In this paper, it is shown the importance of aggregating the knowledge that fishers have about fish into the management of small-scale fisheries. In particular, we have described LEK definitions and how fishers perceive, use, and demonstrate knowledge about fish biology as follows:
• Fishers have more knowledge about target species and show a more detailed ethnotaxonomy (through the use of binomials, for example), for target species than for non-target species.
• Fishers use diverse resources from their surroundings, and management of these resources should be associated with food security. Food security is then a subject that should be associated to conservation issues.
• Fishers’ knowledge about fish diet and fish reproduction was described, and we demonstrated the interplay of the emic and etic procedures in the data collection.
More data concerning fish reproduction and migration are urgently needed to manage small-scale fisheries, especially the data-poor fisheries of the Brazilian coast.
Currently, since many species have urgent management needs, and based on the importance and usefulness of LEK, there is no reason to not consider it as a tool towards acquiring knowledge for managing fisheries. There are sometimes discrepancies about information based on data collected by the researcher and the information given by fishers based on their perceptions (see Figure 1). The reason for such discrepancies, when investigated, add information that is important for the understanding of the system fisher-fish. For example, the emphasis by fishers (LEK) in considering fish more important than crabs (OBS) as food preferred or most eaten by groupers might be the fisher use of fish as bait to catch groupers (they also use shrimp to catch them, but a diversity of fish species are used). The importance of mollusk is also conspicuous in the observed LEK: squid also is used as bait. The use of fish and squid as bait denotes that groupers also like such food, since they are caught usually with hook and line. It might sound as a circular reasoning but it is not: the efficiency of fishing depends on the knowledge on fish biology. Therefore, fisher´s knowledge adds information that can be followed for future research. Moreover, in this case, their information also helps in maintaining or conserving other trophic levels, such as the levels cited by them as important food for fish.
Another important point is that considering the knowledge fishers have on target species, it might be important to access differentially the different subgroups within the fishery studied. For example, it can done by accessing differentially kin groups, or groups that have specific targets (and associated technology), among others (Begossi 2013b). In that way, accessing sub-groups or different groups of interest within fishers, more specific information can be obtained (also also intracultural differences would be more easily observed).
Finally, we recommend the studies by Begossi (2008), Silvano and Begossi (2012), and Leite and Gasalla (2013) as useful tools to deal with the integrative and challenging process of LEK , scientific knowledge and management of fisheries.
TAbLE 5
Visible eggs and sperm in snappers and groupers collected in the Brazilian coast (macroscopically analysis of gonads in the field). Source for snappers: Begossi et al.
(2011, 2012a, b), Begossi (2008), Begossi and Silvano (2008). In bold we observe the months in which eggs were mostly visible
Species Site (number of individuals) Month with visible egg (%) Month with sperm (%)
L. analis Copacabana (n=32) April (12%)
L. synagris bertioga and Maceió (n=44) May (50%) May (11%)
June (13%) September (20%) December (100%)
January (73%) January (27%)
L. vivanus Porto Sauípe (n=29) July (29%)
October (73%) October (7%)
O. chrysurus Porto Sauípe (n=66) July (2%)
October (67%) October (22%)
R. aurorubens, Porto Sauípe (n=16) October (8%) October (42%)
C. fulva Mucuripe (n=171) January (2%)
M. acutirostris bertioga and Copacabana (n=37) January (5%) March (3%)
Acknowledgements: I thank the invitation and support by FAO, in particular J. Fisher, D. Kaliskosky, J. Jorgensen and C. Lucas, to attend the FAO workshop on “Fisher’s Knowledge and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries”, 14 to 18 October 2013, Panama. I also thank grants from FAPESP 2009/11154-3, FAEPEX/
UNICAMP and CNPq (productivity scholarship) and the valuable suggestions by reviewers.
REFERENCES
Begossi, A. 1992. Food taboos at Búzios Island (Brazil):
their significance and relation to folk medicine. Journal of Ethnobiology, 12: 117-139.
Begossi, A. 2008. Local knowledge and training towards management. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10: 591-603.
Begossi, A. 2013a. Folk taxonomy: applications in fisheries. In J. Fischer, ed. Fish Identification Tools for Biodiversity and Fisheries Assessments: Review and guidance to managers and other decision-makers, pp. 70-72 (Annex 3), based on Workshop on “Fish Identification Tools for biodiversity and Fisheries Assessment” convened by FAO and the University of Vigo 11-13 October 2011 in Vigo, Spain, FAO, Rome.
Begossi, A. 2013b. Ecological, cultural, and economic approaches to managing artisanal Fisheries. Environment, Development, and Sustainability. (available online at http://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-013-9471-z#page-1)
Begossi, A., & Figueiredo, J.L. 1995. Ethnoicthyology of southern coastal fishermen: Cases from Búzios Island and Sepetiba Bay (Brazil). Bulletin of Marine Science, 56:682–89.
Begossi, A. & Silvano, R.A.M. 2008. Ecology and ethnoecology of dusky grouper [garoupa, Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834)] along the coast of Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2008, 4:20.
FIGURE 4
Author during research in fish market at Porto do Sauípe,
Bahia, Brazil
Local ecological knowledge (LEK): understanding and managing fisheries 17
Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N., & Tamashiro, J.Y. 2002. Medicinal Plants in the Atlantic Forest (Brazil): knowledge, use, and conservation. Human Ecology, 30 (3): 281-299.
