Fishing for sustainabilityTowards transformation of seagrass-associated small-scale fisheriesSieglind Wallner-Hahn

Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Ecotoxicologyat Stockholm University to be publicly defended on Friday 5 May 2017 at 09.00 in ViviTäckholmsalen, NPQ-huset, Svante Arrhenius väg 20.

AbstractSmall-scale fisheries employ many millions of people around the world, and are particularly important in developingcountries, where the dependency on marine resources is high and livelihood diversification options are scarce. In manyareas of the world however, small-scale fisheries are at risk which threatens the food security and wellbeing of coastalpeople. Small-scale fisheries management has in many cases been insufficient and new comprehensive approaches arerecommended to achieve social-ecological sustainability in the long-term. The aim of this thesis is to analyze empiricallyhow social-ecological elements of seagrass-associated small-scale fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean region can beaddressed for a transformation from the current mostly degraded state to more sustainable social-ecological systems andsecure future livelihoods. The main method used was semi-structured interviews with local fishers. The main findingsshow the crucial contributions seagrass-associated small-scale fisheries make to food security and income generation andhighlight the need to acknowledge the social-ecological importance of seagrasses in the seascape (Paper I). A discrepancybetween low societal gains of the fishing of sea urchin predator fish species and their crucial importance in the food web(in controlling sea urchin populations and the associated grazing pressure on seagrasses) was identified (Paper II). Theseresults suggest catch-and-release practice of sea urchin predator fish species, which could contribute to more balancedpredator – sea urchin – seagrass food webs in the long run. The use of illegal dragnets was identified as a major threat tolocal seagrass meadows (Paper IV). Institutional elements influencing the use of such destructive dragnet were identifiedto be normative, cultural-cognitive and economic, which constitutes an institutional misfit to the current emphasis onregulative elements in a hierarchical manner (Paper III). Concerning future co-management initiatives, gear restrictionsand education were the favoured management measures among all fishers (Paper IV). A majority of fishers were willingto participate in monitoring and controls, and most fishers thought they themselves and their communities would benefitmost from seagrass-specific management. These findings highlight the need for actions on multiple scales, being the local-,management-, policy- and governance levels. The suggested actions include: education and exchange of ecological andscientific knowledge, gear management including the cessation of dragnet fishing, strengthening of local institutions, anactive participation of fishers in enforcement of existing rules and regulations and an introduction of adequate alternativelivelihood options.

Keywords: small-scale fisheries, co-management, social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, institutions,transformation, seagrass meadows, destructive gear, food-web interactions.

Stockholm 2017http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-141052

ISBN 978-91-7649-762-3ISBN 978-91-7649-763-0

Department of Ecology, Environment and PlantSciences

Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm

F I S H I N G F O R S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

Sieglind Wallner-Hahn

���

���

Fishing for sustainability Towards transformation of seagrass-associated small-scale fisheries

Sieglind Wallner-Hahn

���

Abstract

Small-scale fisheries employ many millions of people around the world, and are par-ticularly important in developing countries, where the dependency on marine re-sources is high and livelihood diversification options are scarce. In many areas of the world however, small-scale fisheries are at risk which threatens the food security and wellbeing of coastal people. Small-scale fisheries management has in many cases been insufficient and new comprehensive approaches are recommended to achieve social-ecological sustainability in the long-term. The aim of this thesis is to analyze empirical-ly how social-ecological elements of seagrass-associated small-scale fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean region can be addressed for a transformation from the current mostly degraded state to more sustainable social-ecological systems and secure future livelihoods. The main method used was semi-structured interviews with local fishers. The main findings show the crucial contributions seagrass-associated small-scale fish-eries make to food security and income generation and highlight the need to acknowledge the social-ecological importance of seagrasses in the seascape (PPaper I). A discrepancy between low societal gains of the fishing of sea urchin predator fish species and their crucial importance in the food web (in controlling sea urchin popula-tions and the associated grazing pressure on seagrasses) was identified (Paper II). These results suggest catch-and-release practice of sea urchin predator fish species, which could contribute to more balanced predator – sea urchin – seagrass food webs in the long run. The use of illegal dragnets was identified as a major threat to local seagrass meadows (Paper IV). Institutional elements influencing the use of such de-structive dragnet were identified to be normative, cultural-cognitive and economic, which constitutes an institutional misfit to the current emphasis on regulative elements in a hierarchical manner (Paper III). Concerning future co-management initiatives, gear restrictions and education were the favoured management measures among all fishers (Paper IV). A majority of fishers were willing to participate in monitoring and controls, and most fishers thought they themselves and their communities would ben-efit most from seagrass-specific management. These findings highlight the need for actions on multiple scales, being the local-, management-, policy- and governance levels. The suggested actions include: education and exchange of ecological and scien-tific knowledge, gear management including the cessation of dragnet fishing, strength-ening of local institutions, an active participation of fishers in enforcement of existing rules and regulations and an introduction of adequate alternative livelihood options.

Key words: small-scale fisheries, co-management, social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, institutions, transformation, seagrass meadows, destructive gear, food-web interactions

���

List of papers

I.� WWallner-Hahn S., de la Torre-Castro M., Dahlgren M. Food se-curity and ecosystem service generation of seagrass fisheries: The case of southwest Madagascar. Manuscript.

II.� Wallner-Hahn S., de la Torre-Castro M., Eklöf J.S., Gullström

M., Muthiga N.A., Uku J. 2015. Cascade effects and sea-urchin overgrazing: An analysis of drivers behind the exploitation of sea-urchin predators for management improvement. Ocean&Coastal Management 107: 16-27.

III.� Wallner-Hahn S., Molander F., Gallardo G., Villasante S., Eklöf

J.S., Jiddawi N., de la Torre-Castro M. 2016. Destructive gear use in a tropical fishery: Institutional factors influencing the willing-ness- and capacity to change. Marine Policy 72: 199-210.

IV.� Wallner-Hahn S., de la Torre-Castro M. Early steps for success-

ful management in small-scale fisheries: An analysis of fishers’, managers’ and scientists’ opinions preceding implementation. Manuscript submitted to Marine Pollution Bulletin. The published papers are printed with the kind permission of the publishers.

My contribution: Project development and study design of paper I, project devel-opment and study design together with Maricela de la Torre-Castro (papers II – IV), field work (paper IV), substantial part of the field work (papers I – III), data analysis and writing of the pa-pers (papers I – IV).

���

Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 7

List of papers .................................................................................................................. 8 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 10

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 Small-scale fisheries’ challenges ............................................................................... 11 Management for transformation .............................................................................. 12 Seagrasses ................................................................................................................. 13

Scope of the thesis ........................................................................................................ 15 Problem statement and thesis aim ........................................................................... 15

Concepts and theory ..................................................................................................... 17 Social-ecological system ........................................................................................... 17 Small-scale fisheries ................................................................................................. 17 Transformation ........................................................................................................ 17 Ecosystem services ................................................................................................... 18 Ecological knowledge .............................................................................................. 19 Resilience ................................................................................................................. 19 Management of natural resources ........................................................................... 20

Empirical approach ...................................................................................................... 22 Study region ............................................................................................................. 22

Methods ........................................................................................................................ 25

Synthesis of results and discussion ............................................................................... 27 The importance of seagrasses for small-scale fisheries ........................................... 27 Ecological knowledge concerning effects of fishing methods, seagrass functions and threats ....................................................................................................................... 29 Factors behind non-sustainable resource use .......................................................... 31

Overfishing of sea urchin predator fish species ....................................................................... 31 Destructive dragnet use ............................................................................................................ 32

Fishers’ and managers’ opinions on ways forward .................................................. 33 Management suggestions and -preferences .............................................................................. 33 Support for management scenarios .......................................................................................... 34 Willingness to change gears ...................................................................................................... 36

Early steps towards transformation .......................................................................... 39 Suggestions for management and governance improvements ................................................. 39 Holistic management ................................................................................................................ 40 Communication, education and exchange of knowledge ........................................................ 41 Creation of context-specific institutional arrangements ........................................................... 42

���

Key findings .................................................................................................................. 43

Sammanfattning på svenska .......................................................................................... 44

Future directions ........................................................................................................... 46

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... 47

References ..................................................................................................................... 49

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix A ............................................................................................................. 60 Appendix B ............................................................................................................. 61 Appendix C ............................................................................................................. 63 Appendix D ............................................................................................................. 65

�

Abbreviations

WIO Western Indian Ocean region

ES Ecosystem services SES Social ecological system LEK Local ecological knowledge TEK Traditional ecological knowledge

����

Introduction

Small-scale fisheries’ challenges To use natural resources today and at the same time safeguarding them for future generations in environmentally and socially sustainable ways is one of our time’s biggest challenges. Small-scale fisheries contribute greatly, but poor-ly quantified, to human nutrition, development and poverty alleviation (Berkes et al. 2001, FAO 2007, Garcia & Rosenberg 2010, Kawarazuka & Béné 2010, Béné et al. 2016, Thilsted et al. 2016). Many millions of people are employed in small-scale fisheries, and the numbers multiply if pre- and post-harvest workers are taken into consideration (e.g. McGoodwin 2001, Chuenpagdee et al. 2006, Béné et al. 2007). Delgado et al. (2003) estimate that after including fisheries-associated livelihoods like those involved in mar-keting and processing, and fishery household members, more than 200 mil-lion people depend on small-scale fisheries. Small-scale fisheries are of particular importance in developing countries, where the bulk of the people directly involved in fisheries work, and where livelihood alternatives often are scarce (Béné 2006). The various roles and contributions of small-scale fisheries for food security, rural and economic development as well as poverty alleviation in the developing world have been emphasized in recent literature (Béné et al. 2007, Béné et al. 2010, Mills et al. 2011, Béné et al. 2016), as well as their cultural and social dimensions (MacGoodwin 2001, Béné 2006). These benefits are, however, increasingly at risk as the pressure on fisheries worldwide increases (Delgado et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2010, FAO 2016). In many areas of the world, small-scale fisher-ies are threatened by factors like open access types of fisheries, lacking liveli-hood diversification, growing populations, migration and climate change (Pomeroy 2011, Cinner et al. 2012, Sumaila et al. 2016). Progress in ensuring the sustainability of the fisheries sector and its benefits in the struggle against hunger and poverty and for socio-economic development is therefore critically needed (Mills et al. 2011, FAO 2016). A sustainable management of fisheries resources would help to maintain livelihoods and would further contribute to communities’ resilience to external impacts of e.g. climate change (Bank 2013). On the contrary, it has been emphasized that weakly governed fisheries “erode the resilience of fishing communities by exacerbating poverty, vulnera-bility and resource degradation” (Andrew et al. 2007). However, small-scale fisheries management has in many areas been insufficient or lacking and has failed to ensure sustainability, which highlights the urgent need for a world-

����

wide reform of the management and governance of small-scale fisheries (Berkes et al. 2001, Chuenpagdee et al. 2005). Due to their high diversity (concerning the actors involved, the diversity of fishery species, ecosystem services, fishing gears and contexts) and complexity (in terms of connectivity to other livelihoods, other ecological systems and across multiple scales), small-scale fisheries pose particular challenges to man-agers (Berkes 2003, Jentoft 2007). The governance of small-scale fisheries has even been described as a ‘wicked problem’ without any blueprint solutions or panaceas (Jentoft & Chuenpagdee 2009). Therefore, comprehensive diagnos-tic approaches have been recommended, which acknowledge the contexts as well as the interconnectivity between ecosystem health, social justice, liveli-hoods and food security (Chuenpagdee et al. 2005, Gutierrez et al. 2011).

