An integrated assessment of coastal fisheries in Mozambique for conservation planning

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

An integrated assessment of coastal fisheries in Mozambique for conservation planning Melita Anne Samoilysa,∗, Kennedy Osukaa, Jamen Mussab, Sergio Rosendoc, Michael Riddelld, Mario Diadeb, James Mbuguaa, Joan Kawakaa, Nicholas Hille, Heather Koldeweye a

CORDIO East Africa, PO Box 10135, Mombasa, 80101, Kenya Associação do Meio Ambiente (AMA), Rua 12, Casa 872, Pemba, Cabo Delgado, Mozambique c Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa (FCSH-UNL), Av. de Berna 26-C, 1069-061, Lisbon, Portugal d University of Edinburgh, School of GeoSciences, James Hutton Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3FE, Scotland, UK e Conservation Programmes, Zoological Society of London, United Kingdom b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Small scale fisheries Coral reefs Gender Management Conservation

Conservation planning of coastal ecosystems is improved by quantitative data on human activities and marine habitats, though is challenging in artisanal fisheries due to their characteristics of multiple species, gears and landing sites. Small-scale coastal fisheries in northern Mozambique were quantified using a multi-faceted approach, to inform area-based conservation and fisheries management. Fishers captured 153 taxa using eleven different fishing gears with a high proportion of gleaning. The most prevalent gear was the mosquito net (27%), largely used by women, followed by gleaning, handline and spear (12–15%), but with high inter-fishing ground variability. Median (interquatile range) catch rates ranged from 7.0 (3.4, 15.1) kg fisher−1 trip−1 (handlines) to 2.3 (1.6, 4.5) kg fisher−1 trip−1 (mosquito nets), which represent relatively high catch rates for eastern Africa. Knowledge of the complex spatial variability in these fisheries can contribute to conservation planning by minimizing opportunity costs while maximizing conservation benefits.

1. Introduction Sound conservation planning of coastal socio-ecological systems requires reliable quantitative data on human activities, notably fishing, as well as their marine habitats (Sale et al., 2014). In this regard, tropical coastal systems are challenging because of the complexities of their artisanal fisheries which are poorly monitored, if at all, and comprise multi-species catches using a variety of fishing gears and techniques often landed at multiple landing sites (Munro and Williams, 1985; Dalzell, 1996; Saldano et al., 2017; Samoilys et al., 2017). Coastal fishers fish in environments that comprise variable marine habitats from offshore deep or pelagic waters to shallow intertidal zones which include coral reefs, sandy bays, seagrass beds and mangrove forests (Sheppard, 2000; Agardy et al., 2005; Bell et al., 2011). The socioeconomic context of such coastal fishing communities is also difficult to quantify because fishers sell their catch for cash, also retain fish for subsistence, fish alone or in fisher groups or family groups, undergo temporary migration to different fishing grounds and their fishing activities are also influenced by cultural factors (Andrew et al., 2007; Weeratunge et al., 2014; Wanyonyi et al., 2016).

∗

Small-scale marine fisheries provide vital livelihoods and food security for the millions of coastal peoples dependent on them in the western Indian Ocean (Walmsley et al., 2006; Samoilys et al., 2015). In Cabo Delgado Province, northern Mozambique, rural communities are concentrated in mainland coastal villages or on the islands in the Quirimbas Archipelago, and are dependent on smallholder agriculture and small-scale fisheries (SSF) for subsistence and their cash income (Rosendo et al., 2011; Riddell and Rosendo, 2015; Paul et al., 2016; Rosendo, 2016). This area is remote and lacks adequate access to basic public services such as fresh water, electricity, health care and education (INE, 2010). Further, despite national-level reductions in poverty, the poverty rate has increased in Cabo Delgado, from 39.0% in 2008/9 to 44.8% of households in 2014/15 (MEF, 2016). Knowledge of the state of the marine SSFs in this area is minimal and communities' dependence on these fisheries poorly known. Further socio-economic transformations are taking place through the influence of climate change on peoples’ livelihoods and the development of the oil and gas and tourism industries (Benkenstein, 2013; ERM & IMPACTO, 2014; Samoilys et al., 2015). Changing patterns of rainfall are affecting agricultural production resulting in further dependence on marine

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M.A. Samoilys).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104924 Received 22 March 2019; Received in revised form 8 July 2019; Accepted 15 August 2019 0964-5691/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Melita Anne Samoilys, et al., Ocean and Coastal Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104924

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

resources (Riddell and Rosendo, 2015). While coral mortality from increases in sea-surface temperature is less extreme in Cabo Delgado, coral reefs on which coastal populations are dependent, comprise temperature-sensitive coral species (McClanahan et al., 2014). Further, sustainable management of tropical SSFs, as found in Mozambique, is increasingly considered globally a very high priority, especially where high dependence and stock decline is reported (Bell et al., 2016). This study quantifies the coastal fisheries of northern Cabo Delgado, as part of a broader programme, “Our Sea Our Life”, to inform a community-run model for the implementation of Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) and to support the government of Mozambique in meeting their commitments under the Convention for Biological Diversity (MITADER, 2015). This paper demonstrates the advantages of a multi-faceted fishery assessment and its application to co-management approaches (Finkbeiner and Basurto, 2015) and conservation planning within coastal fishing communities. LMMAs are a widely used mechanism for fisheries co-management and biodiversity conservation in tropical SSF contexts (Wells et al., 2007; Govan, 2009; Weeks et al., 2010; Kawaka et al., 2017) though their effectiveness has rarely been quantified (but see Samoilys et al., 2007; Jupiter and Egli, 2011; Jupiter et al., 2014). A compatibility matrix approach is also proposed whereby different types of data can be combined to inform stakeholder-driven management decisions and also help reduce conflict. By examining these artisanal fisheries in terms of fishers, gender, gear types, catch rates, habitats, the use of legal and illegal gear types and peoples’ perceptions of these, options for improving the management of these SSFs can be explored.

was explored by asking respondents if there were any fishing gears banned in their communities, to describe them, to say whether fishers complied with this ban, and whether they agreed with it. 2.3. Fishery catch landings data collection A rapid survey of the artisanal fishery in all villages except Malinde was done in December 2013 to broadly define the gears, species and how catches are landed in the villages, to design the fishery data collection process in detail. Fishing occurred in three broad habitat zones of intertidal, coral reef and pelagic waters. This was followed with training of field technicians stationed at each village in the principles of fisheries data collection including species identification, trialing the datasheets, assessing data quality and refining the field methods. Data collection then ran from January 2014 to December 2015 in all landing sites at each village except Malinde, where the start date was March 2015. Sampling was conducted monthly because shorter time periods are unlikely to produce reliable estimates (Harley et al., 2001). Data were collected six days per month simultaneously in all six villages distributed over neap (2 days) and spring tides (4 days) (see Supplementary Figure S1 for sampling design), since both men and women tend to fish more during this tidal period (JM pers. obs.). On a few occasions when the sampling day fell on religious days such as Fridays, fisheries monitoring was conducted on other consecutive days resulting in additional monitoring days. The technicians collected catch and effort data for at least four continuous hours per sampling day. The variables recorded are shown in Supplementary Figure S1 and included fishing ground name, total catch weight (kg), species and number of individuals per species/taxa group. Where the catch was large, a random subsample of ~25% of the catch was taken, ensuring fishers had not yet sorted their catch, to count the number of fish per species in the catch. The catch was identified to species or aggregated taxa such as genus or family, using local and/or Portuguese names. These were later transcribed to English and scientific names. Photographs were taken for uncertain species for later identification. In total around 75 taxa were identified. The creel survey steps and final data outputs are illustrated in Supplementary Figure S2.

