The EconomicImpacts of Sport DiversUsing Artificial Reefsin Texas Of%shore Waters
ROBERT B. DITTON' CAROL E. THAILING', ROBIN RIECHERS'and HAL R. OSBURN' 'Departmentof Wildlifeand Fisheries Sciences TexasA &M University,TAMU 2258 CollegeS'aration, Texas 77843-2225SUSA 'TexasParks and Wddlife Austin, Texas UZA
ABSTRACT Dive charterboat operators along the Texascoast were asked to providenames and athhessesfor a representativesample of their diving customers, A random sampleof 1,059sport divers was selected fiom divecharterboat records; 614 divers took trips to the Flower GardensBanks National Marine Sanctuaryand 445 divers in proportionto theknown number of non-FlowerGardens trips by coastalregion. An 11-pagemail questionnairewas used to collect socialand economic data fiom the sampleof divers. Of the 1,059questionnaires mailed, 528 were returned usable for anoveraH effective response rate of 562/o. About256 64/o of thosewho wmt diving in Texasmarine waters in the previous12 months!indicated they took one or moretrips in theprevious 12 months to artificialreefs in Texasoffshore wtners. This paperwill focuson thegroup of sportdiverswho usedartificial reefs.Artificial reefsincluded manniade materials deployed as bottomreefs, wrecks, snd standing oil and gasplatforms. Most diversparticipated in activities suchas night diving 81/o!, und~ photography 3 /o!, wreck divmg 2/o!, and nlarine identification 2'Yo!;only 25/oparticipatedin spearfishing. Two estinu~ of sport diver offshoretrip days ,985 and 5,953! were multiplied by the averageper trip expenditurefor Texasresidents $162! yieldingestinuded total expenditures direct economic impact! in coastal communities of $261,439 to $784,106. Total expendituresin coastal communifies by non-residentsof Texas were considerably less $58,885to $176,606!. The overaHeconomic impacts of artIficial reef diving in Texaswhere dive charterboats were used to accessoffshore reefs are presented in terms of changesin total output, income, and total employment. This paper excludedprivate boat divers who usedartificial reefs of&hore and charter snd privateboatdivers accessing the Flower Giudens Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Theoverall economic impact of sportdiving in Texaswouldbe higher if theseother mgmentswere included. FinaHy,the paperwiH emp~ methodsand address methodologicaldifficulties involved in studyingthis particular group of marine resource users and their activities.
KEY WORDS:Artificial reefs,economic impact, sportdiving 53" GuN and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Pa9e 345
INTRODUCTION The total numberof sportdivers worldwide was expectedto be 14 million by the year2000 McCawly and Teaff 1995!, As the numberof divers in~, the needfor additionaldive sitesalso can be expectedto increase.Natural reefscan only accountfor a certainamount of diving activity whereallowed due to carrying capacityconcerns for sustainability.Not all shipwrecksare sited to facilitate sport diving use. Offshoreoil andgas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico providetemporary diving resourcesso long as hydrocarbonproduction continues. Thesestructures must be removed once production ceases. In many areasof the world, the constructionand maintenance of artificial reefsis aneffective means for increasing the numberof dive sites,particularly where opportunities to satisfydiver demands are oth~ limited. ~ of losing diver clientele to other marketsin the region,the TexasArtificial Reef Programadministered by the TPW hassought to createadditional diving sitesalong the Texascoast. This is seenas having a positive impact on the charterdive boat industry,related iidrastructure, as well as coastal communities. 'Ihe TexasArtificia Reef Programwas authorizedby the Texas Ariificial ReefAct of 1989and is unplementedas per the TexasArtificial ReefPlan. In this paper,artificial reefsincluded ma-made materials deployed as bottom reefs, ship ~, and standingoil and gasplatforms. Previously,artificial reefs havebeen created an sitedprimarily to incr' fish biomass. Siting is typically carried out to met suite and federal statutory requirementsin the most cost-effectiveway Gordon and Ditton 1986!. Where fishingand diving usewas intended, it wasusually assumed that dive siteswith high fish biomassand diversity will meetthe needs of andattract participants to thereefs. In otherwords, "If we build it, theywill come". Recently,however, there has been a paradigmshift towardunderstMiding and planning for usersand their rection experiencesrather than simply being concernedwith biological improvements. Accordingly,reef siting is beinglinked with humanpopulation and tourism densities andthe ex~ demandfor scubadiving -relatedresources. The reasoning is that if artificial reefsare well sitedfiom a marketperspective, use will be encouraged, and social andeconomic benefits will be forthcoming. Understandingdirect and indirecteconomic impacts of expendituresby residentand non-resident sport divers usingartificial reefspmvides decision makers with usefulfeedback on previous reef deploymenlsand a baselinefor future reef deployment The economic impaeh of artificial reef diving use nee to be described in terms of changesin total output, income, value-added,and total employment. Total output is the dollar value of goodsand servicesproduced to satisfy final demand foodsand services associated with sportdiving andthe inter-industrytransactions to pmducethem. Final demandis the doHarvalue of purchasesIrom producing industries for final consumption, Value-addedis equivalentto gross regional product,namely, payments to labor, capital,and taxesor the valueof total output minus input purchases, The goal of this paper was to characterize the sport diver constituency thai use dive chattmboats to accessTexas offshore waters and to provideestimates of their Oitton, R at al. GCR:53 2002 direct and~ econonnc impactson coastalcommunities and at the statelevel. We discussmethodological difhculties associatedwith diver studies and the implicationsof resultsfor futureartificial reef development and management in Texas.
METHODS Weused a stepwiseapproach to betterunderstand the human dimensions of the offshore sport diving industry in Texas.First, the population of dive boats and operatorswas identified in aneffort to knowmore about the extent of theiroffshore diving activity anduse of artificial reefs Ditton etaL 1995!. Next, we invited dive boatoperators to provideus with accessto their customernames and addresses for samplingpurposes. A socialsurvey ~h protocolwas then used to collect data &om dive boat customersusing a mail questionnaire. In 1997,charter dive boatoperators on the Texascoast reported 289 offshore trips in the previous 12 months where artificial reefs were used; these trips accountedfor 1,985diver trip days. For comparisonpurposes, the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary FGBNMS! accountedfor 77 trips and 2,350 divertrip days. This informationwas derived directly &em logs or databases maintained by the ~rs. Our goal was to sample1300 sport divers: 600 divers &om boatsknown to take dime to the FGBNMS and another600 divers in proportion to the known numberof charterboat dive trips ofiahorein theprevious 12 months by regionof the Texascoast. We wereable to achieveour samplinggoals with regardto FGBNMS divers,but we wereunable to achievesampling goals with the othergroup of divers dueto a lackof cooperationby dive boatoperator. Planned and ~ numbers of divers in the samplefor South PadreIsland were 148 22!, Port Isabel 15 !, CorpusChristi/ Port Aramars99 97!, Port O' Connor45 7!, Freeport173 9!, Galveston83 !, and Port Arthur 37 !, respectively. Overall, cooperationwas greatmonthe lower coast &om Port O' Connor south. To maintainadequate sanrple size,we over-sampledin other areaswhere operators were willing to cooperate. Accordingly,we over-representeddivers taking trips with operatorson thelower Texascoast and under-represenhxl divers taking trips with dive boat operatorson the upperTexas coast. 'Ihe studyfocuses on sprnt diverswho had gonediving in Texas offshore waters using a charter dive boat in the previous 12 months. Ilrerefore,thisstudyexcludes those divers making trips ofshore on privately-owned boatsbecause we could not identify a sampling&arne of boatsused one or more times a year for sport diving purposes. An 11-pageself-administer mail questionnairewas developed to collectdata &om sport divers. The questionnairecontained questions proven effective in previousstudies of sportdivers, birders, and anglers conducted by the TexasAkM University T~ investigators. The questionnairewas pre-testedwith sport divers &mmthe TAMU Scuba Diving Club and several questions were modified as a result.In addition to questionsabout overall diving activity and experience,we 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute Page 347 askeddivers about their overaH diving parficipation in Texasoffshore waters and specificallyabout their "last dive trip" to theTexas coast, including their personal trip expenses by category and by location of expenditure made in coastal communities,elsewhere in Texas,and out of state.Finally, a socialand economic profileof sportdivers was soughtusing quesiions regarding age, gender, race, ethnicity,education, income, and residence location. TheSalant and DiHman 994! surveymethodology was used. The first mailing explainedthe study purpose and solicited their cooperation. This was followed with a questionnaireone week later, followed by araninder/ thank you post card the next week. Two weeks later, non-respondentswere sent a second questionnaire. Mailings were sent using TPW letterheadand envelopeswith postage-paid envelopesaddressed to TAMU, Of the 1,059questionnaires mailed to divers,528 werereturned usable, An overalleffecfive response rate of 56.24/owas achieved;this takesinto account questionnairesreturned but non-usable 9! andnon-deliverable addresses 03!. The responserate achieved was below what DiHman 978! reportsshould be achieved usinghis "Total Design Methodology" and weH below the range 1.5/o - 71,8/o! achievedpreviously by theHuman Dimensions of FisheriesLab in anglersurveys completedfor TPWD. Therewere severalpossible reasons for the lowerthan expectedresponse rate: i! Divetsmaynotbavebeenartificialreefusersandhencedidnotunderstand whythe TPW wantedtheir survey input, ii! Divtxsmay have felt that TPW shouldn'tbe involved in whatis generally considereda privatesector ~on activity, iii! Tbesampling frame contained the names and addresses of personsother thanthose taking dive trips in theprevious 12 months,and iv! Thesurvey was conducted during the summer months due to difficultiesin acquiringdiver names and addresses fmm operators. This is not one of the besttime periods for conducting mail surveys because people are busy with ~on activitiesduring the sununervacation priod Brown et al. 1989!. Surveyscanyield inaccurate results when the effects ofnon-respondents arenot accountedfor in neil surveys Fisher 1996!. An 11-itemtelephone interview was developedso we could test for statically significant differences betweenrespondents andnon-respondents on the selecteditems. Sinceno phonenumbers came with diveraddresses, we used the internet to get telephone numbers for non-respondents, telephonenumbers were located for only254 non-respondents. After two attempts to reachthese individuals, only 13 interviewscould be completed. Besides divers not beinghorne and occasional refusals, many numbers were out of orderor had answer:ringmachines. The number of completedinterviews was insuf5cient for ascertainingthe extentof non-respondentbias in the dataset, From previous studies,we wouldexpect non-respondents to have fewer years of experienceand lsttticipateless frequently than respondents; accordingly, the activity probably has lesssalience to theformer group explaining their non-response to the mail survey Ditton, R. et al. QCR:53 2002
Filion 1980!. Basedon this, we would expectsurvey respondents to report more days of diving participation in the previous 12 months, more years of diving experience,and more dive boat tzips in the previous 12 months than non- respondents. Becazu~of the likely diffzsencesbetween respondents and non- zespondents,we cannotgeneralize fiom zespondnrtsto thepopulation of divm who use charter dive boats to accessoffshoze water. In the following analysis, we are assumingno differencebetween groups in charterboat trip costs. No matterhow sahentdiving maybe to individuals,or how &cquentlytheyparticilxneindiving,per persontrip costsaze likely to be the samefor eachgroup, Direct economic impact was estunated at the coastal community and state levels. Trip expendituresby respondentswere extrapolatedto the populationof sportdivers using charter dive boatson the Texascoast in 1997. Economicimpact multipliers for tbe Texascoast derived by Tanyezi-Aburet al. 998! wereapplied to esthnatethe economicimpacts of sport diving in coastalcommunities or at the statelevel. They used IMPLAN to calculatethese multipliers, which show the impactof anincrease in outputin onesector on othersectors of theeconomy. From their understandingsof the total impactsof recrown activitieson the Texascoast, theyconcluded on averagethat eachdollar of expenditureresulted in $1.81of total input, $0.75 in personalincome, and $1.15 in value addedon the Texascoastal economy.They reported an employment multiplier of about37jobs pa $1million of expenditures.At the statelevel, tbe economicimpact multiplier was slightly higher at $1.90 of total economicoutput, $0.78in pezsozuzlincome, and $120 in value-addedon the state'seconomy. Total econonucimpact was estinuzted for the entizeTexas coastaud not on a conununityby community basis due to lack of samplesize at the communitylevel andbezxuzse there was no datafor communities on the Texas coast.
