HISTORICAL CHANGES

Historical changes were detected through interviews and focus groups. Interviewed Fishers explained changes observed in the fishery through their daily practice. For examples of perceived changes in fishery resources, Fishers were asked if they had noticed species that are difficult to catch now but were easily caught in the past.

Some species, such as groupers and snappers, were named by all nine communities as depleted, whereas others were named only on the Caribbean coast (Sábalo-Tarpon) but not on the Pacific coast and vice versa (Dorado) (Table 2).

In addition, there were species that were only named by specific communities.

Simultaneously, Fishers were asked about perceived changes in their fishing activity since they started fishing. In all communities they have increased effort and gear diversity over time in order to maintain catches or income (Table 3).

In focus groups, veteran Fishers built a timeline of historical changes in the fishery per each fishing community. Decadal time lines were established so that it was possible to record events as far back as the age of the eldest Fisher present in each group.

Historical analysis included two principal components:

Changes in the main fishery resources: Veteran Fishers named all the species that they used to fish in their area, they identified by consensus the decade during which they first noticed a decline for each species and, in some cases, the decade when the

FIGURE 3

Graph combining the four pillars and sixteen categories of LEK. Each category is represented in each pillar. All categories can inform ecosystem-based fishery

management (EBFM) initiatives to maintain fishery ecosystem services

species disappeared entirely from the catch. Each veteran Fisher’s group made a list of traditional species caught in that community. Then (see Table 4), using the symbol

“▼”, the Fishers identified the decade in which they observed that each species started to decline, even if it was still being caught. Depleted species that “disappeared” were pointed out with the symbol (†), and populations that changed little and remained in good shape with the symbol (-); species that have never changed are not shown.

Subsequently, the focus group analysis complemented and extended the information given by the interviewed Fishers (Table 2). Interviewed Fishers named depleted species and the focus groups extended this information by not only detecting the depleted ones but also identifying the decade in which the depletion was first noticed, as well as historical tendencies.

TAbLE 4

Subset of the database with some of the main changes identified for several fish species caught from 1970 to the present in the fishing community of Bahía Solano from the Pacific coast, showing the decade during which some species started to decline (▼), disappeared (†) or remained unchanged (-)

Decades

Fish common name 1970’ 1980’ 1990’ 2000’

Atún - - - ▼

Bonito - - - ▼

Bravo - - ▼ ▼

Burica - ▼ ▼ ▼

Cabrilla - ▼ ▼ †

Chame - ▼ ▼ †

Cherna - - ▼ ▼

Dorado - - ▼ ▼

Gallo - - - ▼

Merluza - - ▼ ▼

Mero ▼ ▼ ▼ †

Murico verde - - ▼ ▼

Pámpano - - - ▼

Pargo - ▼ ▼ ▼

Pez vela - - ▼ ▼

Róbalo - - ▼ ▼

Sierra castilla - - ▼ ▼

Sierra guaju - - ▼ ▼

Toyo - - ▼ ▼

TAbLE 3

Information on relative (perceptual) changes in the fishing activity and perceive resource abundance.

Percentage of Fishers in each community that has identified a change in their interviews

INTERVIEWS Small-scale fishing communities

Caribbean Pacific 

Changes Ahuyama Taganga Las Flores San

Antero

El Roto Bahía Solano

Pizarro Juanchaco Tumaco

Increase in effort in terms of time allocated to fishing

38.9 43.5 41.9 52.8 64.7 50.0 46.7 50.0 34.8

Increase in gear

diversity 33.3 30.4 38.7 36.1 17.6 42.9 46.7 38.9 34.8

Decrease in

abundance 72.2 82.6 67.7 75.0 82.4 92.9 80.0 83.3 95.7

Why Colombian marine fishers’ knowledge is a fundamental tool for marine resource management and assessment 97

Changes in fishing methods and equipment: Veteran Fishers identified the decade (sometimes year) in which each fishing method was introduced in their community and described the basic features of that method, including past and present modes of use. Such differences in use included length (in the case of nets), number of hooks (longlines), types of materials, and number of crew members, among others. At the same time, they identified changes in boat type and fishing equipment (Table 5).

Either individually or in groups, Fishers identified short and long term changes in fishing activities and fishery resources. Group interaction allowed them to discuss, recall and validate their memory with others, while individual information was useful for identifying short-term changes and to corroborate the information given by focus groups.

LEK was also used to identify depleted species that need urgent management, to identify “disappeared” species that need urgent conservation or repopulation programs, and to detect negative changes that have become the source of the present problems.

TAbLE 5

Subset of the information shared by Fishers in the historical fisheries analysis (decades from 1950 to 2009) from the community of Tumaco on the Pacific coast

Variables / Decades 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009

Fishing methods

Longlines (hooklines) 50 hooks 2000 hooks

Tangle nets 1320 ft

(length) 4800 – 6000 ft

beach seines 328 ft (length)

Crew: 5 Fishers 1640 – 3280 ft

Crew: 5 – 50 Fishers Boats and motors Sailing wood

canoes Inboard

motors Outboard

motors Fiber glass boats

Fisher´s population 100 6000

ACTUAL FISHING ACTIVITy

Fishing activity and Fisher´s living conditions

Interviewed Fishers shared information regarding each fishing community in terms of: 1. Dependence of household or community economy on fishing; 2. The type of fishing methods and gear used (Figures 4 and 5); 3. General description of Fishing boats (including size, material composition, etc) and motors (size); 4. Living conditions in small-scale fishing communities (housing and public services); 5. Marketing conditions and informal economic interactions; and 6. Seasonality of fishing and fish prices.

FIGURE 4

Fisher’s drawings of the fishing gear “Chinchorro”. A. Drawn by Cisto Matos from the Taganga community, and B. Drawn by Fabio Iguaran from the Ahuyama community

A. B.

It takes time to build confidence with Fishers to a level that they are open to the interviewer (researcher) and willing to share information. The quality of interaction between the researcher and the crew before the interview will determine the reliability and value of information collected. Key local leaders or key professionals to introduce the interviewer to Fishers could aid with the quality of the information obtained.

Fishing Territory

As part of the co-management hearings, Fishers identified their community fishing territory using a participatory mapping approach. This mapping technique proved useful for creating awareness among local stakeholders of natural resources and fishing grounds used by each community, whilst promoting local empowerment (Craig et  al., 2002 and Chapin et al., 2005). Fishers identified fishing grounds by highlighting them in different colors on a printed map of the region, and each color represented a particular fishing method previously identified by consensus as the most used in each community (Figure 6).

Such LEK provides community-based and spatially-explicit information about the fishing areas and specific gear used in each community, as well as on the prevalence/occurrence of shared fishing grounds with Fishers from neighboring communities and/or “gypsy”

Fishers.