Begossi, A., Lopes, P. & Silvano, R. 2012a. Co-Management of Reef Fisheries of the 353 Snapper-Grouper Complex in a Human Ecological Context in Brazil. In G.H. Kruse, H.I. Browman, K.L. Cochrane, D. Evans, G.S. Jamieson, P.A. Livingston, D. Woodby, and C.I. Zhang, eds. Global Progress in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management, pp. 353-373. Fairbanks, Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska.
Boster, J.S. & Johnson, J.C. 1989. Form or function: a comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologist, 91: 866-889.
Browman, K., Cochrane, L., Evans, D., Jamieson, G.S., Livingston, P.A., Woodby, D.
& Zhang, C.I. 2012. Global Progress in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks. (doi:10.4027/gpebfm.2012.018)
Begossi, A., Salivonchyk, S.V., Barreto, T., Nora, V. & Silvano, R.A.M. 2012b. Small-scale Fisheries and Conservation of Dusky Grouper (Garoupa), Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) in the Southeastern Brazilian Coast. Science Journal of Agricultural Research and Management, Article ID sjarm-174. (available at www.sjpub.org)
Begossi A., Salivonchyk, S.V. & Silvano, R.A.M. 2013. The food security of coastal fisheries in Brazil. Paper presented at the XIX International Conference of the Society for Human Ecology, ANU, Canberra, Australia, February 5-8, 2013.
Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology. Routledge Taylor and Francis, New York (First Ed. 1999).
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Brown, C. 1984. Language and living things. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey.
Davis, A. & Ruddle, K. 2010. Constructing confidence: rational skepticism and systematic enquiry in local ecological knowledge research. Ecological Applications 20(3): 880–894.
Harris, M. 1976. History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5: 329-50.
Headland, T.N., Pike, K.L. & Harris M. 1990. Emics and Etics/The insider/outsider debate. Frontiers in Anthropology, 7. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Hunn, E. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropoogist, 84 (4): 830-847.
Hunn, E. 1999. Size as limiting the recognition of biodiversity in folkbiological classifications: one of four factors governing the cultural recognition of biological taxa.
In Medin, D.L. & S. Atran. Folkbiology, pp. 47-70, Cambridge, MA, A Bradford Book.
Huntington, H.P. 2011. The local perspective. Nature, 478:182-183.
Johannes, R. 1981. Words of the Lagoon. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Leite, M.C.F & Gasalla, M. 2013. A method for assessing fishers’ ecological knowledge as a practical tool for ecosystem-based fisheries management: Seeking consensus in Southeastern Brazil. Fisheries Research, 145: 43-53.
Lopes, P.F.M., Rosa, E.M., Salyvonchyk S.V., Nora, V. & Begossi, A. 2013. Suggestions for fixing top-down coastal fisheries management through participatory approaches.
Marine Policy, 40: 100-110.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1962. O pensamento selvagem. Papirus Editora, Campinas, SP.
Lowerre-Barbieri, S.K. & Whittington, J.A. (2003). Catch-and-release fishing on a spawning aggregation of common snook: Does it affect reproductive output? Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 132: 940-952.
Lopes, P.F.M., Rosa, E.M., Salyvonchyk, S., Nora, V. & Begossi, A. 2013. Suggestions for fixing top-down coastal fisheries management through participatory approaches. Marine Policy, 40: 100-110.
Oliveira, L.E.C., Barreto, T. & Begossi, A. 2012. Prototypes and Folk Taxonomy: Artisanal Fishers and Snappers on the Brazilian Coast. Current Anthropology 53(6): 789-798.
Peters, K.M., Matheson, R.E. & Taylor, R.G. 1998. Reproduction and early life history of common snook, Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch) in Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science, 62: 509-529.
Posey, D.A. 1981. Introdução. Etnobiologia: teoria e prática. In Ribeiro, D., ed. Suma Etnológica Brasileira, pp. 15-25. FINEP/Vozes, Petrópolis.
Posey, D.A. 1992. Interpreting and applying the “Reality” of Indigenous concepts: what is necessary to learn from the Natives? In Redford K.H. & C. Padoch. Conservation of Neotropical Forests, pp. 21-34. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ruddle, K. 2000. Systems of knowledge: dialogue, relationships and process. Environment, development and Sustainability, 2: 277-304.
Ruddle, K. & Hickey, F.R. 2008. Accounting for the mismanagement of tropical nearshore fisheries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10: 565-589.
Silvano, R.A.M. & Begossi, A. 2002. Ethnoichthyology and fish conservation in the Piracicaba River, Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology, 22: 285-306.
Silvano, R.A.M. & Begossi, A. 2012. Fishermen’s local ecological knowledge on Southeastern Brazilian coastal fishes: contributions to research, conservation, and management. Neotropical Ichthyology, 10(1): 133-147.
Silvano, R.A.M. & Valbo-Jørgensen, J. 2008. Beyond fishermen’s tales: contributions of fishers’ local ecological knowledge to fish ecology and fisheries management.
Environment, development and Sustainability, 10: 591-603.
Silvano R.A.M., MacCord, P.F.L., Lima, R.V. & Begossi, A. 2006. When does this fish spawn? Fishermen’s local knowledge of migration and reproduction of Brazilian coastal fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 76:371-386.
Taylor, R.G., Grier, H.J. & Whittington, J.A. 1998. Spawning rhythms of common snook in Florida. Journal of Fish Biology, 53: 502-520.
Valbo-Jorgensen, J. & Poulsen, A.F. 2001. Using local knowledge as a research tool in the study of river fish biology: experiences from Mekong. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 3-4: 253-276.
19