2. Methods 2.1. Study sites Fishery catch landings were monitored through creel surveys in northern Cabo Delgado spread over 80.13 km of coastline in 6 rural villages that are dependent on SSF (Fig. 1): 5 in Palma District and 1 in Mocimboa District. Data were collected at the two landing sites primarily used at each village except for Malinde and Quifuque which had three and four landing sites, respectively. These landing sites were not tightly defined, but comprised broad stretches of ~200–300 m of beach and therefore the field technicians walked the beach to intercept fishers bringing their catch ashore.

2.4. Focus group discussions Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in five villages: Quirinde, Quiwia, Quifuque, Lalane and Nsangue Ponta. They focussed on women and intertidal fishing because female fishers and intertidal resources are poorly studied so their catches are either under-reported, or unreported (Government of Mozambique, unpublished fisheries catch statistics). In addition, the timings of women gleaning and fishing and their routes back to shore were different from men and therefore their fisheries were not well recorded during the fishery catch landing surveys. A total of nine FGDs were conducted with an average number of 11 participants. FDGs included three components: i) a discussion about the key intertidal resources that are gleaned and fished in the village and seasonality of gleaning and fishing; ii) a discussion on reported catch per day by estimating their best possible catch, their normal catch (explained as what they would expect day to day), and what they would consider as poor catch; iii) a discussion focused on local price per kilogram for intertidal resources, processing and sale, and state of the local market. The average duration of the meetings was 1 h.

2.2. Demographics of the villages and livelihood activities A baseline census which identified and numbered all households in each village was conducted in all villages in December 2014, except Malinde which was undertaken in July 2015. A household was defined as all people living under the same roof. An economically active person referred to a person making money or bringing food to the household, usually above the age of 12–13. The census collected data on household size and livelihood activities, which were ranked in order of importance by each economically active member, for the dry (November–March) and wet (May–October) seasons. For people involved in fishing per household, questions were asked about gear(s) used, means of access to fishing grounds, and target species. The baseline census aimed to reach all households in each village. Participation was not obligatory, but refusals were rare. A more comprehensive household questionnaire survey was applied to a sample of households in each village using the household census as a sampling frame: households were selected at random and the following samples taken which corresponded to village size, with a minimum of 30: Quirinde n = 35; Quiwia; n = 30; Lalane n = 51; Nsangue ponta n = 50; Quifuque n = 35; Malinde n = 76. The questionnaires collected data on a number of socioeconomic variables which included: awareness on prohibited gears, compliance with fishing gear regulations and level of support to fishing gear regulations. The latter

2.5. GIS based participatory mapping of fishing grounds and habitats Participatory mapping of fishing grounds and intertidal and subtidal habitats was conducted around two villages: the northern Quiwia area and the southern Lalane area, to obtain some spatial measures of these fisheries. For the subtidal areas a rough participatory map created by 2

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Fig. 1. Map of the study area showing the six project site villages and the approximate location of the landing sites.

2.6. Data analyses

fishers was used as a basemap. Fishing ground boundaries were located by boat with 2–3 fishers and their locations geo-referenced using a hand held GPS. Benthic habitats in the fishing grounds were semi-quantified by one person with mask and snorkel towed by the boat as s/he identified and estimated the percentage of primary habitat categories. This was done by spot sampling (~radius of 2 m) in a haphazard manner, focusing on recording boundaries between larger habitat types (e.g. sand to seagrass). A second person on the boat recorded the boundaries using a GPS. Intertidal mapping was done in a similar manner but on foot. Benthos was classified into nine categories: live coral, dead coral, bleached coral, soft coral, rubble, bare rock, sand, algae, and seagrass. A total of 9 fishing grounds in the Quiwia area and 5 fishing grounds in the Lalane area were mapped.

The standard unit for Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE) was calculated per fishing event or trip as kg/fisher/trip. Trip was equated with day since fishers rarely fished more than once a day. The effort estimation is approximate because fishing duration and travelling time varied with distance to fishing ground and vessel type which was not possible to record. Gear CPUE for each fishing trip across the sampling period (23 months) was calculated using the formula:

CPUE =

Ci Ei

where Ci = observed catch weight (kg) of fish caught by the ith group of fishers using a particular gear, Ei = the observed fishing effort for the ith group of fishers interviewed. Some catch events only recorded weights therefore missing data on

Table 1 Population size per village, total number of fishers and number of economically active (NEA) people, as established by the baseline census. NB. Quiwia includes Quiwia-sede and Farol; Nsangue includes Nsangue A and B. Village

NEA women

NEA men

NEA population

No. of fisherwomen

No. of fishermen

Total No. fishers

Quirinde Quiwia Quifuque Lalane NsanguePonta Malinde TOTAL

382 113 78 149 169 760 1651

382 161 513 139 208 695 2098

764 274 591 288 377 1455 3749

129 59 20 100 85 387 780

239 110 392 91 139 446 1417

368 169 412 191 224 833 2197

3

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

number of fish counted per species; these were therefore discarded for species analysis. The medians of gear CPUE were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney posthoc test. Octopus CPUE data were normally distributed and therefore means were tested using an ANOVA. All catch events with missing data on number of fish counted by species were removed from species composition analyses. The GPS vector point data were projected and digitised using ArcGIS 10.3 to generate fishing ground polygons that were then archived as shape files for overlay analysis. Maps used Landsat classified images and coral shape files (UNEP-WCMC, 2010). Attributes of individual fishing grounds were populated with their corresponding CPUE values and habitat types for comparative mapping.

Of the active population in the six villages 48–70% were fishers (Table 1). Fishing was among the top five important activities in all the villages, with > 60% of men engaged in fishing in all villages except Nsangue-Ponta, while in 4 of the 6 villages over 40% of women were fishers (Fig. 2, Table 1). Farming was an important livelihood activity in all villages except Quifuque and women were more engaged in farming in Quirinde and in trade in Quifuque compared with fishing. Selling water as opposed to making mats was mentioned as an important economic activity in Quifuque. 3.2. Fishery description Catch and effort data collected on 164 monitoring days between January 2014 and December 2015, 1065 catch and effort events were recorded from fishers fishing in the waters adjacent to the six project villages. These coastal fisheries caught a wide range of species using a variety of artisanal gears and fishing vessels, or simply collecting on foot and by hand. There were eight gears types, of which two (gillnets and gleaning) were subdivided to give a total of 11 gear types (Table 2). The national legislation on fisheries (GoM, 2003, Table 2) has several provisions regarding illegal gears. Awareness of prohibited gears

3. Results 3.1. Demographics of the villages The six villages of the study area ranged in population size from 274 to 1455 economically active people, who were people who bring money and/or food to the household, over 13 years of age (Table 1).

