Evaluation of stakeholder perspectives on the management of the stalked barnacles (Pollicipes pollicipes) resource in the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina, Portugal

Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Evaluation of stakeholder perspectives on the management of the stalked barnacles (Pollicipes pollicipes) resource in the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina, Portugal Akilah T.M. Stewart a,n, Bruno D.D. Fragoso a,b, Rodrigo Clímaco a, John D. Icely a,c a

CIMA—Centro de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental, FCT, Edificio 7, Universidade do Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal IMAR—Instituto do Mar a/c, Departamento de Zoologia, FCT, Universidade de Coimbra, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal c Sagremarisco—Viveiros de Marisco Lda, Apartado 21, 8650-999 Vila do Bispo, Portugal b

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Available online 24 April 2013

The stalked barnacle, Pollicipes pollicipes, is a shellfish resource which has been traditionally harvested by the coastal communities of the Iberian Peninsula. However, in recent years Pollicipes has attracted increased harvesting pressure due to its high market value. In a national park on the south-western coast of Portugal, legislation was formulated to address the overharvesting of this resource; however, its success has been limited due to lack of consensus among stakeholders. A Systems Approach Framework (SAF) was used to assess the socio-economic and cultural issues surrounding the harvest of Pollicipes. As part of this, interviews and a questionnaire survey were undertaken in the municipality of Vila do Bispo, in order to explore the perspectives of the shell fishers, local residents and restaurateurs. The majority of the stakeholders believed that the resource was overharvested and that their needs should be considered as part of the legislation formulation process. The stakeholders also agreed that the local market should be re-established and that the temporal closure period should be reconsidered. Stakeholder opinions differed with regard to the level of coastal management enforcement required, the licence distribution process and the restrictions implemented by national park authorities. It is concluded that using information such as that gathered from local stakeholders, it should be possible to effectively extend the SAF to simulate scenarios for future management options. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stalked barnacles Overexploitation Resource management Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina Stakeholder participation

1. Introduction Stakeholder perspectives on the management of fisheries resources are often contentious particularly in a Marine Protected Area (MPA) as different stakeholder groups may have different objectives for the use of this space [1]. These can range from economic, social, cultural, political and biological objectives and often a combination of these, although with differing priorities for different stakeholders [2,3]. In particular, biological objectives can run counter to social objectives, which mostly focus on opportunities for employment and income distribution from harvesting these resources [4]. Conversely, the biological approach focuses on achieving sustainable yields from the resources.

n Correspondence to: Department of Life Sciences,Faculty of Science and Technology,The University of the West Indies,St. Augustine Campus,Trinidad and Tobago. Tel.: +1 86 872 75427. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.T.M. Stewart), [email protected] (B.D.D. Fragoso), [email protected] (R. Clímaco), [email protected] (J.D. Icely).

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.016

Often, achievement of biological objectives comes at the expense of social and cultural objectives [5] which can ultimately reduce the benefits to some stakeholder groups over others [4]. These benefits are mostly linked to avenues for livelihood or economic returns to stakeholders that may be derived from access to natural resources. Hilborn [4] distinguishes two groups here, the protectionists consisting of government and scientists, versus the traditionalists comprising fisher folk and local inhabitants who aim to obtain the maximum yield from a given area [4]. This difference can be an issue particularly when an MPA is created in an area where users historically have had no restrictions to the natural capital [1]. This research combines an environmental and social approach to stakeholder consultation using a questionnaire survey to explore a partial application of the Systems Approach Framework (SAF) developed by the Science and Policy Integration for Coastal System Assessment (SPICOSA) project [5]. The perspectives of the main stakeholder groups will be examined using a case study from a Portuguese MPA. The degree to which conflicts take place in the establishment and implementation of MPAs has been found to be under-documented [6] and this research aims to add to that body of literature.

72

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

2. Study site One of the most valuable shellfisheries in Europe is that of the stalked barnacle, Pollicipes pollicipes. This species is distributed along the high energy, rocky coasts of the northeast Atlantic extending between 481N in Europe and 141N in Africa [7–9]. One fishery is located along the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, but in recent years these stocks have been overharvested in Spain [8] and increasingly in Portugal [10]. One of the most important centres for this fishery in Portugal is along the southwest coast. However, in 1995 this section of coastline was designated as a national park called the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vincentina (PNASCV). Its' objective, amongst others, was to conserve the declining stocks of the stalked barnacle, or ‘perceves’ as they are known locally. Regulations by the Portuguese Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources for the commercial harvesting of this fishery has been implemented by the PNASCV [11], but this has been done with only limited discussion with local stakeholders. This paper documents the conflicts arising from the implementation of these regulations from the perspectives of three stakeholder groups in three adjacent communities in the Costa Vicentina. The PNSACV has an area of 75,000 ha with some 100 km of Atlantic Sea coastline (Fig. 1) and is recognised and protected because of its biological diversity and importance not only at a local level, but also at a national and European level [11,12]. It is a part of the Natura 2000 Network, a Special Protection Area for birds under the Birds Directive and also a Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive [13,14]. It also has cultural significance in terms of its architectural and archaeological heritage [15]. Marine areas in the park where fishing is totally prohibited include Pedra da Agulha, Pedra da Galé, Pedra das Gaivotas and Pedra do Gigante. Other areas and species of particular value include the slopes of the Ribeira Torgal in Odemira, the cave beaches of Odeceixe, areas colonized by the IUCN listed threatened plant species Plantago almogravensis of Almograve (Odemira), areas colonized by Cistus ladanifer subsp. sulcatus (Zambujeira do Mar to Odemira) and the cliff east of the Boca do Rio. Vale Santo in Sagres has been designated as the Sagres Biogenetic Reserve and sites of built heritage include Carriços, Quinta da Fortaleza and Caminho do Infante in Vila do Bispo [15]. The upwelling events along the coast of the PNSACV provide colder, nutrient-rich waters that are responsible for the high productivity of this coast, including the ‘perceves’ [16]. Since the designation of the park, the coast has been divided into

