RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
of
Management Parameters
for
Coral Reefs
By
Richard B. Pollnac
June 1998
Coral reefs are a powerful symbol of both the economic and ecological
significance of coastal ecosystems, as well as the rapid loss of marine
biodiversity, and the resources upon which millions of coastal residents around
the world depend.
In 1995, the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) was launched to
call attention to the alarming decline of the world’s coral reefs and to catalyze
a response to reverse current trends. Through regional and global consultative
meetings, action strategies were developed that focused on four elements:
• Management
• Capacity building
• Research and monitoring
• Review
Critical to the success of ICRI and efforts to better manage coral reefs
and associated marine ecosystems, is the need to track trends of their condition,
use and governance. It was recognized early on that while considerable (though
not sufficient) effort has been devoted to establishing methodologies for and
collecting data on the condition of coral reefs worldwide, there was relatively
little work concerning the role of humans in this complex ecosystem.
To address this gap, Project RAMP (Rapid Assessment of Management
Parameters) was conceived in 1994 as a joint initiative between the Coastal
Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island (CRC/URI) and the
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM),
through the United States Agency for International Development/URI Coastal
Resources Management Project. RAMP was designed to expand upon
ICLARM’s ongoing work on ReefBase, a global database of coral reef
condition, by defining for the database a parsimonious set of indicators
covering the range of human factors potentially impacting coral reefs.
The results reported in this study represent a major step forward towards
establishing such a suite of indicators which, as demonstrated in the two case
studies, can be collected in the field. Indicators are defined for context at the
national, regional and local levels, as well as for reef uses and reef governance.
In all cases guidance is provided as to how to collect and report data.
John McManus
Program Leader, Aquatic Environments Program
Project Leader, ReefBase Project
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management
The author would like to thank the Coastal Resources Center at the
University of Rhode Island for its logistical support during the research process
and the final publication of this book. Special thanks are directed to Lynne
Zeitlin Hale. Without her support and encouragement the research and writing
would not have taken place.
Further logistical support as well as a stimulating research environment
were provided by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management, Makati, Philippines. Many thanks go to John McManus and
his ReefBase staff, as well as Robert Pomeroy and his social science staff.
In Jamaica, the author would like to acknowledge the considerable
assistance provided by Jeremy Woodley (University of the West Indies, Mona)
and Z. Sary (Fisheries Improvement Program, Discovery Bay Marine
Laboratory of the University of the West Indies). Further thanks is extended
to Peter A. Espeut of the South Coast Conservation Foundation, Kingston,
Jamaica whose extensive knowledge of the coastal people and their activities
contributed significantly to the preparation of the Discovery Bay chapter.
Finally, and most importantly, the author would like to thank the many
residents of the coastal communities of Atulayan Bay and Discovery Bay
who graciously provided the time to answer the many questions that provided
information essential to the completion of the two case studies.
The editorial acumen of Noëlle F. Lewis and Chip Young did much to
shape the final document. Financial support for much of the research and
publication was made possible through the support provided by the Office of
Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau for Global Programs, Field
Support and Research of the Center for Environment, U.S. Agency for
International Development, under the terms of Grant No. PCE-A-00-95-00030-
05. The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily
reflect those of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Preface..................................................................................................i
Acknowledgments..............................................................................iii
Table of Contents...............................................................................iv
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTER TWO
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER FOUR
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER FOUR
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER THREE
Table 1 - Income distribution of household heads
in coastal barangays of Sagnay..........................................81
CHAPTER FOUR
Table 1 - Fishery landings and value.........................................................142
Table 2 - Landing by species, 1981...........................................................143
Table 3 - Fishery imports for 1994............................................................144
Table 4 - Number of tourists and earnings................................................144
and statutory) include use rights, regulations governing all aspects of reef
use, as well as aspects of user knowledge of reef resources which are important
in understanding existing use patterns and potential reactions to and
acceptability of management measures and user educational programs. The
complete list of indicators and justifications for each are included in Chapter
1.
The indicators and guidelines were subjected to two field tests in 1995
to determine their applicability to “real-world” information acquisition
situations. Locations included a coral reef area in the Philippines with growing
fishing pressure as well as incipient tourism, and an overfished area in Jamaica
with extensive and growing tourist, industrial and population pressures
(Chapters 3 and 4). Further testing has begun in an area in the Philippines
with extensive tourist pressures. Lessons learned in these applications were
used to modify the original drafts on indicators and guidelines for data
acquisition. These guidelines were edited and published as part of the RAMP
subsection of ReefBase to accompany those used for the biological and
oceanographic data acquisition and coding methods which will be used by
ReefBase contributors and coders (ReefBase 1997).
This information, both RAMP and ReefBase, will provide a baseline
for monitoring changes in coral reef ecosystems as well as a database for
exploring interrelationships between variables included. The importance of
defining and recording a standardized set of indicators cannot be
overemphasized. At present the coastal zone and fisheries management
literature is characterized by case studies, conducted by many different
individuals, with unknown biases and varying research methodologies and
disciplinary perspectives. When sufficient cases have been entered into these
data sets, ReefBase with RAMP indicators will enable multivariate,
quantitative analysis. Independent (e.g., predictor) variables can be related
to important dependent variables such as reef health or management institution
status to determine the amount of variance attributable to the independent
variables. In individual cases, ReefBase with RAMP indicators will provide
a baseline that will facilitate monitoring of the total coral reef ecosystem
(including humans) to determine impacts of specific management actions and
other changes. Results of these analyses will provide decisionmakers with
information that can be used to select alternative courses of action which will
be based on more than the currently available unsystematic, anecdotal
information.
Earlier versions of Chapters 1 and 2 of this report were included in the
final report on ReefBase which was submitted to the European Commission
in September 1995 (McManus and Ablan 1995). The beta tester version of
ReefBase was released in February 1996 (McManus 1996), and ReefBase
Coastal Resources Center - 3
Introduction
Version 1.0, including the RAMP subsystem was released in June 1996
(ReefBase 1996). Thus, the International Year of the Reef was recognized, in
part, with a database on coral reefs which includes humans as an important
aspect of reef ecology. Finally, ReefBase Version 2.0 was released in June
1997 (ReefBase 1997). Version 3.0 is now being prepared for release.
REFERENCES CITED
McManus, J. W. 1996. ReefBase User’s Guide (Draft). Manila:
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
INTRODUCTION
Attempts to understand the ecology of coral reefs must account for the
behavior of human beings. Humans are one of the major predators of reef
fishes in many parts of the world. Humans also cause direct damage to coral
by using destructive fishing techniques, improper vessel anchoring and
recreational activities, and coral mining for building materials and ornamental
uses. Indirect damage is caused by land-based human activities such as
deforestation, mining, agriculture and aquaculture, electric power and
desalinization plant operation, and waste disposal (both human and industrial)
which result in various types of pollution (e.g., nutrient enrichment,
sedimentation, poisoning, etc.) having negative impacts on reefs and associated
organisms (cf. Sorokin 1993; Wells 1993). These coral reef-related human
behaviors and their management are intimately related to political,
socioeconomic and cultural aspects of populations dependent on, responsible
for or somehow impacting the coral reefs under consideration.
The purpose of this document is to present a parsimonious set of
indicators of coral reef related human behaviors as well as related political,
socioeconomic and cultural variables which can be used to assess, predict
and potentially manage these behaviors. This set of human factor indicators
will be appended to the non-human components of a global coral reef database
(ReefBase) which is available, on a worldwide basis, to decisionmakers,
scientists, environmentalists, etc. (ReefBase 1997).
The importance of defining and recording a standardized set of indicators
cannot be overemphasized. At present the coastal zone and fisheries
management literature is characterized by case studies, conducted by many
different individuals, with unknown biases and varying research methodologies
and disciplinary perspectives. Numerous attempts have been made to
summarize such case studies, fitting them into general theoretical frameworks
from the social sciences (e.g., R. Pomeroy 1994; White et al. 1994; Ostrom
that in some cases costs associated (personnel, time, money) with data
collection may prohibit obtaining information to assess all indicators; therefore,
indicators are classified into three categories: 1) minimal data set (indicated
by two asterisks); 2) sub-optimal data set (one or two asterisks); and 3) optimal
data set (none, one and two asterisks). Methods used to obtain information
concerning indicators can also vary depending on resources; hence, in
ReefBase, indicators will be annotated according to source and level of
measurement. Where information is obtained from existing literature, it is
important that sources be somehow evaluated so that users of the database
can make decisions as to its completeness and credibility (Katzer et al. 1982).
This issue is more thoroughly discussed in the guidelines (see Chapter 2).
CONTEXT
Contextual indicators will be determined for three levels of proximity
to the reef in question: 1) National, indicating the nation state with jurisdiction
over the reef; 2) Regional, indicating the watershed area with outflow
potentially impacting the reef; and 3) Local, indicating the area of coastal
populations directly impacting the reef ecosystems through fishing, mining
or tourist/recreational activities.
National Context
The national context is defined as the nation state that has jurisdiction
over the reef in question. In cases where two or more nation states share
jurisdiction over the reef area, jurisdictions will be defined and indicator data
from all involved nation states will be obtained.
Population (millions)**
Coastal population**
Population growth rate (%)**
Coastal population growth rate**
Adult literacy rate by gender
Per capita GDP (US$)**
Average annual GDP growth rate (%)**
Annual inflation rate (%)
Balance of trade (US$)
National unemployment rate (%)**
Coastal unemployment rate (%)**
Value of coastal tourism (US$)**
10-year trend in coastal tourism**
Number of fishers**
10-year trend in fisher employment**
Value of fishery exports (US$)*
Value of fishery landings (US$)*
10-year trend in fishery landings**
Value of reef related products (US$; %GDP)**
Value of reef related exports (US$; %GDP)**
10-year trend in reef related products**
10-year trend in reef related exports**
Total arable land area (sq km)*
Total land area (sq km)
Length of coastline (km)**
Total reef area (sq km)**
Population density: land, arable land*, coastal**, reef**
could be calculated using the same approach. In some cases the political
divisions for which population data is available may be so large as to make
the figures unreliable as a measure of coastal population density. A national
map outlining the ‘coastal’ political divisions used in calculating the coastal
population figure may help users evaluate the usefulness of the indicator as
well as other indicators derived from this figure (e.g., coastal population
density).
Regional Context
Regional context should encompass the region including the watershed
with effluent potentially impacting the reef. This region can frequently be
determined using available information such as land use maps. If not,
assistance of regional natural resource officials may be required.
Local Context
The definition of local context is open to debate, but it is essential to
arrive at some closure to insure comparability of data from different locations.
For purposes of this database it is suggested that local context includes the
area of coastal populations directly impacting reef ecosystems through fishing,
mining or tourist/recreational activities. Local context should also include
all communities directly onshore from the reef or within three hours sailing
time. Obtaining data for local context indicators is more complex than the
previous levels; hence, more detailed instructions and justification will follow
the list of indicators.
Coastal Resources Center - 11
Indicators for Assessing Human Factors
Lists like the above have been widely applied as gross indicators of
level of community development (cf. Young and Fujimoto 1965; Graves et
al. 1969). While several scaling techniques (e.g., Guttman scaling, factor
analysis; Pollnac et al. 1991; Graves et al. 1969) have been used to evaluate
and give summary scores to such lists, it will be sufficient to merely count the
number of items present in each community in the local context and provide
summary statistics (e.g., range, mode, median, mean, standard deviation).3
of key informant could give basic information concerning types and relative
proportions. This type of key informant could also identify representatives
of the types. Several representatives of each type could then be interviewed
as a cross-check on relative proportions, as well as for obtaining information
on part-time activities, unemployment, alternative occupations and sex/age
distribution of labor. Ideally, in cases where no secondary data is available,
information on occupation structure could be obtained as a part of a community
survey.
REEF USES
Reef use indicators will provide direct indicators of specific impacts on
reef organisms. Uses will include harvesting of organisms (including the
coral itself) and tourism. The local fishery adjacent to the coral area also
needs to be assessed since coral fish, etc. are often captured away from the
reef, and relative dependence on coral species needs to be determined to assess
impacts of management efforts.
Ten most important flora and fauna harvested or mined by type (folk
and scientific taxonomies) and use**
For each type:
-Methods (type, when, where)
-Participants (social positions, numbers)
-Importance (amount/value)
-Post-harvest distribution (e.g., subsistence, market (local,
regional, national, export))
suggests that maps with local place names (e.g., fishing spots, reefs, etc.) can
be the first step in resource mapping with use of local knowledge. Such maps
can play an important role in environmental impact assessments in reef areas.
Information concerning target species and fishing pressure can provide
indicators of potential reef problems. For example, Birkeland (1997) points
out how removal of key predators of coral grazing invertebrates can result in
their expanding beyond available food resources. Removal of algae grazers
can also result in increases in coral-smothering algae (Birkeland 1997; Hughes
1994). Glynn (1997) reports that overfished reefs lead to a dominance of sea
urchins which is reportedly negatively correlated with live coral cover. He
indicates that “sea urchins are the only echinoderms capable of significant
bioerosion” (1997:84).
Identification of markets for products is an important indicator of factors
influencing both pressure and potential pressure on resources. Level of
commercialization, especially global markets for products, have been identified
as having negative impacts on traditional marine resource management in
general (Pollnac 1984, 1994), as well as coral reef management practices
(White et al. 1994). It therefore follows that knowledge of existing, exploited
resources in combination with potential markets (especially global) and levels
of local poverty can be a powerful set of indicators suggesting potential for
overexploitation.4 All other indicators listed above concern direct human
impacts on the reef ecosystem; therefore, no further justification is needed.
further place and feature names. Names elicited with the use of maps should
be verified by visiting the locations with key informants.
Several techniques can be used for determining important types of flora
and fauna harvested. The simplest is the use of secondary information where
available. Many countries collect some form of fisheries statistics, and these
should be reviewed as a potential source of information concerning the
indicators listed under the first major category in this section. Since fishery
statistics are notoriously difficult to collect, secondary sources should be
evaluated, if possible. If data for this category is based only on available
secondary information, this should be noted in the database entry, and
evaluations of the information should be included. Evaluations can be based
on several criteria: 1) a brief description of data collection methods and
frequency; 2) a description of data collectors, compilers and analysts (e.g.,
number, qualifications); 3) an evaluation of the quality of the information
made by a competent key informant such as national university personnel or
international experts familiar with the system of data collection used; and 4)
interviews with local buyers and distributors, and in local markets concerning
the types and amounts of flora and fauna channeled through the marketing
and distribution system. The type of evaluation of secondary information
should be entered in the database.
The fourth type of evaluation listed above overlaps with primary
information data collection methods–the use of key informants in local
communities. One way of obtaining information on the indicators is by
interviewing local key informants such as buyers and distributors of reef
products. These key informants can be used to obtain information on the
indicators as well as identify producers for further interviews to cross-check
information obtained in addition to providing additional information on the
indicators. Once producers have been identified, either through key informant
interviews or observation, the following information should be obtained:
-Where: Where is the resource gathered? What are the use rights?
-How much: Quantity of resource gathered on a good day, typical
day and poor day.
-Why: What is the resource gathered for? Household consumption?
Selling in the market? (How much to each use?)
-How: How is the resource gathered (equipment, methods)? Source of
equipment (if any)? Source of spare parts, maintenance, fuel (if
needed)?
-How: How is the resource distributed? (If sold, how is it sold? When,
where, to whom?) If traded, how? (For what, when, where, & with whom?)
If given to kinsmen or other families, is it reciprocal (e.g., if I give you some
today, will you give me some when I'm too tired or sick or unlucky?)?
Reef tourism and recreation indicators can also be obtained from
secondary information. Most regions with tourism have governmental
departments or divisions responsible for regulating and keeping information
on tourism. Additionally, communities with tourist attractions often keep
information concerning facilities and numbers. A review of this type of
information can be used to determine the indicators, but some community-
level evaluation of the secondary data should be conducted, if possible. If
secondary information is used, the date of the information as well as source
and evaluation, if any, should be entered in the database.
Ideally, key informant interviews and observation should be used to
evaluate as well as supplement the secondary data. A walk through the
community could be used to identify tourist facilities. Facility operators can
be interviewed to obtain information on the other indicators.
REEF GOVERNANCE
Reef governance indicators range from local to national levels. The
governance indicators include knowledge concerning coral reefs, use rights,
management efforts (traditional, local, and national), as well as the local and
national institutional governance settings.
concerning the reef and its associated flora and fauna can contribute to the
scientific understanding of this complex ecosystem. Second, an understanding
of local knowledge systems can facilitate interactions between reef users and
outsiders (e.g., scientists, management specialists, decisionmakers, etc.)
concerned with reef issues. Third, knowledge of local belief systems
concerning human relationships with reef flora and fauna may help predict
and explain reactions to management efforts. We will briefly examine each
of these important factors.
First, local knowledge (ethnoscience) of reef ecosystems has been gained
through centuries of intimate interaction and observation by people who
depend on this resource for food and other products. To them, this knowledge
is closely connected with their very survival; hence, the detailed accuracy of
their observations form part of their cultural adaptation to this complex
ecosystem which has been transmitted and elaborated through the generations.
