- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Brad E. Erisman, Gustavo A. Paredes, Tomas Plomozo-Lugo, Juan J. Cota-Nieto, Philip A. Hastings, Octavio Aburto-Oropeza, Spatial structure of commercial marine fisheries in Northwest Mexico, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 68, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 564–571, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsq179
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
The spatial structure of commercial marine fisheries in Northwest (NW) Mexico was investigated using official landings data from 39 local fisheries offices in the region. Multivariate analyses revealed a clear spatial pattern in fishing activities, in which there was a positive linear relationship between the species composition of fisheries offices and both latitude and longitude. Fisheries offices formed eight distinct clusters organized by similarities in geographic location, species-group composition, and coastal habitat type. Five of the eight clusters comprised offices from the same geographic region and coastal ecosystem, and the other three clusters contained the largest industrial fishing ports in NW Mexico. The results of this study suggest that NW Mexico would benefit from an ecosystem-based management framework that focuses on the direct, spatial connection that exists between coastal habitats, harvested species groups, and fishing activities within each region. Subdivision into five separate regions is proposed, with management attention paid specially to the few industrialized ports whose fishing capacities and geographic ranges of fishing far exceed the other areas.Erisman, B. E., Paredes, G. A., Plomozo-Lugo, T., Cota-Nieto, J. J., Hastings, P. A., and Aburto-Oropeza, O. 2011. Spatial structure of commercial marine fisheries in Northwest Mexico. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: .
Introduction
Northwest (NW) Mexico, which ranges from Tijuana south to Nayarit and includes the Gulf of California and the Pacific coast of the Baja California peninsula, is 1 of 62 major marine provinces of the world, is recognized as a biodiversity hotspot for tropical reef conservation, and accounts for 50–70% of the annual fisheries production in Mexico (Roberts et al., 2002; OECD, 2006; Spalding et al., 2007). The rapid growth of commercial, recreational, and artisanal fisheries in the region over the past few decades has resulted in the overexploitation of most large fisheries, the collapse of high-trophic-level fisheries, and the widespread degradation of marine ecosystems and marine foodwebs (DOF, 2004a, b; Sala et al., 2004; Velarde et al., 2004). The recovery of the ecosystems and the creation of sustainable fisheries in NW Mexico are impeded by problems with intergovernmental coordination, conflict among sectors, limited institutional capacity, lack of enforcement and compliance, policies based on single species and stocks, poor social-management frameworks, and the large geographic scale of management (Salas et al., 2007; Ezcurra et al., 2009; Cinti et al., 2010).
Scientists, regional non-governmental organizations, and the Mexican federal government have responded to these problems by promoting efforts that utilize ecosystem-based management (EBM) approaches to define conservation and fishery-management priorities for the region. Briefly, marine EBM incorporates the interactions within and among ecosystem components and multiple human activities, at different spatial and temporal scales, into management decisions that seek to protect the structure, function, and key processes of marine ecosystems, while sustaining the services they provide to mankind (FAO, 2005; UNEP, 2006; Leslie and McLeod, 2007). Several studies have characterized critical habitats, complex ecosystems, and ecological processes and defined distinct ecoregions within NW Mexico, creating a spatial template for EBM in the region (Sala et al., 2002; Carvajal et al., 2004; Enriquez-Andrade et al., 2005; Ulloa et al., 2006; Spalding et al., 2007; Lara-Lara et al., 2008). Others have investigated interactions among and within social, ecological, and economic systems of fisheries in NW Mexico at different spatial and temporal scales (Leslie et al., 2009; Cinti et al., 2010; Cisneros-Mata, 2010; Moreno-Báez et al., 2010). EBM has been initiated at the scale of local communities in relation to the management of small-scale fisheries and marine reserves (Cudney-Bueno et al., 2009; Ezcurra et al., 2009). Finally, a new fisheries law was passed in Mexico to establish and define principles for promoting and regulating the management and sustainable use of fisheries by taking into account social, technological, biological, and environmental aspects (OECD, 2006). That law seeks to improve the administration of fisheries resources through a focus on management plans for single species or species groups, e.g. sea basses and groupers, and regional management plans for certain coastal and marine areas. Although both are necessary components of EBM, the scale at which species- and regional-level management plans will be implemented and will interact has yet to be determined.
