

fmars-06-00171 April 16, 2019 Time: 17:58 # 7

**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2019 Cohen, Allison, Andrew, Cinner, Evans, Fabinyi, Garces, Hall, Hicks, Hughes, Jentoft, Mills, Masu, Mbaru and Ratner. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Defining Small-Scale Fisheries and Examining the Role of Science in Shaping Perceptions of Who and What Counts: A Systematic Review

### Hillary Smith\* and Xavier Basurto

*Coasts and Commons Co-Laboratory, Duke University Marine Laboratory, Duke University, Beaufort, NC, United States*

Small-scale fisheries (SSF) have long been overshadowed by the concerns and perceived importance of the industrial sector in fisheries science and policy. Yet in recent decades, attention to SSF is on the rise, marked by a proliferation of scientific publications, the emergence of new global policy tools devoted to the small-scale sector, and concerted efforts to tally the size and impacts of SSF on a global scale. Given the rising tide of interest buoying SSF, it's pertinent to consider how the underlying definition shapes efforts to enumerate and scale up knowledge on the sector—indicating what dimensions of SSF count and consequently what gets counted. Existing studies assess how national fisheries policies define SSF, but to date, no studies systematically and empirically examine how the definition of SSF has been articulated in science, including whether and how definitions have changed over time. We systematically analyzed how SSF were defined in the peer-reviewed scientific literature drawing on a database of 1,723 articles published between 1960 and 2015. We coded a 25% random sample of articles (*n* = 434) from our database and found that nearly one-quarter did not define SSF. Among those that did proffer a definition, harvest technologies such as fishing boats and gear were the most common characteristics used. Comparing definitions over time, we identified two notable trends over the 65-year time period studied: a decreasing proportion of articles that defined SSF and an increasing reliance on technological dimensions like boats relative to sociocultural characteristics. Our results resonate with findings from similar research on the definition of SSF in national fisheries policies that also heavily rely on boat length. We call attention to several salient issues that are obscured by an overreliance on harvest technologies in definitions of SSF, including dynamics along the wider fisheries value chain and social relations such as gender. We discuss our findings considering new policies and emerging tools that could steer scientists and practitioners toward more encompassing, consistent, and relational means of defining SSF that circumvent some of the limitations of longstanding patterns in science and policy that impinge upon sustainable and just fisheries governance.

Keywords: small-scale fisheries, capture fisheries, fisheries governance, fisheries policy and management, fisheries science, systematic review, FAO, small-scale fisheries guidelines

#### Edited by:

*Beatrice Irene Crona, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden*

#### Reviewed by:

*Tim Gray, Newcastle University, United Kingdom Tommaso Russo, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy*

> \*Correspondence: *Hillary Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### Specialty section:

*This article was submitted to Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture and Living Resources, a section of the journal Frontiers in Marine Science*

Received: *15 December 2018* Accepted: *16 April 2019* Published: *07 May 2019*

#### Citation:

*Smith H and Basurto X (2019) Defining Small-Scale Fisheries and Examining the Role of Science in Shaping Perceptions of Who and What Counts: A Systematic Review. Front. Mar. Sci. 6:236. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00236*

## INTRODUCTION

For many the term "small-scale fishery" (SSF) evokes a mental image of small, traditional fishing craft equipped with lowtech gear requiring labor-intensive fishing methods. Fishermen are typically the central subjects of this platonic scene, operating boats individually or in small-crews in the pursuit of fish. Even individual fishing strategies are often presumed to follow one of several archetypical models of behavior, whether inherently ecologically and socially harmonious, and therefore sustainable, or conforming to the economically rational, competitive fisher of fisheries bioeconomic models (St. Martin, 2005). This dominant imaginary of SSF is often spatialized, presumably limited to the tropical seas of the Third World, as opposed to the fully capitalist, industrial fisheries that inhabit the First World (St. Martin, 2005).