RESULTS Of the 528 diver respondents,461 zeporteddiving activity in the previous12 months Figure 1!, Of these,256 5.5%! hadtaken one or morediving trips using artificial reeS in Texas offshore ~ in the previous 12 months. A larger percent of thesedivers 4.6%! badtaken one or morediving trips to the Flower Ozudens National Marine Sanctuaryin the previous year. This is a nshmd reef area approximately110 miles offshoze fium Texasmade up ofbiohmms,or saltdomes, with cozalsgrowing on top. Theremainder of resultspresented in this paperwiII be &om the 256 5.5%! diver surveyrespondents wbo reportedusing artificial reef's on oneor moretrips in the previous12 months. Most 5%! artificial reef divers were male. Most 90/o} categorized themselvesas Anglo or white, while only 9%reported themselves to beof Spanish/ Hispanicorigm. Diversaveraged 39 yearsof age,with mostbetween 21-40 years of age. Most 81%! sportdivers reported a currentTexas residence. Of these,most 0/o} lived in five urban metzopolitan areas:Houston 2%!, San Antonio 1%!, McAllen 1%}, Austin 0%!, and CozpusChristi %!. For non-residentsport 53 Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page 349 divers, whetherthey were attractedto dive in Texasoffshore watersor cameto vacationin Texasand went diving while they were hereis not known. FiAy-three percentof divers had householdincomes before taxes of beAreen$10,000 and $69,000;the median householdincome categorywas $60,000- $69,999.Most 48o! sport divershad four or more yearsof collegeeducation.
Figure1. Distributionof diver respondentsby locationof charterboat divingtrips one or more tri in the Gulf of Mexico ofhhore from Texas in 1996. Dltton, R. et aL GCFl:63 2002
Most mtificial reef divers reportedthey participatein night diving 81%}, utaferwatmphotography 3%!, wreck diving 2%!, and marine identification 2%!. Only 26% of this groupparticipated in spearfishing Table 1!. Whendivers wereasked to indicatewhich of the identi6eddiving activitiesthey participatedin most often in the previous 12 months,they indicateda tie betweenunderwater photographyand marine identification.
Table 1. Number and percent of artNcial reef divers by the diving activities they participate in and those they participated in most over the pmrious 12 months.
Partlet Partte fifiost N N Underwater photography 135 52.7 81 28.1 Marine identification 133 52.0 81 28.1 Cave diving 31 12.1 2 0.9 Wreck diving 134 52.3 18 7.7 Spear fiahing 85 25.4 24 10.3 DecompreeaionlNITROXdiving 58 21.9 9 3,8 Night diving 207 80.9 33 'i4.1 Othe ' 18.8 11.1 Total 234 100.1
In orderto establisha &arneof referencefor dive trip expenditures,divers were askedabout their lasttrip to the Texascoast where they went scubadiving andused a charterdive boat to do so. Most indicatedthis trip took placebetween July 1- December31,1996 8%! with aone-waytraveldistance of 200milesor less 9%! &orn home. Therewas an averageof 21 peopleonboard excluding captainand mate!the dive cbmterboat on this last trip. Most of the trips describedby divers weredevoted ahnost exclusively to sportdiving activity. Their lasttrip to the Texas coastfor sport diving where they useda dive charterto accessofMtore waters averaged2.8 days;of this, they reportedthey spentan averageof 2.2 daysdiving. Overall,arti6cial reef divers reported spending an average of $287in thecoastal communitythey visited to go scubadiving and useda cbmterdive boatto acct ofMtore waters!plus an additional$116 "elsewhere in Texas"in preparationfor or duringtheir lasttrip to the coast Table 2!. Their total averagetrip expenditurewas $403. Sincetheir last trip av~ 2.8 dayswith 2.2 daysof diving, eachdiver' s trip consistedof 2.2 chmterdive boattrips &om shore. Accordingly,divers spent an averageof $131per personper day diving in coastalcommunities in Texas.As expected&om previousexpenditme studies of other outdoor~on activities, most 3%! of the sportdivers' expendituresin destinationcommunities were for charterfees, lodging, and restaurantmeals Table 2!. Most 3%! expenditures "elsewherein Texas"were for automobiletransportation costs and dive boatfees paid to dive shopproviders someof which fmds its way backto the charterdive boat opmAx and the ~ community!; food and lodging expenditurescould have beenmade in route to the diving destination community or else divers may have chosen to stay elsewhere to reduce their trip costs Table 2!. 5$" Gulf and Caribbean Flshertes Institute Page $51
Table 2. Number and percent of articiai reef divers making dive trip related expenditureson their iast dive trip to the Texas Coast; average expendituresfor those makingeach expenditureand overall.
Percent of Average Average Divers with Expenditure per Expendltur Expenditure Diver Who e for item Purchased Item for All Expenditure Categoqr Divers AmountIn the ~ Commun Automobile 207 83.8 323.10 transfmrtaBonto the Texas coast fuel, rental car, taxi, atc.! Other transporbttionto Ne Texas coast airplane,etc.! Dive boat fees 209 84,6 178.30 150.90 Tips 207 83.8 20.90 17.50 Lodging 186 75.3 41.90 31.50 Restaurantmeals 199 80.6 27.70 Groceries,drinks, ice 196 79.4 18.0G 14.30 Rental of divinggear 187 75.7 8.30 6.3G Anythingelse for Ihis d' tri 14.2 54.70 Tobrl 3287.30
AmountEistnvhera in Texas: Automobile transportaBonto the 159 64A 823,10 Texas coast fuel, rentaf car, trod,atc,! Other transporbrbonto the Texas coast 123 49.8 airplane,etc.! Dive boat fees 116 46.9 80.20 37.70 Tips 111 44.9 8,20 3.70 Lodging 120 25.10 12.20 Restaurantmeals 137 55.5 14.60 Grocerkrs,drinks, ice 127 51.4 12.50 6.40 Rental of divinggear 130 52.8 12.40 6.50 Anythingelse for this dvi 24 23.60 Total 9242.50 91 15.60 Page 352 DItton, R. et al. GCFI:58 2002
To understandthe economicimpacts of diving activity on local andstate level economies,it is necessaryto know when diversreside. We separatedexpenditures by Texasdivers Irom thoseIrom other statesto estimatethe statelevel impact of arti6cialreef diving, Statelevel expenditures are determined bynewmonies coming into the stateand being re-spent. Similarly, expendituresmade by divers Irom coastalcommunities in Texasneed to be actuated &omthose of otherTexas divers. Only threeof the 256 diversin tbe samplewere Irom Texascoastal communities. Theassumptionhere is thatthey would havemade other expenditures locaBy if they werc not ableto go diving. Thus,local economicimpacts were determined by new moniescoming into coastedcommunities and being ze-spentthere. Texasresident divers spent an average of $255in coast communitieson their last trip to the Texas~ When divided by the meannumber of daysdiving on this last trip .57!, this yieldsan averageof $162spent in coast communitiesper sport diving trip day. They spent an additional $49 per sport diver trip day elsewherein Texastraveling to or &om tbe coast.Non-residents spent about $459 in ~ communities ontheir lasttrip .70 daysof diving! for anaverage of $17G per sport diver trip day. While non-residentsspent nearly $200 more than state residentson their last trip to the Texascoast, they spmt aboutthe sameper person perdiving dayon thesetrips. Non-residentsspent an additional$81 per sportdiver trip day elsewherein Texason their trip to the coast. We madetwo estinunesof sportdiver trip daystaken ofBhore, A low estimate ,985! wasbased on dive charterboat opcnLtor self-reports of the numberof trips madetimes the numberof diversonboard mean= 6.8!; a higherestimate ,953! wasbased on the averagenumber of divers excludingcaptain and made! on board charterdive boats 0.6! as repeal by sportdivers in their questionnaireresponses times the numberof trips reportedby dive boat operators. When thesetwo estinuttesof sport diver trip days for the Texas coast are multiplied by the avengepox trip expendituresfor Texasresidents, estimated total expenditures direct economicimpact! in coastalcommumties ranged between $261,439to $784,1G6Pables 3 and4!. Total expendituresin ~ communitics by non-residentswae considerablyless. Overall, non-residentsspent heber> $87,121and $261/93 on their last trip to the Texascoast to go diving; thesewere new moniesto the Texaseconomy. The estimated$320323 to $960,713in direct expendituresmade by non- residentsofcoastal communities for localgoods and services generated an additional 259,738to $779,026in economicoutput, resulting in a totaloutput of'$581,994 to $1,745459with 12to 35jobs in this sportdiving sector Table 5!. The total value- added associatedwith this increasedlevel of output is estimatedat between $371,561and $1,114,413.This is smaHerthan the level of total output becauseit representsonly the amountof incomeand taxes retained in the coastalcommunities wherecharter dive boatsoperate. Many of the inter-industryinputs such as labor, capital, wholesalesupplies, etc. must be purchasedoutside of the coasts ~ Each of these purchases represents a leakage fmm the local economy. The more leaksin theeconomy, tbe smallerwill bethe overall economic impacts &om changes 53" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page 353 in final denand.A componentof thetotal valueadded impact of sportdiving activity is the impact on total income, which was estimatedto rangefiom $242,169to $725,866.