Understanding how the spatial scale of fishing activities coincides with the geographic ranges of coastal habitats and harvested species is another critical step in successfully implementing EBM into the marine fisheries of NW Mexico. Such information will help to assess the impacts of fisheries on ecosystem structure and function, determine the proper spatial scale and the necessary level of interregional cooperation for management, and evaluate how different conservation and management policies may affect fishing economies (Wilson, 2006; Leslie and McLeod, 2007; Leslie et al., 2009). To this end, the current spatial structure of commercial marine fisheries within NW Mexico was investigated using official landings data from the local fisheries offices (LFOs) of the Mexican National Commission of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA).
Material and methods
There are 47 LFOs of CONAPESCA located within NW Mexico, collectively registering the landings of commercial capture fisheries from five states: Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Sinaloa, and Nayarit. They are located at major ports and important fishing communities, and provide the most detailed fisheries data available. A database that included monthly landings for 207 species groups of fish and invertebrates from all 47 LFOs was obtained from CONAPESCA headquarters in Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Mexico. Species groups were classified in the database by regional common name, which varied considerably in taxonomic specificity from a single species, e.g. huachinango (Pacific red snapper, Lutjanus peru) to a suite of species from the same genus, family, or class, e.g. burros (grunts), Haemulidae. Landings data from 39 LFOs and 123 species from 2001 to 2005 were used in the analyses (Figure 1). Data on monthly landings before 2001 were not available consistently over years or from LFOs, so were excluded. Eight LFOs were removed, because they registered landings only from inland freshwater bodies, or the landings of marine species were negligible. Freshwater and aquaculture species (n = 84) were also removed from the final dataset.
LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . | LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | ||||
1. Tijuana-Rosarito, BC | 165 | 36 | 2. Ensenada, BC | 53 849 | 61 |
3. San Quintín, BC | 982 | 48 | |||
4. El Rosario, BC | 1 227 | 43 | |||
5. Jesús María, BC | 565 | 44 | |||
6. Guerrero Negro, BCS | 907 | 55 | |||
7. Isla Cedros, BCS | 1 596 | 28 | |||
8. Bahía Asunción, BCS | 923 | 30 | |||
9. Bahía Tortugas, BCS | 1 361 | 46 | |||
10. Punta Abreojos, BCS | 938 | 43 | |||
18. Bahía de los Ángeles, BC | 567 | 49 | |||
Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | ||||
11. Adolfo L. Mateos, BCS | 7 437 | 67 | 14. Cabo San Lucas, BCS | 172 | 24 |
