| Summary: | This thesis provides information relevant to fisheries in which there is a desire to establish
fisherfolk organizations, but where individualistic social networks rather than social cohesion
and community prevail. Such situations in small-scale fisheries are poorly documented, but may
define limits to the feasibility of co-management. In the case researched, the government of
Barbados is designing a fisheries management planning process, but there is insufficient
information on the social and economic characteristics of the unmanaged, small-scale,
commercial fishery for migratory pelagics to determine whether either a state-structured
(bioeconomic) or a cooperative (co-management) approach is appropriate.
As a contribution to solving this practical, interdisciplinary problem, this study examined:
the fishery-related uncertainties perceived by fisherfolk and government officials in Barbados;
the social strategies of atomism, personal networks and formal organizations that fisherfolk may
use to cope with uncertainty; and, whether the most appropriate initial management planning
approach is bioeconomic or co-management. Research was conducted in Barbados between
November 1993 and September 1994 involving surveys, social network analysis, participant
observation and the study of official documents.
Uncertainties related to fish catch and price were perceived by the majority of fisherfolk to
be the most problematic, and the analysis focused on the means of coping with these. Evidence
of social atomism was weak. Social networks, which tended to be individualistically-oriented
among fishers, boat owners and processors, but more cooperative among vendors, were
prevalent. Attempts by the harvest sector to formally organize to obtain market power had
failed, but efforts to use this strategy persist. The state was found deficient in fishery planning
and management capability. Barriers to communication within the state, and between it and the
industry were apparent.
Due mainly to the prevalence of networks and the state’s deficiencies, the bioeconomic
approach is judged to be inappropriate in this setting. Due mainly to the high level of
individualistic competition, the repeated failure of harvest sector organizations, and barriers to
communication, co-management is problematic but more likely to be successffil. An incremental,
institution-building approach to co-management is proposed due both to the flexibility of this
approach and to the current political and planning environment that favours participative
initiatives. === Science, Faculty of === Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for === Graduate
|
|---|