nine zones for harvesting by the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources [11]. Zones 1–4 (from Cabo de Sines to Monte Clérigo Beach) fall under the administrative region of Alentejo, and the other zones, 5–9 (Fateixa Beach to Atalaia Point), delimit the Costa Vicentina and come under the administrative region of the Algarve. The focus of this study is the municipality of Vila do Bispo in the Costa Vicentina at Zones 7– 9 (Fig. 1).

3. Stalked barnacle socio-economic relevance P. pollicipes has been recognised as having considerable socioeconomic importance at a local and regional level within the PNASCV [11], reflecting the high demand not only from Portugal but also from Spain [8,16,17]. The market value ranges from 12 to 35 € kg−1 (pers. com. Algarve fishers in September 2009), but can extend to 450 € kg−1 depending on demand and quality [16], and also on the environmental conditions where it is harvested. It has been found that areas with stronger wave action have greater coverage and abundances due to a rich plankton supply [18]. The official data for the landings of ‘perceves’ within the PNSACV is shown in Fig. 2 with yearly averages of approximately 11,000 kg, 850 kg and 700 kg, shown for Sagres, Zambujeira and Sines, respectively. However, there is a substantial volume that is unrecorded due to direct sales to restaurants and private consumers. In addition to the economic benefit of harvesting ‘perceves’, a rich cultural status is associated with the species [8,19]. This may perhaps be associated with the risks of harvesting an animal that only thrives on rough, rocky outcrops exposed to large Atlantic oceanic waves In small isolated communities, cultural significance is particularly valued and respected, thereby providing further impetus to maintain harvesting activities.

4. Legislative overview The PNSACV implemented regulations for the commercial harvesting of ‘perceves’ in 2006 based on the legal document Order no. 385/2006 [11] with the objective of allowing exploitation as both a biologically and economically sustainable resource. This involved a number of rules of which some are presented below: (1) Only an ‘arrilhada’ (a chisel like device) can be used for harvesting based on a previous legal document Order no. 1102-B/2000 [20].

20000

Sagres Zambujeira Sines

weight (kg)

15000

10000

5000

0 1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

year Fig. 1. Shaded area delimits boundaries of the PNSACV with the numbering showing the division of the coast into harvesting zones for the stalked barnacle. The Figure has been adapted from the Portuguese Institute of Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity [15] and Order no. 385/2006 [11].

Fig. 2. Three highest landings of stalked barnacle (P. pollicipes) at Ports within the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina between 1986 and 2011. Ports shown are Zambujeira, Sines and Baleeira Port, Sagres. Sagres landing values stand out by significant margins. Source: General-Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture (DGPA).

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

73

(2) A closed season for harvesting and marketing can be implemented: this is currently from the 15 September to the 15th December each year. (3) Fishers (‘marisqueiros’) cannot carry more than 20 kg of ‘perceves’ at one time. (4) There are restrictions on the percentage of ‘perceves’ with less than 20 mm between the external rostral and carinal shell plates. (5) The legislation has also set a current limit of 80 harvesting licences, awarded according to a points system [21]. This point system is as follows: – Applicants must be residents in the municipalities of the PNSACV, according to voter registration cards, or certification permits (+2 points). – Applicants who previously harvested ‘perceves’ in the park—1 point per year, up to a limit of 3 yr (+3 points). – Applicants who have submitted a harvest logbook in the previous year (+1 point). – Infringement of rules of harvesting (−2 points).

Bispo, Vila de Sagres and Raposeira as well as the scientific community. There are varying perspectives and perceptions on whether, and the extent to which there has been overharvesting of the stalked barnacle. The creation of legislation to protect the stalked barnacle has resulted in the ‘marisqueiros’ and residents taking the position that their stake in the resources is being sidelined, which has led to resentment and illegal harvesting. Conversely, the aim of PNSACV management, the DGPA, INIAP and the scientific community is to conserve the resource and its coastal habitat, taking account of the needs of the ‘marisqueiros’ and residents, which does not necessarily translate into complete harvest prohibition but rather a compromise. At the time the research was carried out, ‘marisqueiros’ and residents did not recognise this aspect of the management approach.

In order to oversee the implementation of these laws, there is a management committee comprising representatives from the PNSACV, the General-Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture (DGPA), the National Institute of Agriculture Research and Fisheries (INIAP) and the ‘marisqueiros’ [11,22]. This committee also has the right to revise current regulations and policies and propose future development plans.

The SAF methodology, through its approach of combining components of ecology, economics, social and political sciences as well as social and governance issues [5,24] seeks to develop the linkages between stakeholders which includes users of the coastal space, managers, policy makers and scientists. With the ultimate objective of development of sustainable management options, the SAF is specifically designed to support policy changes within a given geographical area [24]. The SAF defines and contextualises the main problems or contentious issues within a defined area, based on the agreed joint perceptions of stakeholders. It then utilises numerical and mathematical models to illustrate how the issue relates to the rest of the system, before providing stakeholders with a number of issue resolution options [5,24]. It is possible to test out the issue resolution options within the relatively ‘safe’ environment of the SAF, thus avoiding costly mistakes and providing the opportunity to fully consider the intended and unintended consequences of system change. The research presented here contributes to the early stages of the SAF approach, namely, the identification of stakeholders, clarification of their perspectives and definition of the issue to be considered. This is a vital part of the systems approach and lays the foundations for a full systems approach project.