Management for transformation This thesis focuses on small-scale fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean re-gion. In many small-scale fisheries in the area, fishers, managers and scientists report the situation as non-sustainable and describe a degradation of social and ecological conditions, threatening human well-being and future genera-tions. Factors like a high dependency on marine resources, signs of degrada-tion of the marine environment as well as signs of overexploitation contribute to the intricacy of the situation (Jiddawi & Öhman 2002, Berkes et al. 2006, McClanahan et al. 2008b, Eriksson et al. 2012, Nordlund et al. 2014). Efforts are made by governmental institutions, international donor-agencies and NGOs to improve the situation, but with often poor results. Factors contrib-uting to this are institutional inertia, a lack of or badly distributed resources, conflicting interests, a dominating focus on conservation, a top-down fashion, the lack of a holistic approach and failure to consider resource users seriously (de la Torre-Castro 2012b, Lindström 2012). Quick-fixes like a focus on regu-lative institutions such as rules, enforcement and legal aftermath seem to be relatively easy remedies, but can have devastating consequences for fishers, their families and the communities they live in, and will most likely not con-tribute to any long-term improvement (see also PPaper III). Institutions, how-ever, play a crucial role for societal change (Scott 2001, Folke et al. 2009) and cultural, economic and governance institutions can either prevent or enable transformation (Westley et al. 2011). Co-management in combination with large-scale seascape approach including all habitat types and a focus on resource users as central actors has been de-scribed as a promising approach for such small-scale fisheries (Chapin et al. 2010). The results of co-management systems have, however, been mixed and many studies describing them focus on factors concerning their implementa-

����

tion and results, while the initial phases have been covered to a lesser extent. Such pre-implementation stages might help to decide how to proceed and may be decisive for the outcome of the co-management process (Chuenpagdee & Jentoft 2007). Therefore, these stages deserve more atten-tion. This thesis is concerned with these steps prior to the actual decision to implement a co-management system, before management design and –implementation processes are initiated. It starts from a pre-implementation point, which Chuenpagdee and Jentoft (2007) describe as a situation where “problems and solutions have not yet been coupled, it is not yet clear which actors are to become involved and in what capacity, and the decision on if and when to implement co-management may not yet have come.”

Seagrasses Seagrasses are marine flowering plants and are found in coastal areas all over the world (Short & Green 2003). It has been pointed out that holistic ap-proaches in management, which include all marine habitats (e.g. corals and seagrass meadows likewise) are crucial to achieve and sustain sustainable small-scale fisheries (Unsworth & Cullen 2010, de la Torre-Castro et al. 2014). Particularly in developing countries, seagrasses received, in comparison to other marine habitats, only little attention from researchers, managers or poli-cy makers (Duarte et al. 2008, Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth 2016). Seagrass-es meadows are nevertheless among the most productive ecosystems in the world, supporting numerous organisms as nursery- and foraging grounds and shelter from predation, and supplying a wide range of ecological goods and services (Costanza et al. 1998, Short & Green 2003, Nordlund et al. 2016). There is scientific literature highlighting their socio-economic importance, e.g. their major contributions to fisheries production and food security (Unsworth & Cullen 2010, Baker et al. 2015), as well as their local (de la Torre-Castro & Rönnbäck 2004) and global social-ecological importance (Cullen-Unsworth et al. 2014). In the face of globally escalating seagrass loss rates (Orth et al. 2006, Waycott et al. 2009, Grech et al. 2012), empirical evidence for the importance of seagrasses for the food security of local communities are necessary for an increased awareness and the inclusion of seagrass ecosystems into policy and management actions. This thesis contributes such empirical evidence, high-lighting the importance of seagrasses for coastal populations, and emphasizing the need to include seagrasses in coastal management.

��

Scope of the thesis

Problem statement and thesis aim Many small-scale fisheries are today poorly managed, and new, diagnostic approaches that aim to contextualize fisheries and seek appropriate entry points are needed to transform them towards social-ecological sustainability and secure future livelihoods (Andrew et al. 2007, Berkes 2009, McClanahan et al. 2009). Since small-scale fisheries are heterogeneous, complex and di-verse, they are extremely difficult to manage (Berkes et al. 2001, Berkes 2003). It has been emphasized in scientific literature that successful approach-es have to be tailored specifically to the social-ecological contexts of the fishery in question (McClanahan et al. 2009, Gutierrez et al. 2011). This requires a deep understanding of the social, ecological and institutional dynamics charac-terizing the fishery (Jentoft & Chuenpagdee 2009, Kittinger et al. 2013). This thesis contributes with deeper insights of social-ecological characteristics of the small-scale fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean region, using a resource users’ perspective. The results of this thesis will contribute to a base of knowledge for new, practical and more equitable management approaches. The overall aim of this thesis is to assess empirically how social-ecological elements of small-scale fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean region can practically be addressed for a transformation from the current mainly unsus-tainable state to more sustainable social-ecological systems and secure future livelihoods. The specific objectives of the thesis are to:

1.� Assess the importance of seagrass habitats for small-scale fisheries to be able to develop appropriate coastal management strategies (PPapers I, II and IV)

2.� Assess levels of awareness and ecological knowledge among fishers concerning impacts of various fishing methods, seagrass functions and –threats (Papers I, II and IV)

3.� Investigate non-sustainable resource use patterns which threaten small-scale fisheries (Papers II – IV)

4.� Analyze fishers’ and managers’ opinions on ways forward (Papers II-IV)

���

Concepts and theory

Social-ecological system The social-ecological systems (SES) approach builds the framework of this thesis. It considers human society and ecosystems as an integrated system with reciprocal feedbacks and mutual interdependence (Berkes et al. 1998, Berkes et al. 2003). This approach emphasizes a human-in-nature perspective as well as the complexity of socio-ecological systems, accounting for environmental change and human action influencing each other (Levin 1998, Folke et al. 2002). The SES approach is a useful tool for considering trade-offs between ecological and social elements of a system in management and conservation planning (Ban et al. 2013). This thesis is based on the SES framework, con-sidering fisheries as complex and adaptive social-ecological systems (Berkes 2003).

Small-scale fisheries Small-scale fisheries include artisanal, traditional and subsistence fisheries and are predominant in tropical developing countries (Berkes et al. 2001, Béné 2006). Small-scale fisheries are characterized by being labour-intensive but not very capital-intensive, they are often tied to coastal communities and restricted in mobility (Berkes et al. 2001, Pauly 2006). They use low technological gear like small boats, mostly non-mechanized propulsion (sails and paddles or poles) or engines with low horse power and fishing gear is operated manually (Béné 2006). Fishing is usually done in shallow, nearshore waters. In the trop-ics, a large number of different species are exploited and a great variety of fishing gears are used (McGoodwin 2001). Occupation in small-scale fisheries can be fulltime, part-time or seasonal and is often complemented by other occupations e.g. farming activities (Allison & Ellis 2001).

Transformation One way of understanding change is through the concept of transformation. Resilience theory describes transformation as the fundamental alteration of the nature of a system (Walker et al. 2004, Nelson et al. 2007). Such trans-formations might be desirable in situations where the current ecological, so-cial, or economic conditions of a social-ecological system become untenable.

���

There is empirical evidence that such crisis of social-ecological systems can be used as windows of opportunities for change towards new, more resilient sys-tems (Olsson et al. 2004, Chapin et al. 2010). Transformation can be either active or forced. Forced transformation is an imposed transformation of a social-ecological system which is not introduced deliberately by the actors (but e.g. by changing environmental or socio-economic conditions) (Walker et al. 2004). Active transformation means the deliberate initiation of a phased introduction of new state variables to the low-er scales of the system, without compromising the resilience of the system at higher scales (Walker et al. 2004). However, whether transformation is delib-erate or forced depends on the level of transformability in the social-ecological system in question (Folke et al. 2010). Transformability is the capacity of a system to transform into a different kind of system, or to create a fundamental-ly new system when the current system is untenable due to the existing ecolog-ical, economic or social structures (Walker et al. 2004, Chapin et al. 2010, Folke et al. 2010, Folke et al. 2011). To transform complex social-ecological systems, such as small-scale fisheries, requires an extended focus to address the broader social contexts that enable shifts in governance systems (Folke et al. 2009). Such shifts include change in organizational and institutional arrangements and the related distribution of leadership and power, changes of and within the social relations of actor groups as well as shifts in perceptions and meaning. An adaptive and continu-ously flexible approach is emphasized, based on experience and knowledge, steering towards a system state which is able to provide enhanced ecosystem services and support human well-being (Folke et al. 2010). This thesis aims to gain such knowledge which can contribute to and prepare for an active trans-formation of the currently fragile small-scale fisheries system. A transfor-mation of the small-scale fisheries in the WIO will require both changes in the way people behave and changes in the governance system. Today’s crisis in small-scale fisheries management (Jentoft & Chuenpagdee 2009) could be seized as a window of opportunity to transform small-scale fisheries into more sustainable and resilient social-ecological systems and secure future liveli-hoods.

Ecosystem services Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2003), these include provi-sioning services (e.g. food, water, timber and fiber), regulating services (regula-tion of climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality), cultural services

���

(providing recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits), and supporting ser-vices (e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling). Humans are, while buffered against environmental changes by culture and technology, entirely dependent on the provision of ecosystem services (MEA 2005). To meet the increasing demand for ecosystem services and at the same time re-versing ecosystem degradation is one of today’s biggest challenges, which re-quires fundamental changes in policy, institutions and practices (MEA 2005). Small-scale fisheries contribute through a wide range of ecosystem services to food security and human well-being. Due to the degradation of coastal ecosys-tems, as well as threatened and unsustainable small-scale fisheries, these con-tributions and the livelihoods of millions of people are at risk (Allison et al. 2009, Chuenpagdee 2011). In this thesis, I use an ecosystem service approach to highlight the importance of services generated by small-scale fisheries for coastal people, illustrating the need for more effective management (PPaper I).

Ecological knowledge Local ecological knowledge is defined as “a more recently evolved cumulative body of knowledge applied and developed by stakeholders in a local context. This knowledge consists of externally and internally generated knowledge about resource and ecosystem dynamics” (Olsson & Folke 2001). Traditional ecological knowledge is defined as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through genera-tions by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with the environment” (Berkes et al. 2000). The combination and exchange of ecological and scientific knowledge has been emphasized as particularly beneficial for the design of management schemes (Berkes et al. 1998, Moller et al. 2004). This thesis includes assess-ments of local- and traditional ecological knowledge (hereafter called “ecologi-cal knowledge”) among fishers to identify potential knowledge gaps which might compromise sustainable resource use, as well as to enable an exchange of local and traditional ecological knowledge and scientific knowledge for better management (Papers I, II and IV).

Resilience There are multiple uses and definitions of the term resilience. The original concept of resilience stems from ecology and describes the dynamic behaviour of ecosystems in response to disturbance (Holling 1973). Adger (2000) claims that ecological and social resilience are related, defining social resilience as “the ability of human communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure, such as environmental variability or social, economic or politi-

��

cal upheaval”. Another, widely used definition of resilience is “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks” (Walker et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2010). Folke et al. (2004) review the evidence of regime shifts into alternative states, which can occur if ecosystems are hit by disturbance which cannot be absorbed, causing the ecosystem to shift into a less desirable state in their capacity to generate ecosystem services. The latter definition of resilience is the one which is most useful for this thesis with re-gard to the active adaptive management necessary to sustain the provision of ecosystem services of marine ecosystems like seagrasses (PPaper I and IV). Further, resilience thinking “incorporates the dynamic interplay of persistence, adaptability and transformability across multiple attractors in social-ecological systems”(Folke et al. 2010).