For the Pacific region, Johannes (1981) cites a number of scientific observers
commenting on the richness of local knowledge of reef ecosystems. Perhaps
the most convincing testimonial to the usefulness of this type of information
is provided by the noted marine scientist Robert Johannes who writes,
from the National Marine Fisheries Service would conduct local meetings,
lecturing to experienced fishers who, in some cases, knew more about some
aspects of the behavior of the target species than the lecturer. As a consequence,
scientists lost credibility which was difficult to regain. Comments like “I
ain’t gonna have no schoolboy who’s afraid to go out in water over his knees
tell me about fish!” were commonly heard on New England fishing docks,
and many fishers ceased attending the information meetings. Hence, knowing
at least what the resource users know will help the scientist maintain the
credibility necessary for effective interaction.
Additionally, part of this local knowledge is a taxonomy of the reef and
its resources. Knowing these names will facilitate accurate communication
and data acquisition. For example, in one region where the author worked,
local fishers refer to a single species with two distinct names, reflecting
different stages in the growth cycle–one name for the young, small fish and
another for the older, larger fish, both of which appear in catches and the
market. This distinction is not noted in either the Spanish dictionary or an
accepted list of fish names in Spanish–it is a local variation. This information
was crucial for a team of biologists and economists who were setting up length-
frequency and catch-effort data collection schemes. Raymond Firth, an
anthropologist with extensive experience in fishing communities, reinforces
our assertion concerning the importance of knowledge of the technical
language in the local area. He writes that,
...furnished with the right word, one can get a direct answer to
a question or understand a situation at once; without it, how
ever correct one's speech may be grammatically, one may often
puzzle one's informant or be reduced to giving and receiving
laborious explanations which often irritate the person one is
talking to. - (Firth 1966:358)
Use rights:
-Types (open, common, group exclusive, private)
-Boundary distinctness
-Transferability
-Surveillance & enforcement (e.g., how do those with jurisdiction
or use rights monitor users [e.g., post guards, patrol the area by
boat, deploy spirits] and how do they punish violators [e.g., fines,
jail terms, social or physical banishment, supernatural sanctions])
Management efforts
attributed to incorrect relations with the spirits, not too much fishing effort.
Knowing this in advance would allow managers to prepare for resistance to
scientifically based rationales for management. This preparation could take
the form of training sessions which would introduce the scientific evidence
in a culturally appropriate manner.
Local perceptions of changes in a resource also seem to be important in
development of management efforts. It has been noted that a perceived crisis
in stock depletion on the part of fishers and government is a favorable
precondition to successful co-management in fisheries (Pinkerton 1989b).
National and local governance setting indicators are justified by the fact
that they influence the development, implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of management efforts. Descriptions of use rights are
fundamental to evaluating existing or potential management efforts. Numerous
researchers have related territoriality to success in management efforts
(Pinkerton 1989b, 1994; Pollnac 1994; White et al. 1994). Caroline Pomeroy
supports these findings, writing that “boundaries enhance fishers’ sense of
control over the shared resource and the likelihood that they will work to
sustain its use over the long term” (1994:37).5 Finally, description and
assessment of existing management efforts (both traditional and statutory)
provides a benchmark for assessing degree of control over the role of humans
in the reef ecology as well as information alleged to be essential to development
of appropriate management schemes (cf. Pollnac 1994; Pinkerton 1989b,
1994).
Ideally, the list should be cross-checked with another group, using the same
techniques, but prompting with items from the first group if they are not in
the final product of the second group. Similar methods can be used for other
reef flora and fauna.
Scientific identification of taxonomic items can prove difficult. These
lists are frequently surprisingly long. Pollnac (1980), using this technique in
an examination of a coastal, small-scale fishery in Costa Rica, elicited 122
named categories of marine fish captured by local fishers (also see the
taxonomies in Chapters 3 and 4). For a coral reef in the Philippines, McManus
et al. (1992) list over 500 species of fish associated with a specific reef,
suggesting that reef fishers might have more complex taxonomies than the
Costa Rican fishers in Pollnac’s research. The taxonomic structure of the list
(e.g., the hierarchical relationships) will probably provide some clues (see
the example in Note 6), but it will probably be necessary to interview some
fishers while they are fishing on the reefs and unloading their catches. If
someone with a knowledge of reef fauna and flora taxonomy is present, they
can attach the scientific nomenclature to the local name. If not, the researcher
should take photographs (or collect samples) for later identification of species
he or she is unable to identify. Fish identification books, with color
photographs, can also be used as a supplementary method to link local and
scientific names. Photographs also make an excellent stimulus for eliciting
names. Where fish change color and characteristics with age and sex changes,
the photographs should include representations of all stages. Some fish also
change color when frightened and/or killed, and these factors have to be taken
into account.
Depending on resources available, fisher beliefs about and uses for all
(or the most important7) resources should be elicited. Once again, ethnographic
interviewing techniques should be used. A good example of this type of
information can be found in Johannes (1981).8
Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of this category of information
with respect to reef management is the local ‘folk science’ regarding the reef
and its resources. Recently, much emphasis has been placed on the importance
of using traditional ecological knowledge in marine resource management
(Wilson et al. 1994; White et al. 1994; Ruddle 1994; Johannes 1981). In
anthropology, this ‘folk science’ is referred to as ethnoscience. Ethnoscience
and its application to development and change issues has long been of interest
to anthropologists (Conklin 1954; Spradley 1969; D’Andrade 1995). Wilson
et al. (1994) argue that this knowledge, along with assistance of local fishers
in some form of co-management, is the only solution to appropriate
management of complex or chaotic fishery ecosystems. Hence, the interest
in including this information in ReefBase.
24 - Coastal Resources Center
Indicators for Assessing Human Factors
PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS
IN DATABASE
Format for presentation of RAMP indicators in ReefBase will be
developed and modified as the project proceeds (see Chapter 2). It will depend
on perceived user needs, and will probably be multilevel (e.g., varying levels
of detail will be nested in the database). At a first, most general level, traditional
ecological knowledge might be indicated by a value ranging from one to five,
with one signifying a very low level of traditional knowledge, and five a
complex level.9
In all cases the goal will be to enter data at the most precise level of
measurement appropriate to the variable under consideration to facilitate
statistical analysis. It is understood, however, that availability of information
or funds to gather information may result in varying levels of precision. Hence,
the database must accommodate different levels of measurement and provide
indicators of the methods used to facilitate appropriate interpretation of the
data. Levels of measurement are discussed in more detail in the following
chapter.
Since information will be derived from different sources, using varying
methods, it is important to have fields specifying information sources
(references), dates and methods used so that users can decide whether or not
the information is of sufficient timeliness, validity, reliability and/or precision
for intended analyses. These fields, as appropriate, should be associated with
each indicator or set of linked indicators. Details concerning these issues are
found in Chapter 2.
NOTES
1. The dependent variables used as examples are just a few among the
many that researchers could choose from either the ReefBase or RAMP
portions of the database.
8. It is unlikely that users will have detailed information for all named
taxa. The detailed information will probably exist for ‘important’ species
(see Note 7). For other species, knowledge will probably be restricted to
named groupings (e.g., a higher level in the taxonomy) or specific subsets of
species. Hence, obtaining this information may not be as time consuming as
one would expect with hundreds of named taxa.
extensive agriculture. While the ordinal ranks provide a neat overview of the
stress placed on the reefs in the regions examined, it is not clear how the
researcher arrived at the rankings.
REFERENCES CITED
Acheson, J. 1988. The Lobster Gangs of Maine. Hanover: University
Press of New England.
Anderson, E.N. 1994. Fish as gods and kin. in (Dyer, C.L. and J.R.
McGoodwin, Eds.) Folk Management in the World's Fisheries. pp. 139-160.
Niwot, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Cobb, L.K. and S.B. Olsen. 1994. The CRM Program effort, assessment,
planning, monitoring, and evaluation tools. Unpublished draft manuscript.
Felt, L.F. 1994. Two tales of a fish: The social construction of indigenous
knowledge among Atlantic Canadian salmon fishers. in (Dyer, C.L. and J.R.
McGoodwin, Eds.) Folk Management in the World's Fisheries. pp. 251-286.
Niwot, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Graves, T.D., N.B. Graves, and M.J. Kobrin. 1969. Historical inferences
from Guttman scales: The return of age-area magic? Current Anthropology
10(4):317-338.
Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore
in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Katzer, J., K.H. Cook, and W.W. Crouch. 1982. Evaluating Information:
A Guide for Users of Social Science Research (2nd Edition). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
McManus, J.W., C.L. Nanola, R.B. Reyes, and K.N. Kesner. 1992.
Resource Ecology of the Bolinao Coral Reef System. ICLARM Stud. Rev
22. Manila: ICLARM.
White, A.T. 1989. Two community based marine reserves: lessons for
coastal management. in (Chua, T.-E. and D. Pauly, Eds.) Coastal Area
Management in Southeast Asia: Policies, Management Strategies, and Case
Studies. pp. 85-96. Manila: ICLARM.
White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortes. 1994. The need for
community based coral reef management. in (White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y.
Renard, and L. Cortes, Eds.) Collaborative and Community Based
Management of Coral Reefs. pp. 1-18. West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Wiens, H.J. 1962. Atoll Environment and Ecology. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
LEVELS OF MEASUREMENT
In all cases the goal will be to enter data at the most precise level of
measurement appropriate to the variable under consideration to facilitate
statistical analyses. It is understood, however, that availability of information
or funds to gather information may result in varying levels of precision. Hence,
the database must accommodate different levels of measurement and provide
indicators of the methods used to facilitate appropriate interpretation of the
data.
For example, relative importance of a specific coral reef fish for fisher
income could be based on landing statistics and initial selling price (e.g.,
price paid by buyer to fisher) by species. The landing statistics and value
could be analyzed to determine the percentage of income derived from a
particular species. This value (percent contribution to fishery income), would
be the most precise measure of relative importance of a certain species for
fisher income. Alternatively, where landing or marketing statistics are
unavailable, the figure could be based on key informant interviews where
fishers and/or fish sellers would be asked to list and rank the five most
important (in terms of income) types of fish they harvest. Modal ranks for
MISSING DATA
In all cases, fields for which no data is available will remain blank (no
entry).
ORGANIZATION OF GUIDE
The guide is organized into five major categories of indicators: 1) national
context; 2) regional context; 3) local context; 4) coral reef use; and 5) coral
reef governance. Guidelines for entering data from these categories will be
provided in the following five sections.
1. Population
2. Population growth rate (%)
32f and 33e (industry, percent by type) are table fields which will list industries,
by type, and specify the percent of the watershed occupied and employment/
unemployment by each industry type.
some will be stored for the local context as a whole. The following indicators
will appear in tables attached to each community:
42a. Hospital
42b. Medical clinic
42c. Resident doctor
42d. Resident dentist
42e. Secondary school
42f. Primary school
42g. Public water supply piped to homes
42h. Sewer pipes or canal
42i. Sewage treatment facility
42j. Septic or settling tanks
42k. Electric service
42l. Telephone service
42m. Food market
44 - Coastal Resources Center
Guidelines for Entering Human Factors Into ReefBase
42n. Drugstore
42o. Hotel or inn
42p. Restaurant
42q. Gas station
42r. Public transportation
42s. Hard-top road access
42t. Banking services
Indicator 42t (banking services) does not have to be within the local
coastal context as defined above. If there are banking services within the
range of normal marketing travel (e.g., a trade center to which people travel
once every week or two), banking services will be considered as present. It is
a nominal variable.
Indicator 43 will include eight fields providing space for entry of percent
distribution of labor force by major occupation category. Although in many
cases this will be a metric field, allowance should be made for ordinal and
nominal data for each category as discussed with respect to other indicators
above. The eight categories are listed below:
43a. Agriculture
43b. Forestry
43c. Mining
43d. Fishery
43e. Industry
43f. Tourism
43g. Other services
43h. Other
52, the total services facility index, is the mean value of indicator 42u for all
coastal communities in the local context. Indicators involving percentages
require more complex calculation to derive the summary value for the local
context. Percent figures must be converted to numbers for each coastal
community, numbers must be summed for all communities in the local context,
and percentages recalculated. Summing percentages and dividing by the total
number of communities can result in gross misrepresentation of actual
distribution. This consideration applies to indicators 53 (percent distribution
of occupations) and 55 (percent unemployment). If the data (indicators 43
and 45) for deriving these indicators (53 and 55) are ordinal or nominal, the
derived indicator should be a simple dichotomy (present or absent) for each
category. Users who wish to derive a higher level of measurement (e.g.,
percent of communities listing agriculture as an existing occupation, percent
of communities with high unemployment) can calculate it from the community-
level indicator. Indicator 54, alternative employment, is a nominal value for
each occupational category (present or absent) derived from indicator 44 at
the coastal community level. Users wishing a higher level of measurement
(e.g., percent of communities with tourism as alternative employment) can
calculate it from the community-level data. These indicators are listed below:
Some indicators will be entered only at the level of the total local context.
Of these, some will be partially derived from previously listed indicators.
59b. Occupational
59c. Ethnic
59d. Religious
60. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
61. NGO success rate
62. Political organization
63. Population per km of coastline
64. Fishers per km of coastline
65. Population per sq km reef
66. Fishers per sq km of reef
67. Total reef area (sq km)
One table will be associated with each of 69a through 69i. Each table
will have the following fields: 1) methods; 2) season; 3) location; 4)
participants; 5) importance; and 6) distribution. Of the six fields, only field
five (importance) has the potential of being numeric. If landings statistics (or
local market/middleman surveys) and if types can be clearly identified with
the target reef) are available, field five will be amount, metric ton (MT) and
value (US$). If landings statistics are unavailable, and if it is possible to rank
the types in terms of importance, an ordinal rank can be entered with a memo
field explaining how the ranking was derived (e.g., modal ranks from a sample
of harvesters [identified by type of gear so that evaluations of
representativeness of sample can be made since different gears harvest different
species] and/or buyers; number of respondents listing the type among the
first five out of a sample of harvesters and/or buyers). Finally, in some cases
the source of information may only indicate several species as being important
with no ranking. Here we have a simple dichotomy where a given species is
either important or unimportant–a simple yes/no, limited choice.
Methods will be a field with searchable phrases. It is likely that a given
type (e.g., an important coral fish) can be harvested using several different
methods (e.g., spear gun, hook and line, poison, dynamite, gill net, etc.), the
field should be such that a search would be able to target a specific method
(e.g., spear gun) and identify all fish captured with that method, although the
fish is also captured using other methods as well (e.g., the field must allow
for multiple categories and the ability to search within multiple categories for
individual entries).
Season will be an entry reflecting the time of year the type is harvested.
The entry will be months identified by number (e.g., 1 = January, etc.).
Location will be a field with searchable phrases (e.g., reef flat, reef slope,
reef wall or near reef [adjacent to the reef]). The field must allow for multiple
categories and the ability to search within multiple categories for individual
entries.
Participants will be searchable phrases which classify the harvesters
according to sex and age (e.g., male, female and children). The field must
allow for multiple categories and the ability to search within multiple categories
for individual entries.
Distribution will be a searchable phrase field including the following
categories: home, local market, regional market, national market and export
market. The field must allow for multiple categories and the ability to search
within multiple categories for individual entries.
Finally, there should be an evaluation of the major categories (e.g., coral
versus non-coral fish, etc.) in terms of percent contribution to income and
subsistence (indicator 70). If metric values are available (e.g., harvesting and
marketing statistics), this can be calculated from already entered data. If not,
informants can be requested to provide an estimate of the relative percentages.
If informants find it difficult to estimate percentages, they might be able to
rank the relative importance. For example, in a community where coral fish,
non-coral reef fish and collecting seaweed contribute to income, they might
state that non-coral fish are the most important source of income, followed
by coral reef fish, with seaweed collecting contributing little. The entry would
then be made in an ordinal field with the respective ranks. As noted above,
research methods used by source should be clearly specified in the research
methods field so that users can evaluate the representativeness of the sample,
etc.
Indicators for reef-related tourism and recreation are listed below:
Each of the tables for the subcategories of indicator 74 will also have
fields reflecting knowledge concerning the most important types. Important
types are determined in the reef use section. The fields reflecting knowledge
are the following: 3) locations; 4) movements (if applicable); 5) seasonal
availability; 6) reproduction; 7) diet (if applicable); and 8) total knowledge
scale. Since the number of important types will vary from reef to reef, a
metric number concerning the number of types for which specific knowledge
is present could be misleading. An ordinal evaluation, coding 0 for none, 1
for less than 1/2, 2 for equal to or more than 1/2, and 3 for all is sufficient and
would not be misleading. For example, if fishers provided location for all
important fish species, the value entered would be 3. If they provided location
for one out of five important species (5 being the total number of species
deemed important), the value entered would be 1. The total knowledge scale
would be a summing of fields 1 through 7, if none of 1 through 7 is coded as
missing (e.g., left blank). If any data is missing, the total score cannot be
calculated.
Perceived resource changes (indicator 75) refers to long-term trends in
each of the three subcategories (indicators 75a through c) as perceived by
users. For example, if a fisher is asked to compare his present catches with
those of five years ago, he might say they are lower, the same, or better. The
coder must be careful to make sure that the perception is attributed to the
users, not an observation made by a fisheries officer or research scientist.
The entry for this field is a resource users’ perception; hence, it would probably
be misleading to try to use a metric value. It is best as an ordinal value (e.g.,
-1 = worse off, 0 = the same, and 1 = better off).
Reasons for change in each of the three subcategories (indicators 76a
through 76c) should be limited choice fields, with the following limited
choices: 1) too many fishers; 2) overfishing; 3) use of specific gear type; 4)
fish have moved away or are hiding from fishers; 5) supernatural (e.g., the
gods are angry, it is God's will); 6) others; and 7) do not know. The ‘others’
field will allow for multiple categories and the ability to search within multiple
categories for individual entries. Indicators 75 and 76 can be severely biased
by unrepresentative sampling; hence, research methods used by the source
must be clearly specified.
chapter (Chapter 1) and the case studies (Chapters 3 and 4), with references
to ethnobiological literature where more systematic attempts to understand
intracultural variation in ethnobiological knowledge have been undertaken.