12. San Carlos, BCS | 32 578 | 75 | 38. Peñita de Jaltemba, NAY | 326 | 31 |
13. Puerto Cortés, BCS | 1 683 | 66 | 39. Cruz de Huanacaxtle, NAY | 579 | 40 |
15. La Paz, BCS | 1 969 | 65 | |||
16. Loreto, BCS | 538 | 47 | |||
17. Santa Rosalía, BCS | 14 101 | 70 | |||
Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | ||||
29. La Reforma, SIN | 1 823 | 30 | 32. Mazatlán, SIN | 90 805 | 73 |
30. Navolato, SIN | 1 972 | 41 | 37. San Blás, NAY | 3 844 | 60 |
31. Culiacán, SIN | 1 092 | 33 | |||
33. Escuinapa, SIN | 1 453 | 34 | |||
34. Tecuala, NAY | 1 167 | 34 | |||
35. Tuxpan, NAY | 2 386 | 19 | |||
36. Santiago Ixcuintla, NAY | 648 | 38 | |||
Cluster 7 | Cluster 8 | ||||
19. San Felipe, BC | 2 538 | 36 | 24. Guaymas, SON | 134 892 | 65 |
20. Golfo de Santa Clara, SON | 1 869 | 23 | 25. Huatabampo, SON | 40 302 | 57 |
21. Puerto Peñasco, SON | 4 920 | 48 | |||
22. Puerto Libertad, SON | 1 088 | 33 | |||
23. Bahía Kino, SON | 7 344 | 49 | |||
26. Los Mochis, SIN | 3 017 | 43 | |||
27. Topolobampo, SIN | 2 090 | 51 | |||
28. Guasave, SIN | 3 985 | 42 |
LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . | LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | ||||
1. Tijuana-Rosarito, BC | 165 | 36 | 2. Ensenada, BC | 53 849 | 61 |
3. San Quintín, BC | 982 | 48 | |||
4. El Rosario, BC | 1 227 | 43 | |||
5. Jesús María, BC | 565 | 44 | |||
6. Guerrero Negro, BCS | 907 | 55 | |||
7. Isla Cedros, BCS | 1 596 | 28 | |||
8. Bahía Asunción, BCS | 923 | 30 | |||
9. Bahía Tortugas, BCS | 1 361 | 46 | |||
10. Punta Abreojos, BCS | 938 | 43 | |||
18. Bahía de los Ángeles, BC | 567 | 49 | |||
Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | ||||
11. Adolfo L. Mateos, BCS | 7 437 | 67 | 14. Cabo San Lucas, BCS | 172 | 24 |
12. San Carlos, BCS | 32 578 | 75 | 38. Peñita de Jaltemba, NAY | 326 | 31 |
13. Puerto Cortés, BCS | 1 683 | 66 | 39. Cruz de Huanacaxtle, NAY | 579 | 40 |
15. La Paz, BCS | 1 969 | 65 | |||
16. Loreto, BCS | 538 | 47 | |||
17. Santa Rosalía, BCS | 14 101 | 70 | |||
Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | ||||
29. La Reforma, SIN | 1 823 | 30 | 32. Mazatlán, SIN | 90 805 | 73 |
30. Navolato, SIN | 1 972 | 41 | 37. San Blás, NAY | 3 844 | 60 |
31. Culiacán, SIN | 1 092 | 33 | |||
33. Escuinapa, SIN | 1 453 | 34 | |||
34. Tecuala, NAY | 1 167 | 34 | |||
35. Tuxpan, NAY | 2 386 | 19 | |||
36. Santiago Ixcuintla, NAY | 648 | 38 | |||
Cluster 7 | Cluster 8 | ||||
19. San Felipe, BC | 2 538 | 36 | 24. Guaymas, SON | 134 892 | 65 |
20. Golfo de Santa Clara, SON | 1 869 | 23 | 25. Huatabampo, SON | 40 302 | 57 |
21. Puerto Peñasco, SON | 4 920 | 48 | |||
22. Puerto Libertad, SON | 1 088 | 33 | |||
23. Bahía Kino, SON | 7 344 | 49 | |||
26. Los Mochis, SIN | 3 017 | 43 | |||
27. Topolobampo, SIN | 2 090 | 51 | |||
28. Guasave, SIN | 3 985 | 42 |
BC, Baja California; BCS, Baja California Sur; NAY, Nayarit; SIN, Sinaloa; SON, Sonora.
LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . | LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | ||||
1. Tijuana-Rosarito, BC | 165 | 36 | 2. Ensenada, BC | 53 849 | 61 |
3. San Quintín, BC | 982 | 48 | |||
4. El Rosario, BC | 1 227 | 43 | |||
5. Jesús María, BC | 565 | 44 | |||
6. Guerrero Negro, BCS | 907 | 55 | |||
7. Isla Cedros, BCS | 1 596 | 28 | |||
8. Bahía Asunción, BCS | 923 | 30 | |||
9. Bahía Tortugas, BCS | 1 361 | 46 | |||
10. Punta Abreojos, BCS | 938 | 43 | |||
18. Bahía de los Ángeles, BC | 567 | 49 | |||
Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | ||||
11. Adolfo L. Mateos, BCS | 7 437 | 67 | 14. Cabo San Lucas, BCS | 172 | 24 |
12. San Carlos, BCS | 32 578 | 75 | 38. Peñita de Jaltemba, NAY | 326 | 31 |
13. Puerto Cortés, BCS | 1 683 | 66 | 39. Cruz de Huanacaxtle, NAY | 579 | 40 |
15. La Paz, BCS | 1 969 | 65 | |||
16. Loreto, BCS | 538 | 47 | |||
17. Santa Rosalía, BCS | 14 101 | 70 | |||
Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | ||||
29. La Reforma, SIN | 1 823 | 30 | 32. Mazatlán, SIN | 90 805 | 73 |
30. Navolato, SIN | 1 972 | 41 | 37. San Blás, NAY | 3 844 | 60 |
31. Culiacán, SIN | 1 092 | 33 | |||
33. Escuinapa, SIN | 1 453 | 34 | |||
34. Tecuala, NAY | 1 167 | 34 | |||
35. Tuxpan, NAY | 2 386 | 19 | |||
36. Santiago Ixcuintla, NAY | 648 | 38 | |||
Cluster 7 | Cluster 8 | ||||
19. San Felipe, BC | 2 538 | 36 | 24. Guaymas, SON | 134 892 | 65 |
20. Golfo de Santa Clara, SON | 1 869 | 23 | 25. Huatabampo, SON | 40 302 | 57 |
21. Puerto Peñasco, SON | 4 920 | 48 | |||
22. Puerto Libertad, SON | 1 088 | 33 | |||
23. Bahía Kino, SON | 7 344 | 49 | |||
26. Los Mochis, SIN | 3 017 | 43 | |||
27. Topolobampo, SIN | 2 090 | 51 | |||
28. Guasave, SIN | 3 985 | 42 |
LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . | LFO . | Catch (t) . | Species (#) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | ||||
1. Tijuana-Rosarito, BC | 165 | 36 | 2. Ensenada, BC | 53 849 | 61 |
3. San Quintín, BC | 982 | 48 | |||
4. El Rosario, BC | 1 227 | 43 | |||
5. Jesús María, BC | 565 | 44 | |||
6. Guerrero Negro, BCS | 907 | 55 | |||
7. Isla Cedros, BCS | 1 596 | 28 | |||
8. Bahía Asunción, BCS | 923 | 30 | |||
9. Bahía Tortugas, BCS | 1 361 | 46 | |||
10. Punta Abreojos, BCS | 938 | 43 | |||
18. Bahía de los Ángeles, BC | 567 | 49 | |||
Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | ||||
11. Adolfo L. Mateos, BCS | 7 437 | 67 | 14. Cabo San Lucas, BCS | 172 | 24 |
12. San Carlos, BCS | 32 578 | 75 | 38. Peñita de Jaltemba, NAY | 326 | 31 |
13. Puerto Cortés, BCS | 1 683 | 66 | 39. Cruz de Huanacaxtle, NAY | 579 | 40 |
15. La Paz, BCS | 1 969 | 65 | |||
16. Loreto, BCS | 538 | 47 | |||
17. Santa Rosalía, BCS | 14 101 | 70 | |||
Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | ||||
29. La Reforma, SIN | 1 823 | 30 | 32. Mazatlán, SIN | 90 805 | 73 |
30. Navolato, SIN | 1 972 | 41 | 37. San Blás, NAY | 3 844 | 60 |
31. Culiacán, SIN | 1 092 | 33 | |||
33. Escuinapa, SIN | 1 453 | 34 | |||
34. Tecuala, NAY | 1 167 | 34 | |||
35. Tuxpan, NAY | 2 386 | 19 | |||
36. Santiago Ixcuintla, NAY | 648 | 38 | |||
Cluster 7 | Cluster 8 | ||||
19. San Felipe, BC | 2 538 | 36 | 24. Guaymas, SON | 134 892 | 65 |
20. Golfo de Santa Clara, SON | 1 869 | 23 | 25. Huatabampo, SON | 40 302 | 57 |
21. Puerto Peñasco, SON | 4 920 | 48 | |||
22. Puerto Libertad, SON | 1 088 | 33 | |||
23. Bahía Kino, SON | 7 344 | 49 | |||
26. Los Mochis, SIN | 3 017 | 43 | |||
27. Topolobampo, SIN | 2 090 | 51 | |||
28. Guasave, SIN | 3 985 | 42 |
BC, Baja California; BCS, Baja California Sur; NAY, Nayarit; SIN, Sinaloa; SON, Sonora.
