Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Franciscana vs. Fisheries: Conservation from an Ecological and Socio-
Economical Perspective
Over the second half of the twentieth century, many developing nations have sought to
improve the efficiency of their fisheries and have received assistance from various
development agencies and banks to make this possible. In many cases, such assistance has
indeed resulted in more productive fisheries. Just as often, it has led to a rapid over-
exploitation of many fish stocks along with the decline of several marine mammal species
around the globe due to unsustainable levels of bycatch (
e.g.
Vidal, 1993; Perrin et al., 1994)
or possibly due to competition for the same resource. Despite some controversies regarding
the actual level of decline, it is suspected that large predatory fish populations might be only
at small percentages of their original size (Myers & Worm, 2003; Hampton et al., 2005).
Mitigating these problems is not an easy task, regardless of the economic situation of the
nation where the problem occurs (
e.g.
Ritcher, 1998). In many developing countries,
however, high foreign debt along with other socio-economic priorities have played a major
role in constraining the ability of governments to allocate resources to, and properly respond
to, environmental concerns (Vidal, 1993). Although fishing yield per fisherman has decreased
in the last decades in many areas, fast demographic growth and high unemployment has led to
a steady increase in the number of fishermen in many Latin American countries (Morrissey,
1989). Thus, a lack of options in some areas is perhaps the major cause for the continued
increase in fishing effort and for the unsustainable level of fishery-related mortality of some
franciscana stocks.
Even though franciscana is legally protected in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina (for details
on Federal and Regional Legislation that can benefit franciscana see Arias
et al., 2002), law
enforcement is unlikely to offer a solution to the bycatch problem because the greatest threat
to the species is incidental capture. Legislation to limit fishing effort, in terms of maximum
allowable net length and number of boats, or restricting fishing grounds (
e.g.
time and/or
local closures) could be more effective. The former could easily be inspected at port, however
the three countries mentioned above have few resources for policing fishing grounds.
Therefore, the effectiveness of the latter would rely on fishermen's willingness to co-operate.
Since all options could negatively affect their income or even be unsafe (
e.g.
if they are
forced to go fishing in deeper waters further offshore), they would be unlikely to be
implemented over the short term. Other potential alternatives are likely to be found in
experiments related to fishing practices. Corcuera et al., (1994) suggested in vain the
replacement of gear type, from gillnets to longlines, as a means of reducing bycatch off
Argentina. In my experience, fishermen are usually conservative and skeptical of new fishing
practices. They would not try other gear types if they were suspected to be less profitable. As
stated in the article ‗the tragedy of the commons' (Hardin, 1968), a resource user will not
reduce his/her profit if others do not reduce their's first. Since the fisheries have also affected
fish stocks, and other non-target species, a wider management strategy that considers the
marine ecosystem as a whole is needed. Moreover, cultural and social needs of the fishing
communities have to be taken into account to avoid adding yet another social problem to the
already difficult socio-economic situation of Latin American countries.
A similar dilemma of high mortality in fisheries is faced by many other dolphin species
inhabiting coastal waters of both developing and developed nations. The main difference is
that, with few exceptions (
e.g.
Taiwan), in developed countries, a high average standard of
Search WWH ::
Custom Search