Given the extremely primitive state of our understanding of variation in
traditional knowledge concerning coral reef resources, this field would best
be left as a memo field within which variation and methods used to investigate
variation are described in paragraph format.
Aspects of jurisdiction, authority and use rights make up the next set of
indicators.
78. Jurisdiction
79. Authority
80. Use rights
Jurisdiction refers to the entity (or entities) that have legal control over
activities that directly impact the reef and its resources; that is the legally
constituted body (or bodies) that can issue laws concerning all aspects of the
use of the reef. It is conceivable that different departments and/or levels of
administration may have jurisdiction over different aspects of reef use. For
example, one may be responsible for living resources legislation, another for
navigation practices, another for pollution, seabed mining, etc. The first
indicator under jurisdiction is the number of entities that have been given the
authority to draft laws impacting reef use.
The second indicator under jurisdiction is the level of political integration
delegated the authority to issue laws concerning aspects of the reef within
their jurisdiction. For example, in some nations the levels of political
integration, from the lowest to the highest, are villages within towns, within
counties, within states and within the nation. Such a nation would have five
levels of political integration, including the nation. The most complex situation
imaginable probably will not exceed eight levels, the highest level being an
organization of nations. This indicator will have nine limited choice fields,
the first being the lowest level of political integration (e.g., the village)
indicated by level one, the second by level two, etc. The ninth field will
indicate the total number of levels granted legislative authority.
Both 79a and 79b are limited choice fields with the following choices:
1) secular leaders; 2) religious specialists; 3) fisheries specialists; 4) rights
holders; and 5) users associations. There should also be an ‘others’ field
which will allow for multiple categories and the ability to search within
multiple categories for individual entries.
In the ‘rights to what’ field, we have to consider rights to: a) use the
habitat for any purpose; b) to extract specific flora and fauna; c) to use specific
extractive techniques (irrespective of target species); and d) use the resource
for recreation/pleasure purposes. Use rights will thus be divided into five
major subcategories:
80a. Habitat
80b. Species
80c. Gear
80d. Recreation
80e. Other
Indicators 80a through 80d are limited choice fields. Each of these
fields will be categorized by a ‘type of right’ limited choice field which will
specify the following types of use right: 1) open access ,which implies no use
right restrictions whatsoever; 2) common access, which implies use rights
restricted to individuals inhabiting some restricted geographical or political
entity (e.g., nation, region, province, town, village); 3) group exclusive, which
implies use rights restricted to some specific identifiable groups of individuals
(e.g., ethnic, kinship, user organization, etc.); 4) private, which simply implies
that private individuals can hold rights; and 5) other. The ‘other’ category
will be a searchable phrase field that allows for multiple categories and the
ability to search within multiple categories for individual entries. This will
permit entry of less common or unexpected user right categories.
The common and group exclusive limited choices will each have ‘who
has rights’ limited choice and searchable phrase fields attached. The limited
choice and searchable phrase fields will permit specification of the
geographical or political entity for the common category and type of exclusive
group. The limited choice field for common access will have the following
choices: a) nation; b) region; c) province; d) town; e) village; and f) other.
The ‘other’ field will be a searchable phrase field that allows for multiple
categories and the ability to search within multiple categories for individual
entries. This will permit entry of less common or unexpected common use
right categories. The limited choice field for group exclusive will include the
following choices: a) ethnic; b) kinship; c) user organization; and d) other.
The ‘other’ field will be a searchable phrase field that allows for multiple
categories and the ability to search within multiple categories for individual
entries. This will permit entry of less common or unexpected common
categories of groups with use rights.
Common, group exclusive and private use rights imply the ability to
exclude outsiders from the resource. This usually requires some type of
surveillance and enforcement. Hence, each of these categories will be sub-
categorized according to types of surveillance and enforcement–the ‘how are
the rights protected’ field. Surveillance will be composed of two limited
choice fields, WHO, specifying who conducts the surveillance and HOW,
specifying the means by which the surveillance is conducted. WHO will
have the following limited choices: a) none; b) official (e.g., marine police,
environmental management officers, etc.); c) user groups; d) supernatural;
and e) other. HOW will have the following limited choices: a) none; b) deploy
patrol boats; c) post guards at perimeter; d) deploy supernatural entities; and
e) other. The enforcement indicator will specify punishment for violators.
The limited choices will be a) none; b) fines; c) jail terms; d) social or physical
banishment; e) corporal; f) capital; g) supernatural; and h) other.
The group exclusive and private categories (with group exclusive this
applies to the categories of group exclusive) will also be sub-categorized
according to transferability of use rights. This ‘transferability’ limited choice
It is also essential that the user be able to convert a specific nesting (or
set of nestings) to a variable. For example, one should be able to request the
database to find all instances of:
...and give the reefs with these combinations a score of 1 for variable Z,
all other cases receive a score of 0, cases with missing data receive BLANK.
If this is not possible, perhaps some database expert can devise a better method
for entering these variables.
III. (what(how(formality(who(user(surveillance(enforcement(cost
(impact)))))))))
81a. None
81b. Land-source pollution
81c. Marine-source pollution
81d. Floral resource extracted
81e. Faunal resource extracted
81f. Directly destructive activities
81g. Other
Indicators 81a through 81e are self explanatory. Field 81f will be selected
if the activity managed is one that directly damages the coral (e.g., blast fishing,
use of poisons for extracting fish from corals, destruction of coral by anchoring,
walking on, banging on to scare fish, etc.). Each of fields 81b through 81g
will have a searchable phrase field attached to identify the type being managed
at a more specific level.
The ‘how’ indicator (82) identifies the technique of management used
and is composed of the following limited choice fields plus an ‘others’ category
of searchable phrases:
Indicators 82a through 82d are, for the most part, self explanatory.
Indicators 82b through 82e can be year-round or seasonal. Indicator 82e
refers to restrictions on specific activities such as those classified as directly
destructive activities (81f) or activities producing the pollution identified in
indicators 81b and 81c. Remedial practices (82f) refers to management
required practices directed at reducing the anthropogenic impact on the coral.
For example, requirements for 1) adequately maintained septic systems to
reduce pollution from human wastes; 2) cooling of power plant effluents; 3)
reducing or eliminating the use of specific pesticides in the watershed; 4) etc.
Restoration (82g) refers to direct restoration of the resource by culturing
practices (e.g., replanting, seeding, releasing cultured organisms, etc.).
Indicators 82f and 82g will have associated limited phrase fields for more
specific information (e.g., for 82f the limited phrase might be septic system
maintenance).
The formality indicator (83) identifies whether or not the management
effort has been formalized in terms of being officially published legislation
versus an informal effort. This indicator is a yes/no limited choice for formal.
The ‘who’ indicator (84) identifies the entity ultimately responsible for
implementing the management effort and is composed of the following limited
choice fields plus an ‘others’ category of searchable phrases:
Indicators 84a through 84d are self explanatory. Indicator 84e (non-
local, nongovernment) refers to regional or possibly national NGOs such as a
formally recognized group of environmentally concerned citizens who have
the objective of preserving a specific resource, or an industry group (e.g., a
regional or national fishers’ cooperative federation) concerned with the
resource. Local nongovernment has the same interpretation, but the group
must be constituted at the local level as defined above. Indicators 84e and
84f will have searchable phrase fields attached to more specifically identify
the type of group (e.g., environmentalist, user cooperatives, etc.).
The ‘user’ indicator (85) indicates the degree of user (e.g., fisher, tour
85a. None
85b. Consultative management
85c. Co-management
85d. Community management
86a. None
86b. Official (e.g., marine police, environmental management
officers, etc.)
86c. User groups
86d. Supernatural
86e. Other
88a. Fines
88b. Jail terms
60 - Coastal Resources Center
Guidelines for Entering Human Factors Into ReefBase
The date indicator (95) will be composed of two fields. The first field
will be devoted to the year of effort implementation. This information will be
relatively easy to obtain with regard to formal efforts since the legislation
will be dated and recorded. A second field will be used for informal efforts
(e.g., ‘traditional’ management or locally developed practices), when an exact
date cannot be determined. The field will be a searchable phrase field wherein
entries such as ‘recent,’ ‘five or 10 years ago,’ ‘in the distant past,’ etc. will be
recorded.
The resource evaluation portion of ReefBase will include indicators
concerning relative ‘health’ of the reef. These indicators will be useful as a
measure of ‘effectiveness’ of the management effort, depending on the amount
of time the effort has been operating and the dates for which the assessments
are available. If possible, it would be ideal if pre- and post-management
effort assessments are available, then a dependent variable concerning impacts
could be constructed.
NOTES
1. The use of the concept ‘user’ as the name of the field, and the concept
‘community’ in the indicator category reflects an ambiguity in the literature.
When we speak of ‘community’ management or ‘co-management’ of fisheries,
do we mean the community of fishers or the entire community including
farmers, and every other category? For purposes of this database, the
searchable phrase fields attached to indicators 84e and 84f will serve to specify
those ultimately responsible for implementation (as described in the text),
and searchable phrase fields attached to indicators 85b and 85c will indicate
the degree of involvement of users as well as other local community
members.
2. Most researchers dealing with this issue make the distinction between
consultative management and cooperative co-management (e.g., McGoodwin
1990). Consultative management would involve establishment of government
entities which would consult with fishers’ organizations before and during
the preparation of management plans. The content, style and frequency of
consultation will, of course, vary from system to system.
3. Co-management is succinctly defined by Pinkerton (1992:331) as
“...power-sharing in the exercise of resource management between a
government agency and a community or organization of stakeholders.” The
realization of this concept also includes several variables such as content,
structure and, most importantly, degree of power sharing. For example, a
precise description of any system of co-management must evaluate the degree
of rights and responsibilities of both the government and the fisher organization
with respect to information generation, rule making, surveillance and
enforcement (cf. Pollnac 1994). In a recent publication, Pinkerton (1994:322-
326) has discussed degrees of power sharing (‘accommodations’) between
local and state entities, using a 10-point scale, but no specific criteria are
cited for evaluating where along the 10-point scale a specific system should
be located.
APPENDIX I TO CHAPTER 2
EVALUATION OF SOURCES OF
INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
It is extremely important to have some means of evaluating the quality
of the information in a database such as ReefBase with RAMP. Careful
researchers using the database to test hypotheses or plan future research should
be concerned with the reliability and validity of the information. Since much
of the data will be abstracted from written documents, and since some users
may not have access to these documents, it is essential that some indication
of the quality of the information be attached to information in the database.
Since all sources of information will be cited, the evaluation can be attached
to the citation field as an evaluation field.
Some readers may question the necessity of evaluating published
information, assuming that if someone went through the expense of publishing
a document, it must be accurate. There is, however, a great deal of evidence
indicating that questionable, if not outright erroneous findings are published
in refereed journals and books, as well as the ‘gray literature’ that serves as an
outlet for much applied research (Katzer et al. 1982). At this point, it is
important to note that much of the information concerning coastal zones in
developing countries is published in ‘gray literature.’ Over 30 years ago,
Naroll (1962), in a book on data quality control for quantitative cross-cultural
research, argued that the comparativist has a duty to evaluate report reliability.
Additionally, the author has had experience with reading published materials
(in some cases, in refereed journals) concerning fisheries in a developing
country context, then conducting research in the same areas (in one case, just
a few months later) and being unable to find the same, or even remotely the
same phenomena which were essential to central arguments described in the
published papers.A1 These experiences have engendered a degree of skepticism
which can only be reduced by better methods and specification of methods in
published reports. Specification of methods is expected in a scientific report.
the information can become more salient for the user. The following codesA4
will be used to describe the general description of methods:
VARIABILITY IN INFORMATION
Statistical measures of variability were discussed above. Obviously such
measures cannot be applied to more ‘qualitative’ information obtained from
in-depth interviews. Nevertheless, there is no question that most, if not all,
information is characterized by some type of variability. Different people
give different answers to the same question (see appendix Note A5), attributes
(physical, economic, social, cultural, psychological, etc.) vary across
individuals, etc. Users should question reports that boldly make statements
such as “the fishers of village X do Y.” They should be even more skeptical
concerning statements such as “the fishers of village X believe Z.”
Nevertheless, we frequently see such statements in the literature. Codes for
this indicator are as follows:
- Number of weeks spent at research site. If less than one week, the
number recorded will be zero.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Most good research is based on or builds on previous research. Concepts
are defined in terms of previous use of the concepts, previous research on the
same topic or geographical area is reviewed and evaluated, and the relationship
of the present report with existing literature is detailed. This is usually referred
to as good scholarship, and it is unfortunately minimized in much applied
work. Sometimes the employer for the applied investigation discourages
scientific citation as a waste of paper; hence, lack of references may not always
be attributed to a weakness on the part of the investigator. Nevertheless, a
good literature review is frequently associated with a careful investigator who
wishes to apply as much learning as possible to the topic being investigated.
Hence, the number of references cited stands a good chance of being related
to the quality of the report. This indicator will be a simple count of the number
of references cited in the report.
SUMMARY EVALUATION
It might be possible to derive a summary evaluation from the values
associated with the different indicators. This should not be a strict summing
of the numbers associated with each indicator, because the literature review
indicator and time spent at field location could contribute too much to the
summary figure. If it is felt desirable to have a summary figure, the number
of references cited could be divided by some constant (say 10) to reduce its
contribution to the total score. A more valid approach for determining the
constant would be to take a sample of reports (say 100-150), calculate the
mean number of references and use this figure as the constant. With regard to
the time at field location indicator, it depends so much on the size of the site
and the topic of the research that it is hard to not feel that any figure selected
would be arbitrary. We could either eliminate the time at site indicator from
the summary figure, or tentatively select ‘zero’ for less than one week, and
‘one’ for anything over a week until further evidence suggests a better
approach. Some sort of scale analysis of this summary measure, as well as its
correlation with evaluation of the reports by ‘expert’ readers, would form a
good research project for the future.
inaccessibility of the open ocean, lagoons, swamps and estuarine waters where
organisms are harvested. This is further complicated by the fact that when
boats are used, landings can be made at several points along the coast or fish
captured may be transferred to a carrier ship at sea, complicating observational
assessment of landings at any one point.
The above considerations clearly indicate that there are special difficulties
involved in obtaining information from fishing communities. Individuals
unaware of these environmentally related difficulties may make unintentional
errors in data collection; hence, users of information concerning the sea and
coastal zone must be sensitive to the possibility for these types of errors.
A4. The codes are purposely ordered so that a higher number is attached
to a higher level of concern with methods. Hence, the user can simply use
A6. Most field researchers have stories to tell concerning ‘facts’ they
learned the first few days or weeks in the field which were later found to be
inaccurate. If I only had a few days to spend at the bay in northern Jamaica,
I may have not had the time to probe for further information and question
additional fishers to correct the responses as reported in Note 19, Chapter
Four. Also a recent experience: if I spent only a few days in the municipal
center questioning officials and fisher representatives, I would have believed
reports that fishers did not fish in a declared sanctuary around Atulayan Island
in the Philippines. Moving to and living on the island which was the center
of the sanctuary, gaining the trust of and interviewing common fishers, and
observing constant violations of the sanctuary led to a more accurate report
(see Chapter 3).
REFERENCES CITED
Katzer, J., K.H. Cook, and W.W. Crouch. 1982. Evaluating Information:
A Guide for Users of Social Science Research (2nd Edition). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Pollnac, R.B. and J. Pereira. 1995. The coastal household and resource
management. Paper presented at Coastal Zone 95, July 16-21, Tampa, Florida.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is twofold: first, to examine selected aspects
of the human context of the coral reefs of Atulayan Bay, Camarines Sur, the
Philippines; second, to provide detailed comments on the strengths and
weakness of the methods used to obtain the information as a step in developing
a standardized methodology for conducting similar research elsewhere. It
represents the first field test of the present attempt to develop a set of
management-related indicators for a worldwide database on coral reefs.
It has become increasingly apparent that attempts to understand the
ecology of coral reefs must account for the behavior of humans. Humans are
one of the major predators of reef fishes in many parts of the world. Humans
also cause direct damage to coral by using destructive fishing techniques,
improper vessel anchoring and recreational activities, and coral mining for
building materials and ornamental uses. Indirect damage is caused by land-
based human activities such as deforestation, mining, agriculture and
aquaculture, electric power and desalinization plant operation, and waste
disposal (both human and industrial) which result in various types of pollution
(e.g., nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, poisoning, etc.) having negative
impacts on reefs and associated organisms (Sorokin 1993). Awareness of
these assumptions has resulted, in some cases, in attempts to mitigate these
negative impacts through some form of management (e.g., White et al. 1994,
Pomeroy 1994, McGoodwin 1990). These coral reef-related human behaviors
and their management are intimately related to political, socioeconomic and
cultural aspects of the populations dependent on, responsible for or somehow
impacting the coral reefs under consideration. This chapter examines aspects
of the human context impacting the coral reefs of Atulayan Bay.