5. Previous work on P. pollicipes The published work on P. pollicipes has focused mainly on the ecology, genetics, life history, population structure of the species. Peer reviewed work on P. pollicipes is limited and assessments that address the management of the species are even scarcer. The current management options for the ‘perceve’ populations in the PNSACV are based on general traditional approaches to fisheries resource management. However, Morales and Freire [8] have explored a more technical method in Galicia, using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and databases which the Galician fisheries associations have utilised in their management scheme. Of particular interest is the productivity of ‘perceves’, which is related to upwelling events that are induced by prevailing northerly winds during the late spring to the early autumn months [16,23]. These events transport nutrient rich, cold waters to the ocean surface which subsequently provoke plankton blooms that support high secondary production rates [9,16]. Additionally, a study in 1993–1994 at Castelejo in Vila do Bispo [16] found that high percentages of the P. pollicipes population carries ripe ovaries throughout the winter months, suggesting that food resources are sufficient throughout the year and that the reproductive capacity is not necessarily restricted to specific time periods.

6. Conflict overview Conflict arising within the ‘perceves’ fishery involves a number of stakeholders, which include ‘marisqueiros’ and their associations (Associação de Marisqueiros de Vila do Bispo–Costa Vicentina and Associação Mariscadores da Costa Vicentina e Sudoeste Alentejano), community members or residents of the park, the PNSACV management, General-Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture (DGPA), the National Institute of Agriculture Research and Fisheries (INIAP), the Presidents of the ‘Freguesias’1 of Vila do 1

Freguesia—smallest administrative unit of government in Portugal.

7. Methodology 7.1. Systems approaches

7.2. Questionnaire A questionnaire-survey was used to capture stakeholder perspectives and to determine their positions and views on the issue of ‘perceves’ management within the PNSACV. The major management issues and perceived problems were identified from a literature review which included consideration of the current legislation relating to ‘perceves’. The approach to the management in Canada — West Coast Vancouver — of the North American Pollicipes analogue Pollicipes polymerus also provided useful perspectives in developing the questionnaire [25]. The questions were designed to target all levels of education and three key groups within the study area, namely ‘marisqueiros’, restaurant owners and community members. The questionnaires were divided into three sections, with the specific number of questions differing for each stakeholder group; ‘marisqueiros’ had 24 questions, restaurant owners 10 questions and general community members 20 questions. Therefore, only some questions were analysed for comparative purposes, and more questions were compared in the ‘marisqueiro’ and community questionnaires. Section 1, on Personal Information gathered background data which included age, gender, length of time resident in the

74

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

community and profession. The ‘marisqueiros’ were additionally asked if they were part-time or full-time ‘marisqueiros’ and if they were a member of either of the two shell fishing associations, while the restaurant owners were asked how many years they had been in operation. Section 2 asked questions that sought to garner a perspective on the state of the resource. Questions addressed whether they thought there had been a change in the population of ‘perceves’ harvested in recent years, if yes, in what way they thought the ‘perceves’ had been subjected to overharvesting. ‘Marisqueiros’ were additionally asked if ‘perceves’ were the main species harvested, how often ‘perceves’ were harvested per month and what other shellfish species were also harvested. Section 3 focused on the management of the park as it related to ‘perceves’. Questions asked included whether they thought their perspectives should be considered in the formulation of legislation related to the management of the park and whether the current protection was sufficient to protect the resource. They were also asked if they thought the number of licences, set at 80 was an appropriate number. Questions included in the ‘marisqueiro’ and community questionnaire also addressed if the closure period, currently from 15 September to December, was sufficient to guarantee the protection of ‘perceves’ and if not, which months would be more appropriate. They were also asked if the option of no take grounds that have been implemented elsewhere [8], or rotation zones for ‘perceves’ harvesting might be a conservation strategy that could be considered in this case. Finally, restaurant owners were asked if they thought that their businesses had been affected since the 2006 legislation implementation, and if so, how this had influenced trade. To minimise multiple interpretation of the possible response ranges, some questions had pre-formulated or close-ended options that helped to guide the respondent and to facilitate focused responses. A pilot study was carried out, with 40 questionnaires distributed over a 2 day period. This was primarily to identify faults in the questionnaire style and content. Questionnaires were distributed to ‘marisqueiros’ at the Baleeira fishing port at Sagres and also to restaurant owners and patrons at restaurants where ‘perceves’ were served. Useful suggestions were obtained from the pilot study and the questionnaire was adapted accordingly. For example, following the pilot study, additional questions addressing whether recreational resident harvesters who live in the park should be given special permission to harvest the resource over outsiders of the park were included. Recipients were also asked whether recreational harvesting licences for residents of the park should be considered and whether locals thought the ‘perceves’ market should be re-established. A contextual introduction to the influencing legislation was also added following the pilot study, and the restaurant questionnaire was shortened considerably. The final questionnaire was distributed from 5 January to 2 March 2010. A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed and 111 were returned completed. Again some of the questionnaires were distributed at the Baleeira fishing port at Sagres, where ‘marisqueiros’ were targeted before or after going out to the sea. Another method of distribution was through the board members of the Associação de Marisqueiros de Vila do Bispo–Costa Vicentina and the Associação Mariscadores da Costa Vicentina e Sudoeste Alentejano. In the case of the latter, on two occasions the questionnaires were delivered during their association meetings. Twenty-six restaurants were targeted within the ‘Freguesias’ of Vila do Bispo, Vila de Sagres and Raposeira with 11, 11 and 4 in each of the respective ‘Freguesias’. The questionnaire designed for the restaurant owners sought to identify the economic impact on them from the current management of the ‘perceve’ resource. Restaurant owners were seen as intermediaries between the