Table 3. Total Expenditures Direct Economic Impact! made by artificial reef divers by residence location using data provided by dive boat charter operators
Dollars spent Dollars spent in coanlnl eleenlIIere In Texas TOISI conlrmln Coastal community 1,941 1,941 residents Texas leeidente not 261,439 78,351 339,790 ~ community! Non-residents 58,885 28,237 87,121 Total 320,324 106,588 426,911 Calculated based on data provided by 12 dive charter boat operators for number of trips taken offshorefor sportdiving and numberof diverscarried offshore in 1996.
Table 4 Total Expenditures Direct Economic Impact! made by artificial reef diversby residencelocation using data providedby diversand dive boat charter operators
DINars spent In Dollars spent coastal elsew Irma In Texas Total Conlmun Cossuacommunity 5,821 5,821 residents Texas residents nol 784,106 234,990 1,019,096 cones' community! NonmsidelSS 176,606 84,687 261,293
Tolal 960,713 319,677 1,280,389 Calculated baaed on data provided by 12 dive charter boat operators for number of trips taken offshore for sport diving in 1996 and diver questionnaire responses regardingthe numberof personson board exdudingcaptain and mate! on their last trip to the coastwhere they went scubadiving and used a charterdive boat.
Statelevel economic impact results are notably different because only a small numbruof non-residentscome to Texasto godiving and make use of artificialreefs usingdive charter boats. The total output directand indirect impacts! associated withthis group of sportdivers ranged behamn $166,349 and $498,913 with 3 to10 jobs.Total statewide eFects fiom indirectand induced spending are likely spread overa widerrange of sectorsincluding manufac~ retail,and services sectors. Thetotal value-addeddollars generated by the increased level of outputis estunated to be between $104,563 and $313,604. Page 354 Ditton, R. etal. GCFI:53 2002
Table 5. Coastal community and statewide impacts of artificial reef divers by economic impact variable
Tolal Im
Kcmiomic Impact Variable Local Lcw High Ecw High Direct Impact $322,256 $966,533 $87,121 $281,293 Output $581,994 $1,745,559 $186,349 $498,913 Personal Inccrne $242,169 $725,866 $67,769 $388,104 Value-added $371,581 $1,114,413 $104,563 $313,604 Em 12 35 3 10 State level economic impacts are derived from local as well as statewide direct expenditures by no~ident sport divers. They are usually larger in magnitude becausethey include secondaryand tertiary impacts outside of coastalcommunities but within the state of Texas.
DISCUSSION Artificialreefs are provided by the TPW in aneffort to enhanceoffshore diving experiences.Since divers and dive boat services are not roluiced to payfor using offshoreartificial ree&,there is a genendexpectation there will be a positive economicimpactoncoastalconununities and even statewide &om reefdeployment. Kconomicimpact assessments areuseful to agencydecisionmakers for determining whetherlocal andstatevride economic developmentgosls atebeing met. As aresult of this analysis,conununity leads havea baselineunderstanding of local impacts associatedwith this outdo' recreahonand tourism sector.With addifionaiprivate sectorpromotion of offshoreartificial reef diving, particularlyin out-of-state markets,we are likely to seesubstantial inseam in the impact figurespresented here. The situation mirrors a similar casewith the Texas charter sport fishing industrywhere only 3%of theircustomers come from other states Sutton et aL 1999!. In Mississippi,Alahuna, and Louisiana,charter boats derived 62'Yo, 57Yo, and33% of theirfishing customers &om other states, respectively. If incxeming local and statelevel economicimpacts are important componentsof the Texas Artificial ReefProgram, then private sector educational and outreach efforts need to be encouraged. It shouldbe renemberedthat this studyfocused on the expendituresand total economicoutput of only one~cut of the Texassport diving industry.Not includedhere are those who usedprivate boats to go diving ofisboreartificial reefs or thosewho useprivate or charterboats to dive the FGBNMS. Nevertheless,sport diving is pmlxibiy only a smailportion of the coastaland marinerecreabon sector which is estimated to involve expenditmes of about f 866.65 million with a total economicoutputof$l.56billion Tanylui-Aburetal. l998!. Thisdoesn'tmeantbat sport diving is unimportantbut rathera reflectionof the low rate of participation 58~ Gulf aztd Caribbean Fiahezlaa Institute Page 355
pezcmtthat participate! in divingcompared to otheroutdoor recreation activities which cost less and hence are more popular. This paperfocuses on the ~ community andstate level economicimpacts of sportdivers using dive charter boats to reachofishore artificial reefs in Texas offshore waters. Ihis perspectiveis but one of severalstudied in this overall researchpzoject Ditton et al. 1999!.Overall, we found fittle available literature on the socialand economic aspects of sportdiving useof artificial reef, not to mention on the offshore dive charterboat industry or sport diving in general.There aze sever@possible reasons for this: i! Sportdiving has fewer participants than many other outdoor recreafion activitiesand hence has not yet receivedthe sameresearch attention from publicsector marine resouzces management agencies, ii! Sincesport diving is by and largea privatesector outdoor recreation activity, previousresearch has been completed but it is proprietazy, iii! Listsof divernames and addresses are maintained by divecertification organizationsand are not availablefor saznplingpurposes bypublic sector naturalresource management agencies, and iv! Artificial reefsappear to havebeen planned more for recreationalfishing thanfor diving. If public-sectoragencies are to be responsiveto the wants andneeds of diversas weH as effective in manztgingtheir marineresource impacts,there will needto benumy more social and economic studies of statewide,area, and mode-specificdiver populations.