ATULAYAN BAY
MARINE-ORIENTED CONTEXT
Atulayan Bay is located in Lagonoy Gulf, the largest fishing ground in
the Bicol Region of the Philippines (see Figure 1). Lagonoy Gulf has an area
of about 3000 km2, about 91 percent of which is deeper than 10 fathoms
(Garces et al. 1995). Some 42 percent of the more than 20,000 households in
the coastal barangays (villages) of the gulf rely on fishing for their livelihood
(PRIMEX 1993). During 1994 they deployed some 34 different types of gear
to harvest an estimated 33,380 tons of the multi-species fishery resources of
the gulf (Garces et al. 1995). Atulayan Bay is located in the western portion
of the gulf, with Atulayan Island centered in the mouth of the bay. The bay
has a number of coral reefs along the mainland and island shorelines, as well
as between the island and the mainland.
fishers who harvest the waters of the bay. The one barangay which does not
fish the bay (Santo Nino) is outside the bay, to the north. Santo Nino, however,
has an incipient tourist industry which could impact the bay. Of these seven
barangays, only one is predominantly occupied by fishers, Atulayan. Total
coastline of Sagnay (including Atulayan Island) is 26 km. In 1994 there were
a total of 421 fishers (Garces et al. 1995)1, operating some 320 fishing vessels,2
resulting in a density of 16 fishers and 12 boats per km of coastline. Total
population of the coastal barangays was 9,240 in 1990 (NSO 1990), giving a
population density of 355 per km of coastline.
From 1980 to 1990 the total population of Sagnay grew from 20,241 to
22,422 giving an average rate of growth of 1.1 percent per year. With respect
to migration, PRIMEX (1993) conducted a survey of 90 households (random
sample) from the coastal barangays of Sagnay3 which indicates that 91 percent
grew up in the municipality, 7 percent immigrated from within Camarines
Sur and only 2 percent came from outside the province.
In terms of occupation structure, the PRIMEX survey (1993) indicates
that of male heads of households, 35.5 percent identify themselves as
principally farmers, 23.3 percent as fishers, 5.6 percent business, 5.6 percent
government and 30 percent
others (e.g., drivers, mechanics,
laborers, construction workers, Table 1. Income distribution of
etc.). Of the wives, 15.6 percent household heads in coastal
reported income-generating barangays of Sagnay.
employment: 14.3 percent each
in fish trading, business and
government. The remaining Income ‘000P Percent
57.1 percent employed are
classified into an ‘others’ 0-05 7.8
category including laundry 5-10 21.1
woman, beautician, trader, etc. 10-15 1.1
Sagnay is quite 15-20 12.2
homogeneous in terms of both 20-25 17.8
ethnicity and religion. The 25-30 15.6
PRIMEX survey indicates that 30-35 0.0
99 percent of household heads 35-40 13.3
and 100 percent of wives are 40-45 2.2
ethnically Bicolano while 98 45-50 1.1
percent of the wives and 96 50-Up 7.8
percent of the husbands are
Catholic. The others split Source: Primex 1993:42
evenly between Iglesia and
Coastal Resources Center - 81
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
also practiced. Atulayan fishers use tabao (fish aggregating devices with
bamboo and/or styrofoam floats) to aggregate fish for handline fishing in
both shallow and deep waters (Gorospe and Pollnac 1997). Fish are usually
landed anywhere along the beach and carried to be sold to one of the four
middlemen who transport them to the central market at Tigaon, first via boat
and then by jeepney.
deep waters. Women and children glean the nearshore waters during low
tide.
dispersed, with some concentration close to the road, which is paved for a
short distance through the barangay, but quickly becomes unimproved for the
majority of the distance to the municipal center of Sagnay. A January 1995
house-to-house census counted 1276 individuals divided among 278
households. There is a great deal of conflicting information concerning number
of fishing households.5 Our best estimate is approximately 50 fisher
households with the rest divided among farmers, farm laborers and a few
carpenters. Approximately one-fourth of the barangay's 567 ha is classified
as farm land and 9 percent as forest. Crops, in order of area devoted to
agriculture, are coconut, maize, vegetables, root crops (cassava and sweet
potato), fruits and rice (PRIMEX 1993).
Electricity lines have reached the barangay, and a public water supply
pipes water to some households, with standpipes available for some others.
Sari-sari stores are the immediate source of supplies, and residents must travel
to the market at Tigaon for other than small purchases. A primary school is
available for local children, the nearest secondary school being located in the
municipal center.
Principal fishing methods include banwit, panke (gill nets), rambo and
og-og. A few fishers use banwit around tabao in the deep. No gleaning was
reported.
spring located in Sitio Lago is the source of the potable water supply for
Barangay Atulayan. Sari-sari stores are the immediate source of supplies,
and residents must travel to the market at Tigaon for other than small purchases.
Two primary schools are available for local children, the nearest secondary
school being located in the municipal center.
Principal fishing methods include banwit (in the open and around tabao),
og-og, panke, sinsoro and pana. It was reported that Turague fishers usually
deploy about 15 tabao in Atulayan Bay by the beginning of March. These
tabao are reportedly deployed in depths of 20-35 dupa (arm span–one dupa
is approximately five feet).
Nato. Nato is located on a broad, flat coastal plain, at the mouth of the
Sagnay River. The population of 2,276, divided among 421 households (NSO
1990), is concentrated along the river and the coast, forming the largest and
most concentrated population of the coastal barangays of Sagnay. Much of
the residential area is backed by rice fields. Fully 96 percent of the barangay's
375 ha is devoted to agriculture. Crops, in order of area devoted to culture
are coconut, rice, vegetables and fruits (PRIMEX 1993).
The barangay is adjacent to the municipal center to which it is linked by
a newly constructed cement road. The road leads directly from a deep water
pier which was in final stages of construction in February 1995. The barangay
has electric service, piped water and numerous sari-sari stores. Pedicabs,
tricycles and jeepneys provide almost constant service to the municipal center.
Tricycles and jeepneys run frequently over the paved road linking the municipal
center to Tigaon, the local trade center. A fishery school as well as both a
primary and secondary school are located in the barangay. A resort, constructed
by a Swiss national, consisting of one house and several cottages recently
failed. The major occupations are farming and fishing, with some 63
households devoted to fishing (estimate based on number of fishing boats).
Other occupations include rickshaw, tricycle and jeepney drivers; furniture,
wig, charcoal, brick and boat making; fish processing and trading; and
stevedoring.
The latter occupation, stevedoring, was facilitated by the Nato
Multipurpose Development Cooperative as an alternative to fishing. This
multipurpose cooperative was founded in 1993 as a part of the Fisheries Sector
Program, and its infrastructure includes a fish landing area and a building for
administration and meetings. Another NGO is the Nato-Santo Nino
Multipurpose Cooperative, which focuses on agricultural product pricing.
The Nato fishery consists of some 63 municipal boats. Predominant
gears include banwit (in the open and around tabao), og-og, kitang, pangke,
sinsoro and pana. There are also about seven ring net and six bag net operations
Coastal Resources Center - 87
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
(Garces et al. 1995). The only other ring net operation in Sagnay is associated
with the cooperative at Bongalon (see above). Gleaning is done on the rocks
and in the sand and remaining coral at the mouth of the Sagnay River.
Santo Nino. Santo Nino, like Nato, is situated on a flat coastal plain,
with 41 percent of its 164 ha devoted to agriculture, mostly rice, with a very
small amount of coconut, maize, vegetables, fruits and root crops (PRIMEX
1993). Population in 1994 was reported to be 1,027 divided among 130
households (1994 barangay census). The barangay captain estimates that 25
percent of the households are fishers, 60 percent farmers and the other 15
percent following a mixed strategy of farming and fishing.
Connected to Nato and the municipal center with a partly paved and
partly dirt road, Santo Nino has both water and electricity service. Several
sari-sari stores provide daily needs, and jeepneys, tricycles and rickshaws
provide transportation services, linking the community with the municipal
center. Caretakers of an estate owned by a non-resident rent beach shelters to
visiting Filipino or local tourists. Santo Nino fishers provide transportation
to Atulayan Island where other day rentals of beach shelters are available.
The barangay has two NGOs, the Nato-Santo Nino Multipurpose Cooperative
which is composed mostly of farmers, and the Santo Nino Multipurpose
Cooperative, registered in January 1995, composed mostly of fishers.
Fifteen municipal fishing vessels are owned by Santo Nino fishers, only
three of which are motorized. Additionally, a Nato ring net operation is crewed
by Santo Nino residents. Commonly used gears include banwit, og-og, panke
and sinsoro. There is no coral reef off Santo Nino, and net fishers operate
over the sandy bottom, just several meters from shore. A gill net was observed
near the mouth of a small creek flowing into the Gulf. Fishers do not fish the
waters of Atulayan Bay which is south of their barangay. When they fish
offshore, they fish the open waters of Lagonoy Gulf.
TOURISM
Atulayan Bay has a great deal of natural beauty, with its azure waters,
coral reefs and both white and black sand beaches. Contributing to this beauty
is the varying terrestrial topography, ranging from forested mountains climbing
steeply from water's edge, to the coastal flatlands at the northern edge of the
bay where the Sagnay River enters the sea. Mount Isarog, its top shrouded in
cloud, forms a dramatic background that can be viewed from almost anywhere
in the bay. Although these natural features have a great deal of potential for
attracting various types of tourists, this has not been realized. This is perhaps
due to the fact that the nearest location with air service is Naga City. From
Naga City, one must travel by bus or jeepney to Tigaon, then by jeepney or
tricycle to Sagnay--a journey of two hours or more. Further, in the coastal
barangays, where the beauty of the area can be appreciated, there are no hotels
or restaurants.
A European built a small resort at Nato, comprised of one house and
several cottages on the coast, but it failed. Near the border between Santo
Nino and Nato, a non-resident landowner built a vacation house with several
beach shelters. The caretakers rent the beach shelters to Philippine tourists,
mainly during March through May. Local fishers offer to transport tourists to
Atulayan Island for a small fee. On Atulayan Island, a resident of Naga has
constructed a vacation house with several beach shelters on a relatively isolated
white sand beach. Barangay Atulayan has also constructed several beach
shelters on this beach. Small fees are charged for the use of the shelters, and
during the research period, Filipino tourists were observed at these shelters,
using the beach, hiking around the island, swimming and walking on the
coral every weekend. Numbers were small, five to 10 at a time, but larger
numbers are reported using the facilities during holidays. As the society
becomes more affluent, and as transportation to the area improves, the numbers
of users and services will probably increase.
Net fishing. The most frequently used net types are monofilament gill
nets, both bottom set (palubog) and drift (palutang). Both of these types of
nets are used near and over coral reefs as well as in other areas. These nets
are usually about two meters by about 20 to 80 meters in size. While the
deployment of gill nets is well known, there are several important points with
respect to potential impacts on the resource. First, observed mesh size is
relatively small (3/4 to 1 inch square). Some of the target fish are too large to
Coastal Resources Center - 91
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
be gilled in such small nets, and fishers report using them as tangle nets for
larger fish. But, juvenile fish are captured and kept as well. Second, when
bottom-set nets are deployed over coral, the weights are dropped on the coral
surface with potential for damage. Boats, however, are reportedly anchored
to the net anchor line. Third, when divers are deployed to frighten fish into
the net (a technique referred to as kampag), they reportedly just use the
movement of their bodies and sometimes an oar to scare the fish, but they can
damage the coral if they walk on it.
Another frequently used net is a small seine net (sarap) used for bait
fish as well as maripati and kuyog. Sarap were observed being deployed on
the coral as well as on sandy bottom around Atulayan Island. These nets are
deployed a few meters from shore. One fisher stands in the water, holding
one end of the net, while the boat attempts to encircle a school of bait fish by
pulling the other end of the net around the school. An oar is splashed in the
water or tapped on the bottom to scare fish into the net. Another net having
potentially damaging impact on reef fish is the bag net (basnig). While the
main target of the basnig is anchovies (bulinao), they also target kuyog, just-
hatched bataway (Siganus lineatus and S. spinus). Kuyog are used to make
bagoong (fermented fish paste), and must be captured before they eat their
first meal to make the best product.
For the most part, fish listed as important for food were similar to those
listed for income. The most common qualification applied to coral fish was
that small ones would be used for home consumption. With regard to non-
coral fish, parts of the fish would be used for home consumption (e.g., the
guts of bangkulis, the head of malasugi, a small portion of tangigi, etc.). This
type of information is difficult to convert to reliable ranks.
Invertebrates elicited in the coral fish listing procedure are: 1) cogita
(Octopus sp.); 2) kulambutan (Sepia sp.); 3) pisay (Bivalve, unidentified);
4) manglot (Tridacna squamosa); 5) kanoos (Sepioteuthis lessoniana); and
6) balat (Actinopyga sp. superordinate term for sea cucumbers).
According to informants, only tagat-i (‘shellfish’) and sea urchins are
gleaned. The tagat-i listed by gleaners are: 1) locog; 2) lapas-lapas; 3)
sahang; 4) pisay; 5) bulansungan; 6) kod-kod; 7) tarukog; 8) liswit; 9)
samong; 10) rapuganay; 11) bugitis; 12) manglot; 13) buskay (cowrie);
14) hamudyong; 15) bugat; 16) mod-bod; 17) barisara; 18) sinaldaw; 19)
buhuan; 20) talaba (oyster); 21) sarag; 22) sarad; 23) bahian; 24)
tanggulong (chambered nautilus); and 25) tabaguang. Only two types of sea
urchins were named in lists obtained from gleaners: tayong (a black sea urchin)
and ogob-ogob (a ‘furry’ sea urchin).
It was difficult to obtain reliable figures concerning the relative
importance of the different types of fish; hence, the most accurate level of
measurement does not exceed an ordinal level. All informants agreed that
fish they classified as non-coral are more important for food and income than
the coral fish. Estimates ranged around 20-30 percent for coral and 70-80
percent for non-coral. The most marked seasonality occurs with respect to
the tunas, beginning around January and ending in April. Some of the other
fish from non-coral areas are captured up until October. Coral fish are captured
year-round, but are the focus of attention in the period when tunas and
mackerels are absent. Divers focusing on coral fish like to fish when the
weather is warm and the water clear (May to September or October). The
worst fishing occurs around August and December. During periods of low
catches (especially November through much of January and sometimes
February), gleaning provides much of the animal protein for fisher families.
Considering the relatively brief period when non-coral fish peak in terms of
production and the relative importance of gleaning (frequently from coral)
during the poor fishing periods, as well as the year-round availability of coral
fish, it is clear that the coral reef is significant for both the income and nutrition
of the fishers of Atulayan Bay.
REEF GOVERNANCE
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE
While governance of a natural resource is most frequently associated
with formal, official government regulations, it is the community of resource
users who exercise the most direct control over the resource and who, in their
perception, have the most to gain or lose from changes in availability. Their
perceptions of the resource, as well as the ecological knowledge they have
gained from generations of interaction with and dependence on the resource,
have a direct influence on their resource-related behavior. Ecological
knowledge of users is a factor increasingly recognized as both influencing
receptivity to and providing information significant for governance (Wilson
et al. 1994; White et al. 1994; Ruddle 1994; Johannes 1981), use rights and
actual management efforts (traditional and/or official), if any.
Local ecological knowledge is related to reef governance in several
important ways. First, local knowledge concerning the reef and its associated
flora and fauna can contribute to our scientific understanding of this complex
ecosystem. Second, an understanding of local knowledge systems can facilitate
interactions between reef users and outsiders (e.g., scientists, management
specialists, decisionmakers, etc.) concerned with reef issues. Third, knowledge
of local belief systems concerning human relationships with reef flora and
fauna may help predict and explain reactions to management efforts (see
Chapters 1 and 2).
Other terms are used to define boundaries or more general areas. For
example laog is a term used to refer to the location ‘inside’ the bay. The
southeast boundary of the bay is defined by a line referred to as garang,
which extends from a point between Buntugan (a cove) and Upaw (an area
with caves and a cliff wall with outcrops) on Atulayan Island to Gorda Point
(Sitio Santa Cruz, Patitinan). As one moves out into Lagonoy Gulf beyond
Atulayan Island, the drop-off to the deep is referred to as kantil, and beyond
that is laot, the sea. Fishers from Atulayan refer to the coral reef drop-off
where a frequently used tabao is located as Kapangpangan. With regard to
coral reefs, several terms were used by the fishers of Atulayan Bay which
they said were equivalent. Gasang refers to coral, and gasangan refers to a
coral reef. It was also reported that the terms bahura, sapaw, and tulong refer
to coral reef.18 All of these terms form an important part of the ecological
knowledge of the fishers of Atulayan Bay. They serve to provide a cognitive
map for organizing their behavior with respect to the organisms in the bay;
hence, they can play an important role in local resource management.
as lapu-lapu, the Tagalog term for many Serranidae. The taxonomic structure
of baraka' is diagrammed in Figure 4.
The use of the Tagalog term as an alternate label for economically
significant categories is also illustrated by dalagang bukid, a superordinate
term to refer to a number of Caesionidae (fusiliers) by the fishers of Atulayan
Bay. The Bicol term for dalagang bukid is roskita. At the next lower rank in
the folk taxonomy of roskita (dalagang bukid) we find eight folk specific
taxa: roskita, sulig [solid], anduhaw, hamil-hamil, hiringhitin, kilaw-kilawan,
lambadoc and tipil. Roskita is also identified above as one of the economically
significant coral fish, its economic significance being reflected in the large
number of taxa at the specific rank.
It is also significant to note that most of the taxa at both the folk specific
and varietal levels for baraka' and roskita are labeled by primary, as opposed
to secondary names. Secondary names are linguistically complex, with one
part indicating the superordinate category. An example of a linguistically
complex secondary name for a fish in English is hammerhead shark. An
example from the taxonomy of baraka' is pulang baraka' (or barakang pula),
the direct translation for which is ‘red baraka.’ Sub-folk generic taxa are
usually labeled by secondary names. Berlin (1992) notes that when primary
names are used to label folk specific taxa, the species involved usually have
high cultural importance.