Management of natural resources Concerning natural resources, “management” can be defined as “the right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource by making im-provement” (Ostrom & Schlager 1996). Collaborative management, generally called co-management, has been defined as “the sharing of power and respon-sibility between the government and local resource users” (Berkes et al. 1991). Multiple definitions of co-management have followed, e.g. by Singleton (1998) as “the term given to governance systems that combine state control with local, decentralized decision making and accountability and which, ideally, combine the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each”, or the definition by the World Bank (1999) as “the sharing of responsibilities, rights and duties be-tween the primary stakeholders, in particular, local communities and the na-tion state; a decentralized approach to decision-making that involves the local users in the decision-making process as equals with the nation-state”. Howev-er, claims have been made that most definitions of co-management lack to reflect on the complexity, variation and dynamic nature of contemporary sys-tems of governance (Carlsson 2000, Berkes 2002, Plummer & FitzGibbon 2004). Illustrating the intricacy of co-management, Carlsson and Berkes (2005) emphasize that many complexities rarely are accounted for, including the complexity of the state, the community, the dynamic and iterative nature of the system, the conditions available to support the system, co-management as a governance system and complexities as a process of adaptive learning and problem solving, as well as complexities of the ecosystem providing the re-sources to manage. This thesis pays special attention to the complexity of the community, with communities being heterogeneous themselves, “consisting of different interests by gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic group” (Berkes et al. 1998). This thesis further adopts the view of co-management systems as governance systems, as an evolving process, that the management system must

���

Empirical approach

Study region The data collection for this thesis was conducted in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region, in Kenya, Zanzibar (a semi-autonomous part of Tanza-nia) and Madagascar (Figure 1). The tropical shorelines of the WIO are char-acterized by shallow lagoons with diverse habitat types like seagrass beds, coral reefs, mangroves, algal beds, sand, mudflats and rocky shores (Laroche & Ramananarivo 1995, Gullström et al. 2002). The marine ecosystem is highly productive and provides a variety of goods and services that local people de-pend on for their daily livelihoods (Francis & Bryceson 2001, Jiddawi & Öhman 2002, de la Torre-Castro & Rönnbäck 2004, Unsworth & Cullen 2010). Some of the poorest countries of the world are located in the WIO region and small-scale fisheries are of greatest importance for food security and poverty alleviation (Laroche & Ramananarivo 1995, Jiddawi & Ohman 2002, FAO 2007, McClanahan 2010, de la Torre-Castro 2012a, Thyresson et al. 2013), especially as livelihood diversification is scarce. Despite their im-portance for local livelihoods, the small-scale fisheries of the WIO are heavily exploited and under increasing pressure (Jiddawi & Öhman 2002, Cinner et al. 2012, Le Manach et al. 2012). Rapidly increasing fisher populations, the open access character of the fishery, the use of destructive fishing gears, insuf-ficient management and increasing tourism are, among other factors, contrib-uting to diminishing marine resources throughout the WIO (McClanahan & Mangi 2001, Ochiewo 2004, Mangi & Roberts 2006, Harris et al. 2010). Fea-sible management of the WIO’s small-scale fisheries is hence strongly needed to secure future livelihoods, but existing management schemes have proven deficient, monitoring is insufficient and resources are lacking (McClanahan et al. 1997, Brenier et al. 2011, de la Torre-Castro 2012b, Lindström 2012). Despite being illegal in Kenya, Tanzania and Madagascar, beach seines and other types of dragnets are commonly used and contribute to signs of overex-ploitation in the area (Jiddawi & Öhman 2002, Rakotoson & Tanner 2006, Mangi et al. 2007, Cinner 2009). These nets are typically weighted, have small mesh sizes, and are dragged over the seabed (McClanahan & Mangi 2004). Such dragnets can be highly damaging to coral reefs and seagrass meadows, and have been reported to catch high proportions of juvenile fish, thereby lowering fishery yields (McClanahan & Mangi 2001, Mangi & Roberts 2006).

��

Methods

This thesis is based on four empirical studies. Data was collected between October 2008 and December 2013. The main method used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data was semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews allow for a flexible succession of questions, follow-up questions as well as deeper discussions (Kvale & Brinkmann, 1997). Further, deep-interviews as well as unstructured interviews were used to gain a deeper understanding of topics addressed in the semi-structured interviews. Respond-ent groups were mainly fishers, but also fish traders, monitoring agents, man-agers, scientists and representatives for different authorities and government departments. Prior to the interviews, all respondents were informed about the purpose and subject matter of the interviews, and interviews were only con-ducted after oral consent by the respondents was given. Most interviews were performed in local languages (Swahili, Vezo dialect of Malagasy) and translat-ed with the help of interpreters affiliated to local research institutions. To ensure triangulation of data, a combination of methods was used, including interviews with fishers, participatory observations of fishers and fishery-associated activities at fishery landing sites and markets (selling of fish and invertebrates, preparing and repairing fishing gear, preparing and cooking of fish, leaving and returning from fishing trips, crafting of traps), informal inter-views with researchers from local research institutions, fish traders, managers, beach recorders and government representatives, as well as literature research online and in local libraries. A brief summary of the methods used for Papers I-IV is presented here: Pa-per I uses an ecosystem service approach (MEA, 2003) to identify goods and services derived from seagrasses which local fishers value. A descriptive ap-proach is used to present these seagrass-derived services. Prior to the data collection of paper II, sea urchin predators were identified from scientific literature. Based on interviews with fishers and fish traders, as well as visits to local markets, a socio-economic analysis of these species’ value for fishers is given. Paper III uses an institutional analysis based on Scott (2001) to investi-gate the use of destructive fishing gears and underlying factors. In Paper IV, a literature search was done to compile management types rec-ommended for small-scale fisheries management in the study area. A descrip-

���

PPaper I emphasizes the direct links between seagrass habitats and food securi-ty in southwestern Madagascar. In these study sites, seagrass-associated fish were found to be the economically most important, the most often fished and the most commonly consumed taxa (Figure 2).

Species from fish families which fishers most commonly consumed are shown in Table 1. All of the mentioned fish families with the exception of Clupeidae are commonly associated to seagrass habitats in the WIO region (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Gell & Whittington, 2002). The catches provide fishers and their families with high quality animal protein as well as cash income, as small and low-value fish are consumed and the best fish sold on local markets (Paper I).

Table 1 Species from fish families which fishers most commonly consumed. In percent of fishers, n=120.

Further, fishers and other members of their families frequently collect inver-tebrates in seagrass beds which are either used for subsistence or sold (Gough et al., 2009; Laroche & Ramananarivo, 1995). Sea urchins collected in seagrasses meadows have, for example, been described as important substi-tutes to fish for home consumption on days where fishing was not successful (Paper I).

In terms of ecosystem services, fishers ascribed the highest importance of seagrass beds to the provisioning services of fishing grounds and invertebrates, followed by their general importance for local communities due to the provi-sion of food and income (Paper I). However, the traditional and spiritual im-portance of seagrasses seem to be of minor importance in the area (Cinner, 2007) compared to, for example, Zanzibar (Tanzania) where such values were found to be very much alive (de la Torre-Castro & Rönnbäck, 2004).

Especially in a region like southwestern Madagascar, where poverty is exten-sive and livelihood alternatives largely lacking (Laroche & Ramananarivo,

���������� ������ ���

��������� ����������� ������ �������� ����

��������� ������������ ������ ������� ���

�������� ��

���

1995; Le Manach et al., 2012), the contributions seagrass-associated small-scale fisheries make for subsistence and trade are fundamental for local food security and human wellbeing. This is also reflected by 99% of the fishers stating that a disappearance of seagrasses would pose serious problems for them (PPaper I). The fishers were afraid there would not be any fish left and that they would be deprived of their daily food if the seagrass meadows would disappear, stating that “Our kids have something to eat as long as the seagrass-es are there”.

Ecological knowledge concerning effects of fishing methods, seagrass functions and threats Ecological knowledge among Malagasy fishers concerning seagrass ecosystem services was found to be substantial (Paper I). High levels of awareness con-cerning functions of seagrass habitats could be shown as fishers named and valued functions like the provision of fishing grounds, provision of fish and invertebrates, functions as spawning-, foraging- and shelter sites as well as ero-sion control or the maintenance of good water quality (Paper I). Not unex-pectedly, lower levels of knowledge were found concerning more abstract services like primary production or the production of oxygen (Paper I). A general perception of a decrease in seagrass cover was found in all study sites across Kenya, Tanzania and Madagascar. In Madagascar, a majority of the fishers from both study sites (88% in the more rural village of Ifaty and 93% in the urban area of Toliara) perceived seagrasses as declining (Paper I). In Zanzibar, 67% of all fishers (n=67) mentioned a decline in Paper II, and 56% (n=108) in Paper IV, as well as 57% of the interviewed manag-ers/scientists (n=14). A majority of fishers thought that the use of destructive fishing gears like beach seines was one major factor contributing to the per-ceived seagrass decline, followed by sea urchin overgrazing, coastal erosion, strong wave action and seaweed farming (Papers I, II and IV). These results indicate high levels of ecological knowledge about seagrass ecosystems, as they can be linked to scientific research from the WIO region. The destructive effects of beach seines on coral or seagrass habitats have been documented (Mangi & Roberts, 2006), sea urchin overgrazing has been linked to seagrass decline in certain areas (Alcoverro & Mariani, 2002; Eklöf et al., 2008; Gullström et al., 2006; Paper II), and erosion is mentioned as a threat to local seagrasses (Gullström et al., 2002). Further, sea urchin numbers were perceived as increasing by more than half of all fishers in both Kenya and Zanzibar, and declining catches of sea urchin predator fish species were mentioned. These results may indicate a substantial

��

awareness of changes in local fishing grounds, as increasing urchin densities have been described in Kenya (Alcoverro & Mariani, 2002; Heck & Valentine, 1995) which has been linked a loss of top-down control due to intense fishing of sea urchin predator fish species (Eklöf et al., 2009; T. R. McClanahan & Muthiga, 1989; T. R. McClanahan & Shafir, 1990). Further, aggregations of sea urchins were observed in Zanzibar (Gullström et al., 2006). Scientific data on the spatial distribution of seagrasses and potential changes is however largely lacking in the WIO, and is urgently needed as a baseline for future investigations and to relate the fishers’ perceptions to. Further investiga-tions would also be useful for a better understanding of the dynamics of sea urchin populations, the fishing sea urchin predator species and potential relat-ed overgrazing events. Biological data supporting the perceived seagrass de-cline would be worrisome. There is in either way a need to include seagrass ecosystems in management and conservation of the small-scale fisheries in the WIO. Fishers mentioned increased erosion, strong wave action and the con-nected turbidity frequently as threats to seagrasses, which could indicate effects of climate change, putting additional pressure on the already threatened fisher-ies. Varying levels of ecological knowledge were found concerning food web inter-actions. Close to all fishers from Madagascar were aware of the fact that cer-tain sea urchins feed on seagrasses (PPaper I) compared to less than half of the fishers from Kenya (Paper II). Again, less than 50% of the Kenyan fishers were aware of the fact that sea urchin predator fish species would prey on sea urchins, which illustrates relatively low degrees of ecological knowledge con-cerning food web interactions and trophic cascades in Kenya in comparison to Madagascar. This difference could be related to the fact that sea urchins are not collected for consumption in Kenya, and as a consequence there might be little direct interaction. Moreover, only 21% of the respondents thought that fishing of the predator fish species would have any impact on sea urchin popu-lations, which indicates a low awareness of the fishers’ role and impact as an additional part of the food web. Concerning management to decrease sea urchin overgrazing, only 3% of the fishers (n=136) mentioned reductions of predator catches as solutions, while most fishers suggested the more direct collection of sea urchins. These findings illustrate that only few fishers thought about solutions targeting the underlying factors of overgrazing (reductions of predator catches or education on ecosystem functioning and cooperation with managers or scientists), indicating a need for education concerning ecosystem functioning and social-ecological linkages. However, about half of the re-spondents from Zanzibar were aware of the fact that seagrass beds can be affected by increasing sea urchin populations, and identified sea urchin over-grazing as a possible major threat to seagrass meadows (Paper II).

���

Summing up the results, there seem to be higher levels of ecological knowledge concerning simpler concepts like herbivory or the provision of fishing grounds and ecosystem structure, rather than more complex processes like indirect food web interactions. This has also been described by Crona (2006) in an earlier study from Kenya.

Factors behind non-sustainable resource use

Overfishing of sea urchin predator fish species As mentioned above, one factor which is thought to contribute to non-sustainable fisheries in the WIO is the overfishing of sea urchin predator fish species. The resulting decrease of predation pressure might be connected to increasing sea urchin numbers and overgrazing of seagrasses and bioerosion of coral reefs, which in turn undermines fish production (Eklöf et al., 2009; McClanahan, 1992; McClanahan & Muthiga, 1989; McClanahan & Shafir, 1990). All interviewed fishers in Kenya and Zanzibar caught at least one of eight identified sea urchin predator fish species, and 50% reported to catch all eight species (PPaper II). The three most important predator species – the trig-gerfish Balistapus undulatus and the wrasses Coris formosa and Cheilinus trilobatus (McClanahan, 1995, 2000) – were caught by a majority (67%-81%) of the fishers. Surprisingly, only one sea urchin predator species (the emperor Lethrinus mahsena) was actively targeted by a majority of the fishers, while very few fish-ers (1-6%) targeted the other seven species, allowing the assumption that they are mostly considered to be bycatch. The market value of all species except for Lethrinus mahsena and Cheilinus trilobatus was found to be mainly low, indicating that no strong trade-off between the fishing of sea urchin predator species and societal benefits exists. Together with the above described low levels of ecological knowledge on trophic cascade effects (linked to fish and sea urchin interactions), it can be assumed that it is the use of destructive gears, a non-selectivity of fishing gears (Mangi & Roberts, 2006; McClanahan & Mangi, 2004) and a lack of aware-ness and long-term sustainability thinking that cause overfishing of sea urchin predators, rather than economic ambitions of the fishers. In a regional socio-economic context it may further be assumed that prevalent poverty and poor catches due to overexploitation of local marine resources are contributing to a need to use non-targeted species like sea urchin predators for subsistence.