UTERATURE CITED McCawley,R. andJ.D. TeaK 1995.Characteristics and environmental attitudes of coralreef diversin theFlorida Keys. Pages 40-46 in: GeneralTechnical Report INT-GTR-323U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana USA. Gordon,W.R., Jr. andR.B. Ditton. 1986, A user-resourceplanning &aznework for offshorereczeanonal aztificial reefs. Coostal Zone Management Journal 13 369 -395. Ditton, R.B., Finkelstein,L.D., and J. Wilemon. 1995. Use of offshoreartificial reef'sby Texascharter fishing and diving boats. Technical Report PHD-604. DepartmentofWildlife and Fisheries Sciatces, Texas A8M University,College Station, Texas USA. 38pp. Salant,P. andD.A. Dillman. 1994.How to ConductYour Otvn Survey. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New Yozk USA, Dillman,D.A. 197$.Mail andTelephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons,New York, New York USA. Brown, T,L., D.J. Decker,and NA. Connelly. 1989. Responseto neil surveyson reso~based ~on topics:a behavioralmodel and empirical analysis. Leisure Sciences 11:99-110. Page 355 DItton, R. et al. GCFI:53 2002
Fisher,M.R. 1996.The effectofnonresponse bias on anglersurveys. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society I25:118-126. Filion, F. 1980. Human surveys. Pages 441-453 in: JYildlife Management TechniquesManual, 4th ed revised!.The Wildlife Society,Washington, D.C. USA. Tanyeri-Abur,A.L. Jones,and H. Jiang.1998. Economic impacts of ~onal activitiesand commercial 6shing on the Texas Gulfcoast ExecutiveSummary. Reportprelwued for the Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas USA. »pp- Sutton,S.G., R.B. Ditton, J.R.Stoll, andJ.W. Milon. 1999.Across-sectional study andlongitudinal perspective on the social and economic characteristics of the charterand partyboat 6shingindustry of Al~ Mississippi,Louisiana, and Texas.Report 4HD-612. Reportprepned for the National Marim Fisheries Service.DepsrhnentofWildlifeand Fisheries Sciences, Texas ARM University, CollegeStation, Texas USA. 220 pp. TheSocio-economic Characterizatioa of TournamentAnglers in Barbados
VSENANIIA', PATRICK McCGNNEY ' and ROBERT B.DITTON 'Natural ResourceManagement Programme, Facultyof NaturalSciences, Universityof the WestIndies Cave Hill, Barbados. ' FisheriesDivision, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Bridgetown,Barbados Departmentof Wildlife and Fisheries Science, Texas ASM University CollegeStation, Texas 77S43 USA
ABSTRACT Informationon socialand economic charxicteristics of eighty tournament anglersinBarbxidos wasobtained byinterviews covering social and economic pro61esofanglers; 6shing patterns andangler expectations; attitudestowards commercialfisheries andinteractions withthem; and attitudes towards fishexies numagementandmanagexnent measures. Tournament anglersare mostly white maleswho seek large pelagic fish, especially dolphinfishand biH6s, whichare also targetedbycommercial fisherxnen. Dolphinare prized forconsumption, andbiHfis particularlyforthe sporting chaHenge. AnglersseH their fish atlocal markets, and reportboth catch andnon-catch motives forfishing. Theimportance ofnon-catch reasons,suchas relaxation, was~ and catchmotives. Anglers supported the ixnxoductionoffisheries managementmeasures suchassize/length limits,catch and release,closed areas, andfishery closures. Dueto the multi-species natureof the 6shries,and masons fortargeting these 6sh, anglers didnot support baglimits or catchand release forthe more marketable species. There are few conflicts between tournamentanglersandconunexcial fishexmen,but a majorconcern isthe dwindling numbersofbiH6sh caught. This is blamed oncommercial longlining inCaribbean wats. Fisheriesmanagement planning in EhuRxdos hasignored tournament ang}ers.Thisstudy fncilitates theirinclusion inmaxlgement planning. KEYWORDS: Anglers, Barbados, socio-ecenomics
INIRODVCTION Mostfisheries development efforts in theCaribbean, andefforts to acquire informationformarine fisheries managexnen, havefocused oncommexcial fishing. Lessattention hasbeen paid to Marine Recreafional Fishing MRFj, also caHed game-fishingo sport-fishing, Kisincludes thetouwment angling aboutwhich this paperis concerned. In Barbadosmost sport fishexmen repoxt that fisheries inanagers lack an appreciationforthe importance ofMRF. This perception isstrengthened bythe fact Anla, U. et aL GCFI:53 2002
thatthe Barbados 1997-2000 Fisheries Management Plan FMP! pays little atteufion to MRF, eventhough the 1993Fisheries Act makesprovision for the inclusionof sportsfishing in fisheriesmanagement and development. Thetournament aspect of MRFin Barbadosis believedby someanglers to be still at an early stageof development,but with potentialto grow. An indicatorof thisgrowth has been the increase in thepopularity of sport-fishingamonglocals and visitors,as reflected in an increasein thenumber of charterboat operators who providerecreational fishing experi~ mainly for tourists. As MRF grows,there is concernthat the harvestpressure applied, in addition to thatof thecommercial fishery, could lead to overexploitation of valuabletarget species.If the developmentof the fisberiessector is to bemanaged effectively, the MRFcomponent needs to be incoqmratedinto thewhole planntng pmcess. The planningprocess requires knowledge notonly of thebiological status ofthe fishenes concerned,but also the social and economic componentsof the fishery. In Barbados,according to fisheries o%cers, information on tbe human element Hlvolvedln MRF is scarce,and this hasinade lt dIfficllltto forinlilafe policies and pmyams neededto guide its development. In aruicipationofthefurther developmentofMRF in Bariedos,information on the humandunensions of the fisheryis important, This entailsassessing the attitudes,beliefs, motives, and preferencesof people involved in MRF. Such information could help fisheriesmanigers iniderstandtbe variety of stakesthat people have within the fisheiy in order to guide coordmatedmanagement and devel~ of fishixies policies andplans in Barbados. Furthermore,an understanding of MRF could be vital in regionalplanning for recreationalfishing if, for example,coordmiited and joint marketingof the fisheries wereattempted in the contextof conventionaltourism or eco-tourism.EspeciaHy intriguingare the piospow of ~onal fisheriesthat are strucnired and nuuketed in suchfashion that anglersatisfiiction is not measuredby catchrate or sizeoffish, and that fish caughtare releasedwith a high rate of survival. It is the human dimensionthat may determine whether or not such responsible adonai fisheries arefeasible. 'Hus paper describes tournmnent anglers in Barbadosin relationto: i! Socialand economicprofiles of individuals and their activities, ii! Fishingparticipition pattens and angler behavior, iii! Attitudestowards the conunercial fisheries and interacbons with them,and iv! Attitudestowards fisheiies management and managenu,"nt measines,
METHODS A sampleof $0 tournamentanglers resident in Barbadoswas obtained fiom the membeishiplistof150currentmembers of the Barbados Game Fishing Association BGFA!. This is the principle body that organizesand regulatesall gamefishing competitionson the ishmd. Most local tournamentanglers are membersof this association. 53" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page 85'
Since very little literature existed on tournamentangliag in Barbados,the reseucberconducted two separatesets of interviews. In-depthinterviews with key informants male,2 female!provided the backgroundon tournamentang1ing and for the secondmund of shorter interviews. Surveyswere conductedbetween November1999 and January 2000 as a graduateresearch project.
RESULTS
Social and Economic Profile of Anglers Tournamentanglers in Barbadoscomprise four ethnic groups,the largestof which is white 3.8'/o of the sample!. The other anglerswere of mixed race 6.3 /a!, black .5'Ye!, andIndian .5/o!. Theanglers tn the samplewere all iaale, and 63.84/ewere married. Aaglers in the age group 26-35 yearsdominated the sample. The meanage was 33 yearsold. All the aagleisinterviewed bad received formal educimoawith just over half 8.5/o! haviag attainedsecondary school or post-secondaryschool trainiag. The majority 97'/o! of the anglersare employed within the private sector. The modal annual income before taxes of the anglers rangesUS$20,000- $30,000and the annualincome before taxes ranged between US$10,000-$40,000 for the entiresample. The modal 3,8'/o! annualexpenditure of anglerson fishing was VS$5G0-$2,500.Of the moniesspent on fishing, about75.1/o of the anglers spendbalf or greaterlocally. On further analysis, comparing annual income earned with ethnicity and age,results showedthat more than half of the white anglers earnedbetween US$20,000-$45,000. Black anglers were clustered atboth extremes of the incomespectrum. Relatingage to income,and income spent on gamefishing, most aagleis in the dominantage group 6-35 years!earn between US$20,000- $30,000, and spend lessthan $2,5GO annually on fishing. Most 5'Yo! of theanglers who are36-45years old earnover $15,000 annually, and close to a third 8'/o! spendover $8,000 annuallyon fishin. All anglers46-55 years oldearnover $30,0GO, and the majority 87'/o! of them spend$3,000-$7/00 annuallyon fishing.
FishingParticipation Patterns 'Ihe majority 1.3'/o! of the tournamentanglers fished regularly for sport 37 daysper year,with an averageof 10 daysspent parhcipating in organized competitions.Close to balf of theanglers 8.8'/e! areiavolved in thesale of their catchand spend an average of 16days fishing commercially Table 1!. Whenanglers listed their three favorite target fish species in orderof decreasing prefixence,dolphin was indicated as first choice 1.3 '/o!,wahoo as second choice 54/o!,with billfish thir 3.84/o!. Pelagicfish are preferredover demersal species. As reasonsfor targetingdolphin, 47.5'/oof fishermen cited the challenge of catching the fish, others 8.8'/o! mentionedthe palatabilityof the fish, while 7.5'/oassociated Arras U. et al. GCFI:53 2002 with saleof their catch. AH anglerswho indicatedmarlin as a first choice 8.8%! gavereasons to do with the challengeof the catch,
Table 1.' Fishing days per year by type of fishing activity.
Mean no. of ftahi Gamefishing in general! 40 Occasional once in a while for fun! 3 Regular ofien for fun! 37 Tournament organised competition! 10 Charter boat hired fishing tour! 8 Commercial sale for income! 18 Othrws 3 No. of respondents = 80 ONer types of fiehing include; spin iiehing, spear fishin, end pot fishing.
Those that sold their catch did so due to tbe need for income to o63et the cost of maintenanceand replacement of Sshingparaphnnalia, such as rods, reels, lures, hooksand maintenance of the fisbing boat. Most of the Ssh sold is disposedof at dockside,at local Sshmarkets, or soldSom home. Most angletswho sell fish have ~customers. Dolphin,wahoo, and marlin, which dominate as 6shesofchoice, arealso iaqortant to commercial6shing in Barbados. For the majority 85%! of tbe anglers,their fishy activity startedgenerally beforethe ageof 15 yearsold. The modeof introductionmto gamefishing was mainlyby emily 5'Yo! andSiends 3o/o!. Justover balf 8%! of the anglersown a 6shingvessel. Of these,21'Yo own a moses dinghy!, 20o/oown a pirogue,and 16'Yoown cabincruiseni. 'Ibe experienceof goingfisbing in otherparts of the world is importantamongst Barbadirrn tournament anglers, as a majority 81%!have gone fishing in othercountries. Of this group76o/o have fished elsewhere in the eastern Caribbean, while 21% have also Sshed in the northern Caribbean.