Fig. 2. Proportion of economically active population involved in five most highly ranked activities in the six villages. 4

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Table 2 Fishing gears used in the coastal fisheries of Cabo Delgado. a = illegal gear, b = regulation of minimum mesh sizes and other restrictions (GoM, 2003). Fishing gear

Description

English

Portuguese

Kiswahili/Macua

Spear

Arpão/ferro

Sima

Speargun

Arma submarina

Bunduki

Gleaning (wire)

Recolecção (arame)

Kussocola

Gleaning (hand) Gleaning (stick)

Recolecção Recolecção (pau)

Kussocola Kussocola

Gleaning (diving) Mosquito neta

Recolecção (mergulho) Rede mosquiteria

Kussocola Cutanda/Uduvi/ Chicocota

Gillnet (nyavu)b

Rede de emalhar (nyavu)

Nhavo

Gillnet (jarife)

Rede de emalhar de choque (jarife)

Jarifa

Rede de arrasto (para praia)

Cavogo

Linha de mão

Mshipi

Gaiola

Malema/Madema

Beach seine

b

Handline, Hook and Line Basket trap

Iron rod sharpened at one end of varying thickness from thin wire to heavy rod. Used with/ without mask. May or may not have rubber sling. The rod is about 1.5–2.5 m. Commonly used for octopus. A handgun of ~1.5–2.5 m made of wood or tubular metal with a steel rod sharpened at one end, which is propelled by rubber strips. It is illegal to use a speargun on SCUBA. In-shore fishing activity involving collection of fish and invertebrates, particularly octopus, using a wire. In-shore fishing activity involving collection of fish and invertebrates using hand. Wooden stick usually sharpened at one end. The rod is about 1.0–2.5 m. In-shore fishing activity involving collection of fish and invertebrates Diving with mask, no gear, usually collecting sea cucumbers Nets of tiny mesh size and made of mosquito bed-netting used as active fishing nets, often by women. Men may fashion these with floats and draw strings which they drag in shallow water (chicocota) Nets made of multifilament nylon strings of various thickness and mesh size. The nets are suspended by floats and held vertically in the water column by with lead or stone weights. The legal mesh size for gillnets is 50 mm in Cabo Delgado. But mesh size limits for sharks is 120 mm. Nets made of multifilament nylon strings of various thickness and mesh size (usually 101.6–457.2 mm). The nets are suspended by floats and held vertically in the water column by with lead or stone weights. Nets made of multifilament nylon strings with variable but small mesh size (usually 254 mm). The net has a float line and a weighted foot rope. Minimum legal mesh size is 38 mm. Nets are positioned in a circle and then dragged actively by fishers from boats or on foot in shallow water. Single monofilament nylon line with steel hook(s) on which baits are fixed. Lead weights or stones are attached to sink the line. The lines are wound onto reels made of wood, plastic or polystyrene. Trap are made with a split bamboo frame and interwoven with split bamboo reeds to form hexagonal-shaped basket with a regular hexagonal mesh. Baits attract the fish through a coneshaped entrance on one side of the trap. Fishers tie pieces of rocks or dead corals to weigh the trap down.

was high in all villages but it varied between gears with the most widely cited prohibited gear being mosquito nets in all villages (79–100% of prohibited gears mentioned by respondents were mosquito nets), except in Malinde (28%) (Table S1). Beach seines with small mesh cod ends were also frequently mentioned by fishers in Malinde (69%) and Quifuque (13%) Perceptions of compliance also varied with the highest levels of non-compliance (nobody complies) in Lalane and Quifukue (31–33% of respondents, Table S1) and the highest compliance levels in Quiwia: 91% of respondents saying that “some comply”, and 9% saying “all comply” (Table S1). Across all villages 79–100% of respondents agreed with the gear prohibitions, but with some disagreement (18%) from Quiwia and Nsange (Table S1).

or spear, while men dived for them with spears. Other resources, such as pen shells and cowries notably Chicoreus ramosus and Pleuroploca trapezium, were collected by women and/or children by hand. Fishing for small fish with mosquito nets and small mesh gill nets yielded consistently higher catch rates than harvesting other intertidal resources, while oysters yielded the lowest catch rates (Table 3). This is particularly noticeable for a “good catch” day. Octopus and cowries were the next highest and were relatively similar in their catch rates (Table 3). In all villages potential small fish catches were consistently reported as higher than octopus catches.

3.3. Catch composition of artisanal gears

Mosquito nets were the most widely used gears across the study area followed by gleaning, handline and spear (Fig. 4). The least used gears were basket traps and gillnet (jarife). However, these proportions varied widely between the six villages except for handlines which were commonly used in all villages. For example, mosquito net usage was the highest in Malinde and very high in Nsangue-Ponta, Lalane and Quirinde, but less than 10% of fishers used them in Quifuque and Quiwia (Fig. 4). In these villages the dominant gears were gleaning (Quiwia) and gillnet (nyavu) (Quifuque). Beach seines were in the lowest usage category in all villages except Quifuque (17%) and Nsangue Ponta. Indeed, Quifuque differed most from the other 5 villages with the most widely used gear as gillnet (nyavu) followed by handlines, spearguns and beach seines. Spearguns, together with mosquito nets, were the most widely used gear in Quirinde, but spearguns were the least used gear in neighbouring Quiwia, and also in Malinde and Nsangue Ponta. In Quiwia spears were most widely used and were also commonly used in Lalane. In Lalane gleaning was the most common fishing method (Fig. 4).

3.4. Prevalent gears reported by villagers in baseline census

The catch composition of the artisanal fisheries of northern Cabo Delgado comprised 153 taxa, but was dominated by pink ear emperor (Lethrinus lentjan), 20.9%, squid (Teuthoidea), 20.3%, and slender emperor (Lethrinus variegatus), 18.8%. The gears showed large differences in catch composition with gillnet (nyavu) dominated by Lethrinus lentjan, 32.1%; gillnet (jarife) dominated by rays (Dasytidae), 42.9%; basket traps by whitespotted rabbitfish (Siganus sutor), 14.1%; and handlines by squid, 32.4% (Fig. 3). Mosquito nets and beach seines were both dominated by common silver-biddy (Gerres oyena), 48.1% and 18.5%, respectively. Similarly octopus (Octopoidae) dominated the catches of spears and spearguns, 46.0% and 18.5%, respectively, while other gears caught octopus incidentally (Fig. 3). Catch composition of gleaning was not recorded to species level by the creel surveys and only octopus individuals were counted. However, FGDs provided semi-quantitative data on the incidence of the three different gleaning methods (hand, stick, wire) and also spear, mosquito nets and small meshed gillnets, and their reported catch (Table 3). Women normally targeted one resource during fishing. Some intertidal resources, such as octopus, were taken by women intertidally with wire 5

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Fig. 3. Species composition of catches in coastal fisheries in Cabo Delgado. Data collected over 2 years (January 2014–December 2015). Family names and “octopus” represent taxa that were not identified to species level; “Others” comprised species that contributed < 1%.