‘marisqueiros’ and the clients for their harvest and, therefore, played an important role in helping understand the complexities of local issues. In common with the restaurant questionnaires, the community questionnaires were targeted at the ‘Freguesias’ of Vila do Bispo, Vila de Sagres and Raposeira which contain populations of approximately 956, 1939 and 441 persons, respectively (see Table 1) [26]. One key source or informant from each ‘Freguesia’ aided in the distribution of the questionnaires. The questionnaire was shortened to target key issues—such as if restaurateurs thought the harvesting of ‘perceves’ was important to their ‘Freguesia’ in economic, social and cultural terms. They were also asked if there were any changes in the operations of their ‘Freguesia’ that they thought could be related to the implementation of legislation to regulate the harvesting of ‘perceves’ in 2006. Restaurateurs were also asked if they thought the legislation effectively protected the resource, and also whether they considered the suggestion of residents to re-establish the ‘perceves’ market to be a good measure.

8. Results The response to the questionnaires from the four stakeholder groups are summarised in Table 2. Of the 80 licence holders in the park, 26 ‘marisqueiros’ responded. In addition, 18 of the 22 restaurant owners and 66 local residents completed questionnaires. Geographically, the majority of the ‘marisqueiros’ responses came from Vila de Sagres (38%) and Vila do Sagres (38%). Similarly, most of the community responses came from Vila do Bispo (47%) and Vila de Sagres (42%), while 50% of the restaurateurs' responses came from Vila do Bispo and 39% came from Vila de Sagres. Other locations for the ‘marisqueiro’ stakeholder were Raposeira, Carrapateira and Portimão and for the community stakeholders, they were Raposeira, Figueria and Salema. The Portimão response was the only questionnaire data from a non-resident of the park. With respect to professional activity, 50% of ‘marisqueiro’ respondents indicated that harvesting shellfish was their main

Table 1 Population demographics for the Vila do Bispo Municipality. Source: National Statistics Institute (INE) [26]. Parish

Area (km2)

Resident population

Population density (person km2)

Vila do Bispo Vila de Sagres Raposeira Budens Barão de São Miguel Total do Concelho

5925 3464 2434 4666 1443 17,932

956 1939 441 1573 440 5349

0.1612 0.5200 0.1812 0.3442 0.3049 0.2983

Table 2 Number of questionnaires delivered in each stakeholder group. Stakeholder group

No. of questionnaire responses attained

Total

Marisqueiros Restaurant Community/residents Freguesia Total

26 18 66 2b 112

80a 22 3336 3 –

a b

Professional Harvest Licence holders. President de Junta Freguesia President Interviews.

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

means of income; 58% indicated that harvesting shellfish was their full time activity, while 38% indicated it was a part-time activity and the other 4% did not respond to this question. Some of the other shellfish commonly harvested include ‘Santolas’ (spider crab or Maja squinado), ‘Lapas’ (Limpet or Patela spp.), ‘Navalheiras’ (Velvet swimming crab or Necora puber), ‘Bruxas’ (Slipper Lobster or Scyllarus arctus/Scyllarides latus), ‘Mexilhão’ (Mussels or Mytillus galloprovincialis/Mytillus edulis) and ‘Burgau/Burrié’ (Common or Toothed Topshell Snail or Monodonta lineata). 50% of the ‘marisqueiros’ harvested between 6 and 14 times per month and 38% harvested between 15 and 20 times per month. 50% of community stakeholders indicated that they harvested ‘perceves’ and of the 13 female respondents, 15% indicated that they harvested the resource. With respect to the ‘marisqueiros’, 12 were from AMVBCV— Associação de Marisqueiros de Vila do Bispo–Costa Vicentina (46%), and 13 were from the AMCVSA—Associação Mariscadores da Costa Vicentina e Sudoeste Alentejano (50%). One respondent was a member of both associations and 2 indicated that they were not affiliated with either association. While there are 80 licensed ‘marisqueiros’, not all live within the study area. Some reside along the entire 100 km length of the park, and some reside beyond the park boundaries. The Presidents of the Junta de Freguesia of the Vila do Bispo and Vila de Sagres also responded to the questionnaires. Tables 3–6 and Figs. 3–5 summarise the various responses to the questionnaires. In terms of gender, 79% of the respondents were male and the remaining 21% of respondents were female (Table 3). The number of responses attained decreased with increasing age chorts, with the 20–49 age group providing the majority of the responses.

Table 3 Age and gender of community stakeholders. Gender

Age group/years

Male Female Percentage (%)

20–29 16 4 30

Total

30–39 11 4 23

40–49 13 1 21

50–59 5 3 12

60–69 7 2 14

% 79 21 100

Table 4 Age distribution of marisqueiro stakeholders. Age group/years

Male Percentage (%) a

20–29 5 19

30–39 4 16

Total 40–49 10 38

50–59 5 19

60–69 1 4

a DNR 1 4

% 26 100

DNR—did not respond.