Angb:ts' Motives and Attitudes Anglerswere asked to rank nine motivesfor 6shing accordingto their degree of importance.Three of tbesereasons were related to non-catchaspects of fishing while the other six were catch related. Overall, two non-catch related motives were lied most important. Thesewere "relaxing with Sunily and Siends",which was ratedsUgbtly to extremelyinqxetant by 98.5o/o,and "getting awaySom their daily routine" ratedby 95.8'Yoas slightly to extremelyimportant. The two most importantcatch related motives for Ssbingwere, "to catch6sh big or small" and"catching fish to eat" Table 2!. Anglers were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreedwith statemeruson attitudes towards fish exploitation Table 3!. Most anglers agreed either agreedor strongly agreed! to "the more 1 gofishing, the happier 1mn" 5/o! and"a 6shingtrip canbe successfuleven though no fish arecaught" 87.6'Yo!.Pish 63~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute size and retenfion were important to about balf of the sample.However while anglers were happy to releasespecies such as marlin, they prefer to keepdolphin and wahoo. Most anglersdisagreed disagreed or stronglydisagreed! with the statements, " I want to keep all the fish I catch", "if I thought I would not catchanything, I would not go fishing", and "when I go fishing, I am not satisfiedunless I catch something"
Table 2. Tournament anglers' reasons for fishing
EXlent Of agreernentrdisagreement %!'
2 3 4 5 Total To catch fish big or smafi 6 13 24 25 33 100 Reirniing with family 1 4 8 21 66 100 Obtaininga rrophyor prize fish 4 6 15 25 50 100 To get away fiom the daily routine 5 7 9 23 57 100 Challenge or sport 3 9 13 43 34 100 Seeking the thrill of fishing 0 0 19 44 38 100 To develop skill 1 23 24 16 19 100 9 Catching fish to eat 5 21 19 31 24 100 Catching fish to sell 2 26 19 18 11 100 8 8 13 24 25 33 100
'1 = Not ai afi important, 2 = Slightly important, 3 = Moderately important, 4 = Very important, 5 = Extremely Important
Attitudes Towards Commercial Fisheries and Interactions with Them Whenanglers were asked about the waysin which gamefishermen and commercialfishermen cooperated, 58.8% indicated assisting each other in timesof distress.Other responses included providing each other bait 3.8%!, informing eachother about fishing arealocations 1,3%!, and informing eachother about curiorits and fides IP/o!. About conflict with commercial fishermen,72.5% indicatedhostility while fishing arounddebris that aggregatesfisb, locally called rifHes, Othercases of &ictionbetween game and commercial fishermen include the d~on ofunmarkedor inadequatelymarked fishing gear, such as fish trapsand fishinglines, by the gamefishing boats and competition for saleof fish. Some anglerswere also concerned about the impactsof commercialfishing, andforeign longlining in particular,on fish stocks. Page 362 Antia, U. et al. GCFI:53 2002
Table 3. Tournament anglers attitudes towards fish exploitation
Attitude atatrrments 1 2 3 4 5 Total The more I fish the 27.5 47.5 12.5 11.3 1.3 100 happier I am. A fishing trip can be 3S.S 48.8 2.5 8.3 3.S 100 successful even though no fish ls caught, I would rather catch one 23.8 40.0 12.5 18.8 5.0 100 or two big fish than ten small ones. it does not matberto me 8,8 43.S 3.8 32.5 11.3 100 the kind of fish I catch. The bigger the fish I 20.0 33.8 12.5 32.5 1.3 100 catch fire better the fishing hip. I am happy if I don't 15.3 37.5 21.3 18.3 8.8 100 keep Ihe fish I catch. I want fo keep afi the 8.3 5.0 7.5 70.0 11.3 100 fish I catch. If I thought that I would 7,5 22,5 1.3 43.8 25.0 100 not catch any fish I wifi not go fishing. When I go fishing I am 5.0 8.3 3.8 58 27.5 100 not sa5slied unkrss I catch something,
'1 = Strongly agree, 2 =Agree, 3 = Uncertain,4= Disagree, 5= Strongly disagree
AttitudesTowards Fisheries Management and ManagementMeasures Anglerswrac askedto indicatethe extentof ~ or oppositionfor the use of four managementtools for MRF. 'Jhemajority of the anglersindicated support for the useof all numagementtools, with the exceptionof leg limits. For the latter 52.5%opposcxl use while 36.3% supportedbag limits. Comparingresponses on baglimits with theresponses on "catching fish to eat", 75% of.those who consideredeating their catchunimportant supported the useof baglimits, while much less 5%! opyosedits use. Of the anglersthat considered "catchingfish to eat" importantfor going ~ 53.94% oppmredthe useof bag limits, while 36.25%supyorted its use. When"catching fish to seH"was comlMrred with opinionson the use ofbag limits 53.45%of theanglers who consideredthe sale of fish imyortantopposed the use ofbag hmits,while 34.4g/o supportedit. Relating baglimits to fish of first choice,of thosewho chosemarlin asa first choice,52.1% supporteduse ofbag limits. For thosethat chosedolphin 60.6%olrposed the useof bag limits whHe only 210% supported the use of this tool. 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute Page 363
DISCUSSION
Social and Economic Profiles Tournamentangling, likeconunercialfisbing inBarbados and fishiug generally, is primarily amaleactivity. Specificreasons for thelow level of femaleinvolvement in tournamentangling were not pursued,but somewomen havebeen champion anglersand held executivepositions in the BarbadosGamefisb Association. The socialand economicresults partially supportthe popularstereotyping of gamefishin asa recreationalpastime for rich whiteBarbadians. Sections of the white cominunity in Barbados,though in minority, are afituent andhave a higher probabiTityof participationin gamefishingon the basis of incomedone since deep- seatournament fishing is expensive.Income, however, may not be a majorbarrier to widerparticipation in tourrwuniaits,especially ifboat ownership is excluded, since the level of incomesreported by anglersare earned by a wideethnic cross-section ofBeibadians.Low costparticipation is possiblein severalof the localtoumainents. Theymca of socializalion amongstfiunilyand &iends,occuring in thecontext of colourand class groups, is alsolikely to beimportant. Tbis is supIxntedby the resultsshowing that family introduced 55'/o of thetournament anglers to fishing while &iends introduced 43s/o,but is only one perspectiveon a complex socioeconomic situation. Whensports fishing becomesbetter integiuted into the fisheriesmanagement plan,fisheries authorities must deal with a greaterdivixsity of clienteletban they presentlydo now,However, the present relative lack of interactionbetween the BGFA and FisheriesDivision suggeststhat thesenew cheatsmay be more independentand need less assistance than those in commercialfisheries.
FishmgActivity and Kxpectations Tournamentanglers in Barrios mostlytarget large oceanic pelagic fish of commercialimportance, such as Mlfisb, dolphin,and wahoo. Dolphin is the fishof choicefor cballixigeaud bimuNe it is ratedhigh asa foodfish that sellseasily. B~ the prize gamefish in otherparts of the world, is ratedsecond. The sale of fish is a commonpractice amongstthe Barbadiantouiiuunent anglers.Sales subsidize the cost of fishing,especially of fuel,which is themain expense.The sale of tournamentfish doesnot usually impact on theconunercial fisherybecause the quantities sold are small due to thelimited size of theMRF fleet and number of days deep-seafishing. However, an implication for fisheries managementisthat such practices have the potential to produceconflict between the 6shmes,particularly in timesofheavy landings &omboth sourceswbich may leave marketsin glut. Mke andCowx l996! reportthat, in Trinidadand Tobago, on sevemloccasions sales &om MRF bave~ commercial fishersto dumptheir catch when some markets become locally satiuIted. Onthe other handmany of thelocal game fishers hold the view that seNng fish ~ by MRF servesto meetpart of the public demandfor fish andlessens AB5a, U. ot al. GCFI:53 2002 dependencyon fish importationinto Barbados. It is importantthat the Fisheries Division obtaininformationonthequantity, composition anddisposal of tournament landings. The Fisheries Act of 1993 makes provision for regulations to address these management requirements.
Motive aad AttitudesTowards Fishing Motives for fishing arerelated to the sati~on derivedfiom catchand non- catch aspecs of ~ and its related activities Knopf et aL 1973, Driver and Knopf 1976,Fedler 1984,Holland and Ditton 1992!. The dimensionsconsidered mostimportant are the non-catchaspects of fishingrelated to relaxation,refiection- nostalgiaand enjoying nature Knopf et aL 1973, Buciuman1983!. However, Graefe and Fedler 986!, suggestthat catch related motives are ofien more unpoftantnl determuungsatisfaction and dissatisfaction anlongst aBglefs. Results of this studyshow that, ovemil, angina ratethe Bough reasonsmore imporuuit thanthe catch-relatedmotives for fishing. However,when the reasonsfor fishirg were grouped with speciesof first choice in Bartedos, those who chosebNfishwere motivatedmore by the challengeaspect, while thosewho chosedolphin and wahoo wereOriented tOwardS COBSumptiOn and SaleOf 6Sh. In studiesconducted by Fedlerand Ditton 994! in the United States,when anglerswere grouped by modeof fishing or targetspecies, tbe relativeimporumce of catch-relatedmotives increaseddramatically, In 1ookingat the attitudesthat anglershave towards exploitation, the majority of anglerswere more interested in catching a few big 6sh than several small ones. This should be positive for managementin thatjuvenile dolphinor wahooare less Vikely to be soughtafter if the 6shing is selective,but it emphasisesthe possibihties of intmetions with the commercial fishery.
