adaptive capacityof fishermen of the uruguayan coast of the rio de la plata, to hydroclimatic...
TRANSCRIPT
ADAPTIVE CAPACITYof FISHERMEN of the URUGUAYAN COAST of the RIO de la PLATA,
to HYDROCLIMATIC VARIABILTY and OTHER STRESSORS
Norbis W, GJ Nagy, A Ponce, V Pshennikov, G Sención, R Silva and J Verocai
DEPARTAMENTO DE ECOLOGIA - OCEANOLOGIA
Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR, Montevideo, Uruguay
THIS PRESENTATION AIMS TO DESCRIBE1: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
ESTUARINE FRONT (EF) ENSO-RELATED VARIABILITY FISHERIES RESOURCE ARTISANAL FISHERIES WITHIN THE E.F.
2: THE
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY CURRENT VULNERABILITY SUSTAINABILITY
OF THE COASTAL FISHERY SYSTEM
ESTUARINE FRONT OF THE RIO DE LA PLATA
THE PROBLEM
An artisanal fleet exploits fisheries a few miles off the Uruguayan coast (in the estuarine front zone (EF) of the Río de la Plata (FIG. 1)
The location of the EF (therefore the accesibility of exploitedresources) depends on ENSO-related variability of the river flow
Artisanal fishermen are highly vulnerable to both climate and non-climate constraints (regional economic crisis since 2001)
Coastal community has low adaptive capacity
Figure 1. Estuarine Front locationa) Strong La Niña event (summer 99-2000)b) Neutral - Typical c) Moderate El Niño (winter 1987)d) Strong El Niño (Spring / Summer 2002 – 2003)
a
R O U
R A
a bc
dSa n Luis
P. Bla nc a sKiyú
Evolution of SST & Salinty at Montevideo: ENSO events1998-2000
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 2 4 6Sea Surface Temperature
AnomalyEl NIÑO 3,4 (+1.8)
Riv
er
Flo
w
0
7
14
21
28
0 4 8 12 16
River Flow (m3/s x1000)
Sa
linit
y
Extreme river-ward location of the EF (yellow): La Niña event (March 2000)
Seaward location of the EF (yellow):El Niño (October 2002)
CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: SOCIAL
PROXYVARIABLES
VULNERABILITY
HIGH MODERATE LOW
FAMILYEDUCATIONHOUSINGEMPLOYMENTHEALTHSOCIAL ORGANIZATI0N
X
X X X X X
CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: ECONOMIC
PROXYVARIABLES
VULNERABILITY
HIGH MODERATE LOW
BOATSENGINES
FISHING GEARSCOMMUNICATIONREFRIGERATION
CATCHPRICES
NET INCOME
X
XX
X
XXX
X
CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL
PROXYVARIABLES
VULNERABILITY
HIGH MODERATE LOW
CLIMATE-ENSOWINDSSTORM SURGES ANDFLOODING RISKEUTROPHICATIONHABITAT LOSS
XX
X
XX
CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
PROXYVARIABLES
VULNERABILITY
HIGH MODERATE LOW
LAWSTERRITORIAL PLANNINGCOAST GUARD CONTROLSCONFLICTS WITH INDUSTRIAL FLEETCONFLICTS WITH NEIGHBOURSLEGAL ORGANIZATION
XX
X
XX
X
ANATOMY of the ADAPTATION to CLIMATE CHANGE & VARIABILITY
1. WHAT IS ADAPTATION ?
2. ADAPT TO WHAT ?
3. WHO ADAPTS ?
4. HOW DOES ADAPTATION OCCUR ?
5. HOW GOOD IS THE ADAPTATION ?
1) WHAT IS ADAPTATION ?
Process by which stakeholders involved in the Coastal Fishery System reduce the adverse
effects of climate on their livelihood.
This Process involves any passive, reactive or anticipatory adjustment of behavior and economic structure in order to increase
sustainability and reduce vulnerability to climate change, variability and weather / climate
extremes.
(modified from Burton,1992; Smit, 1993; Smith, 1993; Stakhiv, 1993)
2) ADAPT TO WHAT ?
CLIMATIC STIMULI: ENS0 VARIABILITY
3) WHO ADAPTS ?
COASTAL FISHERY SYSTEM
4) HOW DOES ADAPTATION OCCUR ?