6

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Table 3 Female intertidal fishers’ reported catch (kg/trip), catch value (at November 2013) and primary gear type for five intertidal resources summarised across five villages based on Focus Group Discussions. Fish type

Normal catch (kg/trip)

Poor catch (kg/trip)

Good catch (kg/trip)

Reported gear

Pontential sale value (USD per kg)

Small fish Cowries (Cypraedae) Octopus Pen shells (Pinnidae) Oysters

7.5 5.0 4.5 2.0 1.5

4.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 0.5

25.5 8.5 9.0 5.5 3.0

Mosquito nets and small meshed gillnets Gleaning - hand Gleaning - wire Gleaning - hand Gleaning - hand

0.67–0.84 0.17 0.84–1.01 2.01–2.35 3.36

3.5. CPUE by gear

Quiwia, Liculamedi, Patchamba and Chela (Fig. 6). Handlines, speargun and spears were the three most common gears across the fishing grounds. Handlines had a high CPUE at Insimba (26.2kg/fisher/ trip), spear a high CPUE at Tchamba Cha Hasan (27.0 kg/fisher/trip), while spearguns had a high CPUE (20–50 kg/fisher/trip) at Hula, Farol and Tchowelo. The highest mosquito CPUE was at Kiwe (14.7 kg/ fisher/trip) (Fig. 6b). The number of fishing gears per ground varied, likely related to habitat (Fig. 6). All gears except gillnet were deployed at Kiwe, 7–8 fishing gears were reported at Muamba Nsangue, Muissani, Qupungo, and Metundo and more than 4 gear types were used at Naunde, Insimba and Farol, all areas that span a range of habitat types (Fig. 6). In contrast only 1–3 gears were used at Tchamba cha Hasan, Quissingula, Tchowelo, Itumba and Liculumedi, fishing grounds that were characterised by low diversity habitats such as sand, or sand and seagrass, or sand and rock.

There was no seasonal difference in CPUE (F = 0.248; df = 1; p = 0.618) and therefore data were combined across the two year study period. CPUE varied significantly between gears (Kruskal-Wallis test: H = 76.88; p < 0.001, Fig. 5) with the highest median(interquatile range) CPUE taken by handlines [7.0 (3.4, 15.1) kg/fisher/trip] and basket traps [6.0 (3.9, 9.5) kg/fisher/trip] and the lowest by mosquito nets [2.3 (1.6, 4.5) kg/fisher/trip] and spears [3.3 (1.2, 8.1) kg/fisher/ trip]. Gillnets (jarife) [5.6 (4.3, 9.6) kg/fisher/trip], gillnets [5.5 (2.7, 9.4 kg/fisher/trip], spearguns [5.5 (3.0, 10.0) kg/fisher/trip] and beach seines [5.0 (2.5, 7.4) kg/fisher/trip] were the next highest catch rates. Despite the low CPUE for mosquito nets they were widely used in four villages (Fig. 4), mostly by women, likely reflecting a suitable gear for women. Gleaning also conducted by women had relatively low catch rates of 4.5 (1.1, 14.3) kg/fisher/trip and was commonly used in Malinde and Lalane. Beach seines were widely used in Nsangue Ponta and Quifuque, likely reflecting suitable habitat for this fishing method (Fig. 4). The highest catch rates for octopus were recorded by spears and speargun, with speargun mean CPUE (4.97 ± 1.37 SE kg/fisher/trip), used by men, significantly higher (F = 6.415, p < 0.001) than spears (3.75 ± 0.49SE kg/fisher/trip, used by both women and men.

4. Discussion 4.1. Cabo Delgado coastal fisheries The multi-variable feature of tropical artisanal fisheries (Munro and Williams, 1985; Van der Elst et al., 2005; Saldano et al., 2017) is well illustrated by the coastal fisheries of Cabo Delgado, where fishers caught 153 different species/taxa groups using 11 different fishing gears. Many women are part of this fishing community using spears and occasionally masks for octopus, or gleaning with wire or by hand for molluscs. A similar prevalence of women fishers in intertidal fishing is reported from SW Madagascar (Benbow et al., 2014). The fishing gears of northern Cabo Delgado can be characterised as low technology methods with a high prevalence of gleaning by hand, with sticks, and adapting mosquito nets for fishing, which contrasts with the high use of gillnets and small purse seines in Tanzania and Kenya (Wells et al., 2007; Tuda et al., 2016; Samoilys et al., 2017). Dependence on fishing was high, with up to 70% of the economically active householders engaged in fishing. These characteristics likely reflect poverty, lack of access to markets; in addition these fisheries require low investment with few barriers to entry (Lopes and Gervasio, 2003; Benkenstein, 2013; Arton and Crona, 2017). The wide use of the illegal mosquito net, despite relatively high levels of awareness of prohibited gears and support for the fisheries regulations that ban them, is likely related to poverty coupled with a lack of other alternative livelihoods, particularly for women (Short et al., 2018), and low enforcement by the authorities, including the Community Fisheries Council (CCP) co-management bodies.

3.6. Spatial patterns in CPUE Differences in CPUE between fishing grounds were found but due to low sample size at some fishing grounds, statistical power was too low to test for differences. Nevertheless, other spatial patterns in fishing activities were detected. 3.6.1. Visitation rates and catch rates per fishing ground Out of a total of 95 fishing grounds reported by fishers, the most frequently visited ground was Muamba Nsangue (158 visits) (Figure S3), fished mostly by fishers from Nsangue Ponta village using beach seines (51 pieces recorded) and mosquito nets (32 pieces recorded). Muamba Nsangue was the fishing ground most frequently fished by mosquito nets across this study area. Metundo fishing ground was second in frequency of visits (75 visits). CPUE per fishing ground ranged widely, from 0.5 to 29.8 kg/fisher/trip (n = 95), but for those visited at least 10 times, CPUE per ground ranged from 2.8 to 22.0 kg/ fisher/trip (n = 25, see Figure S3). The highest CPUE (22.0 kg/fisher/ trip) was recorded at Ivumba, the third most frequently visited fishing ground (60 visits) while the lowest CPUE (2.8 kg/fisher/trip) was at Namassiki, a moderately visited ground (Figure S3). CPUE at Muamba Nsangue, the fishing ground with the highest visitation rates across the study area was 7.64 kg/fisher/trip.

4.2. Variability in fishing activities and catch rates

3.6.2. Mapping CPUE by fishing ground and gear Gear based CPUE and visitation rates at 15 fishing grounds that were mapped in a portion of the study area revealed spatial patterns between different gears, villages and habitat types (Fig. 6). CPUE per fishing ground ranged from 4.4 to 29.8 kg/fisher/trip. Chamba cha Hassan, Hula and Tchowelo fishing grounds had high CPUEs while the lowest CPUEs were found at Kiwe, Mivinjeni, Farol, Kumaiyanga,

The relative use of the 11 fishing methods differed significantly across this small study area of ~80 km of coastline, undoubtedly related to the different marine and coastal habitats neighbouring the villages, which in turn host a different suite of fishery species (Bandeira and Gell, 2003; Bandeira et al., 2009; Ferreira et al., 2009; Samoilys et al., 2015). For example, the widest prevalence of mosquito net fishing was adjacent to extensive intertidal flats, because these gears are used like 7

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Fig. 4. Prevalence of use of different fishing gears across all villages and per village derived from baseline census survey. N = number of fishers interviewed. Percentage represents reported use of each gear per individual fisher. Fence trap not included since only 1 record (at Quirinde).

beach seines, being actively pulled through shallow waters. Conversely, mosquito nets were rarely used in the more coral reef dominated environments and deeper waters. Other village differences were seen in gleaning which was important in Lalane and Malinde, with the latter targeting sea-cucumber, likely reflecting habitat differences and thus prevalent species. Further, gears with the highest catch rates were not always favoured. These preferences were due in part to gender, wealth

and fishing ground habitats which all determine use of different gears. Handline fishing, which requires skill and some investment, yielded the highest catch rates, yet mosquito nets with the lowest catch rates were the most widely used gear in four villages. Mosquito nets were predominantly used by women who are limited to intertidal fishing. Of the gears they used, mosquito nets yielded the highest catch rates as well as value for the small fish they capture which are valuable when traded 8

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Fig. 5. Median catch per unit effort (with 25%, 75% quartiles) of artisanal gears used by fishers in northern Cabo Delgado (data from 6 villages aggregated). Gears with the identical lowercase letters are not significantly different based on Kruskal-Wallis post-hoc test. Open dots indicate outliers.

dry (e.g Abbott and Campbell, 2009), providing plausible reasons for why this gear is so widely used by women. Beach seines, also with low catch rates per fisher, require minimal investment and skills by the individual crew members, compared with, for example, handline fishing (Obura, 2001; Samoilys et al., 2011). This variability in habitat, target species and gear use is consistent with other findings on SSFs (Andrew et al., 2007; Ferrol-Schulte et al., 2013) and illustrates the challenge in defining broad SSF management strategies. Instead, the findings reflect the need for flexibility and locally –appropriate management measures (Finkbeiner and Basurto, 2015). The catch rates of the different gears used in Cabo Delgado were substantially higher than those of the same gears in other WIO countries. For example, the highest mean handline CPUE in Cabo Delgado was 11.6 kg fisher−1 trip−1 compared with 3.9 kg fisher−1 trip−1 in 2007 in Kenya, though species composition differs (Tuda et al., 2016; Samoilys et al., 2017). The relatively high mean catch rate (all gears) in the present study of 7.9 kg fisher−1 trip−1 in 2015, with up to 30 kg fisher−1 trip−1 in some locations, reflect values measured on the Kenyan coast thirty years ago (Samoilys et al., 2017). These comparisons suggest the Cabo Delgado SSFs have been considerably less exploited. Historic data from 1980 in southern Mozambique gave similar values at 29kg/fisher/day (Jacquet et al., 2010). However, there is some evidence of CPUE decline: a mean CPUE of ~10kg/fisher/day was recorded at Quirimba Island just south of the present study in the late 1990s (Gell, 1999). Clearly, comparing CPUE values between different studies is fraught with assumptions (Quinn, 1982). Nevertheless, in these data-poor situations such CPUE comparisons can be useful. However, a global analysis of fishing effort in small scale fisheries predicts higher numbers of fishing boats per km of coastline in northern Mozambique compared with Kenya (Stewart et al., 2010) which does not match the current or other field based studies in Mozambique and Kenya (Kaunda-Arara et al., 2003; IDPPE, 2007; Hoguane et al., 2012;

Blythe et al., 2013; Samoilys et al., 2017). Jacquet and co-authors derived national catch rates for northern Mozambique of ~2kg/fisher/day for 2003–2004 based on re-constructed SSF catch rates from national reporting to FAO (Jacquet et al., 2010). The substantially higher average catch rate in the current study (~8kg/fisher/day in 2015), is closer to Jacquet and co-workers’ national estimate for 1975 (6.5 kg/ fisher/day). This discrepancy may be because Jacquet et al. (2010) had no data from Cabo Delgado, therefore their estimates were biased by fishing effort from more populated and fished southern Provinces. Using a more realistic fishing effort for Cabo Delgado of 17 fishers/km for Cabo Delgado for 2003 (IDPPE, 2007), we estimate a CPUE of 6.7 kg/fisher/day, suggesting that CPUE in Cabo Delgado has been relatively stable since 2003. 4.3. Sustainable management of SSFs – opportunity costs and conservation benefits While these SSFs in northern Cabo Delgado show less evidence of overexploitation, it is clearly prudent to implement management measures as an insurance against climate change impacts and future increases in fishing pressure (Cochrane and Garcia, 2009). Regulation of fishing gears through restricted fishing including LMMAs or comanagement areas (Wells et al., 2007; Rocliffe et al., 2014; Kawaka et al., 2017), no-take zones (Roberts et al., 2001; Russ, 2002) or modified or excluded gears (Hicks and McClanahan, 2012; Mbaru and McClanahan, 2013; Benbow et al., 2014; Jupiter et al., 2014) are typical approaches in tropical SSFs. The complex spatial variability in the Cabo Delgado SSFs, makes such management approaches challenging. Conversely, armed with knowledge on the gears, fishing grounds, frequency of use and fishers including gender, empowers evidence –based discussions to prioritise management measures (Ratsimbazafy et al., 2016; Karr et al., 2017). For example, if the exclusion of a destructive 9

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Fig. 6. Average CPUE per fishing ground (gears combined, circles) and per gear (histogram) illustrated against habitat types of the coastal marine environments of: a) northern study area around Quiwia village and b) southern study area around Lalane village. (NB – figure is provided separately).

10

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

Table 4 Compatibility matrix showing criteria for weighing up opportunity costs vs. conservation benefits of three management measures: No-Take Zones (NTZs), temporary closures and fishing gears restrictions. Examples taken from Lalane and Quirinde villages and scores calculated for a sample of fishing grounds using fishery and social data in this study (see also Fig. 6). High cost-benefit ratio (red: > 0.88) indicates costs are higher than benefits and vice versa (green: < 0.68), driven by time to benefit.