Spatial analyses
Several types of multivariate analysis were used to examine the spatial patterns of marine fisheries within NW Mexico. First, a correspondence analysis (CANOCO v. 4.5 software; Ter Braak and Smilauer, 2002) was performed to assess the level of variability in landings volumes and catch compositions among the 39 LFOs and to identify any spatial structure in those data. A detrended correspondence analysis was run to select the appropriate multivariate analyses for that dataset. The effect of data transformation on the maximum length of the gradient (MLG) was tested using raw data, log-transformed (log10C + 1), and square-root transformations. Raw data were used for the final correspondence analysis, because the MLG was greater than three units (Ter Braak and Smilauer, 2002). Rare species were downweighted to improve the final ordination, which focused on the scaling of interspecies group distances (similarities) to show a more quantitative representation of the correspondence between species groups and LFOs in multivariate space. Species groups were arranged in multivariate space according to variations in their abundance among LFOs, in which distances between LFOs were used to indicate the degree of similarities in catch composition and landings. The Pearson rank correlation was used to test for a relationship between the final ordination scores of the LFOs with latitude or longitude.
Although a correspondence analysis can identify the existence of spatial structure in the data, it cannot define specific groups of LFOs per se. Therefore, a non-hierarchical cluster analysis (k-means analysis; Statistica v. 4.5) was performed using the same dataset to identify distinct clusters of LFOs. For this analysis, clusters are formed using an iterative process in which differences among groups at each step are maximized. This procedure was used to build collections of LFOs with the greatest similarity based on catch compositions, landings volumes, and within-cluster least variance.
Three procedures were performed to evaluate the performance of the k-means analysis. First, a pooled within-clusters, sum-of-squares distance (WK) was calculated to measure the quality of the partition of the data (Tibshirani et al., 2005). It uses the Euclidean distances within clusters to evaluate the quality of the partition of a known number of clusters. Second, a Krzanowski and Lai (KL) index was calculated to determine the optimum number of clusters to be used in the k-means analysis (Krzanowski and Lai, 1988). Finally, similarities among the clusters of LFOs, or fisheries regions, were plotted using a multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis to verify that clusters identified from the other analyses were meaningful.
Results
The fisheries of NW Mexico revealed a well-defined spatial structure with respect to the species composition of landings among LFOs, with the first and the second canonical axes of the correspondence analysis explaining 13.2 and 11.7% of the variability in landings volumes and catch compositions, respectively (Figure 2). The Euclidean distances among clusters were consistent with the actual geographic distances between regions. The arrangement of LFOs in multivariate space was transverse to axis 2, following a latitudinal pattern from temperate (positive values) to tropical waters (negative values) and a longitudinal (inverted) pattern from the Pacific coast of the Baja California peninsula (negative values) to coastlines of the Gulf of California (Figure 3). Specifically, the LFO scores along axis 2 showed a positive relationship with latitude (linear correlation, n = 39, r = 0.33, p = 0.04) and a negative relationship with longitude (linear correlation, n = 39, r= −0.61, p < 0.01).
Results of the k-means analysis supported the results of the correspondence analysis and identified eight distinct clusters of LFOs (Table 1). The use of eight clusters in the k-means analysis produced the highest quality partition of the data (WK = 3.73) and the second highest value for the KL index (1.4), whereas both seven and nine clusters showed a lower quality of partition (3.46 and 3.13, respectively) and KL index (0.2 and 0.6, respectively). The MDS plot of the eight-cluster similarity also revealed a pattern consistent with geographic location (Figure 4). The clusters were arranged in a discrete pattern and did not overlap, indicating that the final ordination and the number of clusters were meaningful.