Sometimes the term used to label the folk generic rank is also used at
the folk specific rank, such as we saw with respect to roskita, above. Frequently
this term is used with a modifier natural, puro or tunay. For example, the
folk generic term for the rays (Dasyatidae and Mobulidae) is pagi. At the
folk specific rank under pagi we find paging natural, banagun, banogon,
oga-og, dalamugon and pasa-pasa. In these examples, it can probably be
argued that roskita and pagi at the folk specific rank are more prototypical, or
best examples of the taxa included in the folk generic taxons roskita and pagi,
respectively.23 Most frequently the prototype shares more features in common
with the other types in the same category (Rosch 1973), but other factors
such as frequency of occurrence, cultural significance and relative perceptual
salience also impact prototypicality (Berlin 1992; Bulmer 1979).
It is a truism in anthropology that cultural knowledge is unevenly
distributed in any population; hence, one would expect intracultural variability
in knowledge associated with a taxonomy as complex as the one used by the
fishers of Atulayan Bay. Adequate investigation of this variability cannot be
carried out within the time constraints of rapid appraisal, but an example can
be illustrative of the difficulties involved.24 The folk generic taxon linhawan
can provide a good example. In an early stage of our research an informant
was queried concerning maming, a Labridae (wrasse). He said it is a linhawan.
He also classified other Labridae (e.g., talad, maming, hipos, etc.) as linhawan
but included angol, the hump-head parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatus, a
Scaridae; see Figure 5) as a linhawan. A review of data collected several
days previously, however, indicated that other informants identifying a picture
of the hump-head parrotfish as angol sometimes use the Tagalog term mulmol
for linhawan. In Tagalog, mulmol is identified as Scaridae. These informants
noted that linhawan, other than angol, are classified by color at the specific
rank and gave the examples linhawang asul (blue), puti' (white), dilaw (yellow)
and itim (black)25 all of which are Scaridae. Later informants added the folk
specific taxons buskayan and tamumol to the types of linhawan and denied
that any of the Labridae are linhawan.
The intracultural variation with respect to linhawan is probably due to
the fact that except for major differences in dentition, there is some similarity
in form, color, and habitat between many of the Labridae and Scaridae. They
are, in fact, descended from a common ancestral stock (Bruggemann 1994).
Angol provides a good example of the similarity between the two. Dioneda
altivelis, the hump-backed rock cod) is not a baraka' but that it looks like
amidon, which is a baraka'. These same informants identify a picture of C.
altivelis as amidon. A few informants said that bulgan is the same as amidon
and identify the picture of C. altivelis as bulgan. However, there is another
fish (Centropomidae, Lates calcarifer, the giant perch) labeled with a similar
term, bolgan. The hump-backed rock cod and the giant perch are vaguely
similar in appearance, as noted by North Queenslanders who refer to the former
as Barramundi cod “...because the head is somewhat similar in shape to that
of the giant perch (erroneously called Barramundi)” (Marshall 1965:159).
To further confound this variability in the taxonomy, there appears to be some
linguistic variability with respect to the mid- and lower-back phonemes /o/
and /u/ in the vicinity of Sagnay; hence for some, bulgan may actually be
bolgan.
It is interesting to note that another taxon that manifests intracultural
variability is sira' (‘fish’). Some fishers include squid (pusit), cuttlefish
(kulambutan) and octopus (pugita) in the category sira', noting that an organism
is a sira' as long as it swims around in the water. Some even include the sea
turtle. Others exclude the invertebrates and turtles. All exclude the sea
cucumbers (balat). Sira' is at the rank of life form in Berlin's (1992)
terminology for folk taxonomies, and he notes that there is usually a great
deal of intracultural variation with respect to folk definitions for this rank.
For example, in American English folk taxonomy there is individual variation
with respect to whether an octopus is a fish or not.
Other, equally interesting segments of the folk taxonomy of the fishers
of Atulayan Bay can be constructed from the information provided in the
taxonomy presented in Appendix I of this chapter. The brief summary
presented above should be sufficient to indicate the extent of knowledge
possessed by these fishers. Equally important is the observation that there is
intracultural variation in this knowledge. If it is true, as some have argued,
that ecological knowledge of users is a factor influencing receptivity to and
providing information significant for governance (Wilson et al. 1994; White
et al. 1994; Ruddle 1994; Johannes 1981), then it is important to understand
the distribution of this knowledge. Quantitative investigations of this type of
information are time consuming and difficult to analyze–they do not fit the
tight time constraints of ‘rapid appraisal.’ Nevertheless, only quantitative
analysis can discern patterns in variation in terms of their distribution
throughout the society. Since we argue here that traditional knowledge
influences behavior with respect to natural resources, intracultural variations
in this knowledge may be related to variance in the way individuals treat
these resources; hence, we need to account for this variation for effective
governance.
104 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
GOVERNANCE
The ecology of the coral reefs of Atulayan Bay is potentially influenced
by national, regional and local acts, ordinances and/or other official regulatory
measures. These measures, institutions created to implement the measures
and local response to governance are briefly summarized in this section.
Regarding this territory, the LGC states that “local government units
shall share with the national government the responsibility in the management
and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction...”
(Section 3, as presented in Roldan and Sievert 1993:32) and the “...enforcement
of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves”
(Section 17, as presented in Roldan and Sievert 1993:33). Hence the municipal
governments are expected to both enact and enforce necessary living aquatic
resource ordinances and other regulatory measures. The LGC encourages
the grouping of local government units as well as cooperation with peoples’
organizations and NGOs to achieve these ends.
The penalty for violation (Section 5) for each offense is a fine of not
less than 5,000 Pesos and/or not less than one year imprisonment.
Later in the same year (1993), Sagnay Municipal Ordinances 93-003
and 93-006 were passed. Municipal Ordinance 93-003 called for the color
coding and registration of all boats operating in Atulayan Bay from the
barangays of Sagnay. All boats are to be assigned a registration number (to
be painted on the boat) and painted with the colors assigned to the operator's
barangay. The purpose of this ordinance is to facilitate identification for
enforcement of regulations. Enforcement authority is granted to Philippine
National Police, barangay officials, Bantay Dagat26 members and officers of
accredited fishers’ organizations. Penalties for an offense are nominal fines
and/or jail sentences which increase with each offense. Continued offenses
can result in grounding or impounding of offending fishing vessels.
Sagnay Municipal Ordinance 93-006 declares Atulayan Bay as a
permanent traditional fishing ground, “...a fishing water area wherein only
traditional, non-depletive and non-destructive fishing gears and fishing vessels
are allowed.” The water area of Atulayan Bay is defined in the ordinance as
enclosed on the east by a line from the outermost point of Sitio Garang,
Patitinan out to point 27 (a geographic coordinate in Ordinance 93-001) of
the marine reserve around Atulayan Island, on the south by the coastlines of
Patitinan and Bungalon, on the west by the coastline of Sibaguan and Turague,
up to Lago Point, and on the north by a straight line from Lago Point to point
23 on the reserve area encircling Atulayan Island. The ordinance states the
following:
The ordinance also restates the requirement for color coding of vessels
described above. As for enforcement “The Sagnay Philippine National Police,
Paramilitary forces, Barangay Officials of the coastal area, Barangay Tanod,
The Bantay Dagat, Official and members of accredited fishers association
and other accredited NGOs are hereby deputized to effectively enforce this
ordinance” (Section 7). Penalties for violation are a fine between 1,000 and
5,000 Pesos and/or imprisonment between one and six months.
Finally, Article Five of the Municipal Tax Ordinance (No. 92-001),
published in December 1994, regulates fishing and/or fishery privileges.
Section 167 requires a municipal license permit for all types of legal fishing
and municipal grants for operating fish corrals, oyster or mussel culture beds,
or taking of bangus, prawn, or any type of fry for propagation within the
municipality. Other sections of the law set forth zones for grants for
aquaculture and fish corral operations or fry collection, fees for aquaculture
operation use rights, limits on sizes (allowable area) and spacing of aquaculture
and fish corral operations, and license fees for all other fishing operations.
Exclusive fishing privileges (restricted to grants for aquaculture beds,
fish fry collecting areas and fish corrals) are applied for by sealed bid, with
two years rent bonded by cash, property in the Philippines, or a surety company
authorized for that purpose. All who have obtained fishery privileges (license
or grant) within the municipal waters are required to report (in triplicate)
monthly reports of quantity, kind and value (if sold) of fish caught during the
month.
Hence, there are laws governing allowable gears and methods, areas
closed to capture fishing (sanctuaries) as well as fry collection, fish corrals,
and aquaculture operations, reporting requirements and fees for usage
(license permits and grants). Fishers reported no traditional practices that
could be construed as governance. The only evidence of territoriality, outside
municipal licensing requirements, were reports that fishers from other
municipalities must request permission from the municipality prior to fishing
in municipal waters. That, however, is apparently covered by the license
code. One barangay captain reported that permits were required to fish in her
waters, but the rule was frequently broken with no means for enforcement.
The required color coding and numbering of boats, however, will make any
territoriality easier to enforce.
operation but the former uses longer nets in deeper parts of the bay. The buli-
buli employs 10 divers using a scare line composed of a nylon cord and strips
of plastic straw bunched together at the end of the line to drive the fish from
the corals into a nearby net.
Illegal fishing practices such as the use of explosives (bomba) and
poisonous substances (hilo) also have not ceased. Dynamite fishing, however,
has been somewhat minimized. According to the Oplan Sagip Dagat
chairperson, ammonium nitrate (the powder for making explosives used in
dynamite fishing) comes from Barangay San Roque (in Tabaco, Albay) and
is sold in the coastal barangays of Sagnay at 50 Pesos per bottle. The same
source also disclosed in an interview conducted in 1994 that ammonium nitrate
was discovered to be smuggled into Bicol. Some of the powder that is bound
for a mining corporation in Marinduque (an island province west of Camarines
Sur) where it is used in mine blasting, was said to be left in Lucena and taken
to Bicol for dynamite fishing purposes. Also, suppliers evade the inquiries of
authorities by allegedly claiming that the powder will be used as fertilizer for
agricultural crops and as flower inducer for mango trees.
The use of dynamite in Atulayan Bay has been attributed to fishers from
Albay, neighboring municipalities, and some fishers from the Sagnay
Barangays Bungalon and Turague. Operations were reported to be as frequent
as four times a week during the past year. The barangay captain of Patitinan
reported these incidents to the municipal authorities, but they allegedly took
no action to stop the violations. A Patitinan fish trader added that there were
two incidents when dynamite fishers were turned over to the municipal
authorities by the barangay tanod (or barangay brigade). However, the
violators were only warned and later released, which disheartened the barangay
tanod. A case was filed against a Nato dynamite fisher after authorities (who
were tipped by some fishers) raided his residence and found dynamite
paraphernalia. A recent apprehension of a dynamite fisher from Bungalon by
the Citizens’ Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) led nowhere when
municipal authorities found out that the CAFGU people failed to follow
standard apprehension procedures. Instead of only taking a sample of the
catch, they confiscated the entire catch to be used as evidence. In which case,
making it possible to claim that false evidence was planted against the violator
while the catch was ‘in transit.’ As a result, the fisher was later released.
Albay fishers are reportedly using sodium cyanide together with a
compressor to catch aquarium fish. In fact, a well-known Nato fisher who
owns a compressor was identified by many informants. Another fishing
method reportedly employed in the bay uses sodium cyanide but without the
compressor. Instead, anchovies (bulinao) are diced, immersed in a pail
containing the poison and strewn on the surface of the water for the fish to
Coastal Resources Center - 113
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
feed on. As soon as the poison takes effect, fish are scooped out of the water
with a scoop net (silo’).
Other gears prohibited by the local ordinance cited above, but are still
operating in the traditional fishing grounds of Atulayan Bay are the beach
seine (sinsoro) and bag net (basnig).31 Fishers from Bungalon reportedly use
sinsoro in the declared traditional fishing grounds. A sinsoro was also observed
being deployed off the waters of Turague. Additionally a Patitinan fish trader
reported that fishers from Sibaguan operate sinsoro in the area in front of his
barangay. The barangay captain of Patitinan added that sarap fishers continued
operating in the waters in front of the barangay despite warnings made by the
barangay tanod. We even observed the use of sarap in the sanctuary
surrounding Atulayan Island.
CONCLUSIONS
Fishing is clearly an important aspect of the human ecology of Atulayan
Bay: some one-fifth of the households in the coastal barangays derive all or
most of their income from fishing, and a significant proportion of animal
protein consumed in these barangays is derived from the bay’s waters. For
the most part the fishing is small scale, conducted from relatively small (three
to six meter), double outrigger boats, less than half powered by 12 to 16
horsepower inboard engines. Gleaning of shellfish adds variety to the diet
and contributes much of the animal protein during slack fishing periods. A
significant, but not major proportion of the aquatic organisms fished and
gleaned reportedly come from the corals. Some times of the year, coral fish
are the only types available for subsistence, and it is hard to say how much
the non-coral fish depend on the productivity of the coral reefs for sustaining
their population levels. At present, it is probably safe to conclude that
practically all aquatic organisms captured by the fishers of Atulayan Bay are
consumed locally. An international market for locally caught sea cucumbers
is apparently in decline. Hence, the coral reefs of Atulayan Bay contribute
significantly to the livelihood and nutrition of the local population.
The fishers of Atulayan Bay know a great deal about the aquatic
organisms living in the bay. They have a highly structured taxonomy of these
fish, including hundreds of local names–a clear indication of their detailed
observations. They also know enough about the habits of these hundreds of
species to target and capture them effectively; hence, earning an income and
feeding their families. For the most part, they also know that the amount of
fish they are catching has been decreasing in recent years, and they blame
these decreases on the use of illegal methods (e.g., blast fishing and poisons)
and commercial fishing gears. Increases in numbers of fishers, inadequate
enforcement, and ‘smarter’ or ‘less friendly’ fish were also mentioned as causal
factors. Overfishing and destructive fishing methods are widely recognized
as serious problems in the Philippines, and both local and national laws have
been and are being enacted to deal with these issues.
Aware of the need to conserve the coral reefs and other aquatic organisms
of Atulayan Bay, the municipality of Sagnay enacted the ordinances described
in previous sections of this chapter–ordinances directed at establishing a
sanctuary and reserve, ordinances repeating the bans on destructive fishing
methods already in national laws and ordinances directed at keeping
commercial fishing methods out of Atulayan Bay. Reportedly, the ordinances
were presented to public meetings of fishers before approval and they are
being obeyed. The latter report, however, does not match observed reality.
Destructive fishing methods are still employed, commercial gears are observed
fishing in the bay and fishers openly fish in the sanctuary. This observed
reality, however, can be interpreted as reflecting several distinct problems–
problems which could be disastrous in terms of the future of coastal and fishery
management in Atulayan Bay.
The first problem involves enacting laws without means of surveillance
or enforcement. Research suggests that certainty of apprehension and
punishment has a strong impact on behavior (Paternoster et al. 1984), and the
lack of adequate personnel or equipment for enforcement reduces the
probability of being apprehended to almost zero. Hence, the law breakers
catch a lot of fish while law abiding fishers have to be content with less–a
situation conducive to institutionalized evasion of rules, especially in an area
where most families have incomes below the established poverty level.
The next problem involves peer opinion–whether or not the fishers
believe that significant others will disapprove of one’s illegal behavior. This
internalization of what is perceived as a societal norm that laws should be
obeyed is an important factor influencing voluntary compliance (Hoffman
1977), and voluntary compliance is essential in a situation of inadequate
surveillance and enforcement. Since it is reported that most fishers employing
destructive methods and illegally deploying commercial gears are outsiders,
from other areas, disapproval by Atulayan fishers probably has little impact
on their behavior. If they have internalized a societal norm that laws should
be obeyed, perhaps this applies only to laws in their home community.
Additionally, it might be inaccurately reported that most violators are outsiders
because Atulayan fishers do not want to admit that local fishers would be
such scofflaws.
Violation of the sanctuary reflects another, perhaps more significant
problem. As described above, local fishers were observed openly violating
the sanctuary around Atulayan Island. Fishers also admitted fishing in the
Coastal Resources Center - 115
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
sanctuary, saying it was the only place they could fish and that they have
always fished there. These admissions and open violations suggest there is
little or no peer disapproval for these violations in contrast to the forceful
complaints and disapproval concerning the use of destructive and commercial
fishing techniques in Atulayan Bay. With little or no peer disapproval, there
is little hope for voluntary compliance, especially when the fish captured are
perceived by community members as essential to the existence of the fisher’s
family. Further, in a study examining the correlates of compliance in a
Malaysian fishery, Viswanathan (1994) reports that fishers are likely to violate
a regulation when they believe that a large proportion of fishers violate the
regulation. This could have the effect of spreading the violations beyond
needy fishers.
The next question we have to ask is why is there little or no peer
disapproval of breaking some of the fishery rules? Perhaps there is little or
no support for the specific law or the law makers–what some researchers
refer to as legitimacy (Tyler 1990), which is frequently related to perceived
fairness of the law. In terms of fairness, Viswanathan’s (1994) research
indicates that Malay fishers are concerned with the distributive justice of a
regulation. Concern with distributive justice might be the factor that motivates
lack of concern with respect to needy fishers fishing the waters of the sanctuary.