Attitudestowards commercial Sshiag Presently,the conflicts between tournament anglers andcommercial fisbersare minimal. Most of the friction occurswhile 6shing arounddebris where the target speciesare concentrateh However,despite the minimal conflict, thereis needto resolveand manage for the existmgsituation before it escalatesto broads conflict, especiallyif thne is an increasein either tournamentanglers or commerual fishermen. The FisheriesDivision should encouragethe BGFA and fisherfolk organisationsto establisha proces for conflict management.The Division could then facilitate or mediate ratlm than arbitrate unless there was no alternahve. Anglerswere unhappy and concerned with their dwindling ~ of billfish. Theyattribute the declineto the by-catchoflonglining, andespeciaHy foreign tuna andswordfish longliners. To addressthis issue,a collaborativeeffort is neededin fisheriesmanagement and research among Caribbean countries to investigatethese observationsand perceptions with the aim of maintainingor improvingthe quality of anglingexperience. The matterof measuringthe impactsof foreignfishing is an IBcelyto be shared with the commercial fishery. arLdeollaboattion or informationexchanges between the fisheriescould serve to establishmore common 53~ Gulf and Caribbean 1-iahorios tantutn Pa9o 365 ground. Anotherconsideration is the tradeof betweenpromoting an unregulated local longline fishesy,as at present,aad regulating billfish harvestingso as to enhancethe ~onal fishery,which could be ~ more towardscatch aad release, These options should be considered ia the Fisheries Management Plan.
Attitudes Towards Fisheries Management As the marine fisheriesin Barbadoscontinue to grow, tournamentanglers appreciatethat increasingpressureis exerted oa the fisheryresources,and therefore, precautionarymanagement ~es aad measuresmay be required via the implemeatatioaof variousangling rules and regulations. They have witnessed the incorporationof more IGFA rules in their own tournamentsand have instituted nuaimum ietention weights. With ~ to catch and release,a large proportion of the aaglerswere uncertainabout support for this becauseof the different reasonsfor targetingeach species,apmblem encountered more with multi-speciesthan single-species fisheries, Anglers who agreedto the releaseof fish preferredto catch marlin. Thosethat preferreddolphin mostly disayeed with catchand release. Similarly with bag liauts, which received least support, the rationale for oppositionrelates to the consuinptionof fish as an importantieasoa for fishing. liume that considered the sale of fish important or had dolphin as first choice were mostopposedtothe useofbag limits, Theserelationships point to consumptionand saleas important elements to beconsidered in themanagement ofMRF in Barhidos for somespecies especially. Byexamiaiaginotivesandattitudestogether with variousmanagementoptions forresoutceconservafion, fisheries managerscandevisecomlxeheasivemanagemeat and developmentprograms to aieet the anglers'and government'sobjectives for responsiblefisheries. For example,for those who prefer to target biilfish high emphasisshould be placedon catchrates but low emphasison retention. Such coannvatioa practicesmay facilitate an ecotourismperspective Holland et aL 1998!. For fisheries managersto provide programs best suited for anglers, information is requiredon the different componentsof a fishing experiencethat contributeto anglersatisfaction Ditton 1996!. Cautionshould be exercised when generalizing results &om motivationstudies to provideprograms for aaglersbe~se aggregateprofiles may be ausleadingand obscurethe diverseinterests of aaglers.As Shafer 969! reminds,there is no such thing asan avengeangler. We shouldexpect diversity in motivationsand attitudes, and hence,there is a need to prioritise and compromiseamongst angler and managementobjectives. Ia conclusion, this paper ill~ for fisheries nuuuqpmentthe importanceof humandimension information abouttournament aaglers. Antta, U. Ot al. GCFl:53 2002
LITERATURE CITED Buchanan,T. 1983.Towards anunderstanding of variabiTity in satiiacbonswithin activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 15:39-51. Ditton, R.B. 1996. Understandingthe diversity amonglargemouth bass anglers; implicationsfor managers.Pages 135-144 in: LS. Mirandaand D.R. Devries eds.! MultidimensionalApproaches to Reservoir Fisheries Management, AmericanFisheries Society, Symposium 16, Bethesda,Maryland USA. Driver, B.L and R.C. Knopf 1976. Temporaryescape; one product of sports fishing managementFisheries 1 !:24-29. Fedler, A J. 1984. Elements of motivation and satisfactionintbe marinc mcxekonal fishing experience.Marine RecreationalFisheries 9:75-84. Fedler, A3, and R.B. Ditton. 1994. Understarxling motivation in fisheri managermmt.Fisheries 19 !:6-13. FisheriesDivision. 1997. BarbadosFisheries ManagementPlan. Minislxy of Agricultureand Rural Development,Government of Barbados.68 pp. Graefe,A.R. and AL Fedler. 1986. Situationaland subjectivedeterminatnts of srtidnction in marinerecreafional anglmg, Leisttre Science 8:275-295. Holland, S&. andR.B. Ditton. 1992.Fishing satislaction:A typology of anglers. North hmericanJournal of FisheriesMeeeaIyment 12:2$-33. Holhmd,S.M., R.B Ditton andML Graefe.1998. An ecotourismperspective on billfish fisheries.Journal of SttstainableTourism 6 !:97-116. Knopf,' R.C., BL. Driver and J.R. ~ 1973. Motivations for fishing. Transactions¹rthhmerican 8"i dlife and Natural ResottrceConference 3$: 191-204. Mike, A. andI.G. Cowx.1996. A prelimiranyappraisal of tbe contributionof recnxmonalfishing to tbe fisheriessector in north-westTrinidad Fisheries Managementand Ecology3:219-228. Shafer,E3. 1969. The aven~ camperwho doesnot exist. ResearchPaper NE- 142. Upper Dazbyy,Pennsylvania: USDA Forest Service,Nortleast Forest Experimen Station. ParticipatoryProces~tes for InvolvingFisherfolk in Barbados Fisheries Management Planning
EMMA WILUAMS', PATRICK MCCONNEY' and ANDERSON KINCIP ' NaturalResource Management Progr amme, CERES, University of the WestIndies CaveHill Campus,Barbados Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture Bridgetown,Barbados ' Oistins FisherfoNAssociation Ch ist Ch ch, Barbers
ABSTRACT A bottom-upapproach to planningwas implemented for the formulationof the 2001 to 2003 FisheriesManagement Plan for Barbados.~ than seekpublic participationthrough obtaining comments on anexisting draft, this processsought wide shia:holderinput without preparedtext. Themain initiative wasa seriesof fish Landingsite conununity consultations aimed at identifyingissues and recommending actionsfor inclusionin the draft managementplan. Fishingindustry organisations and the FisheriesDivision of governmentcollaborated in this process. Industry issuesfocused mainly on immediateproblems with landing site infi3structureand constraintsaffecting income-generating activities. Conservation was mentioned primarily in the context of fisheriesknown aheadyto be in crisis. Most of the actionsrecommended placedresponsibility for fisheriesmanagement principally on government,withrelatively little responsibilityshared by the fishing industry.This paperexamines the inputs and outputs of theparticipatory process prior to draNng the 2001-2003Fisheries Management Plan for RNbatlos.
KEY WORDS:Barbados, participatory, planning
INTRODUCTION Thefirst Fisheries Management Plan FMP!for Barbados was approved in 1997 following an intmductozyplanning processthat emphasisedthe role of a multi- stakeholderFisheries Advisory Conunittee FAC!with later input fiom individuals in the fishing industrythrough a seriesof public meetings McConneyand Mahon 1998!. The legislationto give effect to the agreedupon managementmeasure becamelaw in 1998as regulationsunder the FisheriesAct of 1993. Prior to this pmcessthe majority of peoplein thefishing induslxy and the genemL pubfic were unfamiliar with the conceptof fisheriesmanagement planning McConney1997!. Thefirst plan,for thethree-year period 1997 to 2000,was intended primaril asa communicationand education document FisheriesDivision 1997!. During thepreparation of the 1997-2000FMP few organisationsexisted in the fishing industry.The absence of fisherfolkorganissfionsmayhave impacted as much on the contentsof the Planas it did on the process.The latterwas more of an Wlllhma, E. et aL GCFI:53 2002 exercisein the pmmotionof puticipation thanit wasin the technicaland scientific ~ of fisheriesmanagementplanning McConaey and Mahon 1998!. However, in unplementingthe 1997-2000FMP, the goveinnent of Barbadoshas encouraged a co-maaageineatappmach to fisheriesgovernmce. The governmentassisted in establishingand strengtiiening fisberfolk oqpuusations through atwo-year Fish+folk OrganisationDevelopment Pmject FODP!reported on in McConneyet al. 998!. Thepmject was moderately successful in termsof creitiagor facilitatingconditions that favour co-management McCoaaey in press!. Severalexamples of attempted co-managementexistinthe CaribbeanCommunity Bmwnand Pomemy1999!, and this form of partnershipis seenas one of the more positive optionsfor reforming fisheriesgovernance in the region Cliakalafi et at. 1998!. Althoughfisherfolkoqpuusatioashave beenfonned through the FODP, several of themare still weak. Oneof tbe mostsignificant pmblems has been that manyof theorganisatioas lack effective leade.ihipto interestand sustain the involvemeatof members McCoaney et al. 1998!. The governmeut'siateatioa for thephmning the new 2001-2003 FisheriesManagement Phm is to involve Ssherfolkorganisatioas more in tbe pmcess. This may help to strimgthm both Ssheriesmanagement plauningandfisberfolkorganisations inBarbadostbmughinfarmatlon exchange and tbe demonstrationof importantmles that the uidustryorgaaisations can play. An imporuurt aspectof developingthe 2001 - 2003 FMP will be encouragingco- managementaad stakeholder participation that wN strivetowards a bottom-up,as opposedto the more conventional~wa, appmIichto phmniag. There will be questions as to wbetlier top-down consultation, or the encouragemeatof bottom-upparticipation, is moreappropriate in Barbwidosat this time due to the presentlack of awarenessabout. fisheries iaaiuigeuamt and the emergentdevelopment stage of the fisherfoik organisations.Indeed tbe mle of govenunentin theprocess ofenguieeriag co-manalpment can also be bmugbt under scrutiny Pomemyaud Berkes 1997, Jeatoit et aL 1998!. However,it is generaHy thought that social partnersbipswiH continue to play a key role in fisheries maaayuneatplanning in Barbakm and thmughout the easternCaribbean, and thereforeshould be encouraged Chakslall et aL 1998!. This paperlooks at how the Ssheriesmanagement planning process began for the formulation of the 2001 - 2003 FMP, with emphasison the pmcessused to involve fisherfolk, especiallythose associated with fishing industryorganisations. It looks at the initial inputsand outputs related to this participatoryevent as a result of fieldwork. It is a work in pmgnm that is beiag reportedupon hereas part of a graduatestudent reseamh project. Early in 2001, the new plan is expectedto be appmvedby the fisheriesMimster prior to implementation,as requiredby law, following severalother stepsin the process. 53" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Page 369