Table 5 Perspectives on the status of the resource. Question

Population change Smaller populations Smaller sizes Change in quality and quantity Harvest other species Harvesting excessive Overall change

Responses as a percentage (%) Marisqueiro

Community

Restaurant

88 42 43 – 62 88 80

88 65 65 – – 88 80

– – – 72 – 83 80

75

With regard to the ‘marisqueiros’, all were male (Table 4) and were mainly in the 40–49 age group (38%). The 20–29 age group with 19% and 30–39 age group with 16% of responses, had similar numbers of respondents. The period for which the sampled restaurants had been operational covered all ranges, from those established for less than 10 years to over 40 years, with an average of 21 years (Fig. 3). Perspectives on the status of the resources showed that 88% of both the ‘marisqueiro’ and community respondents thought the population of ‘perceves’ had changed along the PNSACV coast (Table 5). 43% of the ‘marisqueiros’ suggested that both the population and the sizes of the ‘perceves’ were smaller. A similar observation was made by 65% of the community respondents, while 72% of restaurant stakeholders thought that there had been a change in the quality and quantity of the stalked barnacle. Overall all three stakeholder groups agreed that the species had been overharvested and that there had been a change in population dynamics. Suggestions for the best period for a closed season for ‘perceves’ harvesting by the ‘marisqueiros’ was 21% for the month May, all these respondents were from the ‘Associação de Marisqueiros de Vila do Bispo–Costa Vicentina’ (Fig.4). This appeared to be a case where the ‘marisqueiros’ were responding with the objective, of achieving minimal inconvenience as May is normally rough, and they were generally unable to fish. The price of ‘perceves’ also drops during this period because of lower demand. Other months that were selected were February with 9% and March with an 8% response. The month perceived by the community stakeholders as being most suitable for closure was January (demand for ‘perceves’ is low, partly because it is Winter and there are less tourists), with 23% followed by, February, October and November, all with 15% of responses for each month. May, with 21% was the month considered most suitable for a closed season for harvesting of ‘perceves’. It is noteworthy, that most of the marisqueiros from the Associação de Marisqueiros de Vila do Bispo–Costa Vicentina composed this 21%. Other months that were chosen, were February with 9% and March with 8% response rates. For community respondents, January was the highest month with 23% of responses, this was followed by the months of February, May, October and November, each with 15% of responses. 45% of the ‘marisqueiros’ indicated that one month would be the best length of time, followed by 25% indicating 3 months was sufficient. 29% of the community considered 3 months as the best length for the closed season; a similar number indicated 2 months. Table 6 summarises a selection of responses from the questionnaire that generated particular interest. 1. 61%, 44% and 31% of the ‘marisqueiro’, community and restaurant respondents, respectively indicated that from 15 September to 15 December closed season was an appropriate measure for the sustainable management of the resource. For the community, 37 individuals suggested that the closed season was not appropriate, with 17 of these individuals indicating that they actively harvested shellfish. 2. 24% of ‘marisqueiro’ stakeholders and 23% of community stakeholders thought that the enforcement of legislation was sufficient, whereas for the restaurant stakeholders 94% found it was sufficient. 3. Just over half of both ‘marisqueiro’ and community stakeholder respondents believed that overall the management regulations for ‘perceves’ were too restrictive. 4. 92%, 91%, and 89% of the ‘marisqueiros’, community, and restaurateurs suggested, respectively, that special privileges should be granted to residents of the park.

76

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

Table 6 Management options proposed to stakeholders. Question

Responses as a percentage (%)

1. Current closed season is a good measure? (yes) 2. Is enforcement of legislation sufficient? (yes) 3. Management too restrictive (yes) 4. Residents should be given special privileges over outsiders (yes) 5. Knowledge of species important (yes) 6. Vila do Bispo Market should be re-established (yes) 7. Will continue to harvest in the future? (yes) 8. Have considered stopping harvesting barnacles? (yes)

respondents (%)

30

Community

Restaurant

61 23 54 92 92 81 46 54

44 24 52 91 86 77 – –

31 94 – 81 – 94 – –

Restaurant

20 15 10 5 0 10- 19

20-29 30-39 range (yrs)

40-49

DNR

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1

Fig. 3. Length of establishment of restaurants.

25

community

stakeholder responses (%)

marisqueiro 20

15

10

5

0

marisqueiro

40

25

< 10

community

45

Restaurant stakeholder responses(%)

35

Marisqueiro

2

3 4 number of months

5

6

Fig. 5. Number of months considered sufficient to ensure the protection of the stalked barnacle.

(3) They felt that it was possible to legislate to preserve the resource whilst still allowing sustainable exploitation by the local community. (4) They suggest that there should be rules about minimum harvesting size and maximum harvest weight. (5) They say that good scientific studies should support any implementation of management decisions. (6) They note that the closed season for harvesting has negatively affected the gastronomic tourism in the area and they are concerned whether the evidence for implementing this period is scientifically robust.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec months

9. Discussion

Fig. 4. Months indicated for an alternative closed season.

5. 81%, 77% and 94% of the ‘marisqueiro’, community and restaurateurs were, respectively, in favour of a ‘perceves’ market. 6. 46% of ‘marisqueiros’ indicated that they would continue harvesting ‘perceves’ in the future, while 54% of the ‘marisqueiros’ were considering ceasing this activity. The comments from the Presidents of the Freguesias of Vila do Bispo and Sagres are of particular interest as they represent a wide range of the people from the municipality: (1) They affirm the socio-economic importance of ‘perceves’. (2) They felt that after consultation with the residents and users of the PNSACV the current legislation for the management for ‘perceves’ should be revised.