Further, perceived fairness is related to participation in the decisionmaking
process that results in the law (Tyler 1990). The fishers were reportedly
involved in procedures leading to the sanctuary ordinance (e.g., attendance at
a meeting), but percent attendance and type of involvement is unknown.
Perhaps it was not sufficient to result in a perception of fairness.
Whatever the factors influencing noncompliance, it is a fact, and it occurs
frequently. Scofflaw behavior frequently becomes institutionalized–e.g., a
part of expected behavior. As Viswanathan (1994:139) notes, “...if many
fishermen are getting away from detection and arrest, the overall compliance
rate for a given population will decline and thus threaten the success of the
regulatory program.” The institutionalized evasion of fishery and coastal
management regulations, regulations which are notoriously difficult to monitor
and enforce under the best of conditions, can have disastrous future effects on
the coral reefs and fishery of Atulayan Bay. Future regulations, no matter
how well designed, may be disobeyed by a community with a norm of scoffing
at a plethora of unenforced laws. Perhaps it is better to produce no regulations
until compliance can be assured through adequate surveillance and
enforcement as well as appropriate local involvement to enhance legitimacy.
Careful attention at this stage in the development of the coastal zone and
fishery management process can help maintain and possible improve the
human ecology of the coral reefs of Atulayan Bay.
116 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
NOTES
1. Not all barangay officials were able to provide figures concerning
number of fishers or fisher households. For Sagnay as a whole the Garces et
al. (1995) figures were the most current, and methods described were adequate.
In the brief descriptions of individual barangays, numbers will be provided in
terms of number of fishing households. In some cases, estimates will be
made based on reported number of fishing vessels (see note 2, below).
2. These figures are from a survey conducted in late 1994 by the Office
of the Municipal Agriculture Officer. The survey listed all boat owners by
name and was directed at providing these names for the mandatory registration
and painting of all fishing vessels in Sagnay. There are differences between
these figures, the PRIMEX (1993) figures, those provided by barangay officials
(February 1995 interviews), and those provided by the individual responsible
for registration and painting of the vessels (February 1995). Figures from the
1994 survey are used for several reasons: 1) some barangay captains could
not provide these figures; 2) the figures from the individual responsible for
registration were incomplete and he reported them from memory; and 3) the
PRIMEX (1993) figures, by barangay, differed a great deal from 1995
interviews and observations. The best method for determining number of
boats is to count them at a time when most, if not all, are at the dock, on the
beach, etc. Most of the coastal barangays had several beaching and/or docking
areas spread over a rugged coastline, making such a procedure impractical,
given the time constraints of the project. The only barangay (Atulayan) where
this was accomplished resulted in a vessel count of 78 at two p.m., when it
was reported that all boats should be beached. It is realized that some boats
may have been taking fish to market, obtaining water from the mainland, or
conducting some other task. Nevertheless, the count of 78 is extremely close
to the Office of the Municipal Agriculture Officer’s count of 74. The Office
of the Municipal Agriculture Officer list of vessel owners was checked by an
Atulayan resident who added a few names and was unsure concerning about
one-fourth of the list (but could not discount ownership), resulting in a figure
of 79 vessels. The closeness of this confirmation, as well as the detail in the
data (a list of names of owners!), led us to select the Office of the Municipal
Agriculture Officer survey as the best available information.
3. This survey was part of a larger survey of all the coastal barangays in
Lagonoy Gulf.
6. A woman and a man were observed deploying a gill net at the mouth
of the Sagnay River, and it was reported that wives sometimes accompany
their husbands on fishing trips.
8. Fish are listed by order of importance; e.g., the first in the list being
the most important, etc. Order of importance was determined using two
criteria: 1) number of informants mentioning the fish in their list of important
fish and 2) rank order in the informant’s list. If more than one type was
mentioned by the same number of informants, mean rank order was used to
order the fish in the final list presented here. It must be noted that relative
salience of different species probably varies according to season, and relative
salience is probably related to whether or not a given type is included in the
list as well as rank order in the list; hence, the measure is not perfect, but it is
better than nothing and reflects time, manpower, and available information
constraints. Most important, methods for determining the ranking have been
presented, along with evaluation, permitting the user to determine usability.
11. The juvenile form of this species (abubngon) was also listed and
counted in the calculation of relative rank.
17. We did, however, observe one fisher who was distressed by the
prices paid by his buyer.
18. More detailed semantic analysis would probably uncover the fact
that these terms are not equivalent. They may refer to different configurations
of coral or be derived from different local languages. Unfortunately, time did
not permit us to spend more time of this topic.
21. Berlin’s (1992) extensive comparative work has indicated that most
folk taxonomies manifest five (very rarely six) ranks. Continuing with the
folk, American English shark example these ranks are: 1) kingdom (animal);
2) life form (fish); 3) intermediate (no term); 4) generic (shark); 5) specific
(hammerhead shark); and 6) varietal (no term).
23. The discussion of pagi fits well with Berlin's (1992:29) observation
that when the name used to label a prototypical taxon is the same as that used
120 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
25. These folk specific secondary names can also be produced with
the modifier before the folk generic terms. For example linhawang puti' and
puting linhawan are interchangeable.
26. Bantay Dagat or ‘guard sea’ refers to local fishers given the task
of policing the sea.
29. The Bicol term palakaya means ‘fishing gear.’ However, for some
reason, it has been used as a term for gear types that employ ‘modernized’
boats. In our interviews in Sagnay, informants used the term to refer to
commercial gears. Since the kalansisi is the most frequent type that operates
in the bay on a commercial scale, it became synonymous to the term palakaya.
31. While the ordinances seem clear regarding the prohibition of these
gears from the declared traditional fishing grounds of Atulayan Bay, some
knowledgeable key informants seem to disagree. One, who has a position in
the Lagonoy Gulf Resource Management Council, said that a municipal ring
net is considered traditional provided the mesh size of the net used is three
cm or bigger. For bag nets, he said that there is a closed season in the bay
from April to May, during the spawning of scad species. This person is a boat
owner, and it appears that the types of pressures applied by vested interests in
management councils in other parts of the world are being applied in Lagonoy
Gulf.
APPENDIX I
TO CHAPTER 3
FOLK TAXONOMY
sira’ [fish]
abu-abuhan Haemulidae Plectorhynchus Chaetodontoides [type of alatan,
all grey with spots]
abubngon Carangidae Scomberoides boops and S. crumenophthalmus
[juvenile atuloy and matangbaka]
abuhon Serranidae Epinephelus summana {R}[type of ugapo which is a
type of baraka’]
agbaon Lethrinidae? [bukhawon/dugso type]a
agingoy Mullidae Parupeneus indicus, P. multifasciatus {RB} [type of
timbungan]a
agwas Muglidae L. vaigiensis {I} [also superordinate term]
alang Serranidae [type of baraka’ {P} yellow with brown spots]
alatan Haemulidae Plectorhynchus pictus, {P} chaetodontoides, P. goldmann
{I}; {P} polytaenia {R} [also superordinate category]
alubaybay Clupeidae [type of tamban, similar to tamban but grows no
larger than finger width and 4" long; not maripati— maripati is
round and alubaybay is wide]a [type of maripati; alubaybay (adult),
kiskisan (juvenile)]b
amangpang Pomacenthridae Abudefduf sordidus {R}
amidon Serranidae Cromileptes altivelis {R} [type of baraka’ looks like
bolgan which is not baraka’]c [identified first as bolgan, then “or
amidon”]a
amumrok Scorpaenidae D. zebra {R}
anduhaw Caesionidae C. erythrogaster {R} [type of roskita]
angangaldit Acanthuridae Acanthurus dussumieri {I}, {R}
angol Scaridae Bolbometopon muricatum {R}[type of linhawan]
aniban Unidentified {lives in corals}
ariwan Carangidae C. sexfaciatus {I} [type of malagimango; black spots;
also referred to as tagiptipon]
arungan Lutjanidae L. fulviflamma {R} [type of bukhawon which is the
same as dugso]a [bukhawon’s appearance is similar to dugso’s but
not the same; arungan, dugso, and bukhawon have similar forms
and are grouped together in the market]b
Coastal Resources Center - 123
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
NOTES
Various symbols are used in the descriptions of the folk taxa to identify
sources which helped in identification. Letters in curly brackets “{}” refer to
the following:
REFERENCES CITED
Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven. 1973. General principles
of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist
75(1):214-242.
Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven. 1966. Folk taxonomies
and biological classification. Science 154:273-275.
Dioneda, R.R., L.R. Pura, Q.P. Sia III, and L.O. Basmayor. 1995. A
checklist of fishes and invertebrates observed in Lagonoy Gulf. in (Silvestre,
G., C. Luna, and L. Garces, Eds.) Resource and Ecological Assessment of
Lagonoy Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Technical Report (in press). Manila:
ICLARM.
134 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Atulayan Bay
Garces, L.R., Q.P. Sia, L. Pura, R. Dioneda, and M. Jane. 1995. Capture
fisheries technology and dynamics of fishing operations of the Lagonoy Gulf
fisheries. in (Silvestre, G., C. Luna, V. Soliman and L. Garces, Eds.) Resource
and Ecological Assessment of Lagonoy Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Technical
Report (in press). Manila: ICLARM.
Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore
in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marshall, T.C. 1966. Tropical Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef. Sydney:
Angus and Robertson, Ltd.
Marshall, T.C. 1965. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coastal
Waters of Queensland. Narberth, Pennsylvania: Livingston Publishing
Company.
McManus, J.W., C.L. Nanola, R.B. Reyes, and K.N. Kesner. 1992.
Resource Ecology of the Bolinao Coral Reef System. ICLARM Stud. Rev.
22. Manila: ICLARM.
Paternoster, R., L.E. Saltzman, G.P. Waldo, and T.G. Chiricos. 1984.
Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society
Review 17:457-479.
Silvestre, G.T., L.R. Garces, and C.Z. Luna. 1995. Resource and
ecological assessment of Lagonoy Gulf, Philippines: Terminal report. in
(Silvestre, G., C. Luna, V. Soliman and L. Garces, Eds.) Resource and
Ecological Assessment of Lagonoy Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Technical
Report (in press). Manila: ICLARM.
Smith, J.L.B. and M.M. Smith. 1963. The Fishes of the Seychelles.
Grahamstown, South Africa: Ichthyology Department, Rhodes University.
Stevenson, D., P. Logan, and R.B. Pollnac. 1982. A Guide for the Small-
Scale Fishery Administrator: Information from the Harvest Sector. Kingston,
RI: ICMRD, University of Rhode Island.
Tyler, T.R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortes. 1994. The need for
community based coral reef management. in (White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y.
Renard, and L. Cortes, Eds.) Collaborative and Community Based
Management of Coral Reefs. pp. 1-8. West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is twofold: first, to examine selected aspects
of the human context of the coral reefs of Discovery Bay, Jamaica; second, to
provide comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used to
obtain the information as a step in developing a standardized methodology
for conducting similar research elsewhere. It represents the second field test
of an attempt to develop a set of management-related indicators for a worldwide
database on coral reefs (see Chapters 1, 2 and 3).
GENERAL ECONOMY
The 1994 gross domestic product (GDP) was 129,986 million Jamaican
dollars (J$) with a per capita income of J$ 51,987.3. The balance of trade was
a negative 957.7 million U.S. dollars (US$), having decreased from a negative
US$ 1,113.8 million in 1993. Average annual inflation for 1994 was 35.1
percent (PIJ 1995). The Jamaican dollar has been shrinking in value against
the US dollar. In 1989 one US dollar was worth J$ 6.5 (SIJ 1990), in 1992 it
was worth J$ 22.2 (PIJ 1993), and in 1994 it was worth J$ 33.2 (PIJ 1995).
The exchange rate in mid-1995 (US$ 1 = J$ 33.3) suggests that the rate has
stabilized.
For the most part, the economy is based on sugar, bauxite and tourism,
with 41 percent of the labor force employed in the service sector, 22.5 percent
in agriculture, and 19 percent in industry in 1989 (CIA 1994). Fifteen and
four-tenths percent (9.6 percent males, 21.8 percent females) of the labor
force was unemployed in 1994 (PIJ 1995). Eighteen percent of males and 23
percent of females were listed as illiterate in 1987 (SIJ 1994).
COASTAL ECONOMY
Fish are a desired food item in Jamaica, but the most recent, available
figures indicate that the fishery
accounted for only 0.3 percent Table 1. Fishery landings and
of GDP in 1991 (PIJ 1992).
value.
Ten years of landings and value
figures published by Espeut
Value Amount
and Grant (1990) indicate that
Year J$ `000 MT
while landings were somewhat
lower in the last two years of
1980 20,141.3 7893.3
the 1980s, value (in current
1981 22,708.5 7772.1
1990 prices) has increased (see
1982 24,405.8 7974.6
Table 1). While catches appear
1983 25,948.5 8134.4
to be decreasing, Espeut and
1984 27,818.8 8070.0
Grant’s (1990:174) figures
1985 32,197.7 7967.5
suggest that both boats and
1986 48,610.0 8057.3
fishers are increasing. From
1987 53,069.3 8346.2
the best available information
1988 48,818.6 6804.0
they estimate that the number
1989 61,570.9 7257.6
of fishers increased from about
10,000 in 1981 to 17,000 in
Source: Espeut and Grant (1990:108)
1990.1 This suggests that catch
per fisher is decreasing.
142 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
Landings by species
(1981) indicate that fish Table 2. Landings by species,
associated with coral reefs 1981.
form a significant part of the
catch (see Table 2). According Fish Type Landing Value
to Koslow et al. (1994), these `000 lb J$ `000
coral reef fish have been
undergoing heavy exploitation Snapper 1,971 5,637
for at least the past several Parrot 1,767 4,461
decades, and catch rates of reef Tuna/bonito 368 964
fisheries have declined. Goatfish 601 1,587
Accompanying this decline in Jack 1,282 3,521
catch rates, commercially less Herring/sprat 2,337 2,313
valuable species make up an Kingfish/wahoo 256 675
increasing percentage of Mullet 161 416
landings. For the south coast, Grouper/hindes 904 2,170
Koslow et al. (1994) write that Dolphin fish 241 566
62 percent of the catch by Goggle eye 128 318
weight was made up of fish Mackerel 81 214
with a low market value (e.g., Triggerfish 468 649
Scaridae, Labridae, Sparidae, Grunt 1,190 2,831
Mullidae, Holocentridae and Lobster 518 1,587
Acanthuridae). Clementson Shrimp 22 103
(1992) notes that there has been Turtles 126 280
a steady increase in the Other 3,485 6,234
percentage of parrotfish
(Scaridae) from 1981 to the Source: Sahney (1982)
present.
These apparently
decreasing fish landings are all the more significant when considered in light
of the fact that for decades, the demand for fish and fish products has exceeded
supply. Over 20 years ago, Munro and Thompson (Munro 1983) wrote that
large amounts of fish are imported to meet this unsatisfied demand. Table 3
details fishery imports for 1994.
Perhaps the most important economic aspect of the coastal environment
is its tourist industry, most of which is coastal in nature. In 1994 earnings
from tourism were about 23 percent of GDP, and tourism has manifested an
increasing growth trend over the past decade (Table 4), except for several
small decreases in 1988 and 1994.
0.20 fishers per ha on the north coast, in contrast to 0.02 boats and 0.05 fishers
per ha on the south coast. Total number of fishers in St. Ann Parish is
unknown.2
Tourism forms an important part of the parish’s economy, with numerous
hotels, resorts and villas (furnished houses rented to tourists) in coastal
locations and towns. A total of 3,400 hotel rooms are listed (JTB 1995) for
Ocho Rios and Runaway Bay, with Ocho Rios having the majority (2,778).
Guest houses add another 38 rooms to Ocho Rios. Additionally, Ocho Rios is
Jamaica’s most active cruise ship port with some 300,000 cruise and 400,000
overnight passengers in 1994, and work is now in progress to expand pier
capacity to accommodate superliners capable of holding 2,600 passengers in
contrast to the current 1,500-2,000 (Shaw 1995). Although no figures are
available, tourism obviously forms an important source of employment for
the people of St. Ann Parish. This employment includes a wide range of
activities associated with the hotel, restaurant, beach, guided tour, recreational
fishing and diving, and transportation services connected to the tourist industry.
Many of the unemployed in the region see tourism as a source of employment
and move to tourist towns where they either find a job, make one or join the
unemployed. Tourist towns like Ocho Rios are characterized by sidewalk
vendors and ramshackle roadside food stands (called shacks) which seem to
increase like weeds, overloading available public services (e.g., waste disposal,
water, etc.) and causing concern for resource pollution.
DISCOVERY BAY
the central business district, are several small stores, bars, a small guest house
(seven rooms) and the post office. Several other businesses (a real estate
office, beverage distributor, food stands and general purpose stores) are thinly
scattered along the highway as one leaves Discovery Bay and moves towards
the east.
Just to the west of the business center is the largest tourist hotel/villa in
town. As one moves westward along the highway, a small concentration of
food and grocery stands and a restaurant is located near Old Folly beach.
Small grocery stands are also scattered throughout the side roads of the
community. The University of the West Indies DBML is located at the
northwestern corner of the bay.
The town’s largest employer is the Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company,
which employed some 552 workers as of May 1995. The company’s central
office in Discovery Bay is located in the hills behind the business center. The
plant where bauxite is processed is off the southwest corner of the bay, inland
from the pier from which the product is shipped in large ocean going vessels
(Port Rhodes, see Figure 2), its activities casting a reddish dust throughout
this region of Discovery Bay. Mines are located some 14 miles inland.