clear that temporary closures for octopus score much more favourably than permanent NTZs due to their shorter time to benefit. The high cost ratios (in red, Table 4) may prove too costly for community management but may help identify areas of high biodiversity and fishery productivity value that could benefit from external conservation support. This compatibility exercise could be repeated with further social, cultural and logistical information and the two matrices brought together. Fishery management decisions need to consider both the biological consequences of shifts in fishing effort to different species and the regulatory changes that artisanal fishers are likely to accept and thus adopt (Walters and Bonfil, 1999; Benbow et al., 2014). Thus, strict enforcement of the illegal mosquito net, for example, should be consider the opportunity costs this would incur since these nets bring women fishers the highest catch value. Conventional fisheries management would likely recommend fish size or catch limits (Cochrane and Garcia, 2009) for those species contributing the highest proportions in catches such as the emperors Lethrinus lentjan and L. variegatus, to maximize sustainability. However, size and catch limits in these remote artisanal fisheries is often impractical because enforcement is difficult. Instead, a focus on compliance is important and this requires education, awareness and inclusive co-management structures and incentives for fishers (Ireland et al., 2004; Samoilys et al., 2007; Freed et al., 2016; Karr et al., 2017). Awareness of those species with rapid growth and short longevity that are therefore less vulnerable to overfishing, such as rabbit fish and octopus (Grandcourt, 2002; Robinson and Samoilys, 2013; Leporati et al., 2015), can be promoted through supporting fishing with gears that catch these species. Similarly, with the high number of species in these SSFs, species-specific management can be introduced to protect species that have vulnerable life history events such as forming predictable aggregations of spawners, or are globally endangered, such as grouper, Napoleon wrasse, sharks and rays (e.g. Sadovy and Erisman, 2012; Sadovy et al., 2012; Stein et al., 2018). Though again, fishers will need to be convinced of these species’

gear is to be recommended, users of that gear can be identified and their opportunity costs mitigated through, for example, a gear exchange exercise (Maina and Samoilys, 2011). Those fishing grounds that are less used will offer lower opportunity costs for fishery closures, while those used frequently may need to remain open or involve only temporary closures. Thus, detailed spatial knowledge of the fishery can provide critical information to help minimise the opportunity costs during conservation planning. A compatibility matrix approach, often used in marine spatial planning (Moore et al., 2017) may help community members and other managers weigh up costs and benefits of different management measures. This is illustrated here with data from two villages (Table 4) using three fisheries/biodiversity conservation measures: permanent no-take zones (NTZs), temporary closures (typically for octopus, e.g. Oliver et al., 2015), and gear restrictions or modifications. These management interventions come with different “time to benefit” cost values, with NTZs taking significantly longer to produce a benefit, due to the longer generation time of many of the fishes they are designed to manage and protect. They also have different ecological benefits, with, for example, NTZs providing higher biodiversity protection compared with temporary closures (Russ, 2002; Brown et al., 2015) though CPUE value from temporary closures (eg for octopus) is often higher (Benbow et al., 2014; Oliver et al., 2015). Here, arbitrary categorical values for these different approaches were selected, and the study's fishery data, together with local biodiversity information, applied to the matrix to illustrate the potential for weighing up costs and benefits. The costbenefit ratio of the three management measures (highlighted in red to green in Table 4) show clear differences in the two villages. For example, all management measures are more costly in Quirinde compared with Lalane, and establishing a permanent no-take reserve in Kiwe fishing ground will have less costs and greater benefits than the same approach in Mivindjeni fishing ground. This scoring is likely to be most useful within a village when fishing grounds are being compared. It is 11

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

ecological importance if they are to comply. The characteristics of the coastal SSFs of northern Mozambique illustrate that they represent one of the more complex, but possibly one of the least exploited, artisanal fisheries in the western Indian Ocean. They catch some of the highest number of species, employ a wide range of fishing gears and methods, range over a high variety of marine habitats, involve a high percentage of women fishers, and their catch rates can be three-fold higher than other fisheries in the region (McClanahan and Mangi, 2004; Davies et al., 2009; Jacquet et al., 2010; Samoilys et al., 2017). Although this makes these Cabo Delgado coastal fisheries difficult to assess and monitor, their characteristics also offer a wide range of community-based management and conservation opportunities. The introduction of sound management practices now in Cabo Delgado is likely to have positive effects into the future, maintaining high catch rates and pre-empting the overfished state of coastal fish populations found in many other WIO countries.

A., 2014. Lessons learnt from experimental temporary octopus fishing closures in south-west Madagascar: benefits of concurrent closures. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 36 (1), 31–37. Benkenstein, A., 2013. Small-scale fisheries in a modernising economy: opportunities and challenges in Mozambique. Res. Rep. 1313 August 2013: South African Institute of International Affairs Research Report, 55. Blythe, J.L., Murray, G., Flaherty, M.S., 2013. Historical perspectives and recent trends in the Coastal Mozambican Fishery. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4), 65. Brown, C.J., White, C., Beger, M., Grantham, H., Halpern, B.S., Klein, C.J., Possingham, H.P., 2015. Fisheries and biodiversity benefits of using static versus dynamic models for designing marine reserve networks. Ecosphere 6 (10), 1–14. Cochrane, K.L., Garcia, S. (Eds.), 2009. A Fishery Manager's Guidebook, second ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 536. Dalzell, P., 1996. Catch rates, selectivity and yields of reef fishing. In: Polunin, N.V.C., Roberts, C.M. (Eds.), Reef Fisheries. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 161–192. Davies, T.E., Beanjara, N., Tregenza, T., 2009. A socio-economic perspective on gear based management in an artisanal fishery in South West Madagascar. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 16 (4), 279–289. ERM & IMPACTO, 2014. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) Report for the liquified natural gas project in Cabo Delgado. Final EIA Rep. I, 148. Available online at. http://www.mzlng.com/content/documents. Ferreira, M.A., Andrade, F., Cardoso, P., Paula, J., 2009. Coastal habitat mapping along the Tanzania/Mozambique transboundary area using Landsat 5 TM imagery. West. Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. 8 (1), 1–13. Ferrol-Schulte, D., Wolff, M., Ferse, S., Glaser, M., 2013. Sustainable livelihoods approach in tropical coastal and marine social–ecological systems: a review. Mar. Policy 42, 253–258. Finkbeiner, E.M., Basurto, X., 2015. Re-defining co-management to facilitate small-scale fisheries reform: an illustration from northwest Mexico. Mar. Policy 51, 433–441. Freed, S., Dujon, V., Granek, E.F., Mouhhidine, J., 2016. Enhancing small-scale fisheries management through community engagement and multi-community partnerships: Comoros case study. Mar. Policy 63, 81–91. Gell, F.R., 1999. Fish and Fisheries in the Seagrass Beds of the Quirimba Archipelago, Northern Mozambique. PhD Dissertation. University of York, pp. 300. GoM (Government of Mozambique), 2003. Regulamento Geral a Pesca Marítima REPMAR. Decree no 43 2003 of 10 December. Govan, H., 2009. Achieving the potential of locally managed marine areas in the South Pacific. SPC Tradit. Mar. Resour. Manag. Knowl. Inf. Bull. 25, 16–25. Grandcourt, E.M., 2002. Demographic characteristics of a selection of exploited reef fish from the Seychelles: preliminary study. Mar. Freshw. Res. 53 (2), 123–130. Harley, S., Myers, R., Dunn, A., 2001. Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58 (9), 1760–1772. Hicks, C.C., McClanahan, T.R., 2012. Assessing gear modifications needed to optimize yields in a heavily exploited, multi-species, seagrass and coral reef fishery. PLoS One 7 (5), e36022. Hoguane, A.M., Cuamba, E. da L., Gammelsrød, T., 2012. Influence of rainfall on tropical coastal artisanal fisheries – a case study of Northern Mozambique. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 12 (4), 477–482. IDPPE, 2007. Recenseamento da pesca artesanal (2007). Instituto de Desenvolvimento de Pesca de Pequena Escala, Maputo, Mozambique, pp. 17. INE, 2010. Recenseamento geral da população e habitação 2007. Indicadores sociodemográficos distritais - província de Cabo Delgado: Maputo. Instituto Nacional de Estatistica, pp. 30. Available online at: http://www.ine.gov.mz/pt/ResourceCenter. Ireland, C., Mallaret, D., Baker, L., 2004. Alternative Sustainable Livelihoods for Coastal Communities: A Review of Experience and Guide to Best Practice. IUCN, Nairobi, pp. 75. Jacquet, J., Fox, H., Motta, H., Ngusaru, A., Zeller, D., 2010. Few data but many fish: marine small-scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 32 (2), 197–206. Jupiter, S.D., Egli, D.P., 2011. Ecosystem-based management in Fiji: successes and challenges after five years of implementation. J. Mar. Biol. 2011, 1–14. Jupiter, S.D., Cohen, P.J., Weeks, R., Tawake, A., Govan, H., 2014. Locally-managed marine areas : multiple objectives and diverse strategies Locally-managed marine areas : multiple objectives and diverse strategies. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 20 (2), 165–179. Karr, K.A., Fujita, R., Carcamo, R., Epstein, L., Foley, J.R., Fraire-Cervantes, J.A., Kritzer, J.P., 2017. Integrating science-based co-management, partnerships, participatory processes and stewardship incentives to improve the performance of small-scale fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 345. Kaunda-Arara, B., Rose, G.A., Muchiri, M.S., Kaka, R., 2003. Long-term trends in coral reef fish yields and exploitation rates of commercial species from coastal Kenya. West. Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. 2 (2), 105–116. Kawaka, J.A., Samoilys, M.A., Murunga, M., Church, J., Abunge, C., Maina, G.W., 2017. Kenya, Developing locally managed marine areas: lessons learnt from Kenya. Ocean Coast Manag. 135, 1–10. Leporati, S., Hart, A., Larsen, R., Franken, L., De Graaf, M., 2015. Octopus life history relative to age, in a multi-geared developmental fishery. Fish. Res. 165, 28–41. Lopes, S., Gervasio, H., 2003. Co-management of artisanal fisheries in Mozambique: a case study of Kwirikwidge fishing centre, Angoche District, Nampula province. Ocean Coast Manag. 50, 148–173. Maina, G.M., Samoilys, M.A., 2011. A review of Fishing Gear Exchange Programmes in East Africa.CORDIO Project Report to USAID. 23pp Mombasa. Mbaru, E.K., McClanahan, T.R., 2013. Escape gaps in African basket traps reduce by catch while increasing body sizes and incomes in a heavily fished reef lagoon. Fish. Res. 148, 90–99. McClanahan, T.R., Ateweberhan, M., Darling, E.S., Graham, N.A., Muthiga, N.A., 2014. Biogeography and change among regional coral communities across the Western