This study is one the first of its kind for the PNSACV protected area and there are a number of improvements that can be made. A larger sample size would provide a better data set to analyse because, although there were 112 respondents in all, many declined to answer particular questions. These questions are often ones that they interpreted would directly impact them negatively. For this reason, it was particularly difficult to obtain even the basic response rate achieved here. In addition, there are indications that there may be some false responses, particularly within the ‘marisqueiro’ stakeholder group. This is most likely due to them believing that their honest position would result in management changes that would have a negative impact to their interests and their harvesting of ‘perceves’. Also important to the interpretation of the questionnaire's findings is consideration of those persons that declined to participate such as people who are unable to read. This may have impacted on the overall response rate of the questionnaire, as these individuals are predominantly from the

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

higher age ranges, thereby biasing results. Their knowledge and experience would have been of great value to the discussions and representations of stakeholders' interests and it is recognised that if the approach were to be repeated, it might include workshops to gather such information. The women of the community have also been under-represented, providing only 20% of the community sample, due primarily to the reluctance and perhaps more accurately, in some cases, the perception that their views are less important to document. These results provide some insight into the workings of the local community, and as [1] has warned, social issues should not be oversimplified in the assessment of the characteristics of communities in MPAs as this can cloud an understanding of the implications of such observations. Also, partially connected to this, is the bias incurred from group responses. It was not possible to personally administer all questionnaires, so some were distributed and subsequently returned. As explained in the Methodology section, some questionnaires were given to the Associations’ board to distribute. The occurrence of strong trends in responses could have been a result of unplanned discussed responses and therefore consensus within subgroups, thus omitting independent responses. A similar situation appears to have occurred with family members. While they may have received questionnaires at different times during the questionnaire distribution period, discussions amongst this very small population may have also affected the results observed. Nonetheless, some important and useful conclusions can be drawn from this questionnaire survey that should be taken into consideration for the management of the PNASCV MPA. Without repeating the results from the questionnaires, it is worth highlighting some of the main points. There is an overall consensus that there are smaller sizes and smaller populations of ‘perceves’ due to human activity in the form of greater harvesting pressure on smaller size classes. Reaching consensus on such a primary issue is important in making decisions on the future management of the resource, particularly because it can promote the development of indigenous solutions [1]. From a biological perspective, smaller sizes and smaller populations may have further ecological consequences in that the next generation of ‘perceves’ that attach to the foot of the adults will be eliminated during harvesting, thus impacting the overall population. There is a perception that there is more harvesting occurring without enforcement which supports the view, particularly, amongst outsiders to the fishing community that the ‘perceves’ may be on a path to extinction. This highlights the need for raising awareness of longterm environmental security where a balance must be achieved between biodiversity and man's interaction with it. In management terms, this must also translate into positive action for the users of natural spaces, so that they are assisted in achieving the goal of sustainable economic, social and environmental development [27]. The allocation of licences has proved to be one of the most contentious issues of the study. Although there are only 80 professional licences available there is a much larger number of people that actually harvest using the 1 kg recreational allowance, and there is also the perception that this recreational harvesting is being abused. The actual harvesting pressure is unknown and economic returns or incentives for refraining from harvesting do not exist. Thus, this intensifies the potential for harvesting pressure on the ‘perceves’ [4]. In addition to the issue of the number of licences, the procedure for applying for licences does not appear to be transparent and reasons for rejection are somewhat arbitrary. Several respondents indicated that there is a strong feeling that the legislation for the management of the PNASCV has been implemented by outsiders without the opinions of the stakeholders living within park being taken into consideration. This sentiment can be heightened in communities where an MPA has

77

been created in an area that was previously unregulated or without harvesting resource restrictions [1]. In this case, it therefore appears that social and economic benefits are being traded for biological benefits [4]. Continuing with this theme, the overwhelming majority of the respondents consider that the existing closed season has no scientific basis. The previously cited study on P. pollicipes suggests that spawning occurs between May and September [16] and that larvae are recruited between September and December. Despite the perception that there is no scientific basis to the closed season, this corresponds closely to the local situation and particularly the reasons cited for the closed September to December period. Interestingly, respondents consider that the beginning of the year would provide a better closed period allowing the newly recruited larvae to grow more, although it is possible that this opinion may be influenced by the lower demand for ‘perceves’ at this time of the year compared to the months late in the year before Christmas. Alternative management options suggested by respondents include a rotation of zones for harvesting, and also the introduction of no-take zones where there is no harvesting, as there is for fish in the PNASCV. Only 8% of the ‘marisqueiros’ thought that such schemes should be implemented, but others felt that they would be more acceptable of such a zone if it was designated for scientific purposes. However, if ever such schemes are considered, it is strongly recommended that the decision integrates the perspective and local knowledge of the ‘marisqueiros’. As Suman et al. [28] notes, it is important to distinguish between asking ‘marisqueiros’ where such management changes should occur and telling them. Therefore, one of the greatest challenges for the PNSACV is to convince the harvesters, including the local residents, that the creation of such zones can be an investment in their future. The questionnaires have generated a number of recommendations and suggestions. An important one is the return to having a ‘perceves’ market in Vila do Bispo which was closed due to the unpredictability of the sales and the informal nature of the organisation. Many feel that it would not only contribute to the economics of the resource but would build stronger cultural links with this traditional activity. From the point of view of management, a local market would provide a good location for documenting the catches of this resource. Currently, there is a ‘Manifesto de Apanha' which is similar to a catch report but without logbooks. The use of a harvest logbook could provide the shellfish harvesters with a traceable way to protect themselves when they make claims about the status of the fisheries resource and object to more restrictive legislation. One community member and one resident scientist made comments in their questionnaire that there should be a harvest log, logbook or some formal traceable book of the landings of the ‘perceves’ in the park, as is currently the situation north of PNSACV at Berlengas Nature Reserve [19]. The catch reports and the log book data should be separate, providing independent means of checking and verifying harvests. Such an approach is successfully applied at a fishery in Vancouver [29]. The West Coast Vancouver Island goose barnacle Fisheries and Harvest Guidelines Plan also detail the necessity of ‘Harvest Log Data’, including information on the date of harvest; catch sizes, harvest locations and landing port [25]. Finally, there is question of sufficient supervision and enforcement and thus overall governance within the park, with just 24% and 23% of the ‘marisqueiros’ and community responses indicating that they felt legislation was sufficiently enforced at present. Certainly, if the ‘marisqueiros' and the community in general think that the legislation will not be enforced, they are unlikely to feel obliged to comply as the chances of being penalised will be low. Moreover, if the community had a substantial stake in the management of this resource, it is probable that they would