Primary, but no secondary education is available in Discovery Bay. There
is no hospital or resident doctor or dentist. A medical clinic associated with
the Kaiser Bauxite Plant has a clinic administrator, nurse supervisor and
medical technologist. Several Christian churches serve the religious needs of
the population. Potable, public water supplies are available from central
standpipes or piped into the home. Toilet facilities for the most part are either
water closet with septic tank or outhouse with a pit.4 Observation indicates
that some of the coastal dwellings (including some tourist villas) discharge
waste directly into the bay. The paved, two-lane north coast highway connects
the town with the rest of Jamaica. Frequent minibus services carry residents
to other north coast towns, including Ocho Rios, where bus service to Kingston
runs throughout the day.
THE PEOPLE
As in any small, modern town, there is a diversity of occupations in
Discovery Bay. By far the largest employer is the Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite
Company, employing a total of 552 distributed among 204 hourly workers in
the plant, 194 hourly workers in the mine and 154 salaried workers. Some of
Kaiser’s employees do not reside in Discovery Bay. The service sector, staffing
the numerous shops and other businesses described above, probably provides
the next largest number of jobs.5 Many of the jobs associated with the tourist
industry (e.g., cooking, housekeeping, grounds maintenance, taxi and minibus
148 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
the nation, but there seems to be only minor variation from the national data
for the three categories reported; hence, we might tentatively assume that the
detailed distribution in St. Ann would be similar as well. This distribution
indicates a relatively high degree of income inequality in St. Ann Parish and
in Jamaica as a whole. Thomas (1994) notes that Jamaica has consistently
shown the highest level of income inequality in the Caribbean. Figures from
1989, 1991 and 1992, however, suggest that the situation is improving a little.
Mean per capita consumption of the top 10 percent of the population fell
from 16.4 times the bottom 10 percent in 1989 to 13.7 in 1991 and 12.8 in
1992. In 1992, the poorest 10 percent had an average per capita consumption
of J$ 3,863, representing a share of 2.58 percent, while for the wealthiest it
was J$ 49,360 or a share of 29.59 percent (PIJ and SIJ 1994).
A general indicator of quality of life in Discovery Bay can be determined
from the infant mortality rate. This is a fairly good measure of general nutrition
and health care, indicators concerning satisfaction of some basic human needs.
Newland (1981:5) writes that “no cold statistic expresses more eloquently
the differences between a society of sufficiency and a society of deprivation
than the infant mortality rate.” This figure was calculated by dividing total
deaths under one year by total births for the years 1989-1991 and multiplying
by 1000. This results in the infant mortality rate per thousand. Data for
infant mortality calculations was derived from SIJ (1995a). Infant mortality
for St. Ann Parish for the years 1989-1991 was 20.9. This compares
unfavorably with the national rate of 11.3 for the years 1990-1991. St. Ann
Parish’s rate for this same time period was 18.8. Examined on a yearly basis,
however, the rate is dropping both nationally (1990, 13.1; 1991, 9.5) and for
St. Ann (1989, 27.5; 1990, 19.9; 1991, 16.2).9 This information was not
available at the level of Discovery Bay.
TOURISM
Discovery Bay has a great deal of natural beauty with its azure waters,
coral reefs and white sand beaches. Contributing to this beauty are the tree-
covered hills, spotted with houses, which rise abruptly from the coast. Caves
in the limestone hills provide another attraction. Alleged by some to be a
landing spot for Columbus in his exploration of the Americas, it also has a
historical attraction for tourists.
Tourists can stay at a seven-room guest house, a small hotel (Portside
Villas), or one of the 10 registered or estimated 30 unregistered villas10 in
Discovery Bay. Piers for visiting yachts are attached to some of the villas and
the Portside Villa Hotel. Tourist activities observed include sunbathing,
swimming, jet skiing, water skiing, beach combing (including wading and
diving in the shallows where some coral reef patches remain) and diving.
The individual who ran a diving operation at the hotel ceased operations in
mid-1995 and moved his operation to Runaway Bay, where there are several
other dive operators. When asked why, he said, “The bay’s a disaster. Most
of the coral’s gone, the visibility is bad and there are few fish.” In mid-1995
there were no dive operations in Discovery Bay other than those associated
with the DBML of the University of the West Indies. The laboratory has
facilities for visiting scientists and students; hence, it could be considered as
a contributor to ‘scientific tourism’ as well as the economy of Discovery Bay.
There are far fewer tourists in Discovery Bay than in more popular spots
on the north coast such as Montego Bay, Runaway Bay and Ocho Rios.
Tourists are usually seen through the windows of rental cars, minibuses, and
buses, as they speed along the north coast highway on their way to other
destinations. Some of the tours, however, stop at local attractions such as
Columbus Park, a free, open air museum sponsored by Kaiser Jamaica, with
several souvenir stands and a beautiful view of Discovery Bay. Other tourist
stops include Green Grotto, limestone caves to the east of town reputed to
have been a hiding place for the Spanish as they were escaping the island in
the mid-17th Century. Puerto Seco Beach, also sponsored by Kaiser, is on
the coast, adjacent to the business center, but few tourists use its facilities.
On weekends it is crowded with local youngsters and adults, enjoying the
sandy beach and shallow waters.
Trap fishing. Traps used by the Discovery Bay trap fishers are of the
Antillean trap type: Z-shaped, approximately 5-ft long, 4-ft wide, and 2-ft
deep wooden frame, covered with a mesh of galvanized wire (Munro 1973).
According to Sary (1995) 34 of the approximately 75 active fishers in
Discovery Bay are trap fishers, deploying some 285 traps, most of which (54
percent) use 1.25" mesh. Forty-two percent of the traps use the recommended
1.5" mesh, and only 4 percent use 1" mesh. Most trap fishers (19) use their
own small (<7 m) wooden unmotorized boats. Two use small wooden
motorized vessels; seven fishers deploy their traps from larger (>8 m)
motorized fiberglass boats. Six of the trap fishers do not own a vessel and
152 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
either rent a boat or go out with other fishers. There is usually only one fisher
associated with a fish trap operation. However, crews of two or three were
observed on the larger, fiberglass vessels.
Of 332 fish trap sets with known location, 84 percent were located on
the fore reef slope at depths between 8 and 32 m. Eight percent were located
inside the bay between one and 24-m deep, and another 8 percent were located
close to the ship channel at depths between five and 12 m. Traps are left in the
water for a mean of 3.5 days (Sary 1995). It is interesting to note that fishers
say they set their traps between 20 and 30 m to keep them out of the diving
range of spear fishers, who they blame for theft of fish. The water is so clear
that they can be seen from the surface, thus eliminating the need for marker
buoys which could facilitate theft by other boats (Sary 1995). Some trap
fishers use a 1-ft square box with a glass or plexiglass bottom to view the
contents of their traps through the surface water.
Sary’s (1995) research indicates that most of the trap fishers are part-
time, with other sources of income. About one-fourth work part of the year at
the Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite company, one-fourth are involved somehow in
the tourist industry, and the other half are either self-employed tradesmen or
retired (most are over 50 years of age).
Spear fishing. There are some 21 spear fishers who live in Discovery
Bay. Spear fishers from other areas such as Trelawny Parish, Montego Bay
are reported to come to fish along traditional Discovery Bay fishing grounds
due to their recent displacement by the Montego Bay Marine Park sanctuary.
In return for a portion of the catch, vehicle owners transport the spear fishers
to the Discovery Bay area. One Old Folly resident said that on very calm
days she has seen as many as 35-40 spear fishers off the coast, just west of
Discovery Bay.12
Spear fishers use face masks with snorkel, swim fins, and a homemade
or store bought spear gun. Spears used are about 75 cm long and 8 to 9 mm
in diameter. They are made of steel and are not barbed. Fishers say the barbs
can cause a spear to curve in the water. Face plates of the mask are cleaned
with seawater and the leaves from a bush called the soap tree. Spear fishing
is usually conducted in the morning, before the wind picks up. Local divers
enter the water about one to 1.5 km to the east or west of the mouth of the bay
and swim over the reefs along the shore searching for fish. Sometimes they
swim back to the mouth of the bay, sometimes to the other side of the bay,
depending on catch. If they have to swim to the other side of the bay, they go
to the highway and try to get a ride back to their home beach. They usually
spend three to four hours searching for fish.
Hook and line. Sixteen fishers are identified as hook and line fishers
although many trap fishers troll a baited line while sailing to their traps with
hopes of catching something. There are two types of hook and line fishing.
There is fishing in the deep, out past the reef in 200 to 300 fathoms of water,
and fishing in the shallows of the bay and along the reef. Line fishing outside
the bay is conducted from about five miles to the west to four miles to the
east. Distance fished is limited by technology and weather. Informants said
that even non-motorized boats fish these limits.
Hook and line fishing in the bay takes place either during nighttime or
during the day. Fishing is conducted from small, mostly unmotorized, wooden
vessels. Crew size is usually one, but sometimes two line fishers share a
boat. The fishers use a weighted handline with up to eight hooks attached.
The time of day the fishing is conducted depends on the target species. Night
fishers use lights and direct their efforts at goggle eye (big eye scad), snappers,
groupers, jack and herrings. During moonless nights they especially target
goggle eye, using a light to attract them. During moonlit nights they target
balarton (Priacanthidae) and moonshine conga (Apogonidae).13 They
frequently fish by the Kaiser pier and out by the channel lights. During the
day, in the shallows, conga tony (Holocentridae), barracuda and longjaw
(Tylosurus crocodilus) are the targets. Parrotfish are also fished during the
day, especially when the sun is bright and the winds have started blowing.
Parrotfish are captured on a hook baited with soldier crab (the hermit crab).
Sometimes the goggle eye is used for bait fishing in the shallow water.
Many fishers who are going to pull their traps troll a goggle eye on a hook for
barracuda or kingfish. Additionally, some shallow water hook and line fishers
use chum to attract fish. Soldier crab is mashed on a stone which is dropped
to the bottom. The smell on the rock attracts fish (especially parrotfish, also
snapper and yellowtail snapper). Another technique used is to mash-up the
crab with sand and throw the sand where you plan to fish. It also attracts
parrotfish. Cooked rice can be used as chum for both goggle eye and balarton.
Fishing from the deep is usually conducted between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m.
The fisher departs before sunrise and stays until the winds pick-up, usually
between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. Most, but not all of the deep-water fishers use
small outboard motors (10-20 HP) on their wooden boats. Crew size is usually
one, but sometimes two. Fish caught are satin (Lutjanidae), silk (Lutjanidae),
wrenchmen (blackfin snapper), day grouper, amberjack, barracuda, and
kingfish.
Most deep-water fishers use a weighted line with eight hooks. Length
of leader and distance apart vary between fishers, but leaders are usually one
to two feet in length and strung far enough apart to prevent tangling (e.g., 15
to 36 inches apart). When targeting barracuda and kingfish, a steel leader is
154 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
used. The weight usually rests on the bottom. One or more lines, attached to
a white styrofoam float are set. Distance between lines depends on the weather.
Goggle eye is the preferred bait.
Net fishing. There are five fishers who deploy gill nets in Discovery
Bay. The nets used (2.5" mesh) are between 100 and 200 ft long and 50 mesh
deep (about 10 feet deep). Target fish are all the reef fish being caught. The
nets are set out on the
slope area, the seaside
of the fore reef, just Table 7. Catch composition in
beyond the reef crest, percent landed by family.
and attached to the
bottom by tying them to
the coral or other rocks. Family 1990 1991 1992
Fish are then scared
into the nets by several Scaridae 36.2 42.7 41.1
helpers who dive into Acanthuridae 13.0 12.9 11.7
the water making some Misc. 9.9 8.4 8.5
kind of a commotion, Holocentridae 8.8 6.8 3.9
swimming around and Pomadasydae 5.3 5.1 4.0
beating the water. At Serranidae 5.0 4.9 5.5
Old Folly, nets are Lutjanidae 3.6 3.0 2.4
operated by ex-spear Clupeidae 3.2 2.8 1.2
fishers who have Carangidae 2.9 2.3 2.3
experience diving Mullidae 2.6 1.6 1.8
around fish. The nets Crustacea 1.9 1.4 5.6
used (2.5” mesh) are Muraenidae 1.4 1.4 1.8
between 100 and 200 ft Mollusca 1.2 1.3 1.6
long and 50 mesh deep Priacanthidae 1.0 1.2 2.0
(about 10 ft deep). Gerridae 0.8 1.2 0.3
Target fish are all the Diodontidae 0.8 0.8 1.5
reef fish being caught. Ostracidae 0.7 0.7 0.9
Pomacentridae 0.6 0.6 0.7
Important target Monacanthridae 0.6 0.5 1.4
species. Catch Balistidae 0.2 0.5 3.2
composition, in terms Scombridae 0.0 0.1 0.3
of percent landed by
family for the years Source: 1990 and 1991 data are derived
1990 through 1992, can from Picu-Gill et al. (1991); 1992 data from
be found in Table 7. Sandeman and Woodley (1994).
Catch composition
Coastal Resources Center - 155
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
All fish landed is sold or used for home consumption. Eighty-three percent
go to retail higglers (the term used for traders), and 58 percent sell direct to
the general public. About half the fishers sell to the same set of higglers
(average of 3.5 higglers that each fisher deals with regularly). In Discovery
Bay, demand is so high and landings so low, that customers (some purchase
for restaurants, etc., many are individual consumers) wait on the beach to
purchase fish directly from the fishers. Fish that are not sold directly on the
beach are carried by the fisher to customers in the neighborhood. The current
situation differs markedly from that reported by one elderly fisher for the
1940s. He said that there were so many fish that buyers used to come to
Discovery Bay from Brown’s Town. At that time, they had to land their
catches early in the morning to sell them to buyers who wanted to get back
inland before the heat of the day.
There are also some fish distributed free, on what appears to be a
reciprocal basis. Someone always helps pull/push the fishers’ boats ashore.
The boats are relatively heavy, plank built or dugout, and wooden log rollers
are used to roll the boat from the water up on the beach. It takes a minimum
of two people to do this, but there are usually three or four men at the landing
(hangers-on, fishers who have already landed, etc.) who are willing to help.
They actually jump up as a boat comes in, saying they should go help. Some
of the hangers-on receive a small fish in exchange for their help–not every
time, but it seems that a debt accumulates and a fisher gives a fish, sometimes
only a few left over baitfish (e.g., goggle eye).
REEF GOVERNANCE
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE
While governance of a natural resource is most frequently associated
with formal, official government regulations, it is the community of resource
users who exercise the most direct control over the resource and who, in their
perception, have the most to gain or lose from changes in availability. Their
perceptions of the resource as well as the ecological knowledge they have
gained from generations of interaction with and dependence on the resource
have a direct influence on their resource related behavior. Ecological
knowledge of users is a factor increasingly recognized as both influencing
receptivity to and providing information significant for governance (Wilson
et al. 1994; White et al. 1994; Ruddle 1994; Johannes 1981), use rights and
actual management efforts (traditional and/or official), if any.
non-fishers. Although fish dealers and consumers know many types, their
knowledge does not equal that of the fishers, and they frequently refer to the
types using higher level (or more general, or more inclusive) taxonomic
categories. If a number of species manifest similar culinary attributes, the
dealer and consumer need not refer to them by specific type (e.g., hammerhead
shark) but need only refer to them in terms of a more general category (e.g.,
shark). As will be seen below, these general principles are reflected in the
folk taxonomy of fish in Discovery Bay.
The more general categories in a folk taxonomy also function to facilitate
learning and memory. They cluster types which share some features in
common into groups, and the name of the group, which elicits in memory the
features shared in common, also acts as a key, or mnemonic device for
stimulating recall of the specific types. Once again using the ‘shark’ example,
a child probably learns the term ‘shark’ first,15 then learns that there are other
types of shark. In this case, the superordinate category functions to organize
the complexity of more specific categories in the taxonomy. Both of these
processes (simplification of complexity where details are not needed and
organization of complexity to facilitate learning of the details) appear to be
reflected in the folk taxonomy of aquatic organisms used by the fishers of
Discovery Bay.
From this point forward, certain conventions will be adhered to with
respect to terminology used in describing the folk taxonomy of the fishers of
Discovery Bay. Levels in a taxonomy will be referred to as ranks. Shark is a
taxon at a more inclusive rank than the taxa hammerhead shark and nurse
shark. The term ‘shark’ refers to more organisms than the term ‘hammerhead
shark,’ hence, it is considered more inclusive. The high degree of similarity
between folk taxonomies and scientific taxonomies has led anthropologists
to use many of the same terms as biologists in describing the structure of folk
taxonomies (Berlin 1992). For example, anthropologists use terms like
‘generic rank’ and ‘specific rank.’ These are not always coterminous with the
biologist’s application of the terms because folk taxonomies have fewer ranks;16
hence, the terms will be modified by the term ‘folk’ in this chapter. When
referring to the generic rank in a folk taxonomy, it will be labeled ‘folk generic,’
etc.
It only takes a quick glance at the folk taxonomy in Appendix I to see
that the parrotfish (Scaridae) are distinguished by a large number of named
taxa. This probably reflects their growing importance in the catch as other
types targeted by fishers have been heavily over fished (Clemetson 1992).
The folk generic taxon parrotfish will thus be used to illustrate some of the
salient aspects of the folk taxonomy of the fishers of Discovery Bay. First,
and most obvious, there are 25 distinct terms used to label the 13 species
160 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
perception among fishers that spear fishers are responsible for declining stocks
which is based on the belief that “spear fishing frightens fish; spear men take
the ‘fine fish’ (very small fish) as well as the ‘breeders’ (larger parrotfish);
night spearing is destructive because it takes unfair advantage of sleeping
fish; and finally, spearmen are notorious for stealing from pots.”