The number of LFOs within each cluster ranged from one to ten, and most regions included only LFOs from the same geographic region. However, Bahía de los Ángeles clustered with LFOs from the north Pacific coast of Baja California, and Cabo San Lucas clustered with LFOs from Nayarit owing to significant overlaps in species-group composition. Also, three clusters (cluster 2: Ensenada; cluster 6: Mazatlán, San Blás; cluster 8: Guaymas, Huatabampo) were formed as a result of the high landings volumes recorded for a large number of species groups, which separated them from all other clusters of LFOs. Notably, those three clusters were much closer to each other in multivariate space than to the other five clusters.
Discussion
A direct connection exists between the spatial structure of commercial marine fisheries and the marine ecosystems of NW Mexico. Based on the landings data of harvested species groups, LFOs can be divided into distinct clusters characterized by similarities in traits related to geographic location and species composition. Moreover, the geographic range that defines five of the eight identified clusters of fisheries offices complements the geographic distribution of the primary coastal habitats of NW Mexico described in earlier conservation exercises. For example, the geographic distribution of mangroves, wetlands, rocky reefs, and soft seabed habitats recorded by Carvajal et al. (2004) and the ecoregions designated by Ulloa et al. (2006) and Lara-Lara et al. (2008) are similar in scale and location to fisheries regions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. This implies that the ecological setting influences harvesting patterns, or more specifically that fishers target the coastal habitats with which they are most familiar, generally those in proximity to where they live. Although the spatial depletion of harvested species has expanded significantly, most fishers still operate within a range smaller than the spatial scale established with our analyses, particularly because of the vessels and technologies used by most artisanal fisheries in the region (McGoodwin, 1979; Sala et al., 2004). Therefore, each of our identified fishery regions is essentially defined by the community structure of marine organisms that inhabit the coastal ecosystems of that region.
Seven of the 39 total LFOs did not cluster with LFOs of the same geographic region, and five of these LFOs formed three distinct clusters (cluster 2: Ensenada; cluster 6: Mazatlán, San Blás; cluster 8: Guaymas, Huatabampo) that were relatively close to each other but far from other clusters in multivariate space. This pattern probably emerged because commercial fishing enterprises based in those cities are more industrialized and operate at a much larger geographic and production scale than those in other fishing ports of NW Mexico. As a consequence, the highest landings volumes and the greatest number of targeted species groups are recorded in those five offices (Table 1). For example, large commercial fishing vessels, e.g. purse-seiners, trawlers, from Ensenada and Guaymas operate throughout the entire Gulf of California and beyond. Similarly, fishing enterprises from Guaymas set up seasonal fishing camps on many islands in the Gulf, and larger vessels make routine trips to each camp to collect and transport fish back to distribution plants several hundred kilometres away. The two other LFOs that did not cluster according to the geographic region were Bahía de los Ángeles and Cabo San Lucas. The LFO from Bahía de los Ángeles, which is located in the northern Gulf of California side of Baja California, clustered with LFOs from those of the Pacific coast of the Baja peninsula, because local fisheries target species groups present in both regions (Horn and Allen, 1978; Dawson et al., 2006). Similarly, Cabo San Lucas clustered with the two LFOs from Nayarit, because commercial fisheries in both regions target a suite of tropical species groups that are not common to the north (Hastings et al., 2010).
NW Mexico is currently managed as a single fisheries region by the Mexican government (OECD, 2006). The existence of the distinct fisheries regions identified here and the heterogeneity among them with respect to both ecological and socio-economic factors suggest that the spatial scale of management of NW Mexico is incompatible with the true scale under which commercial fisheries currently operate (see also Cisneros-Mata, 2010). We propose therefore that marine fisheries in NW Mexico be subdivided for management purposes into five geographically distinct regions comprising the largest clusters identified from our analyses but with a few small adjustments that will probably increase the feasibility of management (Figure 5). The regions we propose for consideration involve the inclusion of the largest industrial fishing ports within the fishing regions in which they are found. Ensenada (cluster 2) would be included in fishing region 1, Mazatlán and San Blás (cluster 6) would be included in fishing region 5, and Guaymas and Huatabampo (cluster 8) would be included in region 7. Although not included in our proposed arrangement of fisheries regions, we also suggest that consideration be given to moving Bahía de los Ángeles from region 1 to region 4 and Cabo San Lucas from region 3 to region 2, so that all fisheries regions would consist of geographically cohesive units.