���

Destructive dragnet use The most frequently given reason for the current use of destructive dragnets in Zanzibar (mentioned by > 50% of the fishers) were that it was common prac-tice and that dragnets are an easily available fishing gear (PPaper III). Only 8% mentioned a good income as a reason behind the use of dragnets. All fishers were introduced to dragnet fishing in their villages, learning this technique from their family members, friends and other fishers. Further, dragnet fishing is possible without the investment of any start-up capital, groups of fishers often rent nets from wealthier gear owners, and special skills are usually not needed to join dragnet fisher groups (Paper III; Cinner, 2009; Obura, 2001; Signa et al., 2008). An analysis of institutional factors, based on Scott’s broad institutional ap-proach (Scott, 2001), identified as set of regulative, normative and cultural cognitive factors influencing the current use of dragnets (Paper III). Moreover, these factors seem to hinder a shift to alternative gears like gillnets or basket traps. The low economic capacity of the fishers and most fishers’ inability to save money was further found to hinder them from investing in gears like gillnets for offshore fishing. Such gears could improve the fishers’ standards of living and are considered to be more sustainable compared to dragnets (Mangi et al., 2007). Regulative aspects like enforcement, monitoring and controls were found to be weak and had only little impact on the illegal dragnet use (Paper III). The main factors favoring the current dragnet use were normative and cultural-cognitive factors like the availability of and access to drag-nets and drag-net fishing groups, comradeship among groups of drag-net fishers, the social acceptance of drag-nets as an approved gear and an identity as drag-net fishers. Further, 81% (n=85) of the dragnet fishers in Zanzibar (Paper III) were aware of the fact that their nets were legally banned, but about half of them men-tioned not to be able to make a living in another way, due to a lack of start-up capital. The same pattern was found in Paper IV, as 97% (n=58) of the fishers were very aware of the destructiveness of their gears, with 93% also mention-ing their destructiveness as the reason why they were forbidden. These high degrees of awareness question whether it is education on gear effects that is lacking, as suggested by 46% of the managers (Paper IV). The findings might rather show a need for a continuous dialogue and building of trust between fishers, managers and other stakeholders to keep their awareness and ambi-tions for a more sustainable resource use alive.

Another 19% of the dragnet fishers in Zanzibar mentioned a continued use due to a lack of controls or sanctions (Paper III). This low risk of economic sanctions for trespassing the law due to weak enforcement, together with the

���

fact that investment costs are not required might contribute to a consideration of dragnets as “the gear of the last resort”. Other studies found that dragnet fishers often are among the poorest, most marginalized fishers (Cinner, 2009; Silva, 2006), which can lead to ‘social ecological traps’, where resource users lack the ability to exit cycles of resource degradation, decreasing fish catches and poverty (Cinner, 2009, 2011). Béné (2003) describes the intricacy of such situations the following way: “It is true that overfishing ruins the resource base and is a source of poverty, but poverty may also be what makes people over-exploit”.

Fishers’ and managers’ opinions on ways forward

Management suggestions and -preferences In Zanzibar, all managers and 95% of the fishers thought that there was a need to specifically include seagrasses into coastal management (PPaper IV). The by fishers and managers most frequently given suspected cause for seagrass de-cline was dragnet use. There was a consensus among fishers and managers that a cessation of dragnet fishing would be the best approach for general small-scale fisheries management, and more specifically for seagrass conserva-tion (Paper II and IV). This was the most frequently mentioned seagrass man-agement suggestion in Paper II, followed by recovery periods for inshore fish-ing, supply of less destructive gear (for offshore fishing) and controls. The same was found in Paper IV, where both managers/scientists and fishers (40% of all fishers, n=100; 31% of the managers; n=13) suggested phasing out of dragnets as the best management approach for seagrasses. However, 26% of the dragnet fishers (n=35) thought that it was impossible to protect seagrasses meadows. This could imply that these fishers are aware of the detrimental effects of dragnets for seagrasses, but do not see a way to protect them, as they are dragnet users themselves, and lack the means or incentive to change to less destructive gears. These results indicate that destructive fishing gears like dragnets pose a threat to local small-scale fisheries and the associated habitats like seagrass meadows or coral reefs. While the destructive effects of dragnets (e.g. physical effects on habitats or fishing of juveniles) have been described in scientific literature of the WIO (Mangi & Roberts, 2006; McClanahan & Mangi, 2001), the findings of this thesis show the identification of the same problem from a resource users’ perspective, which demonstrates the urgency of addressing destructive fishing gears as a management priority. In Paper II, the fishers were asked to propose management measures which could reduce the more specific problem of seagrass overgrazing and coral reef bioerosion caused by sea urchins. Fifty-one percent (n=136) suggested a physi-

���

cal removal of sea urchins. This is a straightforward attempt to remove sea urchins in the short term, but has limited long-term success (Eklöf et al., 2008). Seven percent argued for an increased use of small wooden traps which use sea urchins as bait. This could potentially have multiple positive effects as these traps are considered to be among the most sustainable gears in the area (de la Torre-Castro & Lindström, 2010; RGZ, 2010; Mangi et al., 2007). A reduction in catches of sea urchin predator fish species, which would most likely have positive long-term effects, was suggested by only 3% of the fishers. This indicates again low levels of awareness concerning such food web interac-tions.

Support for management scenarios Over 60% of all respondents (fishers and managers from Zanzibar) thought that all the suggested management types presented in PPaper IV (education, temporary closures, no-take zones, mesh size restrictions, gear restrictions and minimum fish size limits) would positively affect seagrasses. Gear restrictions, education and no-take zones were believed to have the best effects. Gear re-strictions and education were also the favoured management types among all fishers (93% for education and 91% for gear restrictions; n=105), followed by mesh size regulations (87%) (Figure 3) (Paper IV). A division by gear types shows that 40% of the trap fishers preferred gear restrictions followed by edu-cation, while education was with 35% the first choice of dragnet fishers, fol-lowed by gear restrictions (28%).

Figure 3 A) Willingness to adopt suggested management measures (in percent of trap- (n=60) and dragnet (n=43) fishers), and the managers/scientists’ assumption of fishers’ willingness to adopt these management measures (n=10). Multiple answers allowed. B) Fishers’ first choice of management possibilities. Only one answer allowed, in percentages of trap- (n=60) and dragnet fishers (n=60). Figure from Paper IV.

��

A majority of the dragnet fishers would, however, agree to gear restrictions under the premise to get compensated with legal alternative gears. Most fishers had a preference for technologically more advanced gears like gill nets, long lines or ring nets for pelagic fishing, as well as the use of motorboats. The provision of alternative gears in case of an implementation of gear restrictions is of highest importance, as many fishers, especially dragnet fishers, are among the poorest of the poor, lacking the economical means to invest in legal gears (PPaper III; Cinner, 2009; FAO, 2011; Silva, 2006). A single focus on stricter enforcement and legal aftermath could therefore have serious consequences for fishers and their families’ livelihoods. All interviewed managers/scientists thought that there was a need for a gear exchange program on Zanzibar. Gear-based management efforts excluding the use of destructive gears like beach seines found also considerable support from communities in Kenya (McClanahan et al., 2008; McClanahan et al., 2005). Positive examples from Kenyan seagrass and coral reef fisheries show that gear restrictions, although with mixed compliance, resulted in increased catch per unit efforts (McClanahan & Hicks, 2011; McClanahan et al., 2008), and the enforcement of a ban against beach seines resulted in a spectacular 30% increase of catches (McClanahan et al., 2008). Furthermore, McClanahan and Abunge (2014) found that increased catch rates and income were associated with an increase in gear restrictions.

The managers/scientists thought that monitoring and controls were insufficient in Zanzibar (Papers II and IV), which has also been described in other studies (de la Torre-Castro, 2006; de la Torre-Castro & Lindström, 2010). This im-plies the need for the development of an improved system, which fishers should be a fundamental part of. Eighty-two percent of all fishers were willing to participate in monitoring and controls. Such a direct involvement of fishers in installing and enforcing new regulations increases the chances of fishers to approve them as legitimate (Jentoft, 1989), and would most likely favor man-agement success. A majority of fishers thought that they themselves and their communities would benefit most from seagrass management. Such a percep-tion of benefitting can be a positive prerequisite for management incentives and could further increase the willingness for participation and adoption of new rules (Jacobson & Marynowski, 1997).

���

Willingness to change gears There was a general willingness among dragnet fishers in Zanzibar to change gear (PPaper III). If they had a free choice, most fishers would choose gillnets followed by ringnets, while only a few would choose a continued use of drag-nets. This preference for other net types was driven by the fishers’ identity as net fishers and the expectations of higher economic gains compared to drag-nets. Expectations to maximize income were particularly high concerning the use of more advanced fishing gears and engine driven boats. Such gears make fishing in offshore waters and targeting of valuable species like tuna, marlin, kingfish or sailfish possible (Thyresson et al., 2013). In a following interview question, changes to legal gears that are considered less destructive than drag-nets, like gillnets or basket traps (Jiddawi & Öhman, 2002; Mangi et al., 2007), were suggested. Here, seventy-five percent of the fishers stated to be willing to change to gillnets if they got provided, while only 15% were willing to change to traps.

However, the low economic capacity of the fishers compared to the high in-vestment costs of gill nets makes it impossible for most fishers to buy their own gill nets and the required boats. These results emphasize the need to compensate fishers who are ready to change to less destructive gears. The economic capacity to use traps is, due to their lower production- and operating costs, in contrast present. But a change to traps is hindered by a wrong percep-tion of a lower income using traps, as well as the special skills needed to use and craft the traps which are traditionally transferred from fisher elders to younger generations (de la Torre-Castro & Lindström, 2010; Mangi et al., 2007). To facilitate a change to basket traps would therefore require the en-couragement of the traditional use of traps, education for changing dragnet fishers’ perceptions, as well as continuous awareness raising on the advantages of using more sustainable gears like traps.

��

The findings deliver insights into problems which small-scale fisheries in the WIO currently are facing, perceived as threats from the perspectives of re-source users, managers and scientists (e.g. decreasing seagrass cover linked to the use of dragnets). This formulation of problems can serve as a first step towards co-management initiation using a practical, adaptive approach which has been recommended for the management of small-scale fisheries in devel-oping countries (Andrew et al., 2007). One of the following steps is the search for solutions to these problems (which is discussed in the following para-graphs). The results of this thesis contribute even to this step through an as-sessment of fishers’ and managers’ suggestions, as well as perceptions of man-agement possibilities. This could serve as a base for further convergence to-wards a consensus on actions which all stakeholders representing the state, the market and the civil society can agree on, the necessary trade-offs taken into consideration. The establishment of such consensus with regard to the percep-tion of the problem has been described as a necessary step prior to co-management initiation (Chuenpagdee & Jentoft, 2007).

Holistic management All management approaches should be adapted to the local contexts, e.g. as in the WIO a context of high resource dependency, scarce livelihood options and prevalent poverty. A holistic ecosystem based approach is recommended to all kinds of coastal management, taking all habitats of the marine seascape (e.g. corals, seagrasses and mangrove forests) and their connectivity into con-sideration (Botsford, Castilla, & Peterson, 1997). Seagrass-specific manage-ment and efforts to support the role of seagrass ecosystems in enabling small-scale fisheries to maintain their contributions to food security and wellbeing are most utterly important. This thesis contributes to the identification of de-structive fishing gears as a main threat to seagrass-associated small-scale fisher-ies in the WIO, from a resource users’ perspective, with both social and eco-logical implications. There was considerable support from fishers for gear exchange efforts, and a general willingness to partake in controls and en-forcement. Advantages of gear restrictions in fisheries management are that they, in comparison to closed areas, do not reduce the fishers’ access to fishing grounds and they can be adapted to the requirements of the fishery in ques-tion (McClanahan & Cinner, 2008). Also the above mentioned positive exam-ples from gear management efforts in Kenya (McClanahan & Abunge, 2014; McClanahan & Hicks, 2011; McClanahan et al., 2008) suggest that gear re-strictions are a promising tool for other small-scale fisheries. Therefore, spe-cial attention should be devoted to gear restrictions also in other areas, includ-ing the elimination of destructive dragnets, taking associated problems like overlapping selectivities, bycatch and habitat degradation into consideration. However, gear management is a complex endeavour, where an equitable dis-tribution of power, transparency and co-creation of management plans togeth-

���

er with fishers is fundamental. Great attention should be paid to the fishers’ poverty, often lacking start-up capital for legal, technologically more advanced gears. Moreover, schemes for a just compensation of fishers changing gears or occupation should be designed in close cooperation between managers and fishers, where the fishers’ wills should be respected and agreements as well as trade-offs developed. Fishers should be central actors in all management stag-es, and a just distribution of power should be ensured. Investigations of fish-ers’, managers’ and scientists’ opinions, images and worldviews should act as a basis for working points for collective management endeavours.