78

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

enforce the regulations themselves with very little need to call on outsiders. This is certainly the experience of many of the ‘cofradias’ (community-based co-operative systems) in Galicia in north west Spain who took on the responsibilities of managing their Pollicipes resources with considerable success, allowing the Pollicipes to recover sufficiently so that they could continue to exploit them as a sustainable resource for the region [8]. This study in the Municipality of Vila do Bispo provides a strong basis for understanding the perspectives of the local community with regard to their views on the management of the ‘perceves’ resource, but in the future a more formal tool for integrated management would enable a better focus of research to serve the needs of this community. Given the results found here, this could include a more social science based study [1]. This research could also be expanded by considering an ecosystem-based management approach through further research on comparing the single species analysis approach, versus the multiple species and therefore an ecosystem approach [2]. This involves not only looking at the harvest of ‘perceves’ but at other species that the shellfishers indicated that they harvested (i.e. spider crab, limpets, conch etc.) as fishing pressure often shares an antagonistic relationship based on the availability of each species. The Systems Approach Framework (SAF) develops an effective partnership among researchers, coastal managers and stakeholders to establish a quantitative basis for collaborative decision making [24]. This study focused on stakeholder mapping and has made a valuable contribution to a full systems approach framework [5].

10. Conclusions Despite initial debate, there was stakeholder consensus on a number of issues. The majority of ‘marisqueiro’, restaurant and community stakeholders agreed that the population of ‘perceves’ had decreased and had been subjected to overharvesting in recent years. It was also agreed that greater public participation should be encouraged in research activities that inform legislation on the management of the resource. The ‘marisqueiros’ and residents suggested that there should be a review of licence privileges, a consideration of rotation for harvesting grounds, and the reestablishment of the ‘perceves’ market. Stakeholders were divided on their perception of the change in the size and populations of the stalked barnacle, the effectiveness of the current closed season, and the recommended period of the closed season. There were also varying opinions on the adequacy of the level of enforcement for harvesting, on the number of licences that should be allocated, and on the licence requirements. Respondents' perspectives differed on whether or not no-take zones would be useful and on whether the PNSACV's management of the ‘perceve’ resource was too restrictive. In addition, restaurant owners were divided on the benefit of the closed season to their businesses. There were also a number of important aspects of the sample population that shaped the outcome of the questionnaire. The greatest number of ‘marisqueiros’ were in the 40–49 age range, which implies a decline in the trade, a decline in interest in the trade by the young, or a bias in the distribution of licences. The overall outcome of the results may have been affected by the low proportion of female responses and responses from the 50–59 and 60–69 age categories. Questionnaires targeted public locations, including restaurants, which may have biased results as well, as views from residents who do not have such close ties to fishing and harvesting of the resource were probably under-represented. There was a significant sense of helplessness and a marked degree of disenfranchisement, expressed by the ‘marisqueiro’ and