Although some overlap exists about the harvest of a few pelagic species (e.g. yellowfin tuna, sardine, and anchovy), each fisheries region would then consist of a relatively distinct set of species groups and coastal habitats that are exploited by both small- and large-scale fisheries (Table 2). Therefore, we suggest that consideration be given to letting each fishery region institute a unique set of regulations designed to focus on species (Table 2) or areas, e.g. islands, marine reserves, watersheds, of high priority shared among the LFOs within that region. Following the philosophy of EBM, such an arrangement would facilitate more informative investigations that seek to identify the unique environmental, societal, and economic issues that each region currently faces. Specifically, such an arrangement would create a management framework capable of improving decision-making processes related to stock assessments, harvest quotas, catch shares, marine reserves, and other fisheries or conservation actions, by considering fishing activities, ecosystems, and harvested species all at the same relevant spatial scale. Similarly, a regional management system would hasten adaptive management action in relation to annual variations in stock sizes that are affected by El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles, climate change, and other environmental parameters. Ultimately, the arrangement would help to reduce uncertainty, facilitate changes in fishing behaviour, foster the development of regional co-management with fishers, and articulate cost–benefit scenarios of different management strategies (Levin et al., 2009; Cisneros-Mata, 2010).
. | Fishery region . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fleet type . | Region 1 . | Region 2 . | Region 3 . | Region 4 . | Region 5 . |
Artisanal fisheries (small-scale) | Whitefish | Sea basses and groupers | Red snapper | Corvinas and other croakers | Mullets |
Red lobster | Red and other snappers | Sharks and rays | Sharks and rays | Mojarras | |
Red urchin | Red and Caribe lobster | Billfish | Blue crab | Grunts | |
Billfish | Clams and oysters | Sierra | Catfish | ||
Sharks | Calico scallops | Rock scallop | Snook | ||
Jacks | Dorado | Blue crab | |||
Sharks and rays | Dorado | ||||
Jacks | Billfish | ||||
Industrial fisheries (large-scale) | Bluefin and yellowfin tuna | Giant squid | Mackerel | Blue and brown shrimp | Yellowfin tuna |
Sardine and anchovies | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Sardine and anchovies | White shrimp | |
Mackerel | White shrimp | Giant squid |
. | Fishery region . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fleet type . | Region 1 . | Region 2 . | Region 3 . | Region 4 . | Region 5 . |
Artisanal fisheries (small-scale) | Whitefish | Sea basses and groupers | Red snapper | Corvinas and other croakers | Mullets |
Red lobster | Red and other snappers | Sharks and rays | Sharks and rays | Mojarras | |
Red urchin | Red and Caribe lobster | Billfish | Blue crab | Grunts | |
Billfish | Clams and oysters | Sierra | Catfish | ||
Sharks | Calico scallops | Rock scallop | Snook | ||
Jacks | Dorado | Blue crab | |||
Sharks and rays | Dorado | ||||
Jacks | Billfish | ||||
Industrial fisheries (large-scale) | Bluefin and yellowfin tuna | Giant squid | Mackerel | Blue and brown shrimp | Yellowfin tuna |
Sardine and anchovies | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Sardine and anchovies | White shrimp | |
Mackerel | White shrimp | Giant squid |
. | Fishery region . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fleet type . | Region 1 . | Region 2 . | Region 3 . | Region 4 . | Region 5 . |
Artisanal fisheries (small-scale) | Whitefish | Sea basses and groupers | Red snapper | Corvinas and other croakers | Mullets |
Red lobster | Red and other snappers | Sharks and rays | Sharks and rays | Mojarras | |
Red urchin | Red and Caribe lobster | Billfish | Blue crab | Grunts | |
Billfish | Clams and oysters | Sierra | Catfish | ||
Sharks | Calico scallops | Rock scallop | Snook | ||
Jacks | Dorado | Blue crab | |||
Sharks and rays | Dorado | ||||
Jacks | Billfish | ||||
Industrial fisheries (large-scale) | Bluefin and yellowfin tuna | Giant squid | Mackerel | Blue and brown shrimp | Yellowfin tuna |