Conflicts of interest The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Acknowledgements Grateful thanks to the team of field technicians who collected much of the raw data for this study: Cecilio Amade, Mamudo Abudo, Júlio Biche, Faruque Ernesto Abdul Jorge (late), Domingos Mucolo, Daniel Selemane, Angelina Tayobo, Taresa Tsotsane. This paper has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union (DCIENV/2013/323–897), Darwin Initiative (20–023), Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF), the Waterloo Foundation and Fondation Ensemble (PD/2015/01). The contents of this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the position of the European Union, Darwin Initiative, GPAF, Waterloo Foundation or Fondation Ensemble. This is a contribution from Our Sea Our Life: https://www.zsl.org/ conservation/regions/africa/our-sea-our-life. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104924. References Abbott, J., Campbell, L., 2009. Environmental histories and emerging fisheries management of the upper Zambezi River floodplains. Conserv. Soc. 7 (2), 83. Agardy, T., Alder, J., Dayton, P., Curran, S., Kitchingman, A., Wilson, M., Saifullah, S., 2005. Coastal systems. In: Hassan, R., Robert, S., Ash, N. (Eds.), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current Status and Trends. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 795–825. Andrew, N.L., Béné, C., Hall, S.J., Allison, E.H., Heck, S., Ratner, B.D., 2007. Diagnosis and management of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Fish Fish. 8 (3), 227–240. Arton, A., Crona, B., 2017. Fisheries Value Chains in Northern Mozambique: A Comparative Analysis across Fisheries and Sites. SPACES Working Paper Series No: 005. June 2017 86pp. Bandeira, S.O., Gell, F., 2003. The seagrasses of Mozambique and southeastern Africa. In: Green, E.P., &Short, F.T. (Eds.), World Atlas of Seagrasses. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, pp. 93–100. Bandeira, S.O., Macamo, C.C.F., Kairo, J.G., Amade, F., Jiddawi, N., Paula, J., 2009. Evaluation of mangrove structure and condition in two trans‐boundary areas in the Western Indian Ocean. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (19), 46–55. Bell, J.D., Reid, C., Batty, M.J., Allison, E.H., Lehodey, P., Rodwell, L., Demmke, A., 2011. Implications of climate change for contributions by fisheries and aquaculture to Pacific Island countries and communities. In: Bell, J.D., Johnson, J.E., Hobday, A.J. (Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Pacific Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, pp. 733–801. Bell, J., Cheung, W., De Silva, S., Gasalla, M., Frusher, S., Hobday, A., Senina, I., 2016. Impacts and effects of ocean warming on the contributions of fisheries and aquaculture to food security. In: Laffoley, D., Baxter, J.M. (Eds.), Explaining Ocean Warming: Causes, Scale, Effects and Consequences. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 456. Benbow, S., Humber, F., Oliver, T.A., Oleson, K.L.L., Raberinary, D., Nadon, M., Harris,

12

Ocean and Coastal Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.A. Samoilys, et al.