Communication, education and exchange of knowledge Jentoft (2005) argues that fisheries co-management is empowerment as fishing people become empowered when they are able to manage their fishery in a sustainable way. He further outlines the importance of education and its ena-bling role in the individual, psychological process of empowerment, giving the individual competence and confidence. The integration and exchange of resource users’ ecological knowledge and scientific knowledge between stakeholders, managers and scientists can benefit the management of natural resources (Olsson & Folke, 2001), and should be strived for. Knowledge gaps among fishers should be tackled with education of scientific knowledge on e.g.: indirect effects of fishing and food-web interac-tions (e.g. trophic cascades). Moreover, improved communication and build-ing of trust between fishers, managers and scientists are essential when striving for long-term sustainability. The results of the studies in this thesis suggest more specifically a continuous training on the destructiveness of e.g. dragnets and the social-ecological benefits of more sustainable alternatives like tradi-tional basket traps. The findings of this thesis further identified considerable support for management types like gear restrictions under the prerequisite that their need to be compensated is respected, as well as a willingness to change to other net fishing methods.

Transformation literature explains that transformation consists of three phas-es: preparing the social-ecological system for change, navigating the transition by making use of a crisis as a window of opportunity for change, and building resilience of the new social-ecological regime (Chapin et al., 2010; Olsson et al., 2004). The current fisheries crisis together with the general openness of fishers in the WIO towards management as well as their perceptions of being the ones benefitting from it, should be seized as a window of opportunity for change. This could be a starting point for a transformation of these currently troubled small-scale fisheries towards more resilient ones which are both so-cially and ecologically more sustainable. The findings of this thesis can con-tribute to preparing the small-scale fisheries of the WIO for change. This

���

preparation could be a first step towards co-management initiatives, which often develop as a possible solution to fisheries crisis and the associated social problems due to overfishing, illegal gear use and destructive fishing methods (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2007). The ideal start for co-management has been described to lie in a “heartfelt problem at the community level, and not from problems perceived at a higher level from the outside” (Chuenpagdee & Jentoft, 2007; Jentoft, 2005). The common notion of the need for improved management including seagrasses as well as the identification of destructive fishing gear as a main threat to local small-scale fisheries in this thesis could therefore be a starting point for the evolvement of co-management systems. The results of this study emphasize that fishers should be vital parts on equal terms from step zero in all management processes, and assessments of fish-ers’, managers’ and scientists’ opinions, images and worldviews should act as a basis for working points for collective management endeavours.

Creation of context-specific institutional arrangements The findings of this thesis suggest is a strong need to acknowledge the im-portance of normative and cultural-cognitive aspects to understand fisheries dynamics for the transformation of mismanaged and unsustainable fisheries. Such normative, cultural-cognitive and also economic factors appear to shape and influence the use of destructive gear use. This stands in sharp contrast to “quick fix” solutions focusing on regulations, enforcement and coercion in a hierarchical way, which has not succeeded in stopping illegal dragnet use and its ecological implications in Zanzibar (Lindström, 2012). Instead, efforts should be made to work with slow-moving institutions, which can change deeply rooted norms and traditions associated to destructive gear use in the long-term. Nevertheless, actions on multiple scales will be needed to achieve transfor-mations, including education, gear management, strengthening of local institu-tions, truly democratically anchored fishers’ cooperatives, and enforcement of existing rules. Most importantly, it is doubtful if long-term sustainability can be achieved without major changes of the social-ecological systems in question. Such a change from the current patterns of marine resource use towards more sustainable ones requires the creation of alternative means of sustenance and livelihoods (Sumaila et al., 2016). Therefore, there is a strong need for the introduction of adequate livelihood options in the WIO.

���

Key findings

•� Seagrass-associated fish and invertebrates contribute directly through subsistence and indirectly through the generation of in-come to food security and well-being of coastal populations

•� There is an agreement among fishes and managers on the need for seagrass-specific management, and that illegal dragnets are a major threat to seagrass beds

•� There is a discrepancy between low societal gains of the fishing of sea urchin predator fish species and their crucial importance in the food web

•� Main factors contributing to illegal dragnet use are the tradition, the availability, the establishment as common practice and the easy access to dragnet fishing groups without economic commitments

•� The willingness to change to other net fishing types was found to be high, but the willingness to change to trap fishing was low

•� Institutional elements influencing destructive dragnet use are to a high extent normative, cultural-cognitive and economic, which con-stitutes an institutional misfit to the current emphasis on regulative elements in a hierarchical manner

•� Gear restrictions and education were the favoured management measures among all fishers

•� A majority of fishers are willing to participate in monitoring and controls, and most fishers thought that seagrass specific manage-ment would benefit themselves and their communities most

•� The findings of the thesis highlight the need for actions on multiple scales with focus on: education and exchange of ecological and sci-entific knowledge, gear management, strengthening of local institu-tions, enforcement of existing rules and regulations and an intro-duction of adequate alternative livelihood options

•� Management should acknowledge the ecological importance of seagrasses in the seascape as well as the crucial societal role for coastal populations

���

Sammanfattning på svenska

Småskaligt fiske sysselsätter miljontals människor världen över, och är särskilt viktigt i utvecklingsländer där det lokala behovet av marina resurser är stort och alternativa möjligheter till att tjäna sitt levebröd är få. I många delar av världen har det dock blivit allt svårare att leva på småskaligt fiske, vilket hotar kustbefolkningars välmående och tryggade livsmedelsförsörjning. Förvaltning-en av småskaligt fiske har i många fall varit otillräcklig och en bred förvalt-ningsplan rekommenderas för att uppnå en långsiktig och hållbar social-ekologisk utveckling. Målet med denna avhandling är att empiriskt utvärdera hur social-ekologiska aspekter av sjögräsassocierat småskaligt fiske i västra Indiska oceanen kan lyftas fram för att frambringa en omvandling, från det nuvarande nedgångna tillståndet till mer hållbara socialekologiska system som kan säkra människors framtida livsuppehälle. Den huvudsakliga metoden för datainsamling som användes var semi-strukturerade intervjuer med lokala fiskare. Resultatet visar att sjögräsassocierat småskaligt fiske är avgörande i sitt bidrag till en tryggad livsmedelsförsörjining och som inkomstkälla och detta belyser vikten av att erkänna den ekologiska betydelsen av sjögräs i det tro-piska havslandskapet (Studie I). Det upptäcktes en diskrepans mellan de låga vinster som fiskare får av fiskande av sjöborrepredatorer och dessa fiskarters centrala roll i näringsväven (genom reglering av sjöborrepopulationen och därmed betningstrycket på sjögräsen) (Studie II). Detta indikerar att ett fri-släppande vid fångst av sjöborrepredatorer skulle kunna bidra till mer balanse-rade predator–sjöborre –sjögräsfödovävar på lång sikt. Användandet av olag-liga landvad (destruktiva nät som dras över sjöbotten) etablerades som ett avgörande hot mot lokala sjögräsängar (Studie IV). Studie III identifierade samhälleliga strukturer som ligger bakom och leder till nyttjandet av denna destruktiva fiskemetod som normativa, kulturellt-kognitiva och ekonomiska. Detta utgör en oförenlighet med den nuvarande betoningen på hierarkiska regelverk (Studie III). Vad gäller framtida initiativ till en fungerande samför-valtning, var restriktioner av fiskemetoder och utbildning de föredragna för-valtningsstrategierna hos samtliga fiskare (Publikation IV). En majoritet av fiskarna var positiva till att delta i övervakning och kontroller, och de flesta ansåg att de själva och deras samfund skulle tjäna mest på en sjögrässprecifik förvaltning. Dessa resultat betonar vikten av ett flerskaligt agerande: från lokal nivå till myndighets- och statlig nivå. De föreslagna åtgärderna innefattar ut-bildning och utbyte av ekologisk och vetenskaplig kunskap, regelverk för fis-keutrustning, att stärka lokala institutioner, ett aktivt deltagande hos fiskare i att leva efter och stärka rådande lagar och regler, samt en introduktion till lämpliga livsförsörjningsalternativ.

���

Future directions

Many knowledge gaps need to be filled to pave the way for a transformation of small-scale fisheries in the WIO, both from a scientists’ and managers’ per-spective. One necessary step is further research concerning the socio-cultural characteristics of these fisheries in terms to better understand the heterogenei-ty of and within coastal populations. To add social, economic and cultural dimensions through assessments of power-dynamics within communities and local institutions is important to prevent co-management from being a new cause of conflict (Chuenpagdee & Jentoft, 2007; Crona & Bodin, 2010). More specifically, stakeholders, which should be included in co-management efforts should be identified, as well as champions and facilitators “who can help stakeholders realize what co-management essentially is and entails, and what they may realistically expect from it” (Chuenpagdee & Jentoft, 2007). Such persons could be researchers, conservationists or educated local community members. As co-management is a process of trial- and error, problems as well as opportunities will be encountered on the way, and the scientific documenta-tion as well as an exchange of experiences can be very useful for others strug-gling for transformation of their fisheries. Even if the complexity of challenges in small-scale fisheries management might be intimidating, taking the first steps might lead to an iterative transformation, opposed to inactivity.

Furthermore, biological and socio-economic data would be very useful for gear exchange endeavours. Evaluations of coastal ecosystems and fish stocks, their dynamics and responses to fishing gears would help to assess future fish-ing impacts and to design the distribution of different gears. Investigations of the socio-economic implications of gear exchange for fishers’, their families’ and the communities they live in are strongly needed. However, a major challenge for research and management is to incorporate the interface between fisheries and the broader political, institutional and eco-nomic drivers of global and national economies which affect them (Andrew et al., 2007).

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the

world.” (Nelson Mandela)

���

Acknowledgments

My PhD journey would not have been possible without the support, inspira-tion and friendship of so many people – thank you! Maricela, my supervisor, I would like to thank you for taking on this project with me, for being a great inspiration, for your incredible ability to understand and sort messy thoughts and unstructured ideas into concrete formulations and exciting projects, for your understanding, even if I postponed every single deadline, but most of all for believing in me from the beginning and for light-ning that fire for East Africa in me. A big thank you to my co-supervisors: Johan, thank you for always having a minute to spear, for your good advice and for being an (unreachable) role model for keeping your word and for structured, on time working; Martin, thank you for your positive attitude and your ability to make everyone feel included and motivated; Gloria, thank you for jumping in as my co-supervisor when you were needed and thank you for opening my eyes for the depth of social science with your thought-provoking comments. Thank you, Nisse Kautsky for supporting me throughout the years, and thank you Lasse Lindström for your input. A big hug to you my amazing fellow students and friends, you made it all worthwhile when I was struggling! Especially to Diana, Maria, Charlotte, Ma-lin, Sara, Linda, Nadja and Fia, thank you for your friendship and for being my partners in crime on shared Africa adventures. Another big hug to my roomies Åsa, Ingrid and Hanna who always kept my spirits up with conversa-tions, chocolate, coffee and yoga. I am very thankful for the support and en-couragement of my family and friends who stood by my side through good and bad days, I love you! What would this journey have been without all of you?

I would like to thank my interpreters Fridah, Tovo, Ulrich, Muumin, Amor and Ahmad for your hard work, your support and for introducing me so warmly to your home countries and cultures – Ahsante sana! Misaotra betsa-ka! I thank Lina Nordlund and Christina Halling for thorough and valuable comments on the thesis which improved it greatly. Finally I am deeply thankful to all fishers and their villages for welcoming me so generously, for dedicating your time to me and for sharing your thoughts and knowledge – you are the foundation of this work.

���

References

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347-364.

Alcoverro, T., & Mariani, S. (2002). Effects of sea urchin grazing on seagrass (Thalassodendron ciliatum) beds of a Kenyan lagoon. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 226, 255-263.

Allison, E. H., & Ellis, F. (2001). The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 25(5), 377-388.

Allison, E. H., Perry, A. L., Badjeck, M. C., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Conway, D., et al. (2009). Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 10(2), 173-196.