PARTICIPATORY PLANhHNG PROCESS The BILrbadosNational Union of FisherfolkOrganisations BARl@JFO! is a secondary,or umbrella, fisherfolk organisationformed through the FODP. Its membersare the primary fisherfolk organisationsscattered amund the coast With theexception of a singlefishing cooperative, these gmups are associations bound by aninternal constitution, but not anynational legal fiamework Their development pmcessand structure is examinedin McConneyet aL 998!. BARNUFOrecognised the growingneed for communitybard co-management appmachesto fisheriesgovernance in the Caribbeanand its potentialrole in the formulation and implementation of the 2001 - 2003 FMP. Its constituent organisationsand Board of Directorswidely acceptedthat fisherfolk mustplay an integral mle in the effective and efficient managementof fisheries resources throughoutthe Caribbean.Consequently, they saw stakeholderparticipation as a prerequisitefor providingan equitable mechanism for establishingstrong fisheries mmagementprocesses and plansthroughout the region. Consistentwith this guidingphilosophy, BARNUFO applied to theInternational DevelopmentResearch Centre IDRC! of Canadafor researchfunding under its recenfiyinitiated CommunityBased Coastal Resoumes Management Project Caribbean!. The overaHobjective of the BARICJFO proposalwas to undertake appliedresearch and participatory activities to provideprimary and secondary fisherfolkorluusationsin Barl'edos with the much needed capacity to meaninglly contributetowards the successfulimplementation of the 2001- 2003FMP, starting with formulationin a bottom-upplanning process. BARNUFO's proposedpmject sought through its member organisationsto formulate the fishing industry's perspectiveon issuesfor the formulationof the newFMP for 2001- 2003,by fum5ngresearch on fisheriesissues to be conductedby andfor the fisherfoIIL The aim wasalso to Iacihtatecapacity building in the flsherfolk organisationsover an eighteenmonth period, setout in threephases: Pre-plan, Planning and Postplan, throughtheactual practice and experience of participatoryplanning,Toachieve this the pmject was designedto comprisethe following activities: i! CommunityFMP consultations ii! National FMP consultation iii! Training in researchmethods iv! Participatoryresearch projects v! Reportsand recommendations vi! Evaluationof the FMP process vii! Fisheriesstudy tour opiional! Thispaper focuses only on theconununity FMP consultations, the first setof activities. Thepmject was approved by IDRC andlaunched on 12 January2000 at a BARNUFO Board of Directors' meetingby Ms Angela Watson,President. The BARNUFOpmject and the paraHelyear long FisheriesDivision review of the existing 1997- 2000Rv!P with formulationof the 2001-2003 FMP, termed"FMP 2000"by the governmentof Barbados,were strategically scheduled to coincide. Page 370 Williams E. et al. GCR:53 2002
This was to allow ~ in~on betweenthe two management-planning processes. The fisheries Minister launchedFMP 2000 at the same B/dQKFO meetingin a showof supportfor the simultaneousgrussmots process. Figure 1 comparesthe pmcesses for thetwo management plans, noting the intention for the presentprocess to be drivenby the fishingindustry through the BARIMUFO intervention.A fulleranalysis of the 1997-2000FMP pmcessis in McConneyand Mahon 99$!.
1997 2000 2001 2003 FMP process FMP process
Fi ure1. Coin roon of and nt FMP
Affer 1aunchingthe project,BARNUFO formeda sub-committeeof three fisherfolk a youngfisherman, a boat owner/formerfish processorand a boat owner/part-timefisherman! to work with a technicalcoordinator/advisor Chiefthe FisheriesOfficer! on project implementation. This subcotmnittee was ~ed to overseeall aspect of the pmjectand to reportto the montMymeeting of the BARNUFO Board of Directors. However, due mainly to logistic and conununicationpmblans this gmup did not functionas intended.The President subsequentlytook on itsmte partly by ~pting availablenMsnbers of constituent fisherfolkoqpmisations forvarious tasks, but primarily by doing most of the work herself. Althoughthe Board of Directors,comprising priulry organisation represmtatives,was kept informed,the Presidentexercised considerable &eedom in 53" Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries institute Page 371 makingdecisions in consultationwith theadviser. The organisations participated little in decision-makingalthough requested to do so by the Presidenton occasion. TheFMP "community consultations", as they were called, began on 23 July 2000 at Oistins, home of one of the more active and proactive fisherfolk associations,The communityconsultations were held at primary, secondary,and tertiaryfish landingsites in Barbados,bringing the meetings to thefisherfolkon their turf andunder their terms. Preparationfor thetwice-weekly consultations consisted ofpreparingpmmotionalflyers for the particular location, and then distributing them to 6sherfolk at the locationand surroundinglanding sites. Theone-page meeting flyers were designed to ~ the attentionand participationof fisherfolkat eachsite by highlightingimportant issues specific to fisheriesmanagement and development ateach location. For example, some flyers focussedon the inshorefisheries where these were most important,and others on the offshore6sheries, links with tourism,physical infrastructure, or othermatte as necessary.Attempts were made to havefisherfoik organisationshost or promote theconsultations when held in their locations,but only a fewresponded with action. In severalcases 6sheries officers distributed the meeting flyers on behalf of BARNUFOin theabsenceoffisherfolk organisationmembers identified for thetask. BARNUFO's Presidentalso communicated with keycommunity contacts to spread the word aboutthe consultationsprior to eachevent. A simHarsequence of stepswas followed at. each consultation as shown in Figure2. On arrival at the consultationlocation, ofien a fish market,shady tree or neighbourhoodshop, a Qipchartwas set up afterencouraging people to gather closelyaround the preferredspot. The ChiefFisheries Officer and President of BARhlUFOgave an overview of thepast and ~ FMP processes,highlighting the role of BARNUFO and the fisherfolk generallyin this bottom-up exercise, BMQR3FO'sPresident then usually chaired the connnunity consultation, with help if necemuy&om the technicalcoordinator/advisor. Refieshments were served halfwayor laterduring the process to keepthe discussiongoing and extend the informality. At eachcommunity consultation participants were encouragedto shareany pressingissues that they had pertaining to thefishing industry in general,a specific 6shery,oraparticular fish landing site. A graduatestudentrecorded onthe flipchart eachissue as it waspresented, and participants were then encouraged to aualyse how theseissues of concerncould be reasonablyaddressed and by whom. The responseswere receded next to the issuesas the recommendedactions in an adjacentcolurun. Sometimesthere was morethan one actionper issue,and sometimesthere were several alternative actions if theparticipants did not reach consensuson their prefertedresponse. Late arrivmgparticipants checked the fiipchartto seewhat had gone before, and sometimes the roxuded issues or actions were returned to for further elaboration or cbuification. Page N2 Williams, E. et al. GCFI:53 2002
Fi ure 2. T 'cal commun consultation a
Consultationslasted &am oneto nearlythree hours in the afternoongoing on to evening.They were informal with on-sitemedia coverage only on oneoccasion. The majority of thosewho attendedthe conunuuityconsultahons were older males who hadparticipated in the fishing industryfor manyyears. Therewas alsofairly good representationof youngermale fisherme or boat owners,and someolder womenfisher&1 who wme mainly fish vendors. Young womenwere generally scarce,except at Bridgetown where they compriseda substantialportion of the postharvestworkers e.g. fish cleanersand vendors!. Although fisherfolk were notified well in advanceof conununityconsultations, there wme stiH somewho chose not to participate even when on site and encoumgedto do so by the organisers or their peers. In most cases,however, consultations were ~ with enthusiasm from the fisherfolk and there were usually more than ten active participantsat eachlocation. Fifteen community~tations of this type were undertaken, with even geographical distribution around the coast. 53" Gulf and Caribbean Flaherlee Institute pa9e 3~3
In conclusion,the fisherfolk participantswere notified that their contributions would be circulatedback to them for review and further communitydiscussion, Theywere also told thatwhat wasrecorded should find its way into the 2001-2003 FMP if evenas an appendix of public participation.Finally, theywere reminded that not all matters could be dealt with in the FMP, but that BARNUFO would assist in ensuringthat those of major importanceto the 6shing industry would receive priority attention.
ISSUES AND ACTIONS IDEXHPIED The following tablespresent examples of the array of issuesand actionsthat wereSoluently mentioned at thecommunity consultations. They reflect only the views of those who participatedin this stageof the 2001 - 2003 FMP plamung processundernrken 8uough the BARNUFO project Theissues and actions varied slightlyat each community consultation due to differencesin thelocation, history, and characterof eachfish landiingsite, and asa resultof the different occupations of the 6sherfolk who participatedin the planningprocess. However, some points wereraised at almostevery session. Most issuestended to beimmediate rather than future~ented, andactions usuallyentailed govemment intervention. Quantitative analysesof theissues and actions by site,subject and other criteria are yet to be done. Table 1 lists a few of the issuesand actionsthat concernmainly the harvest sector. As much attentionwas paid to developmentand profitabiTityissues as to mitten of fishe6esresource management. The latter nuunly concernedinshore fisheries~ known to beunder threat due to habitatdegradation, overfishing, or combinationsof theseand other factors. Therewas relatively Vittle concern over the statusof sharedstocks of migratorypeiagics.