The in-depth interviews conducted in mid-1995 provide some additional
beliefs, as well as duplicate some of the earlier perceptions. Perceptions of
pollution as a problem was one of the first points mentioned by over one half
of the fishers interviewed. They all mentioned pollution from the Kaiser
Bauxite plant. They said that you can see the reddish bauxite dust in the
water and all around the plant. They also said that some of the bauxite carrying
ships drop oil in the bay, and you can see the dead fish afterwards. They also
noted that pollution makes the fish go away. One fisher said that the bauxite
dust in the water kills the moss and algae that the fish feed on and fills little
holes where fry used to live. Several of the fishers concerned with pollution
also blamed declining stocks on pollution from the tourist villas, some of
which allegedly send raw sewage into the bay.
Over one half of the fishers also blamed declines on spear fishers and
other divers, demonstrating continuity in a perception noted by Van Barneveld
(1991). These non-spear fishers feel that spear fishers take any size fish,
even the very small, and more importantly, “scare the fish away.” They feel
that the movement of the spear fishers (and one informant also blamed tourist
divers and DBML scientists) disturbs traditional daily movement patterns,
feeding and resting areas of the fish. The fish, as a result, stay away.
Additionally, they note that there are now spear fishers from other areas such
as Trelawny Parish, Montego Bay coming to fish in and around Discovery
Bay. One elderly hook and line fisher blamed tourists for introducing spear
fishing to Discovery Bay.
The blasting of the channel for access to the Kaiser Bauxite pier was
perceived by several fishers as destroying areas where the fish used to rest.
One elderly fisher said the blasting both killed and frightened fish away; that
the catch dropped after the opening of the channel. This same fisher noted
that hurricanes killed many fish and disturbed their traditional movement areas
(feeding, sleeping, etc.). He noted that after hurricane Gilbert in 1988 the
fish continued to decrease and never really came back. In contrast, he noted
that a hurricane in the 1940s seemed to increase the catch. According to him,
Gilbert killed small fish, blowing them onshore, and hurt the coral. Supporting
this perception of hurricane Gilbert as a potential factor,17 another fisher noted
that, “before 1988 there was very good fishing. Since 1988 its been decreasing.
Why? The coral reef where the fish used to live and sleep is no longer there.
Now sand and moss covers the area. Now the fish have nowhere to hide
164 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
GOVERNANCE
The ecology of the coral reefs of Discovery Bay is potentially influenced
by national, regional and local acts, ordinances, and/or other official and/or
unofficial regulatory measures. These measures, institutions created to
implement the measures and local response to governance are briefly
summarized in this section.
body that has the mandate to develop areas for various purposes (e.g., tourism
on the north coast). According to one informant, the UDC has the power to
sell land with planning authority. They review proposals and buyers, and
they can approve the proposal along with the land transfer. This same
informant said the UDC comes from Kingston and can do things without the
approval of the local council.
It also appears that the Ministry of Construction does not need local
approval for projects. An informant, actively involved in conservation issues,
provided the example of the shifting of the road at Pear Tree Bottom which
allegedly had no local level approval. It did not go through the local planning
authority, but the informant stated that they were required to post notice of
the project in the Post Office and some other locations. This was not done.
Currently, this informant was involved with other residents of Runaway Bay
in protesting the government’s decision to develop a ‘sanitary landfill’ behind
Pear Tree Bottom for garbage from Ocho Rios. Hence, it appears that local
government has little influence.
Ninety-five percent said this would happen if all fishers used larger mesh,
and 65 percent said they would only buy larger mesh in the future. When
asked why, they responded that small mesh kills too many juvenile fish, very
small fish are difficult to sell, the larger mesh pot is lighter and less seaweed
grows on it (Sary et al. 1991). Very provisional findings reported in 1991
indicated that larger and non-juvenile fish are being caught in the larger mesh
traps, and that while the mean number of fish caught per larger mesh trap
declined 27 percent, mean weight of individuals increased by 79 percent and
total catch (weight) per trap increased by 37 percent. The authors warned,
however, that these changes were possibly due to increased trap size, longer
soak times and the high number of snappers caught during the sampling period
(Sary et al. 1991).
In 1995, however, Sary writes that post-project evaluation of trap catches
conducted immediately after distribution of the larger mesh as well as three
years later indicated that both the fishers and the reef fish populations
benefitted from the increase in mesh size. Forty-two percent of the traps
deployed used the larger-sized mesh, and both the number of fish and the
total weight per trap increased. Further, larger and more valuable fish species
increased in the catches (Sary 1995); hence, the FIP two-for-one, increased
mesh size exchange project appears to have been a success. Its success can
also be gauged by the fact that the Alloa Fishermen’s Association was
successfully selling the larger-sized mesh in June 1995.
that tourist activities which support their businesses are related to the health
of the environment; hence, both organizations are environmentally conscious,
and are somewhat involved in parish-level conservation activities.
on spiny lobster was introduced, Espeut and Grant (1990) wrote that market
supply dropped during the closure, but fishers still sold lobster openly on the
beach and public restaurants still had lobster on the menu. They went on to
suggest that such difficulty in prohibiting the catch of a single species during
a closed season of 91 days suggests that management will not be easy.
That part of the problem might have been a failure to make all fishers
aware of the regulation was suggested by Van Barneveld (1992), who reported
that only 58 percent of the fishers she interviewed in Discovery Bay had
knowledge of the lobster season prior to her fishers’ education program. Van
Barneveld (1991), however, writes that there is little enforcement and very
low penalties. Even when a violation is reported, it is difficult to prosecute.
One informant reported a case where a government inspector, on another
mission, observed a pile of fresh lobster in a Discovery Bay villa during the
closed lobster season in 1994. He reported the violation, and the maid who
bought it and the fisher were charged. The maid pleaded guilty and was
fined. The fisher that she identified pleaded not guilty and his case was ‘put
back.’ Its been ‘called-up’ several times since, but did not come before the
court. Each time the maid had to be called as a witness, but the case was not
heard because of alleged back-ups in the court system. Finally, few fishers
appear to respect the licensing system. Espeut (1992) suggests that this is
evidenced by the fact that many never obtain one. Of 193 fishers in his South
Coast sample, only 78 percent claimed to ever have one while only 8 percent
claimed to have one currently valid. He suggests that enforcement of fishery
regulations suffers due to inadequate manpower.
CONCLUSIONS
The coral reefs and fishes of Discovery Bay have been significantly
reduced over the past few decades by both a combination of and interaction
of human and natural factors (Hughes 1994). Today, there is only limited
tourist activity in comparison to other north coast towns like Ocho Rios or
Runaway Bay. Most only pass through Discovery Bay on their way to the
other, more developed resort towns. Tourism, however, is an important
component of the town’s economy, and it may grow in the future, placing
strain on local infrastructure as has happened in towns like Ocho Rios. Given
the problems Ocho Rios is facing today (cf. Shaw 1995) in light of the
application of the Beach Control Act in 1966 (see Appendix II), one wonders
if regulations to protect Discovery Bay from the potential negative impacts
of such development would or could be enforced. Tourism is one of the
NOTES
1. There is conflicting information in the literature concerning changes
in the size of the fishing industry. Clementson (1992:108) writes that there
has been a 55 percent reduction in effort. This figure appears to be derived
from a table on page 107 of her report where she lists 2,137 total boats for
1981 and 963 for 1990. But on page 15 of the same report, she says an
estimated total of 1,218 boats were actively fishing the sampling areas, of
which 260 were interviewed. Clementson’s report focuses only on the south
coast coral reef fishery, but Espeut (personal communication, 1995) maintains
that there has been no reduction, and in fact an increase in the size of this
fishery.
2. The Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIJ 1995) reported that the Fishery
Division made an effort to register fishing vessels and license fishers in St.
Catherines, Clarendon, St. Ann, St. Mary and sections of St. James Parishes.
In the parishes listed they licensed 4,451 fishers and 1,006 boats. This was
learned in the final few days of field work, and several attempts to obtain this
information, by parish, from the Fishery Division by telephone failed.
9. Yearly number of births was sufficient in St. Ann Parish (over 3,000)
to have confidence in the yearly infant mortality rates.
10. The person responsible for inspecting tourist villas indicated that a
significant number never bother to register and get licensed. The number
provided in the text is his estimate.
11. Three vessel counts, on different days, were made at each of the two
fishing beaches at times when all vessels would likely be on the beach. At
one of the landing sites (Top Beach), several of the larger fiberglass vessels
were anchored offshore. Since motors were removed from beached vessels,
it was impossible to determine exact percentage of motorized vessels. Sary
(1995) reports that 32 percent of the vessels owned by trap fishers are
motorized.
18. Peter Espeut’s (1992, 1994) surveys conducted on the south coast
and in Negril, on the west coast of Jamaica, can be used to illustrate the extreme
variation that exists. South coast fishers, when asked if it were possible to
abuse the sea so that it would produce less, 52 percent said yes, 48 percent,
no. This varied from beach to beach with a low of 37 percent to a high of 62
percent saying it was possible. A limited choice (true or false) set of questions
concerning factors reducing catch resulted in the distribution in Table A3.
The range column in the above table indicates the range of variation
across different fishing beaches. This question was followed with asking if
reductions were the fault of the fish or the fishers. Twenty-nine percent said
the fish (range 0-61 percent), 58 percent the fishers (range 21-71 percent) and
no response from 13 percent (range 5-60 percent). Clearly, there is a wide
range of variation in fishers’ perceptions of factors influencing the fishery.
19. A brief, recent example can be used to illustrate this problem. While
collecting information concerning species and methods in Discovery Bay, I
was interviewing an individual fisher recommended by scientists at DBML.
They had very positive interaction with this individual, and he was a
cooperative, elderly, knowledgeable fisher. He mentioned a species caught
in a beach seine, and I asked him why beach seines were no longer used. He
said the fishers no longer used them because they knew that they took
everything, small fish and shellfish, harming the resource. An interviewer
with little time and the ‘politically correct’ perception of the traditional fisher
as a conservationist would have probably recorded this gemstone of
information and written it in a report (hopefully noting that it was obtained
from one, highly recommended fisher, who had a lot of contact with the marine
laboratory personnel). The present author, a skeptic, both with regard to the
‘fisher as conservationist’ and the representativeness of a fisher who has had
extensive contact with marine scientists, and comes highly recommended,
however, continued to probe concerning other possible reasons for the end of
beach seining. After a bit of probing, the fisher noted that there was an
economic reason. The owners of beach seines used to be ‘rich men’ who
hired labor to set and pull the net. He said that the fish caught today are so
few and small, and worth so little that fishers would no longer hire on as labor
for the small amount of income they would receive; hence, the demise of the
178 - Coastal Resources Center
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
20. It is obvious, but often forgotten, that fishers’ activities are difficult
to observe. They take place at sea (for the most part), and landings can be
made at many places along the coast. Further, illegal catches can be hidden
in sacks and carried off the boat along with innocent sacks filled with gear,
spare clothing, fish for home consumption, etc. that almost all fishers carry.
21. For example, Espeut (1992) writes that although the fishers he
interviewed on the south coast of Jamaica like fishing, some 41 percent said
they would change occupation if a good alternative were available. This
varied from port to port, with a low of 20 percent and a high of 60 percent
saying they would switch from fishing. However, only 29 percent wanted
their children to become fishers. This also varied from almost three quarters
at Port Morant to only 18 percent at Greenwich Farm. This wide range of
inter-community (and as the percentages suggest, intra-community) variability
Coastal Resources Center - 179
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
APPENDIX I TO CHAPTER 4
FOLK TAXONOMY
fish [fish]
ajargo Diodontidae Diodon holocanthus balloonfish
ajargo Diodontidae D. Hystrix porcupinefish
angelfish Pomacanthidae Holacanthus bermudensi blue angel
angelfish Pomacanthidae H. Ciliarsis queen angel
angelfish Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus arcuatus gray angelfish
angelfish Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus paru french angelfish
bad lucks Serranidae Hypoplectrus aberrans yellow-belly hamlet
bad lucks Serranidae H. guttavarius shy hamlet
bad lucks Serranidae H. indigo indigo hamlet
bad lucks Serranidae H. puella barred hamlet
bad lucks Serranidae H. unicolor butter hamlet
bad lucks Serranidae H. sp. masked hamlet
bad lucks Serranidae H. nigricans black hamlet
bad lucks Serranidae H. gemma blue hamlet
balarton /balatan/ Priacanthidae Priacanthus arenatus bigeye
balarton Priacanthidae Priacanthus cruentatus glasseye snapper
banana grunt Pomadasyidae Haemulon chrysargyreum, H. striatum
smallmouth and striped grunt
banana grunt Pomadasyidae Haemulon flavolineatum french grunt
barra Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda barracuda
barracuda waitin boy Labridae Clepticus parrai creole wrasse
black doctorfish Acanthuridae Acanthurus chirugus doctorfish
blackjack Carangidae Caranx ruber [turns black when caught] bar jack
black parrot Scaridae Sparisome aurofrenatum [adult] redband
parrotfish
black thicklip Pomadasyidae Anisotremus surinamensis black margate
black snapper Serranidae Hypoplectrus nigricans black hamlet
blacktail Pomadasyidae Haemulon carbonarium caesar grunt
blisterside Scaridae Sparisoma aurofrenatum [supermale] redband
parrotfish
Other
APPENDIX II TO CHAPTER 4
The following is a copy of the text of the Beach Control Act as applied
to Ocho Rios.
Order
(under section 7)
THE BEACH CONTROL (PROTECTED AREA) (OCHO RIOS) ORDER, 1966
1. This Order may be cited as the Beach Control (Protected Area) (Ocho
Rios) Order, 1966.
2. That part of the foreshore and of the floor of the sea within the limits
set out in the Schedule, together with the water lying on such part of the floor
of the sea, is hereby declared to be a protected area for the purposes of the Act
and is hereinafter in this Order referred to as the protected area.
(d) water skiing, except in such parts of the protected area as may be
designated by the Authority as water skiing areas;
(e) the dredging or disturbance in any way of the floor of the sea;
(f) the destruction or removal of any treasure or artefact from the floor
of the sea.
Schedule (Paragraph 2)
Activities: The training sessions, held at the St. Ann Parish Church Hall
in St. Ann’s Bay, consisted of brief presentations, including slide shows and
videos, followed by discussions. Expertise was provided by participating
organizations as well as the VOCA volunteer, Dr. Nelson Marshall. Field
trips hosted by developers were made to three major coastal resort
developments–Pear Tree Bottom, Drax Hall, and Oracabessa–each with a
very different approach to resort development. A visit to the Hofstra Marine
Laboratory gave participants an opportunity to view and learn about a variety
of living marine species in seawater aquaria.
IMMEDIATE NEEDS
- Initiation of Coastal Zone Management plans, area by area, with broad input
combining local and national expertise and interests.
- Establishment of conservation areas to protect coastal and marine ecosystems
such as wetlands, riparian areas, and coral reefs.
- A moratorium on large-scale coastal developments until zoning for
conservation areas is completed.
Coastal Resources Center - 191
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
INTERMEDIATE NEEDS
- Limits to the size and number of all future coastal resort developments,
based on land use needs and tourism carrying capacity.
- Support and incentives for small-scale, community-based tourism enterprises
rather than large-scale developments.
- Tax breaks and other incentives for conservation of natural areas.
- Waste- and sewage disposal standards for all sectors (government, industry,
residential, etc.), and comprehensive sewage treatment plans and systems for
all human settlements.
- Improved system of political representation.
ONGOING/LONG-TERM NEEDS
- A comprehensive land use policy and plan to provide for the sustainable use
of Jamaica’s natural resources.
- More emphasis on preserving natural features and scenery of coastline in
development planning and approval process.
- Property taxes to be reinvested in protected area management.
- Continued monitoring of coastal water quality.
- Increased research, monitoring and management of land-based impacts on
marine and coastal environments.
- Long-term restoration programs for damaged coastal areas.
- Reduced rate of population growth.
REFERENCES CITED
Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven. 1973 General principles
of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist
75(1):214-242.
Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven. 1966. Folk taxonomies
and biological classification. Science 154:273-275.
Bohlke, J.E. and C.C.G. Chaplin. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and
Adjacent Tropical Waters. Wynnewood, PA: Livingston Publishing Company.
Espeut, P. 1992. Fishing for Finfish in Belize and the South Coast of
Jamaica. Mona, Jamaica: ISER, UWI-Mona.
JTB, Jamaica Tourist Board. 1995. Jamaica: Hotels and Guest Houses
Winter Rates, Dec. 15 1994 - April 30 1995. Kingston: Jamaica Tourist Board.
Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore
in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Munro, J.L. 1983. Coral reef fish and fisheries of the Caribbean Sea.
(reprint of a 1973 paper) in (Munro, J.L., Ed.) Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery
Resources. pp. 1-9. Manila: ICLARM.
Coastal Resources Center - 195
Aspects of the Human Ecology of the Coral Reefs of Discovery Bay
PIJ and SIJ, Planning and Statistical Institutes of Jamaica. 1994. Jamaica
Survey of Living Conditions. Kingston: PIJ and SIJ.
White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortes. 1994. The need for
community based coral reef management. in (White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y.
Renard, and L. Cortes) Collaborative and Community Based Management of
Coral Reefs. pp. 1-8. West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.