Andrew, N. L., Béné, C., Hall, S. J., Allison, E. H., Heck, S., & Ratner, B. D. (2007). Diagnosis and mangement of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Fish and Fisheries, 8(3 ), 227-240.

Baker, S., Paddock, J., Smith, A. M., Unsworth, R. K. F., Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., & Hertler, H. (2015). An ecosystems perspective for food security in the Caribbean: Seagrass meadows in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Ecosystem Services, 11, 12-21.

Ban, N. C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C. C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., et al. (2013). A social-ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 194-202.

Berkes, F. (2002). Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspective from the bottom up. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The Drama of the commons (pp. 293-321). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Berkes, F. (2003). Alternatives to conventional management: lessons from small-scale fisheries. Environments, 31(1), 5-19.

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692-1702.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-1262.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change: Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience: Cambridge University Press.

�

Berkes, F., George, P., & Preston, R. (1991). Co-management: the evolution of the theory and practice of joint administration of livling resources. 18(2), 12-18.

Berkes, F., Hughes, T. P., Steneck, R. S., Wilson, J. A., Bellwood, D. R., Crona, B., et al. (2006). Ecology - Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science, 311(5767), 1557-1558.

Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R., & Pomeroy, R. (2001). Managing Small-scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Botsford, L. W., Castilla, J. C., & Peterson, C. H. (1997). The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 509-515.

Brenier, A., Ferraris, J., & Mahafina, J. (2011). Participatory assessment of the Toliara Bay reef fishery, southwest Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 6(2), 60-67.

Béné, C. (2003). When fishery rhymes with poverty: A first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries. World Development, 31(6), 949-975.

Béné, C. (2006). Small-scale fisheries: assessing their contribution to rural livelihoods in developing countries. Rome, Italy. (F. a. A. Organization o. Document Number)

Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E. H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., et al. (2016). Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security and Poverty Reduction: Assessing the Current Evidence. World Development, 79, 177-196.

Béné, C., Hersoug, B., & Allison, E. (2010). Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Development Policy Review 28(3), 325-358.

Béné, C., Macfadyen, G., & Allison, E. H. (2007). Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationso. Document Number)

Carlsson, L. (2000). Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 502-520.

Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65-76.

Chapin, F. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W. C., et al. (2010). Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 241-249.

Chuenpagdee, R. (2011). World Small-scale Fisheries: Contemporary Visions. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon academic publishers.

Chuenpagdee, R., Degnbol, P., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Johnson, D., Pullin, R., et al. (2005). Challenges and Concerns in Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture. In J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft & R. Pullin (Eds.), Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries: Amsterdam University Press.

��

Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2007). Step zero for fisheries co-management: What precedes implementation. Marine Policy, 31(6), 657-668.

Chuenpagdee, R., Liguori, L., Palomares, M. L. D., & Pauly, D. (2006). Bottom-Up, Global Estimates of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries Catches. Vancouver, Canada: The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbiao. Document Number)

Cinner, J. E. (2007). The role of taboos in conserving coastal resources in Madagascar. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin, 22, 15-23.

Cinner, J. E. (2009). Poverty and the use of destructive fishing gear near east African marine protected areas. Environmental Conservation, 36(4), 321-326.

Cinner, J. E. (2011). Social-ecological traps in reef fisheries. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 21(3), 835-839.

Cinner, J. E., McClanahan, T. R., Graham, N. A. J., Daw, T. M., Maina, J., Stead, S. M., et al. (2012). Vulnerability of coastal communities to key impacts of climate change on coral reef fisheries. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 22(1), 12-20.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1998). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital (Reprinted from Nature, vol 387, pg 253, 1997). Ecological Economics, 25(1), 3-15.

Crona, B., & Bodin, O. (2010). Power Asymmetries in Small-Scale Fisheries: a Barrier to Governance Transformability? Ecology and Society, 15(4).

Crona, B. I. (2006). Supporting and enhancing development of heterogenous ecological knowledge among resource users in a Kenyan Seascape (Vol. 11, pp. 32): Ecology and Society.

Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., Nordlund, L. M., Paddock, J., Baker, S., McKenzie, L. J., & Unsworth, R. K. F. (2014). Seagrass meadows globally as a coupled social-ecological system: Implications for human wellbeing. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 83(2), 387-397.

Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., & Unsworth, R. K. F. (2016). Strategies to enhance the resilience of the world's seagrass meadows. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(4), 967-972.

de la Torre-Castro, M. (2006). Beyond Regulations in Fisheries Management: The Dilemmas of the "Beach Recorders" Bwana Dikos" in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 35.

de la Torre-Castro, M. (2012a). Governance for Sustainability: Insights from Marine Resource Use in a Tropical Setting in the Western Indian Ocean. Coastal Management, 40(6), 612-633.

de la Torre-Castro, M. (2012b). Management Challenges in Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar, Tanzania: Historical Development and Future Prospects. In M. De la Torre-Castro (Ed.), People, Nature and Research in Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar, Tanzania. (pp. Pp. 346). Zanzibar Town: WIOMSA.

��

de la Torre-Castro, M., Di Carlo, G., & Jiddawi, N. S. (2014). Seagrass importance for a small-scale fishery in the tropics: The need for seascape management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 83(2), 398-407.

de la Torre-Castro, M., & Lindström, L. (2010). Fishing institutions: Addressing regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements to enhance fisheries management. Marine Policy, 34:77-84.

de la Torre-Castro, M., & Rönnbäck, P. (2004). Links between humans and seagrasses—an example from tropical East Africa. Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 361–387, 47:361–387.

Delgado, C. L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M. W., Meijer, S., & Ahmed, M. (2003). Fish to 2020: Supply and demand in changing global markets: International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.;WorldFish Center, Pengang, Malaysia

Duarte, C. M., Dennison, W. C., Orth, R. J. W., & Carruthers, T. J. B. (2008). The charisma of coastal ecosystems: Addressing the imbalance. Estuaries and Coasts, 31(2), 233-238.

Duarte, M. C., Bandeira, S., & Romeiras, M. M. (2012). Systematics and Ecology of a New Species of Seagrass (Thalassodendron, Cymodoceaceae) from Southeast African Coasts. Novon, 22(1), 16-24.

Eklöf, J. S., de la Torre-Castro, M., Gullström, M., Uku, J., Muthiga, N., Lyimo, T., et al. (2008). Sea urchin overgrazing of seagrasses: A review of current knowledge on causes, consequences, and management. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 79(4), 569-580.

Eklöf, J. S., Fröcklin, S., Lindvall, A., Stadlinger, N., Kimathi, A., Uku, J. N., et al. (2009). How effective are MPAs? Predation control and 'spill-in effects' in seagrass-coral reef lagoons under contrasting fishery management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 83-96.

Eriksson, H., de la Torre-Castro, M., & Olsson, P. (2012). Mobility, Expansion and Management of a Multi-Species Scuba Diving Fishery in East Africa. Plos One, 7(4).

FAO. (2007). Increasing the Contribution of Small-scale Fisheries to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

FAO. (2011). Fishing with beach seines. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

FAO. (2016). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437-440.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., et al. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 35, 557-581.

��

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockstrom, J. (2010). Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4).

Folke, C., Chapin, F. S., III, & Olsson, P. (2009). Tranformations in Ecosystem Stewardship. In F. S. Chapin, III, G. P. Kofinas & C. Folke (Eds.), Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York, USA: Springer.

Folke, C., Jansson, A., Rockstrom, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., et al. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio, 40(7), 719-738.

Francis, J., & Bryceson, I. (2001). Tanzanian Coastal and Marine Resources: Some Examples Illustrating Questions of Sustainable Use. (Vol. IUCN. pp. 74-100.). In: Ahmed, J. et al. (eds.): Lessons Learned: Case Studies in Sustainable Use.

Froese, R., & Pauly, D. (2016). FishBase. www.fishbase.org, version (10/2016). Garcia, S. M., & Rosenberg, A. A. (2010). Food security and marine capture

fisheries: characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2869-2880.

Gell, F. R., & Whittington, M. W. (2002). Diversity of fishes in seagrass beds in the Quirimba Archipelago, northern Mozambique. Marine and Freshwater Research, 53(2), 115-121.

Gough, C., Thomas, T., Humber, F., Harris, A., Cripps, G., & Peabody, S. (2009). Vezo Fishing: An introduction to the methods used by fishers in Andovadoaka Southwest Madagascar. London, UK: Blue Ventureso. Document Number)

Grech, A., Chartrand-Miller, K., Erftemeijer, P., Fonseca, M., McKenzie, L., Rasheed, M., et al. (2012). A comparison of threats, vulnerabilities and management approaches in global seagrass bioregions. Environmental Research Letters, 7(2).

Gullström, M., de la Torre-Castro, M., Bandeira, S. O., Björk, M., Dahlberg, M., Kautsky, N., et al. (2002). Seagrass Ecosystems in the Western Indian Ocean. Ambio, 31 (7-8).

Gullström, M., Lundèn, B., Bodin, M., Kangwe, J., Öhman, M. C., Matern, Mtolera, M. S. P., Bjökr, M. (2006). Assessment of changes in the seagrass-dominated submerged vegetation of tropical Chwaka Bay (Zanzibar) using satellite remote sensing. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 67 (2006) 399e408.

Gutierrez, N. L., Hilborn, R., & Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature, 470(7334), 386-389.

Harris, A., Manahira, G., Sheppard, A., Gough, C., & Sheppard, C. (2010). Demise of Madagascar's once great barrier reef - change in coral reef condition over 40 years. Washington, D.C., USA: National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institutiono. Document Number)

��

Heck, K. L., & Valentine, J. F. (1995). Sea-urchin herbivory – evidence for long-lasting effects in subtropical seagrass meadows. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 189(1-2), 205-217.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (Vol. 4).

Jacobson, S. K., & Marynowski, S. B. (1997). Public attitudes and knowledge about ecosystem management on department of defense land in Florida. Conservation Biology, 11(3), 770-781.

Jentoft, S. (1989). Fisheries co-management – Delegating government responsibility to fishermens organizations. Marine Policy, 13(2), 137-154.

Jentoft, S. (2005). Fisheries co-management as empowerment. Marine Policy, 29(1), 1-7.

Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance. Marine Policy, 31(4), 360-370.

Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy, 33(4), 553-560.

Jentoft, S., McCay, B. J., & Wilson, D. C. (1998). Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 22(4-5), 423-436.

Jiddawi, N. S., & Öhman, M. C. (2002). Marine Fisheries in Tanzania. Ambio, 31(7/8):518-527.

Kawarazuka, N., & Béné, C. (2010). Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: an overview. Food Security, 2(4), 343-357.

Kittinger, J. N., Finkbeiner, E. M., Ban, N. C., Broad, K., Carr, M. H., Cinner, J. E., et al. (2013). Emerging frontiers in social-ecological systems research for sustainability of small-scale fisheries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3-4), 352-357.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun: Studentliteratur AB.

Laroche, J., & Ramananarivo, N. (1995). A preliminary survey of the artisanal fishery on coral reefs of the Tulear Region (southwest Madagascar). Coral Reefs, 14(4), 193-200.

Le Manach, F., Gough, C., Harris, A., Humber, F., Harper, S., & Zeller, D. (2012). Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy, 36(1), 218-225.

Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1(5), 431-436.

Lindström, L. (2012). Governing Sustainability: Chwaka Bay in Zanzibar's National Integrated Coastal Management Strategies. In M. de la Torre-Castro & T. J. Lyimo (Eds.), People, Nature and Research in Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar, Tanzania. (pp. 265-278). Zanzibar Town: WIOMSA.

Lokrantz, J., Nystrom, M., Norstrom, A. V., Folke, C., & Cinner, J. E. (2009). Impacts of artisanal fishing on key functional groups and the potential

�

vulnerability of coral reefs. Environmental Conservation, 36(4), 327-337.

MacGoodwin, J. R. (2001). Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: A key to fisheries management and food security: Food and Agriculture Organizationo. Document Number)

Mangi, S. C., & Roberts, C. M. (2006). Quantifying the environmental impacts of artisanal fishing gear on Kenya's coral reef ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(12), 1646-1660.

Mangi, S. C., Roberts, C. M., & Rodwell, L. D. (2007). Financial comparisons of fishing gear used in Kenya's coral reef lagoons. Ambio, 36(8), 671-676.

McClanahan, T. R. (1992). Resource utilization, competition, and predation – a model and example from coral-reef grazers. Ecological Modelling, 61(3-4), 195-215.