community stakeholders with regard to resources in the PNSACV in general. A number of respondents explained that the municipality was one of the poorer municipalities in the region and that this had led to increased pressures on all resources. The Presidents of two of the ‘Freguesias’ also alluded to the socio-economic importance of harvesting ‘perceves’ at numerous points during interviews and this can be noted in the response to the questionnaires. It is therefore recommended that research into the wider socio-economic implications of this fishery is further explored. The data generated during this study emphasises the importance of including the local community, in this case, the ‘marisqueiros’, restaurateurs and other residents in developing and implementing sustainable resource management measures. It is evident that in the future a full SAF approach would be useful, whereby the best knowledge on the ecological, economic and social aspects of the management of the ‘perceves’ fishery in the PNASCV is mobilised to support a deliberative and decisionmaking process amongst all the stakeholders involved in the sustainable management of this resource. Acknowledgements The European Commission through the European Union must first be acknowledged for awarding the studentship that allowed for this study to be performed. JDI was supported by the EC6FP Grant agreement 036992 (SPICOSA, http://www.spicosa.eu); EC 7FP Grant agreement 282845 (COMET-LA, http://www.comet-la. eu). The authors are most grateful to Baravi Stewart Helu Thaman for assistance in developing the questionnaire, and to all stakeholders, particularly Luis Costa—President Junta de Freguesia de Vila do Bispo, Fernando Santana—President, Junta de Freguesia de Vila do Bispo and Paulo Barata—President, Associação de Marisqueiros de Vila do Bispo–Costa Vicentina for their contribution to this study. We are also grateful to Ana Ferreira and Paula Ramalho —DGPA and Vitor Cunha, FCT, Universidade do Algarve, to João Pelica and Augusto Sepp Neves for providing language assistance and Carlos Castellanos Perez Bolde and Jeanette Reis for providing editing assistance. References [1] Springer E. Community participation in marine protected area implementation: a case study of the Sitka Local Area Management. Coastal Management 2006;34:455–65. [2] deReynier YL, Levin PS, Shoji NL. Bringing stakeholders, scientists, and managers together through an integrated ecosystem assessment process. Marine Policy 2010;34:534–40. [3] Rice J, Moksness E, Attwood C, Brown SK, Dahle G, Gjerde KM, Grefsrud ES, et al. The role of MPAs in reconciling fisheries management with conservation of biological diversity. Ocean and Coastal Management 2012;69:217–30. [4] Hilborn R. Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Marine Policy 2007;31:153–8. [5] Hopkins TS, Bailly D, Støttrup JG. Systems approach framework for coastal zones. Ecology and Society 2011;16(4):25, http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES04553-160425. [6] Christie P. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 2004;42:155–64. [7] Bernard FR. Potential fishery for the gooseneck barnacle Pollicipes polymerus (Sowerby, 1833) in British Columbia. Fisheries Research 1988;6:287–98. [8] Morales J, Freire J. Community-based management of the goose barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) fisheries in Galicia. Fisheries Research 2003;65:485–93. [9] Álvarez-Fernández E, Ontañón-Peredo R, Molares-Vila J. Archaeological data on the Goose Barnacle Pollicipes pollicipes (Gmelin, 1790) in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 2009;37(2):402–8. [10] Castro JJ. Human predation on rocky coastline of Alentejo: characterization, ecological impact and conservation. Ph.D. thesis. Universidade de Évora; 2004, p. 348. [11] MAOTDR and MADRP. Order no. 385/2006, 19April, Gazette (DR) Series 1b. Ministries of the Environment and Spatial Planning (MAOTDR) and of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (MADRP), Government of Portugal, vol. 77: 2006. p. 2822–4.

A.T.M. Stewart et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 71–79

[12] Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Decree no. 33/95/1995, 11 December, Gazette Series 1a. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of Portugal, vol. 284; 1995. p. 7726–7. [13] Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Ordinance 384-b/1999, 23 September, Gazette Series 1a. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of Portugal, vol. 223; 1999. p. 6644(2)–(3). [14] ICNB. Zones of special protection, sectoral plan for Natura 2000. Institute of Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity; Unpublished data: p. 8. [15] ICNB. Spatial plan of the Natural Park of Southwest Alentejo and Costa Vicentina, phase 3—proposals for land planning regulation. Institute for Nature Conservationand Biodiversity; 2008. p. 79. [16] Cardoso AC, Yule AB. Aspects of the reproductive biology of Pollicipes pollicipes (Cirripedia; Lepadomorpha) from the southwest coast of Portugal. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 1995;29;3-4:391–6. [17] Bald J, Borja Á, Muxika I. A system dynamic model for the management of the gooseneck barnacle (Pollipes pollicipes) in the marine reserve of Gazelugatze (Northern Spain). Ecological Modelling 2006;194:306–15. [18] Borja Á, Liria P, Muxika I, Bald J. Relationship between wave exposure and biomass of the goose barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes, Gmelin, 1790) in the Gaztelugatxe Marine Reserve (Basque Country, northern Spain). ICES Journal of Marine Science 2006;63:626–36. [19] Jacinto D, Cruz T, Silva T, Castro JJ. Stalked barnacles (Pollicipes pollicipes) harvesting in the Berlengas Nature Reserve, Portugal: temporal variation and validation of logbook data. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2009;67(1):19–25. [20] MADRP. Order no. 1102-B/2000, 22 November, Gazette (DR) Series 1b, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (MADRP), Government of Portugal, 2000; 290: 6692(4)–(5). [21] MAOTDR and MADRP. Order no. 17 732/2006, 31 August, Gazette (DR) Series 2ª Ministries of the Environment and Spatial Planning (MAOTDR) and of

[22]

[23]

[24] [25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

79

Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (MADRP), Government of Portugal, vol. 168; 2006. p. 17–170. MADRP. Table of sizes and minimum weights. Directorate General for Fisheries and Aquaculture (DGPA). Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (MADRP), Government of Portugal; 2003. p. 3. Relvas P, Barton ED. A separated jet and coastal counter-flow during upwelling relaxation off Cape São Vicente (Iberian Peninsula). Continental Shelf Research 2004;25:29–49. Tett P, Sandberg A, Mette A, editors. Sustaining coastal zone systems. Dunedin Academic Press, Edinburgh; 2011. p. 173. WCVIAMB. West Coast Vancouver Island GOOSE BARNACLE Experimental Fishery Guidelines & Harvest Plan, Draft; March 31, 2005, West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board (WCVIAMB), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), BC Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Canada; 2005. p. 69. National Statistical Institute (INE). Census – Census 2001, Algarve Region, Government of Portugal. [Available from: [accessed 05.10.2012] 〈http://www. ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_ boui=377828&PUBLICACOESmodo=2〉. Park PD, Chong G. Environmental education and training: an introductory essay. In: Park PD, Blackman DA, Chong G, editors. Environmental education and training. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1998. p. 1–10. Suman D, Shivlani M, Milon WJ. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean and Coastal Management 1999;42:1019–40. J. Lessard, J. Osborne, R. Lauzier, G. Jamieson and R. Harbo. Applying local scientific knowledge to the establishment of a sustainable fishery: the west coast Vancouver island goose barnacle fishery experience. Putting Fishers' Knowledge to Work: Conference Proceedings. 2002. p. 36-43.