This prototypical image of fishermen adrift in a sea of small boats is easily conjured, yet it obscures the broader assemblage of diverse livelihood activities that occur along the SSF value-chain. We consider SSF as encompassing these wideranging activities undertaken throughout the value chain by both men and women in inland and marine fisheries, including harvesting from boats and on foot, along with pre- and postharvest labor that occurs on land (FAO, 2015). However, even the term "value chain" can become a misleading metaphor, suggesting tidy relations organized into discrete and equivalent links. In practice, the meshwork of actors and relationships that comprise the value chain are not so clear-cut or orderly, but are rather diffuse, tangled and contingent—assembling and re-assembling into new alignments along an uneven and shifting terrain (Li, 2007; Anderson and Mcfarlane, 2011). The geographic and temporal extent of SSF value chains defy common assumptions about their smallness. The reach of small-scale value chains is not limited to the global south: SSF are found in inland waterways and seas across the globe, spanning different freshwater and marine ecosystems, development contexts, and political arrangements. Nor are they confined to the past, despite conventional associations between SSF and traditional practices: SSF have persisted as a way of life throughout human history through adaptation to changing social, environmental, and economic conditions.

In this paper we probe the gap between the heterogeneous and dynamic existence of SSF in practice and the onedimensional caricature typically portrayed and embedded within the dominant imaginary of SSF. We take the definition of SSF as an entry point to explore this enduring paradox and consider how practices of knowledge production have shaped perceptions of what SSF are, and therefore, how they should be valued and governed.

## Dividing Capture Fisheries Into Small-Scale and Industrial Categories

Fish resources are one of the last hunted commodities on earth, pursued through a variety of tools and techniques ranging from spears and traps to sonar detection (Campling et al., 2012). Collectively these activities are known as capture fisheries, a motley grouping that includes seemingly disparate fishing enterprises, including families or collectives gleaning on foot in the intertidal zone, hired crews of 3–5 fishers working from wooden or fiberglass boats fashioned with outboard motors, and industrial trawlers the size of a football field with onboard processing facilities (World Bank, 2012). For the purposes of studying and managing these activities, the full spectrum of capture fisheries is often simplified and divided into "smallscale" and "large-scale" or "industrial" fisheries: categories that are presumed at first glance to be distinct and mutually exclusive. Exactly where to draw the line between these categories is contested, but typically the division hinges on assumptions about the role of fishing technologies and the nature of human progress. Rather than depicting SSF and industrial fisheries as coextensive categories, representing "disaggregated and diverse sets of practices unevenly distributed on the economic landscape" (Gibson-Graham, 1997), this binary template is tacitly understood as both a spatial and temporal hierarchy—where industrial fisheries are the dominant category, located in the First World and temporally ahead of SSF along a unilinear path toward progress. Arrayed this way, industrial fisheries appear to succeed SSF in an evolutionary-like model of fisheries development as the naturally dominant and more efficient mode of production (Gibson-Graham, 1997; p. 115). With each category defined by their presumed technological differences, this division circumscribes SSF as the subordinate category an inefficient mode of fisheries production from the past while industrial fisheries are depicted as the natural progression and future of fishing. "Against this narrow imagination of an industrial fishing future" (Jadhav, 2018a), SSF are implicitly (and at times explicitly) treated as the subordinate category and conferred a more marginal status and a lower priority on national and global fisheries agendas.

Disregard for SSF is evident in the history of the modern institutions of fisheries science and management, which arose to address the challenges of industrial fisheries and intensifying resource exploitation in the early twentieth century (Cushing, 1988; Smith, 1994; Johnsen et al., 2009). Meeting the demands of the rapidly expanding fishing industry after the turn of the century required new kinds of data and scientific expertise focused on quantitative understandings of individual stocks and their relationship to fishing effort (Cushing, 1988). Scientific techniques of translation were needed in order to transform fish into natural resources—inputs suitable for capitalist production (Luke, 1995; St. Martin, 2005). In addition to new methods of discursive representation and calculation, implementation of scientific management plans required centralized oversight and the creation of new government bodies to administer fisheries (Jentoft et al., 1998). Ideologically this new mode of fisheries management was founded upon an innate optimism and trust in experts' ability to translate unruly fish, fisher folk, and technologies into abstract objects that could be ordered and managed through the application of economic rationality and mathematical models (Mccay and Finlayson, 1995; Johnsen et al., 2009). Attempts to extend these techniques designed for industrial fisheries to SSF have resulted in repeated failures, both in terms of ecological and social outcomes (Berkes, 2001). Meanwhile the existence of longstanding local institutions for fisheries governance and sea tenure in SSF were systematically discounted as non-scientific (Johannes, 1981; Cordell, 1989; Berkes, 2018), archaic practices with no place in the modern reconfiguration of fisheries science and management.

## The Imminent Rise of Small-Scale Fisheries