aggregating species and the biological implications of fishing on spawning aggregations. In: Sadovy, Y.J., Colin, P.L. (Eds.), Reef Fish Spawning Aggregations: Biology, Research, and Management. Springer, Berlin, pp. 225–284. Saldano, A., Salas, S., Arce-Ibarra, A.M., Torres-Irineo, E., 2017. Fishing operations and adaptive strategies of small-scale Fishers: insights for fisheries management in datapoor situations. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 24 (1), 19–32. Sale, P.F., Agardy, T., Ainsworth, C.H., Feist, B.E., Bell, J.D., Christie, P., et al., 2014. Transforming management of tropical coastal seas to cope with challenges of the 21st century. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85 (1). Samoilys, M.A., Martin-Smith, K.M., Giles, B.G., Cabrera, B., Anticamara, J.A., Brunio, E.O., Vincent, A.C., 2007. Effectiveness of five small Philippines' coral reef reserves for fish populations depends on site-specific factors, particularly enforcement history. Biol. Conserv. 136 (4), 584–601. Samoilys, M., Maina, G.W., Osuka, K., 2011. Artisanal Fishing Gears of the Kenyan Coast. Mombasa CORDIO/USAID, pp. 36. Samoilys, M., Osuka, K., Maina, G.W., Obura, D.O., 2017. Artisanal fisheries on Kenya's coral reefs: decadal trends reveal management needs. Fish. Res. 186, 177–191. Samoilys, M., Pabari, M., Andrew, T., Maina, G.W., Church, J., Momanyi, A., et al., 2015. Resilience of Coastal Systems and Their Human Partners in the Western Indian Ocean. IUCN ESARO, WIOMSA, CORDIO & UNEP Nairobi Convention, Nairobi, Kenya x + 74pp. Sheppard, C.R.C., 2000. Coral reefs of the western Indian Ocean: an overview. In: McClanahan, T.R., Sheppard, C.R.C., Obura, D.O. (Eds.), Coral Reefs of the Indian Ocean: Their Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3–38. Short, R., Gurung, R., Rowcliffe, M., Hill, N., Milner-Gulland, E., 2018. The use of mosquito nets in fisheries: a global perspective. PLoS One 13 (1), 1–14. Stein, R.W., Mull, C.G., Kuhn, T.S., Aschliman, N.C., Davidson, L.N.K., Joy, J.B., Mooers, A.O., 2018. Global priorities for conserving the evolutionary history of sharks, rays and chimaeras. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 (2), 288–298. Stewart, K.R., Lewison, R.L., Dunn, D.C., Bjorkland, R.H., Kelez, S., Halpin, P.N., Crowder, L.B., 2010. Characterizing fishing effort and spatial extent of coastal fisheries. PLoS One 5 (12). Tuda, P.M., Wolff, M., Breckwoldt, A., 2016. Size structure and gear selectivity of target species in the multispecies multigear fishery of the Kenyan South Coast. Ocean Coast Manag. 130, 95–106. UNEP-WCMC, 2010. Global Distribution of Warm-Water Coral Reefs. Compiled from Multiple Sources Including the Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project. Version 1.3. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge. Van der Elst, R., Everett, B., Jiddawi, N., Mwatha, G., Afonso, P.S., Boulle, D., 2005. Fish, Fishers and fisheries of the Western Indian Ocean: their diversity and status. A preliminary assessment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 363 (1826), 263–284. Walmsley, S., Purvis, J., Ninnes, C., 2006. The role of small-scale fisheries management in the poverty reduction strategies in the Western Indian Ocean region. Ocean Coast Manag. 49 (11), 812–833. Walters, C.J., Bonfil, R., 1999. Multispecies spatial assessment models for the British Columbia groundfish trawl fishery. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (56), 601–628. Wanyonyi, I.N., Wamukota, A., Mesaki, S., Guissamulo, A.T., Ochiewo, J., 2016. Artisanal Fisher migration patterns in coastal East Africa. Ocean Coast Manag. 119, 93–108. Weeks, R., Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., White, A.T., 2010. Effectiveness of marine protected areas in the Philippines for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 24 (2), 531–540. Weeratunge, N., Béné, C.B., Siriwardane, R., Charles, A., Johnson, D., Allison, E.H., Badjeck, M.C., 2014. Small-scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish Fish. 15 (2), 255–279. Wells, S., Makoloweka, S., Samoilys, M. (Eds.), 2007. Putting Adaptive Management into Practice: Collaborative Coastal Management in Tanga, Northern Tanzania. IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Office, pp. 197.

Indian Ocean. PLoS One 9 (4), 1–9. McClanahan, T.R., Mangi, S.C., 2004. Gear-based management of a tropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capture size. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 11 (1), 51–60. MEF, 2016. Pobreza e bem-estarem Mozambique: Quartaavaliaçãonacional. InquéritoaoOrçamento Familiar – IOF 2014/15. Ministério de Economia e Finanças, Maputo, pp. 87. MITADER, 2015. National Strategy and Action Plan of Biological Diversity of Mozambique. Maputo, Mozambique. Retrieved from. https://www.cbd.int/doc/ world/mz/mz-nbsap-v3-en.pdf. Moore, S.A., Brown, G., Kobryn, H., Strickland-Munro, J., 2017. Identifying conflict potential in a coastal and marine environment using participatory mapping. J. Environ. Manag. 197, 706–718. Munro, J.J., Williams, D.D., 1985. Assessment and management of coral reef fisheries: biological, environmental and socio-economic aspects. Proc. 5th Int. Coral Reef Congr. 4, 545–581. Obura, D.O., 2001. Participatory monitoring of shallow tropical marine fisheries by artisanal Fishers in Diani, Kenya. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69 (2), 777–791. Oliver, T.A., Oleson, K.L.L., Ratsimbazafy, H., Raberinary, D., Benbow, S., Harris, A., 2015. Positive catch and economic benefits of periodic octopus fishery closures: do effective, narrowly targeted actions ‘catalyze’broader management? PLoS One 10 (6), e0129075. Paul, S.A.L., Wilson, A.M.W., Cachimo, R., Riddell, M.A., 2016. Piloting participatory smartphone mapping of intertidal fishing grounds and resources in northern Mozambique: opportunities and future directions. Ocean Coast Manag. 134, 79–92. Quinn II, T.J., Hoag, S.H., Southward, G.M., 1982. Comparison of two methods of combining catch-per-unit-effort data from geographic regions. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39 (6), 837–846. Ratsimbazafy, H.A., Oleson, K.L., Roy, R., Raberinary, D., Harris, A., 2016. Fishing site mapping using local knowledge provides accurate and satisfactory results: case study of octopus fisheries in Madagascar. West. Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. 15 (2), 1–7. Riddell, M., Rosendo, S., 2015. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA), Quirimbas National Park, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique. Report to WWF. pp. 84 Mozambique. Roberts, C.M., Bohnsack, J.A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J.P., Goodridge, R., 2001. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science294 (5548), 1920–1923. Robinson, J., Samoilys, M., 2013. Evaluation of an indicator-based framework for assessing the vulnerability of reef fish populations to spawning aggregation fisheries. In: Robinson, J., Samoilys, M. (Eds.), Reef Fish Spawning Aggregations in the Western Indian Ocean: Research for Management. WIOMSA/SIDA/SFA/CORDIO, pp. 102–112. Rocliffe, S., Peabody, S., Samoilys, M., Hawkins, J.P., 2014. Towards a network of locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) in the Western Indian Ocean. PLoS One 9 (7), e103000. Rosendo, S., 2016. Summary report from the phase 2 livelihood baseline - Our Sea Our Life, Cabo Delgado. Centro interdisciplinaremCiênciasSociais (CICS.NOVA), Faculdade de CiênciasSociais e Humanas (FCSH), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL). Lisbon, Portugal. pp. 71 April 2016. Rosendo, S., Brown, K., Joubert, A., Jiddawi, N., Mechisso, M., 2011. A clash of values and approaches: a case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique. Ocean Coast Manag. 54 (1), 55–65. Russ, G.R., 2002. Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fishery management tools. In: Sale, P.F. (Ed.), Coral Reef Fishes Yynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem. Academic Press, San Diego California, pp. 421–443. Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y., Craig, M.T., Bertoncini, A.A., Carpenter, K.E., Cheung, W.W.L., Choat, J.H., et al., 2012. Fishing groupers towards extinction: a global assessment of threats and extinction risks in a billion dollar fishery. Fish Fish. 14 (2), 119–136. Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y., Erisman, B.E., 2012. The social and economic importance of

13