Table 1. Some harvest sector issues and actions
Small mesh in traps Increase for deep traps Smell seine net mesh Regulate minimum size Sea urchin ovtrrharvest Extend dosed season Inadequala boatyards Allocate coastal areas Too few boakuilders Youlh training needed Inadequate Ice supply More, bigger ice machines Government too slow 8Implify paperwork Fishery inputs cos5y Increase subsidies
The situalion with postbarvestsector issues and actionsreflected a narrower rangeof topics,empbasising rluality-related matters and physical in&ustructure for fish processing,storage and sale Table 2!. While workersin postbarvest occupationsseldom raised harvest sector issues, ~en and boat ownershsd much to say about posthrrrvest. Page 374 Wilttams, E. et al. GCFI:53 2002
Table 2. Some postharvest sector issues and acbons
Need quality assurance Put HACCP in new lew Improve pubbc markets User group committees Ex-vessel prices too low Guaranteed min. prtce Fish prices too vene5e Increase ~ space Imports too competitive Restrict tish imporbIbon Fishers ere price-takers Geiemmtint protecbon Poor tish handling Code ol practice, train Consumers not Customer iebttions
In general,participants did not demonstrateSuniliarity with regional and international6simies problems.Also, participantsmade points that reflectedpoor awatenessofthe Barbados govemcnent's policies on internationaland regional trade, subsidies,andprice control, among others. Information thatwas available Som the Fisheries Division was not reaching these chents, even in caseswhere that informationhad been provided to representativesof the 6sherfolkorganisation mving the area. An overarchingissue raised was that there should be better interaction and feedback between the Fisheries Division staff and 6sherfolk as follow-up a6er importanttneetings have been held. The 6nal 2001 - 2003 FMP BAIQIUFO consultation will be a national event opmiedup to a widerselection of 6shing industrystakeholders such as tourism and watentportinterests, government agencies, environmental non-governmental agenciesand others. This will be a one-dayevent where the diversestakeholders will disci' issuesand actions Soma thecommunityconsultations amongst their peers and otherinterested parties. Co-managementapproaches is the themeof the consultation.It will providean opportunity for all of the stakeholdersto sharetheir concerns and recommendations with each other and the relevant authorities. This will furtherencourage bottom-up, as opposed to to~wn, approachesto 6sheries managementplanning in Barbados.The otherproject activities are still to be undertaken.
DISCUSSION During the previousFMP planningpm' for formulating the 1997- 2000 FisheriesManagement Plan, the BarbadosFisheries Division and the Fisheries AdvisoryCommittee debmnined the plan adilressesmore thm just the 6shing industry.The FisheriesAdvisory Comnutteewas relegahd to the role of reviewing a prepareddocument that would integratethe industxy'sconcerns regarding the agemhand prioritization of issues. This differs &omthecurrent FMPplanningprocesswhereby all members of the 6shing community were given an opportunity to attend and participate in the scheduledevents designed to make their input, though oral communication,the point of departurefor the 2001 - 2003 FMP. Community consultationsin the presentFMP planningprocess emphasize 6sherfolk as vital in developingthe new LI" Gulf and Caribbean Fieberlee Institute paQe 3>5 plan. Paying~ attention to the opinions' of fisherfolk may further encourage their integrationinto fisheriesmanagement decision-making. The simple inethodology of the BAI&KFO "community consultations" successfullybrought the planningprocess to fisherfolk on their own termsand in their own territory. Logistics were simple, and fisherfolk did not haveto make much effort to ~ Visibly recording eachissue and action raised was weil receivedby consultationparticipants who werereassured that their concernswould not beoverlookedduringthis exercise, but wouldprovideinputs towards developing thenew FisheriesManagement Plan. Circulatingthe issuesandactions back to them reinforced the concept.However, perhapsthe Fisheries Division becametoo associatedwith the projectby beingvery visible andperhaps making itdifficult for participants to distinguish between a govmunent process and the fisherfolk orgsnisations'initiative. However, few 6sherfolk organisationswere effective in promoting the participation of their inembers. The project has confirmed that effective participationin fisheriesmanagement and planning demandsadditional capacity building in fisherfolkorganisations.Fishing industryoryeisations' role in the2001 - 2003 FMP planningprocess was largelyconfined to BARNUFO, as many organisationsstill remainineffectual, mainly becauseof weak Ieahsrship,poor communication,internal disputes, or mactive members. The dict that BARNUFO's Presidentchaired the communityconsultations may help to encouragefisherfolk leadersto eitherre-activate their organisations orto develop new ensctive fisherfolk organisationsthrough liaising with BA:RNUFO.The involvementof moreactive fisherfolkorganisationsinfuture FMP planningprocesses might inevitably become a key elementof fisheriesmanagement planning in Barbados.However, some informational issues have to be addressed first. Althoughfisherfolk welcomed consultation they lackedbasic information, especiallyon policy-relatedmatters. Yet fisherfolkare awareof problemsSicing theirindustry and have thought about solutions, even though most participants saw solutionsby govermnentrather than throughtheir own collectiveaction and organisationalinitiative. Many ofthe propo.&protectivegovernmentinterventions werecontrary to nationalpolicy on trade,subsidies, price control, etc.. 'Ibistends toconfiimthe observationsby fisher&lk tbatcommunicationproblems exist among themselves,andbetaeen theinand government. Information inadeqemes constrain bottom-upapproaches, but top-downappmaches are not likely to be considered legitimateplanningprocessesgiven the interest offisberfolkinactively participating in decision-making. The issuesand actionsraised during the communityconsuiuuions are an importantpart of developingfisheries' human resources. They help to generate discussionbetween stakeholders that shouldstrengthen the industry'srole in znanagementand SciTitate sustainable 6sheries in Barbadosand throughout the Caribbean,They also help to bringthe concerns of fisherfolkto theattention of the pubHcand so upMt the image of Ssherfolkby eradicatingthe stereotype of themns uninterestedin maiiagingtheir own afiairs. The consultationoutputs show that Page 378 VIAlliams,E. et al. GCFI:53 2002 fisherfolkhave good inte~ve andanalytical skills, and they are capable of coherentlydiscussing the problems facing the Sshingindustry and the management of fisheriesresources, despite their lack of someinformation. In manyinstances, their wealthof first-handpractical ecological knowledge compensates for second- handscientific knowledge, and it is onlyin therealm of policythat the information de6ciencyis particularlyevidcsrt. Furthermore,some of the issuesraised by fisherfolk werecontroversial. Had recommendationssuchasmandatory national insurance contributions for Sshermen, fish vendorshaving to pay their own light and water bills at public markets,and bloodtests for fishhandlers as a healthrequirement, been raised by non-Ssherfolk theobjections would have been severe. Fisherfolk also have many concerns which pertainmore to managementof 6sh landing sites than Ssheries. These are relevant in the context of improving working conditions. They remind us that the fish resourceis only oneaspect of Ssheriesoperations and that other factors may be equallyrelevant to qualityof life. Addressingthe problems at Sshlanding sites may encourage6sherfolk to takean active interest in otheraspects of themanagement anddeveioIanentofthefisbingindustryand Ssherfolk organisations. There was talk of 6shmarket user group committees being formed and af5liated with Ssherfolk orgamsatlons. The new Fisheries1VhnMtgement Plan, if it is a true reflection of Ssherfoik participationand input during this round of connnunityconsultations, should give Ssherfolkagreahmsense ofachievement and satislaction than the 1997-2000 FMP process.The ymca of bottom-upparticipation of fisherfolkin formulatingthe 2001-2003 FMP can,however, only be consideredsuccessful at a laterstage when theplan is completeand being implemented. Getting the input of fisherfolkduring plannug may, or may not, encouragetheir integrationinto later fisheries managementplan decision-making. While improved participation in phuuktgand managementmay be feasible,most fisherfolk organizationsare far Som beconnng partnerswith governmentin co-managementat this time. Further developmental work is clearly warranted,particularly in capacity-building.
ACKNOWLEDGElItlENTS
This researchwas funded by a researchgrant under the CommunityBased Coastai ResourcesManagement Caribbean! Project of the International DevelopmentResearch Centre gDRC! of Canada. 53~ Gulf and Caribbean Raheries Institute Page 377
LITERATURE CITED Brown, D.N. andR.S. Pomeroy. 1999. Co-managementof CaribbeanCommunity CARICOM! Fisheries. Marine Policy 23:549-590. Chakalall, B,, R. Mahon, and P. McConney. 1998, Current issues in fisheries goverrrarM+in the CaribbeanCommunity CARICOM!. Marine Poli cy 22:29- 44. Fisheries Division. 1997. Barbados Fisheries Management Plan. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,Government of Barbados.68 pp. Jentoft, S., B3. McCay and D.C. Wilson. 1998. Social Theories and Co- management Marine Policy 22 -5!:423-436. McConney, P.A. 1997. Social strategies for coping with uncertainty in the Barbadossmall-scale pelagic fisher. Proceedingsofthe Gulfand Caribbean Fisheries Institute 49:99-113. McConney,PA, 2001, Organisingfisherfolk in Barbadoswithout completinga cleanround. Proceedings of theGulf andCaribbean Fisheries Institute 52:290- 299. McConney, PA., A. Atapattu and D. Leslie. 1998. Organisingfisherfolk in Barbados.Proceedings of the &df and CaribbeanFisheries Institute 51:299- 308. McConney,PA. andR. Mahon. 1998. Introducingfishery managementphmnhg to Barbados.Ocean and CoastalManagement 39:189-195 Pomeroy,R. S. and F. Berkes. 1997. Two to tango: the role of governmentin fisheriesco-management. Marine Policy 21:465%80.