McClanahan, T. R. (1995). Fish predators and scavengers of the sea-urchin Echinometra mathaei in Kenyan coral reef marine parks. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 43(2), 187-193.

McClanahan, T. R. (2000). Recovery of a coral reef keystone predator, Balistapus undulatus, in East African marine parks. Biological Conservation, 94(2), 191-198.

McClanahan, T. R. (2010). Effects of Fisheries Closures and Gear Restrictions on Fishing Income in a Kenyan Coral Reef. Conservation Biology, 24(6), 1519-1528.

McClanahan, T. R., & Abunge, C. A. (2014). Catch rates and income are associated with fisheries management restrictions and not an environmental disturbance, in a heavily exploited tropical fishery. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 513, 201-210.

McClanahan, T. R., Castilla, J. C., White, A. T., & Defeo, O. (2009). Healing small-scale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 19(1), 33-47.

McClanahan, T. R., Cinner, J., Kamukuru, A. T., Abunge, C., & Ndagala, J. (2008). Management preferences, perceived benefits and conflicts among resource users and managers in the Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation, 35(4), 340-350.

McClanahan, T. R., & Cinner, J. E. (2008). A framework for adaptive gear and ecosystem-based management in the artisanal coral reef fishery of Papua New Guinea. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18(5), 493-507.

McClanahan, T. R., Glaesel, H., Rubens, J., & Kiambo, R. (1997). The effects of traditional fisheries management on fisheries yields and the coral-reef ecosystems of southern Kenya. Environmental Conservation, 24(2), 105-120.

McClanahan, T. R., & Hicks, C. C. (2011). Changes in life history and ecological characteristics of coral reef fish catch composition with increasing fishery management. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 18(1), 50-60.

��

McClanahan, T. R., Hicks, C. C., & Darling, E. S. (2008). Malthusian overfishing and efforts to overcome it on Kenyan coral reefs. Ecological Applications, 18(6), 1516-1529.

McClanahan, T. R., Maina, J., & Davies, J. (2005). Perceptions of resource users and managers towards fisheries management options in Kenyan coral reefs. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 12(2), 105-112.

McClanahan, T. R., & Mangi, S. (2001). The effect of a closed area and beach seine exclusion on coral reef fish catches. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8(2), 107-121.

McClanahan, T. R., & Mangi, S. C. (2004). Gear-based management of a tropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capture size. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 11(1), 51-60.

McClanahan, T. R., & Muthiga, N. A. (1989). Patterns of predation on a sea-urchin, Echinometra-mathaei (Deblainville), on Kenyan coral reefs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 126(1), 77-94.

McClanahan, T. R., & Shafir, S. H. (1990). Causes and consequences of sea-urchin abundance and diversity in Kenyan coral-reef lagoons. Oecologia, 83(3), 362-370.

McGoodwin, J. (2001). Understanding the cultures of fishing communities - a key to fisheries management and food security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organizationo. Document Number)

MEA. (2003). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington DC: Island Press.

MEA. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems & Human Wellbeing: Synthesis Report. (I. Press o. Document Number)

Mills, D. J., Westlund, L., de Graaf, G., Kura, Y., Willman, R., & Kelleher, K. (2011). Small-scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World. Wallingford, United Kindgdom: CAB International.

Mohammed, S. M., Muhando, C. A., & Machano, H. (2002). Coral reef degradation in Tanzania: results of monitoring 1999-2002. In O. Lindén, D. Souter, D. Wilhelmsson & D. Obura (Eds.), Coral reef degradation in the Indian Ocean: status report 2002 (pp. 21). Kalmar, Sweden: CORDIO.

Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring Populations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9(3).

Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 395-419.

Nordlund, L., Erlandsson, J., de la Torre-Castro, M., & Jiddawi, N. (2010). Changes in an East African social-ecological seagrass system: invertebrate harvesting affecting species composition and local livelihood. Aquatic Living Resources, 23(4), 399-416.

��

Nordlund, L. M., de la Torre-Castro, M., Erlandsson, J., Conand, C., Muthiga, N., Jiddawi, N., et al. (2014). Intertidal Zone Management in the Western Indian Ocean: Assessing Current Status and Future Possibilities Using Expert Opinions. Ambio, 43(8), 1006-1019.

Nordlund, L. M., Koch, E. W., Barbier, E. B., & Creed, J. C. (2016). Seagrass Ecosystem Services and Their Variability across Genera and Geographical Regions. Plos One, 11(10).

Obura, D., Church, J., Daniels, C., Kalombo, H., Schleyer, M., & Suleiman, M. (2004). Status of coral reefs in East Africa. In C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Status of coral reefs of the world (pp. 171). Townsville, Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Obura, D. O. (2001). Kenya. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(12), 1264-1278. Ochiewo, J. (2004). Changing fisheries practices and their socioeconomic

implications in South Coast Kenya. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(7-8), 389-408.

Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2001). Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: A study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4(2), 85-104.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4).

Orth, R. J., Carruthers, T. J. B., Dennison, W. C., Duarte, C. M., Fourqurean, J. W., Heck, K. L., et al. (2006). A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience, 56(12), 987-996.

Ostrom, E., & Schlager, E. (1996). The formation of property rights. In Rights to Nature, Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. (pp. 127-156). Washington, DC: Iceland Press.

Pauly, D. (2006). Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies, 4(2), 7-22.

Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2004). Some observations on the terminology in co-operative environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 70(1), 63-72.

Pomeroy, R. S. (2011). Managing overcapacity in Small-scale Fisheries. In R. S. Pomeroy & N. Andrew (Eds.), Small-scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World (pp. 75-92). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.

Rakotoson, L. R., & Tanner, K. (2006). Community-based governance of coastal zone and marine resources in Madagascar. Ocean and Coastal Management, 49(11), 855-872.

Report from the International Workshop on Community-Based natural Resource Management (CBNRM). (1999). Washington, DCo. Document Number)

RGZ (Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar). (2010). Fisheries Act no. 7.

��

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. (Vol. 2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Short, F. T., & Green, E. P. (2003). World Atlas of Seagrasses. London, UK: UNEP-WCMC.

Signa, D., Tuda, P., & Samoilys, M. (2008). Social, economic and environmental impacts of beach seining in Kenya. Mombasa, Kenyao. Document Number)

Silva, P. (2006). Exploring the Linkages between Poverty, Marine Protected Area Management, and the Use of Destructive Fishing Gear in Tanzania, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3831, February 2006 (Vol. WPS3831).

Singleton, S. (1998). Constructing Cooperation: the Evolution of Institutions of Comanagement. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Smith, M. D., Roheim, C. A., Crowder, L. B., Halpern, B. S., Turnipseed, M., Anderson, J. L., et al. (2010). Sustainability and Global Seafood. Science, 327(5967), 784-786.

Sumaila, U. R., Bellmann, C., & Tipping, A. (2016). Fishing for the future: An overview of challenges and opportunities. Marine Policy, 69, 173-180.

Thilsted, S. H., Thorne-Lyman, A., Webb, P., Bogard, J. R., Subasinghe, R., Phillips, M. J., et al. (2016). Sustaining healthy diets: The role of capture fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-2015 era. Food Policy, 61, 126-131.

Thyresson, M., Crona, B., Nystrom, M., de la Torre-Castro, M., & Jiddawi, N. (2013). Tracing value chains to understand effects of trade on coral reef fish in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Marine Policy, 38, 246-256.

Tyler, E. H. M., Speight, M. R., Henderson, P., & Manica, A. (2009). Evidence for a depth refuge effect in artisanal coral reef fisheries. Biological Conservation, 142(3), 652-667.

Unsworth, R. K. F., & Cullen, L. C. (2010). Recognising the necessity for Indo-Pacific seagrass conservation. Conservation Letters, 3(2), 63-73.

Walker, B., Hollin, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).

Waycott, M., Duarte, C. M., Carruthers, T. J. B., Orth, R. J., Dennison, W. C., Olyarnik, S., et al. (2009). Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(30), 12377-12381.

Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., et al. (2011). Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762-780.

��

Appendices

Appendix A

SSummary of the semi-structured interview guideline for fishers used in Paper I 1.� Age: 2.� Fishing occupation: fulltime/part time: other occupations: Fishing methods 3.� For how long have you been fishing (in years): 4.� Which is your most used fishing gear: eventual other gears (in order of importance): 5.� Which substrates do you usually fish on (in order of importance) Corals / seagrasses / sand /rocky ground/mangroves 6.� How many times a week do you fish: 7.� Have the fish catches changed over time (10 years)? Yes/no if yes, increase or decrease? what could have caused this change? 8.� Do you eat fish? Yes/no if yes: how often (every day/several times a week/more seldomly): which species do you usually eat Seagrasses 9.� Has the seagrass cover changed over time (10-20 years/since you started fishing)?

if yes, did it increase or decrease? what could have caused this change?

10.� What (else) could threaten the seagrasses: 11.� Describe the importance (1 - not important to 5 - extremely important) of seagrasses for: a)� the provision of fishing grounds to fish on: b)� the provision of fish: c)� the provision of nursery areas where small fish grow up: d)� the provision of spawning sites where the fish lay their eggs: e)� the provision of foraging sites where fish can eat: f)� the provision of shelter where fish can hide: g)� the provision of crustaceans (e.g. shrimp, lobster, crabs): h)� the provision of molluscs (e.g. gastropods, cockles, clams, cowries): i)� the Provision of echinoderms (e.g. sea urchins, sea cucumbers): j)� the protection of the shoreline/to avoid washing out of the sand: k)� keeping the water calm: l)� water filtration/keeping the water clean: m)� Are seagrasses good indicators of different changes in the coastal zone? Yes/no n)� Are seagrasses affected by coastal development: Yes/no

���

o)� Are seagrasses affected by fishing pressure: Yes/no p)� Are seagrasses important for tourism: Yes/no q)� Are seagrasses important for local communities/villages: Yes/no

if yes, in which way: r)� Are seagrasses important for traditional believes: Yes/no if yes, which ones: s)� Are seagrasses important for you to collect/use? Yes/no if yes, in which way? which part of the plant (leaves, roots, seeds): t)� Provision of good areas for seaweed farming (if there is seaweed farmingin the area): 12.� if fishing on seagrasses: Which fish do you usually catch: 13.� Do you collect anything except fish from seagrasses: no yes, the following: 14.� Is it a problem for you if the seagrasses disappear? Yes/no

if yes, in which way 15.� Is it a problem for the marine ecosystem if the seagrasses disappear? Yes/no

if yes, in which way? 16.� Are there any taboos in connection to seagrasses: Yes/no

if not mentioned: are there any taboos in connection with goods harvested from seagrasses:

if handlines used: what kind of bait do you use:

Appendix B SSummary of the semi-structured interview guideline used in Paper II

Demographic information 1.� Sex: male female 2.� Age in years: 3.� Education: no education / primary school / secondary school / university

Fishing practices 4.� For how long have you been working as a fisher: 5.� Is fishing your main occupation: yes / no 6.� (If no) Which other occupations do you have: 7.� Was your father a fisher as well: 8.� In which types of habitats do you most often fish: make a ranking:

seagrass beds /coral reef/sand flat/mangroves /rocky ground/

9.� Do you use a boat: yes / no 10.� (If yes) which kind of boat do you use: 11.� What kind of fishing gears do you use: 12.� Which of these gears do you use: most often/second most often/etc.: 13.� (For trap and hook&line fishermen) Are you using any bait: yes / no 14.� (If yes) Which kind of bait are you using: 15.� (If not mentioned) Do you use sea urchins as bait: yes / no 16.� (If yes) Do you use these species as a bait: Tripneustes gratilla / Echinometra mathaei 17.� Do you usually fish any of these particular species on the pictures:

���

Balistapus undulatus Balistoides viridescens Peudobalistes fuscus Coris Formosa Coris aygula Coris gaimard Cheilinus trilobatus Lethrinus mahsena Rhinecantus aculeatus Rhinecantus rectangulus

18.� Do you specifically target these species (asked for the same species individually): yes / no

19.� How much of these species (in kg per species) do you usually catch per day (asked for the same species individually):

EEcology and LEK 20.� Have there been changes in the catch trend of these species since you started fishing,

and which (no change/increase/decrease): 21.� (If change) Why do you think the catches of these species have changed: 22.� Have there been any changes in the size of these fish over time (since you started fish-

ing): increase/decrease/no change 23.� (If change) Why do you think the size of these species has changed:

24.� What do these fish species eat: 25.� Do any of these species eat sea urchins (asked for each species individually): 26.� (If yes) Do they eat these particular sea urchin species: T. gratilla/E. mathaei 27.� Have you seen any changes in the number of urchins since you started fishing:

Increase/decrease/no change 28.� In which habitats have you observed these changes:

coral reef/seagrass bed/sandflats/rocky ground 29.� What do you think is causing these changes in urchin numbers:

(If fishing is not mentioned as a cause) Do you think fishing of these particular fish species could affect the number of urchins: yes / no

30.� Have you observed any changes in the seagrass meadows in your fishing grounds: increase/decrease/no change

31.� Do you think that seagrasses are affected by increasing numbers of sea-urchins: yes / no

32.� Do you think fishing in general affects the seagrass and coral reef ecosystem: yes / no 33.� (If yes) explain how (positively/negatively):

Market information 34.� Do you sell these species (show pictures of sea urchin predator species individually):

yes / no 35.� How much do you usually get for these species (per kg in KES/TZS): 36.� How would you rank their economic importance (show pictures of sea urchin preda-

tor species individually): low/medium/high 37.� Who buys these fish species from you:

���

38.� (If selling to a middleman) Who are the final users of these species: 39.� Are some of these fish exported: yes / no 40.� (If yes) to which countries? 41.� Do you usually keep any of these fish species for your own use: yes / no 42.� Are these fish species eaten: yes / no 43.� Do you eat them yourself: yes / no 44.� (If yes) Why do you eat them (taste good/cheap/protein source/etc.): 45.� Are these species used for anything else: 46.� (If not mentioned) are these species used for: the production of medicine

47.� ornamental trade

48.� aquaria trade 49.� Do you eat sea urchins: yes / no 50.� If yes, which species: 51.� (If not mentioned) Do you eat the following species: E. mathaei / T. gratilla

MManagement 52.� (If increasing numbers of sea urchins mentioned) Would you consider increasing

numbers of sea urchins as a problem: yes / no 53.� (If yes) explain how: 54.� (If yes) How could the problem of increasing sea urchin numbers be solved: 55.� Which management strategies could benefit to higher numbers of sea urchin preda-

tors? 56.� How could seagrasses be protected from sea urchin overgrazing?

Appendix C Summary of the semi-structured interview guideline used in Paper III �Demographic information

1.� Age: 2.� Educational level (in years):

Fishing practices

1.� Do you have any other occupation? 2.�Which substrate do you mostly fish on? Write 1-4 for the most to least im-

portant or 0 for not fished on: Coral Seagrass Sand

3.� Which kind of net do you use? 4.� Mesh size? 5.� Do you use any other gears, and which? 6.� Do you use a boat? 7.� How many others do you fish with? 8.� What would be the best way of describing the people in your fishing group?

Friends Family Colleagues Neighbours

9.� Why do you use this gear? 10.� What are the advantages/disadvantages with this gear?

���

11.� How did you learn to use this gear? 12.� Was your father also a fisherman? 13.� If yes, did he use the same gear? 14.� Did you invest in the gear?

a)� If yes, how much did you pay and when (year)? b)� What was the main source of money used? (saved money/loan) c)� If no, who is the owner? d)� Is he fishing with you? e)� How much do you pay for using the net?

WWillingness and Capacity to change

15.� Are you generally satisfied with using this gear? a) If no, why?

i.� Out of all gears, which gear would you prefer using, and why? ii.� If not drag-net, why are you not using this gear already? iii.� Have you discussed changing to another gear with:

Fishing group Fisher’s committee Bwana Diko or someone else? 16.� Are you satisfied with the fish catches you get?

a)� The size of the fish species? b)� The amount of fish?

17.� Are you satisfied with the money you earn from the fish catch? a)� Do you think you would earn more/less/the same if using these gears instead?

Handline: more less the same

Longline: more less the same

Ring net: more less the same

Gill net: more less the same

Trap: more less the same

b)� Which gear do you think you earn most/least with (per person)?

18.� Are there any gears and/or fishing techniques which are illegal in Zanzibar, and which?

��� How did you get the information? (Let the respondent answer before giving examples - friend/neighbor/beach recorder/fisheries officer etc.)

��� Do you agree with the laws? (No/Somewhat/Yes) ��� Why, why not?

19.� Since your gear is not legal, why do you use it anyway? 20.� What would make you stop using dragnets? 21.� How much do you earn/day (if many gears ask for each of them):

On a good day: On a bad day:

On average/on most days: 22.� Does anyone else in your household earn money? 23.� Do you usually save money?

��� If yes, would you be willing to pay for a new gear? ��� If no, Could you share costs with friends/family? ��� Would you have a possibility to get a loan?

24.� If you were provided with a gill net/trap would you use it instead of your gear?

��

a)� what would be the advantages/disadvantages of using this gear? 25.� Would you know how to use it? 26.� Would you use it alone or together with others?

��� If with others, would you know anyone to use it with? ��� How many others?

27.� Which attitudes would other fishers in your village have if you would change to this gear (good/bad/neutral)?

28.� If bad, would you still change gear? 29.� What would you think if someone in your group changed to this gear? 30.� Would you sell your catch to the same people as now? And who? 31.� Do you generally like the fishing occupation? 32.� If you could choose, would you like to continue fishing or would you prefer to do

something else (and what)?

Appendix D SSemi-structured interview guideline for fishers used in Paper IV

Demographic information

Fishing information

�� For how many years have you been fishing? ��� Is fishing your main occupation? ��� Do you also have other occupations, and which? ��� Which substrate do you mostly fish on?

Coral Seagrass Sand Rocky ground ��� Which fishing gears do you use? �� Which is your main gear (the gear you use most often)? ��� (if net of basket trap) Which mesh size do you use? �� Do you fish alone, or together with others (how many)? ��� Do you use a boat? ��� What kind of boat? �� Does it have a motor? ��� Do you like fishing? ��� If you had the choice, would you like to continue fishing, or rather do something

else? ��� If something else: what would you like to do?

Seagrass threats

��� Do you think seagrasses are important or not so important? �� Why/why not? ��� Do you feel seagrasses in your fishing grounds have increased/decreased/not

changed during the past 10 years? �� If increase/decrease: what might be the reasons for that? ��� Do you think there is a need to protect the seagrasses in your fishing grounds, or

not? Yes / no

���

���� if yes: how could they be protected? ��� Do you think there are any threats to the seagrasses in your fishing grounds? ���� If yes, which? ���� (if not mentioned yet) Do you think there are any fishing gears which are destructive

to seagrasses, or not? ���� If yes, which? ���� Do you think the following fishing gears are destructive to seagrasses or not:

a.� Gill nets (Jarife) yes/no b.� Hook and line (Mshipi) yes/no c.� Dema traps (large and small) yes/no d.� Drag nets (Juya/Nyavu Kokota, …) yes/no e.� Ring nets/purse seine nets (Mtando) yes/no f.� Spears yes/no g.� Spear guns yes/no h.� Long line (Kaputi) yes/no

� �� Which do you think is the most destructive gear of them: ���� Do you think, that the following factors could threaten seagrasses in your fishing

grounds (yes/no): ��� How could these threats be weakened/addressed

a.� Fishing gears mentioned above Measure:

b.� Trampling Measure:

c.� Seaweed farming Measure:

d.� Turbidity (Kazkazi) Measure:

e.� Sea-urchin overgrazing Measure:

f.� Pollution Measure:

g.� Eutrophication (sewage outflow) Measure:

h.� Erosion/coastal changes (sand mining; building of roads, houses)

i.� Measure: ���� Which of them do you think is the most threatening?

FFeasibility of conservation/management possibilities

���� Would you be willing to adapt to the below regulations (yes/no): ��� No-take zones ��� Temporary closures ��� Gear restrictions (beach seines, drag nets, spears) ��� Mesh-size restrictions ��� Minimum fish sizes �� Education

��� Which of them would you prefer?

���

���� If not, what could make you follow these rules (if not already mentioned)? ���� Do you think the following seagrass management possibilities could have a positive

effect on seagrasses (yes/no): ��� No-take zones ��� Temporary closures ��� Gear restrictions (beach seines, drag nets, spears) ��� Mesh-size restrictions ��� Minimum fish sizes �� Education

���� Which of them would be best for the seagrasses? ���� Dema-fishers: Could you imagine to patrol/control against drag-net fishing � �� Are you aware of the fisheries regulations in Zanzibar? ���� Have you heard of the law on minimum mesh size? ��� Have you heard of the law banning dragging techniques? ���� If yes, why are drag nets forbidden? ���� (for drag net fishers only): Why do you use drag nets despite their destructiveness? ��� Does the government allow Dema traps? ���� (if answer according to law): Why?

SSummary of the semi-structured interview guideline for managers/scientists used in Paper IV

Seagrass threats 1.� Do you know what seagrasses are? 2.� Do you think seagrasses are important or not so important? Why/why not? 3.� Do you think seagrasses in Zanzibar have increased/decreased/not changed during

the past 10 years? 4.� If increase/decrease: what may the reason be for that? 5.� Do you think there is any need to protect seagrasses on Zanzibar? 6.� If yes, how can they be protected? 7.� Are there any specific laws concerning seagrasses on Zanzibar? 8.� If not, are there any other existing laws or regulations which benefit seagrasses (ex-

plain)? 9.� Do you think there are any threats to the seagrasses on Zanzibar, and which? 10.� Do you think there are any fishing gears which are destructive to seagrasses (if yes,

which) 11.� Do you think the following fishing gears are destructive to seagrasses?

a)� Gill nets b)� Hook and line c)� Dema traps (large and small) d)� Drag nets/purse nets e)� Beach seines f)� Spears g)� Spear guns h)� Long line

12.� Which of these do you think is the most destructive to seagrasses? 13.� Do you think, that the following factors could threaten seagrasses (yes/no): 14.� How could these threats be weakened/addressed:

a)� Fishing gears mentioned above b)� Trampling

���

c)� Seaweed farming d)� Turbidity e)� Sea-urchin overgrazing f)� Pollution g)� Eutrophication (sewage outflow) h)� Erosion/coastal changes (building of roads, houses; sand mining)

15.� Which of these do you think is the biggest threat to seagrasses?

FFeasibility of conservation/management possibilities 16.� Do you think the following seagrass management actions may have a positive effect

on seagrasses, and explain why/why not: a)� No-take zones b)� Temporary closures c)� Gear restrictions (beach seines and drag nets) d)� Mesh-size restrictions e)� Minimum fish sizes f)� Throwing back of sea-urchin predators

17.� Which of them would be best for protecting seagrasses? 18.� Do you think fishers think it is necessary to protect seagrasses in their area? 19.� Do you think fishers would abide by the below rules and regulations, and why/why

not? a)� No-take zones b)� Temporary closures c)� Gear restrictions (beach seines and drag nets) d)� Mesh-size restrictions e)� Minimum fish sizes

20.� Which of these management possibilities would they prefer? 21.� If not, what do you think could make fishers follow these rules? 22.� Who of the above would benefit the most? 23.� Do you think fishers are aware of the fisheries laws and regulations in Zanzibar? 24.� Who is informing them? 25.� Do you think this information is sufficient? 26.� If not, how could this be improved? 27.� Is there a law on minimum mesh sizes in Zanzibar (and which)? 28.� Do you think fishers know about the law on minimum mesh sizes? 29.� Is there a law concerning drag nets in Zanzibar? 30.� Do you think fishers know about the ban of dragging techniques? 31.� Do you think illegal fishing methods like dragging (Juya/Nyavu Kokota) are used on

Zanzibar? 32.� Do you think too small mesh sizes are used on Zanzibar? 33.� If yes, do you think the fishers are aware of the destructiveness of these gears? 34.� If yes, why do you think fishers use drag nets anyway? 35.� Why do you think other fishers use Demas? 36.� Are there any controls on illegal gears? 37.� Who is controlling, and how often? 38.� What happens if someone is caught? 39.� Are you satisfied with this system of controls, and why/why not? 40.� How could this be improved? 41.� Do you think fishers would participate in patroling/controlling if the rules are abided

(if they were compensated for not fishing)? 42.� Which gears do you think most fishers would ideally want to fish with? 43.� Do you think there is a need for gear-exchange programs? 44.� Which fishing gears would you recommend for gear-exchange programs, and why? 45.� Do you think the fishers would adopt these gears?

���

46.� How could such a program be realized and what would be needed? 47.� Do you think fishers would do something else if they had the choice, or that they

would want to continue fishing?