THROUGH PROCESSES:
• EXTERNAL FORCINGS (RIVER FLOW CHANGES) AND DISPLACEMENT OF THE ESTUARINE FRONT
VARIATIONS IN THE LOCATION OF MAIN RESOURCE (CROAKER)-
>FISHERMEN MIGRATION
OUTCOME:
THIS EXAMPLE OF AUTONOMOUS ADAPTATION HAS BEING SUCCESFUL UNTIL 2002
5) HOW GOOD IS ADAPTATION ?
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Long-term Fishermen Gross Income (from October (1) to September (12)
Evolution of Salinity at Pajas Blancas: October 2002 - May 2004
From October 2002 to J une 2003 (El Niño impact) salinity was zero
because of high river fl ow at both regional and local scales
(Data; AIACC LA-32)
October - March: Peak of Fishing Activity
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Oc tober 2002 - J une 2003 (V er y H i gh Q) and J ul y 2003 - M ay 2004 (M oder ate / Low Q)
Months
October
October
2003
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months
Gro
ss I
nco
me
Daily fishing sortiesAverage weight of boxes (1 = 23 Kg) Fishing period 1998-99
3236
3135
39 40
19
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1-5
6-10
11-1
5
16-2
0
21-2
5
26-3
1 13 19
Clusters
boxes
Min Average
Max Average
Pajas Blancas´ Fishing Scenarios Fleet = 30 boatsFishing period = 4 months (rows 1,2,3); 3 months (4,5,6) ; 2 months (7,8,9) Days of effective fishing: ( 17 day/month (1,4,7); 12 d/m (2,5,8); 8 d/m (3,6,9)
Performance Boxes/performance % boats # boatshigh 46 boxes/day 23 6.9moderate 38 boxes/day 59 17.7low 26 boxes/day 18 5.4
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Scenarios, boat productivity, fishing period and days
Catch level max fishing period 98-99
Catch level low fishing period 98-99
ton
s
TOTAL ACCUMULATED BOXES (OBSERVED VS. MODEL)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
250001 6
11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61
Number of fishing sorties (days)
Bo
xes
ObsModel
OBSERVED = 923 BOATS SORTIED IN 64 DAYS – AVERAGE CATCH 22 NET BOXESMODEL= 640 BOATS SORTIED (10 BOATS PER SORTIE/DAY) - AVERAGE CATCH 20 NET BOXES PER SORTIE/BOAT
TOTAL ACCUMULATED BOXES (OBSERVED VS. MODEL)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61
Number of fishing sorties (days)
Bo
xes
ObsModel
OBSERVED = 923 BOATS SORTIED IN 64 DAYS – AVERAGE CATCH 22 NET BOXESMODEL= 640 BOATS SORTIED (10 BOATS PER SORTIE/DAY) - AVERAGE CATCH 25 NET BOXES PER SORTIE/BOAT
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61Sortied days
Log IB boxes
Sc 1
Sc 2
Sc 3
Sc 1 - 31 average boxes with 15 boats
Sc 2 – Fishing period 98-99
Sc 3 - 40 average boxes with 31 boats
“Pajas Blancas” Fishing Scenarios
Evolution of Salinty: El Niño 2002Evolution of Salinity at Pajas Blancas: October 2002 - May 2004
From October 2002 to J une 2003 (El Niño impact) salinity was zero
because of high river fl ow at both regional and local scales
(Data; AIACC LA-32)
October - March: Peak of Fishing Activity
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Oc tober 2002 - J une 2003 (V er y H i gh Q) and J ul y 2003 - M ay 2004 (M oder ate / Low Q)
Months
October
October
2003
051 01 52 02 53 03 5
9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3frequencyo
foccurrenc
e
w i n d f a v o u r a b l e s i t u a t i o n s w i n d u n f a v o u r a b l e s i t u a t i o n s n o n - f i s h i n g t r i p d a y s
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3
freq
uen
cyof
occu
rren
ce
w ind fa vou r a b le s itu a tions w ind u nfa vou ra b le s itu a t ions non-fish ing tr ip d a ys
CONCLUSIONS about
ADAPTATION STRATEGIES
ENSO EVENTS ARE RECURRENT AND ONCE SST ANOMALIES ARE KNOWN, ADAPTATION MEASURES SHOULD START
EARLY WARNING IS POSIBLE A FEW MONTHS BEFORE
PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES INVOLVING SCIENTISTS, MANAGERS AND FISHERMEN PARTICIPATION ARE NEEDED TO ALLOW ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
DIALOG AND COMMUNICATION NEED TO BE ENHANCED