Sardine and anchovies | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Sardine and anchovies | White shrimp | |
Mackerel | White shrimp | Giant squid |
. | Fishery region . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fleet type . | Region 1 . | Region 2 . | Region 3 . | Region 4 . | Region 5 . |
Artisanal fisheries (small-scale) | Whitefish | Sea basses and groupers | Red snapper | Corvinas and other croakers | Mullets |
Red lobster | Red and other snappers | Sharks and rays | Sharks and rays | Mojarras | |
Red urchin | Red and Caribe lobster | Billfish | Blue crab | Grunts | |
Billfish | Clams and oysters | Sierra | Catfish | ||
Sharks | Calico scallops | Rock scallop | Snook | ||
Jacks | Dorado | Blue crab | |||
Sharks and rays | Dorado | ||||
Jacks | Billfish | ||||
Industrial fisheries (large-scale) | Bluefin and yellowfin tuna | Giant squid | Mackerel | Blue and brown shrimp | Yellowfin tuna |
Sardine and anchovies | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Skipjack and yellowfin tuna | Sardine and anchovies | White shrimp | |
Mackerel | White shrimp | Giant squid |
Although the creation of a regional management system is an important step towards enhancing fishery management and administration in Mexico, many challenges remain. First, the long-range capacities and pervasive fishing activities of the five industrialized fishing ports of Ensenada, Guaymas, Huatabampo, Mazatlán, and San Blás override the regional pattern of fishing prevalent in most areas of NW Mexico. Clearly, such activities would have to be restricted for the compliance and enforcement of regional fishing policies to be effective. That statement highlights a pervasive problem with the most widely used fishery-management tool for regulating access to marine resources in Mexico, the fishing-permit system (reviewed by Cinti et al., 2010). The system places legal fishing rights in the hands of permit-holders, businessmen who often are not closely linked with the fishing activity or fishing community and have few incentives to fish responsibly or to seek sustainable outcomes, because they rarely live within the region where their permits operate. Instituting legal rights for active resource users (fishers) rather than permit-holders may well be a way to control harvests locally and minimize intrusions from outside, which in turn should promote incentives for stakeholders to participate in management decisions, comply with fisheries regulations, and engage in stewardship of marine resources and coastal ecosystems. Such rights might include granting exclusive use or property rights to shares of fisheries within defined areas, effort units, or catch to individuals, groups of individuals, or communities. Such tools have yet to be implemented on a broader institutional level in Mexico, but they have shown promising results where attempted (Cudney-Bueno et al., 2009; Ezcurra et al., 2009).
There is also a clear need to create stronger connections between regional and species-specific management plans under the new fisheries law, because there are considerable harvest levels of important and threatened species within designated areas such as the Gulf's growing network of marine protected areas. Finally, the success of any proposed changes in fisheries-management policies will require significant improvements in the resolution, accuracy, and consistency of official landings data and statistics. Current Mexican fisheries statistics use coarse taxonomic categories that include multiple trophic levels, and landings data give no detail on fishing effort or location of capture. As a result, the data are poor indicators of ecosystem health, are unable to detect overfishing or stock declines, or decreases in the trophic levels of catches, i.e. fishing down the foodweb, or other signs of environmental degradation (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2007; Erisman et al., 2010).
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation. We thank E. Torreblanca, V. Valdez, and G. Danemann of Pronatura-Noroeste A.C. for their support of our research and assistance in the compilation of fisheries data. Additional support was provided by the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD.