Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT, 2017 VOL. 13, NO. 3, 35–50 https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1415973 SPECIAL ISSUE: OPERATIONALISING MARINE AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES The role of non-natural capital in the co-production of marine ecosystem services a,b c,d d,e f g,h Luis Outeiro , Elena Ojea , João Garcia Rodrigues , Amber Himes-Cornell , Andrea Belgrano , i j k d,l a,d,e Yajie Liu , Edna Cabecinha , Cristina Pita , Gonzalo Macho and Sebastian Villasante a b Department of Applied Economics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Department of Fisheries c d Ecology, Instituto de Investigacións Mariñas (CSIC), Bouzas, Vigo, Spain; Future Oceans Lab, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain; Campus Do*Mar – International Campus of Excellence, Vigo, Spain; Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Santiago de f g Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; AMURE/LABEX/IUEM, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France; (SLU) Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Marine Research, Lysekil, Sweden; Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment (SIME), i j Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Department of Biology and Environment, Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal; Department of Environment and Planning & Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal; Departamento de Ecoloxía e Bioloxía Animal and Campus do Mar, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, Spain ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 26 September 2016 A growing concern is arising to recognize that ecosystem services (ES) production often Accepted 1 December 2017 requires the integration of non-natural capital with natural capital in a process known as co- production. Several studies explore co-production in different terrestrial ecosystems, such as EDITED BY agriculture or water delivery, but less attention has been paid to marine ecosystems. Coastal Evangelia Drakou activities such as aquaculture, shellfish harvesting, and small-scale fishing deliver important KEYWORDS benefits for seafood provision, but are also inextricably linked to cultural and recreational ES. Marine ecosystem services; The degree to which co-production can determine the provision of ES in marine systems has yet co-production; small-scale not been explored. This paper addresses this key topic with an exploratory analysis of case fisheries; shellfisheries; studies where marine ES are co-produced. We look at five small-scale fisheries that range from social-ecological intensive semi-aquaculture in Galicia (Spain), to wild harvesting in Northern Portugal, and systemsnatural capital; non- discuss to what extent co-production influences ES delivery. We find that a direct relationship natural capital exists between co-production level and ES delivery in the case of provisioning ES (e.g., fish harvest), but not necessarily in the delivery of other ES. We also find that management practices and property regimes may be affecting trade-offs between co-production and ES. 1. Introduction of ES. Ostrom (2009) defines a SES as a complex Ecosystem services (ES) have been mainstreamed in system ‘composed of multiple subsystems and inter- science and policy due to various global initiatives that nal variables within these subsystems at multiple evolved from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment levels analogous to organisms composed of organs, (MA 2005), the Economics of Ecosystem Services and organs of tissues, tissues of cells, cells of proteins, Biodiversity (The Economics of Ecosystems and etc.’. ES and their benefits, on the other hand, are Biodiversity 2010), the United Kingdom National defined as an ecosystems’ contribution to human Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA 2011), and the well-being (MA 2005). Recent studies indicate that Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and when applying a SES framework, we clearly and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) framework (Díaz et al. openly recognize the relationships between human 2015). Each of these initiatives have been increasingly and natural systems and can therefore establish impacting policy and science, and are changing the way improved policy targets and indicators that better we manage natural resources and understand address the complex nature of ES provisioning sustainability. (Reyers et al. 2013; Leslie et al. 2015). However, Under this context, scholars have recently raised standardized methods for operationalizing frame- attention to the interactions between social and eco- works for ES provision within SES are not yet uni- logical factors in the production of ES (e.g., Reyers versal (Partelow and Winkler 2016) and further et al. 2013; Guerry et al. 2015; Partelow 2015; Díaz applications of scientific evidence into policy advice et al. 2015; Palomo et al. 2016). This claim flows from are needed. Although the underlying mechanisms the incorporation of the Social-Ecological Systems and interactions between SES for the provision and (SES) approach (Ostrom 2009) to the understanding delivery of ES are still under discussion (Fischer and CONTACT Luis Outeiro email@example.com © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 36 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. associated with the provision of marine ES Eastwood 2016), there seems to be a widespread (Carpenter et al. 2009) by analyzing case studies from consensus that co-production of ES refers to joint processes between humans and ecosystems (e.g., marine SES in Northern Portugal and Galicia (Spain), two regions where marine activities are highly relevant Palomo et al. 2016). The provision of benefits derived for coastal communities (PRESPO 2012;Surís- from ES depends, therefore, on the joint contribution of nature and anthropogenic assets, as stated in the Regueiro and Santiago 2014). We analyze five marine harvesting systems: two small-scale fisheries in IPBES conceptual framework (Díaz et al., 2016); as Northern Portugal and three small-scale shellfisheries well as the multidimensionality of the different per- spectives and values of Nature’s Contributions to in Galicia. The latter show an intensity gradient from intensive semi-aquaculture People (Pascual et al. 2017). These assets include to wild harvesting. Jointly human-engineered components (Guerry et al. 2015), assessing these five case studies may allow us to test human capabilities and management practices whether co-production increases from wild fisheries to (Reyers et al. 2013), and in a broader sense include semi-aquaculture. One of the main questions regard- the legacies of past and current societies and cultures ing co-production is to what extent social–ecological (Church et al. 2011). In fact, benefits derived from ES interactions can deliver ES in a sustainable way. In can arise from ecosystems of any type, including fact, trade-offs among ES can favor one service over natural pristine ecosystems to human-altered ecosys- the other with a subsequent degradation of the system tems (Polasky et al. 2015). that can lead to the detriment of other ES (Villasante ES depend on different forms of capital or capital et al. 2016). Despite the relevance of co-production assets (Guerry et al. 2015). Capital assets can take the processes for marine SES, little is known about how form of manufactured capital (e.g. buildings and various interactions between ecological and social sys- machines), human capital (e.g. knowledge, skills, tems determine ES provision. We argue that special experience, and health), social capital (e.g. relation- care needs to be placed on the concept of co-produc- ships and institutions), and financial capital (e.g. tion so that the sustainability of human interactions monetary wealth), as well as natural capital (e.g. fish with ecosystems can be assessed. This may have stocks) (Emery and Flora 2006). Multiple forms of important implications for the use of the ES frame- capital interact to generate goods and services. For work and to assess trade-offs between development example, shellfish harvesting depends on the avail- and conservation (Howe et al. 2014). ability of shellfish stocks (natural capital), which Our hypothesis is that co-production of ES is depend on high-quality habitat (natural capital). But associated with additional ES and ecosystem disser- harvesting also depends on fishing vessels and gears vices derived from human interventions. The level of (manufactured capital, backed by financial capital), ES and ecosystem disservices depend on the level and and on the skills and experience of fishers (human means of co-production. Based on five case studies, capital), and fisheries governance (social capital). we aim at understanding differences of co-production The co-production concept helps us to understand levels in marine SES. We give special attention to the contributions of different forms of capital, i.e., trade-offs between ES and levels of co-production natural and non-natural, to the supply of ES. It also (i.e., social–ecological interactions). To design our contributes to a better understanding of the sustain- study, we have unfolded the co-production concept ability of ES provisioning. The same ES, say seafood focusing on the intensity and the nature of the ES production, can be supplied with different contribu- production process. We examine examples of trade- tions of natural and non-natural capital, constituting offs in detail in our case studies and explore their a gradient of co-production (Palomo et al. 2016). For relation to the type and co-production intensity, example, wild fish caught by small-scale fisheries is assessing ES and ecosystem disservices at the local mainly provided by natural co-production, as it and regional scales. involves low levels of non-natural capital. On the other side of the spectrum – fish farmed in intensive 2. Methodology aquaculture – is the same ES (seafood production) but is mainly provided by human co-production, as Our analysis is focused on the marine ES of two the contribution of non-natural capital is much neighboring coastal areas on the north-western higher. The intensity gradient of co-production and Iberian Peninsula. These areas were selected based the level of substitution of non-natural capital by on two criteria: their potentially different levels of natural capital may have implications for the sustain- co-production, and the existing long-term research ability of SES. In this sense, co-production of ES is a experience on fisheries. We conduct a descriptive useful concept to assess the sustainability of social and qualitative analysis based on our experience in and ecological interactions. the case studies and the available literature. With the This article contributes to the current scientific dis- aim of synthetizing the required information on co- cussions on social and ecological interactions production and ES delivery, we follow a sequential INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 37 step-wise analysis (Abbott 1995) including three (2016). We also explore the relationship between co-production and ES trade-offs by placing each of steps: (1) definition of case studies and management practices; (2) design of a matrix to collect information the case studies on a two axis scale with both vari- on co-production and ES delivery; and (3) compar- ables, assigning qualitative values within a ranking three order Likert-scale system (low, moderate, and ison analysis across case studies. What follows is a more detailed explanation of these steps. high). In the last step, we compare the co-production level and ES trade-offs with special attention to the property regime. 2.1. Definition of the case studies and management practices 3.1. Case study areas First, we discussed potential case studies for studying co-production in small-scale fisheries during the Our case studies are from two neighboring regions ICES Working Group meeting on Resilience and which share many cultural and geographical features, Marine Ecosystem Services (www.ices.dk) held in but are located in different countries: the Southern Porto in 2016. We selected five case studies which Galician Ría de Arousa (Spain) and Northern have detailed information on property regimes, man- Portugal (Figure 1). These study areas highlight how agement practices, actors, and activities. Property identifying marine ES, benefits, ecosystem disservices, regimes are particularly important to understand the and trade-offs may help to disentangle the level of co- output of the ecosystem. They are a type of regulatory production to provide new insights for a potential regimes for fisheries (Ojea et al. 2016) that can differ integration into ecosystem-based management on the level of rights allocated to users, from territor- approaches. ial property rights (TURF), to individual user rights such as individual transferable quotas. Our case stu- 3.1.1. Ría de Arousa, Galicia (Spain) dies cover a wide range of property regimes which A total of 12 fisher’sGuilds –‘cofradías’– exist in will allow us to explore the co-production of ES the Ría de Arousa and one fishing cooperative under different level of rights allocated to fishers. (CooperativeSociety RíadeArousa). Wefocus our first case study in the Carril Guild (Figure 1), which is the second most important Guild in shell- 2.2. Design of a matrix to collect information on fish landed volume and third most important in co-production and ES delivery shellfish landed value in Galicia and in Spain Second, we develop a matrix for collecting information (Pescadegalicia 2017). Seagrass meadows have river on shellfish harvesting and small-scale fishing in the Ulla estuary as a natural distribution area case study areas. We begin with information on the (Cacabelos et al. 2015) providing multiple regulat- target ES and non-natural capital inputs for each of the ing ES as habitat for fish, shellfish, and other inver- activities, based on regional fisheries databases and tebrates. In 2002, the Galician Atlantic Islands published literature. Afterwards, we analyze the con- Maritime-Terrestrial National Park was established nection between each harvesting activity and the tar- and integrated Cortegada and Malveiras islands geted marine ES, their benefits, and other additional (Figure 1). The major protected area is the terres- ES that may benefit coastal communities in the region. trial part of the main island, although there are We do this based on the co-authors’ experience con- intertidal and subtidal areas which are also pro- ducting long-term research and non-participant obser- tected, causing a major conflicted spatial overlap vation (Cooper et al. 2004) in these areas and the with shellfish activities, especially in the Malveiras existing evidence from the scientific literature and archipelago (Figure 1). The Guild specializes in two policy reports. The current and potential ecosystem types of shellfish – clams and cockles – which disservices that these activities may generate are also represent 99% of the total volume and value analyzed. Then we contrast the output and input of (1997–2015) of this Guild (Pescadegalicia 2017). In these activities in terms of marine ES and their co- the last 30 years, the Galician administration pro- production context characteristics, to assess the level of moted the professionalization of the shellfish har- co-production and the potential trade-offs among ES. vesting, particularly with women (Frangoudes et al. 2008). Generally, this has allowed to intensify the production of shellfish in areas where it is physi- 2.3. Comparison across case studies cally feasible, i.e., mainly intertidal areas and some Finally, we provide an exploratory analysis of co- shallow subtidal areas. This change coincided with a production with the key elements of each activity transformation of the property regime, from a de with an additional nominal scale of co-production facto open access to a TURF, and a change in the level. The case studies were ranked based on the governance regime, from top-down to co-manage- level of co-production, following Palomo et al. ment (Molares and Freire 2003; Macho et al. 2013). 38 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. 20°0'0"W 10°0'0"W 0°0'0" Galicia Portugal Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors, Sources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors 20°0'0"W 10°0'0"W 0°0'0" Kilometers Kilometers 02 1.25 .55 02 12.5 5 50 Minho river Ulla river Rianxo Cortegada Ria de Carril Arousa Douro river Malveiras Seagrass meadows Marine Protected Area 1c- Wild_Harvesting 2a-Beach Seine 1a-Intensive Semi-aquaculture Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the © OpenStreetMap contributors, and 2b-Octopus Pots 1b-Extensive Semi-aquaculture GIS user community the GIS user community Figure 1. Location of the case studies in Ría de Arousa (Galicia, NW Spain) and Northern Portugal. The figure of Northern Portugal was adapted from PRESPO (2012). Our analysis focuses on shellfish harvesting, in the 50 years at a time to harvest clams and cockles. These context of three different harvesting systems. concessions are awarded by the Regional Harvesters target mainly three species of clam, Government, Xunta de Galicia, and are de facto pri- namely pullet carpet shell (Venerupis pullastra), vate property during the time of the concession, grooved carpet shell (Ruditapes decussatus), and where the owner is fully able to take decisions regard- Japanese carpet shell (Ruditapes philipirarum), and ing the production, harvesting, and management of two species of cockles (Cerastoderma edule and the plots. Sizes of plots range substantially from less 2 2 Cerastoderma glaucum), by either men or women by than 30 m up to 5000 m . The total area managed foot, or only by men aboard small boats (<6 m under intensive semi-aquaculture is approximately length). Boats operating in this fishery use rakes 1km . This harvesting system has evolved substan- with a long pole, whereas individuals on foot use a tially since the first official awarding in 1950s. The shorter pole and sometimes diverse types of rakes. whole area is an intertidal ecosystem, and occupies a natural soft-sediment bed which is within the natural 184.108.40.206. Intensive semi-aquaculture (1a). In the distribution range of seagrass Zostera sp. between the intensive intertidal semi-aquaculture, harvesting is continent and the island of Cortegada (Figure 1). conducted in 2017 by 656 owners inside 1168 inter- With the economic development plans that fol- tidal plots (AGPPCC 2017), which are awarded for lowed the Spanish civil war in 1939, local people 40°0'0"N 40°0'0"N INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 39 proposed to fill the seabed progressively with sand to fluctuates substantial seasonally and inter-annually, have larger areas to cultivate clams and cockles, in from a maximum of 600 individuals to a minimum addition to blue mussels and oysters which had of 200 individuals (Parada et al. 2006) coming from already being harvested extensively with artificial all the Guilds of Ria de Arousa. As subtidal harvest- ing, it requires the use of a boat, where rakes are rocky gardening methods (Graells 1870). The results were positive and the activity generated economic deployed with a long pole. In this system, the benefits over time, which allowed them to invest in Regional Government, Xunta de Galicia, consults the head of the fishing Guilds for managing the more boats to fill deeper areas in the following dec- ades. Consequently, the removal of seagrass meadows resources. The management regime is operated was a needed task to facilitate harvesting but also to through an Extraction permit (in Galician ‘Permex’) and a system of daily individual quotas that also maximize yields. As the area became shallow, specia- lization on shellfish species was taking over, and in limits working hours per day. The area available for the 1970s, harvesting species other than clams was this management is nearly 6 km . This subtidal habi- residual. Currently, these beds may be labeled as tat is a natural seabed, and despite pressures from anthropogenic beds, as they are no longer part of Guilds for artificial regeneration with dredges, the the fluvial erosion-accretion natural process. habitat is still unmodified by humans. Management Harvesters need to fill at a recurrent interval to main- activities here are stock assessments, control, and tain optimal conditions for their cultured species. surveillance to establish a quota. 220.127.116.11. Extensive semi-aquaculture (1b). In the 3.1.2. Northern Portugal extensive semi-aquaculture, harvesting occurs in With one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zone of intertidal and subtidal areas and is undertaken by the European Union Member States, 1,700,000 km , 80 individuals on foot and 27 boats on floating with and a mainland coastline 942 km long, the fishing 47 individuals (Consellería do Mar 2017). The prop- industry is of particular importance to Portugal. The erty regime is substantially different from intensive country has always relied on fishing as a major means semi-aquaculture as it is managed based on a limited of subsistence, mainly for the coastal communities access rights, co-managed by the local Guild and the that depend almost exclusively on fisheries and Regional Government, Xunta de Galicia. The number related activities (OECD 2017). of permits to develop the shellfishery fluctuates Beach seine and octopus pots fisheries are devel- depending on annual demand of permits to enter oped in coastal waters of Northern Portuguese coast, the fishery; however, a maximum number of permits south and north of Porto, respectively (see Figure 1). is allowed based on the maximum production yield These fisheries are managed by a quota-based system defined each year. Shellfish harvest is regulated with collective decision-making, and regulated by the annually by a total number of kilograms per person Portuguese Ministry of the Sea (Table 1). These fish- per day. This quantity may be modified depending on eries mainly differ on the historical tradition (Cabral natural mortality and abundance, which the shell- 2000), and in their specialization due to gear fishers face. This is an interactive process of deci- selectivity. sion-making, first with the technical assistant of the Guild (namely, a biologist by training), and then with 18.104.22.168. Octopus pot ‘alcatruz’ (2a). The common the regional administration which is the final entity octopus (Octopus vulgaris) fishery is of substantial that approves the management plan (Macho et al. importance in southern Europe. In Portugal, the 2013). The total area available for harvesting in the octopus fishery has considerable social and economic extensive system 2 is around 1.5 km . The area occu- value, with small-scale fishing being increasingly eco- pied (Figure 1) overlaps with a natural soft-sediment nomically dependent on this resource. Since this type bed with patches of seagrass meadows especially of fishery in the European Union is excluded from important in the intertidal areas. The subtidal har- quota regulations under the Common Fisheries vesting area overlaps entirely with the Marine Policy, Portugal is responsible for managing its own Protected Area of the National Park, and semi-aqua- fishery (Pita et al. 2015). culture activities have a larger recurrent interval than The octopus pot (‘alcatruz’) fishery is prosecuted in the case of intertidal. throughout Portugal (Figure 1) and mainly targets common octopus. It has been used commercially 22.214.171.124. Wild harvesting (1c). In the wild harvesting since at least the fifteenth century (Godinho 1963) system, the area is located entirely in subtidal banks and uses sets of clay or plastic pots that are mechani- (Figure 1), with depths below 2 m. This area occupies cally hauled from the water. The costs associated with the main river sediment arms where the largest cur- this fishery are low compared with other gears com- rents occur, and thus no-spatial overlap with seagrass monly used to catch octopus, which results in a is observed (Figure 1). The number of shellfishers popular fishing gear among Portuguese octopus 40 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. fishers. Octopus catches have been increasing quickly over recent decades and are currently the most important commercial species in value in Portugal (Pita et al. 2015), thus sustaining and providing for many fishing communities. 126.96.36.199. Beach seine ‘xávega’ (2b). The beach seine (‘xávega’) fishery is operated out of small fishing com- munities mainly located in north-center Portugal (Figure 1). It is an old commercial fishery, which has been reported since the fifteenth century (Franca and Costa 1979; Martins et al. 2000), although some authors date back the use of similar nets in the Mediterranean as far back as 3000 B.C. (Cabral 2000). This fishery uses nets that are approximately 170 m long, with a central bag about 30 m long. The nets are rowed out into the surf on small vessels (3– 8 m long), leaving the end of the trailing rope on the shore. The net then encircles a targeted coastal shallow sandy area, and the leading rope is brought back to shore, where the net is then hauled by tractors and people. The main targeted species are small pelagic fish, such as sardine (Sardina pilchardus), horse mack- erel (Trachurus trachurus), mackerel (Scomber japoni- cus), anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), and sea bream (Diplodus spp). Due to the low selectivity of the fishing gear, this fishery can have high bycatch rates and result in a large quantity of discards (Cabral et al. 2003). The beach seine (‘xávega’) fishery is run by a specific type of fishers’ associations called ‘compan- has’ which are run according to agreed norms and rules to manage income, tasks, and fishing resources. According to the General Directorate of Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services follow-up report on Fishing with ‘xávega’ gear in Portugal, in 2013 there were 53 vessels using this gear, mostly in the north and central regions (Santos 2015). 4. Results To compare and analyze the case studies, we present Figure 2 that illustrates the position of each of them according to the expected level of co-production, in a gradient of natural and non-natural capital inputs, following Palomo et al. (2016). The harvesting system with the largest use of non-natural capital is the inten- sive intertidal semi-aquaculture, as it uses all the forms of non-natural capital, i.e., human, social, manufac- tured capital. The second most important activity using non-natural capital is the extensive semi-aqua- culture, which needs almost the same practices as intensive semi-aquaculture but at a lower intensity level, using all the forms of non-natural capital, except financial capital. The small-scale fishing systems pre- sent a decreasing level of reliance on non-natural capital but still using human, social, and manufactured capital. Wild harvesting is mostly reliant on natural Table 1. Management, property regime, and social-ecological characteristics of the Galician and Northern Portugal case studies. In the Portuguese case studies, the row ‘No. of fishing units’ refers to the number of vessels participating in the fishery, whereas for the Galician case study the data refer to number of individuals participating in the fishery (Data from Centro de Investigacións Mariñas, Xunta de Galicia). Galicia Northern Portugal 1b. Extensive semi-aqua. 1a. Intensive semi-aqua. (‘Autorizacións-Plans 1c. Wild harvesting (‘Libre Case study (‘Parques cultivo’) especificos’) marisqueo’) 2a. Octopus pots (‘Alcatruz’) 2b. Beach Seine (‘Xávega’) Ecosystem type Intertidal/estuary Intertidal and subtidal/estuary Subtidal estuary Coastal/marine Coastal/marine Property regime Concession to individuals/ User rights with quota Common quota based Common property rights/quotabased Common property rights/quotabased private Management Individual decision-making/ Collective decision-making Scientific-based decision- Collective decision-making Collective decision-making market driven with technical support making Management actors Owners Shellfishers, Guild biologist, Guilds and regional Ministry of the Sea; Directorate-General of Natural Ministry of the Sea; Directorate-General of Natural regional government government Resources, Maritime Services and Safety; Research Resources, Maritime Services and Safety; Research institutions; Fishers’ Associations institutions; Fishers’ Associations Management Surveillance Monitoring, control, and Monitoring, control, and Monitoring, control, and surveillance Monitoring, control, and surveillance activities surveillance surveillance Gears Rakes and hoes Hoes and rakes with short Rakes with long pole Pots Seine nets pole Total area (km ) 1 1.5 6 n/a n/a No. of fishing units 656 134 300 50 53 Gender Male and female Mainly females Only males Mainly males Mainly males INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 41 Non-natural capital SHELLFISH SSF SSF SHELLFISH SHELLFISH 1c 2a 2b WILD 1b 1a OCTOPUS POTS BEACH SEINE HARVESTING EXTENSIVE SEMI- INTENSIVE SEMI- ------- ------- ------- AQUACULTURE AQUACULTURE local ecological traditional ------- local ecological ------- knowledge, skills, knowledge, quota rearing and seeding, knowledge, skills, seeding, hatcheries, values, norms, MSY, barefoot based extraction values, norms, MPY, manual vessels, pots, fromboats ecologists, manual vessels, seine harvest, market storage facilities harvest, quotas nets, storage driven extraction driven extraction facilities Natural capital Figure 2. Gradient of marine ecosystem service co-production based on inputs of natural and non-natural capital in the Galician and Northern Portugal shellfish fisheries and small-scale fisheries (SSF) (based on Palomo et al. 2016). capital with the lowest level of co-production using reproduce this species to later exploit it in plots, mainly human and some sort of manufactured capital depending on how much seed plot owners decided with small boats and power engines. to purchase. Each year, owners of the concession plots buy a quantity of seed, in theory equivalent to their allotted production area. However, sometimes 4.1. Shellfisheries in Galicia (Spain) maximum seeding densities is surpassed. Although natural spawning is also occurring, owners who The three Galician shellfish harvesting systems target have been harvesting shellfish for the last couple of the same marine ES, i.e., seafood provisioning, as they decades have abandoned the idea of solely relying on are providing seafood as a benefit that is directly natural factors for the production process. The rela- consumed through commercial transaction. More tive proportion of manufactured versus naturally pro- importantly, in all three harvesting systems, shellfish duced seed varies among owners and depends on the is marketed and generates revenues for shellfishers by intensity of the production. However, between 30 and contributing to their livelihoods. The three systems 75% of the final production of a plot each year can be also generate cultural ES, such as cultural identity, linked to this co-production (AGPPCC 2017; Fisher community identity, sense of place, and tourism. pers. Comm.). The production not only depends on These cultural ES are understood as the relationships artificial seedlings, but also relies on plowing the and sense of belonging to a specific activity that seabed, cleaning with rakes the algae in summer, facilitates a differentiated way of life (Klain and and removing the natural sprouting of seagrass Chan 2012). Shellfish harvesting yields high valued which finds here its natural environment. fresh seafood (Molares and Freire 2003) for consu- Intensive semi-aquaculture plots are in an inter- mers that generates a rich and diverse gastronomic tidal area located in the right arm bank of the Ulla culture, which attracts national and international river, a natural area that was historically occupied by tourists to the region. seagrass meadows (Figure 1). Since the start of the There are also differences in co-production intensive production in 1940s, seagrass meadows between the harvesting systems (Table 2). A portion have been removed systematically by plot owners of its total production of the intensive intertidal semi- due to the difficulty of collecting clams covered with aquaculture depends on artificial seeding. It uses seagrass and silt, which normally is accumulated in intensive seeding from hatcheries of three species of seagrass meadows. Moreover, the plot owners claim clams: Pullet carpet shell (V. pullastra), Grooved car- that seagrass meadows are low production areas that pet shell (R. decussatus), and Japanese carpet shell (R. prevent target species to develop at the same rate as philipinarum). The latter is allochthonous and was in the ‘clean’ sandy areas. This co-production activity introduced in the early 1990s from hatcheries implies a different causality of trade-offs and risk of imported from Italy and France. R. philipinarum is ecosystem disservices. more resistant than other species to environmental In terms of trade-offs, the removal of seagrass shocks produced by anthropogenic pressures (e.g., involves the loss of habitat for fish and cephalopod dams, floodings, heatwaves, etc.) (e.g., Dominguez species (i.e., Sepia officinalis), which uses seagrass et al., 2016; Macho et al. 2016), and weight per meadows as spawning areas (Bas et al. 2015). Also, individual is higher than others. Cockle (C. edule the removal causes a potential loss on regulating ES, and C. glaucum) production here depends exclusively such as water flow, nutrient cycling, and food web on natural seeding and recruitment. structure (Orth et al. 2006) with a potential cascade The co-production process relies on a both man- effect on eutrophication process in estuaries (Patricio ufactured and human capital. Due to technology and and Marques, 2006). Other trade-offs involve the scientific advances, harvesters can massively 42 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. Table 2. Disaggregated non-natural capital use and co-production of marine ecosystem services and ecosystem disservices in the Galician and Northern Portugal case studies. Galicia Northern Portugal 1a. Intensive semi-aquaculture 1b. Extensive semi-aquaculture Case studies (‘parques cultivo’) (‘autorizacións-plans especificos’) 1c. Wild harvesting (‘libre marisqueo’) 2a. Octopus pots (‘alcatruz’) 2b. Beach seine (‘xávega’) Property regime Concession to individuals Territorial use rights Common pool resource Common pool resource Common pool resource Target species Bivalves (mainly clams and cockles) Bivalves (mainly clams and cockles) Bivalves (mainly clams and cockles) Common octopus (O. vulgaris) Pelagic fish Benefits Food, employment, identity, tourism Food, employment, identity, tourism Food, employment, identity, tourism Food, employment, income, identity, Food, employment, income, identity, social relations sense of belonging, symbolic, social relations, religious Human capital input LEK (local ecological knowledge) and LEK and skills, low-medium intensity LEK and skills LEK and skills LEK and skills skills, high intensity rearing, plowing, rearing, plowing, predators and predators and algae removal, manual algae removal, manual harvest and mechanical harvest Social capital Collective surveillance, minimum size Gear restriction, minimum size, quota Gear restriction, minimum size, quota Gear restriction, minimum size Gear restriction, minimum size based, collective surveillance based, collective surveillance Manufactured capital Boats and rakes For subtidal boats and long pole rakes Boats and rakes Vessels, pots Vessels, seine nets Financial capital Lease of plots, buy seed hatcheries, For buying seed and surveillance might May apply to buy the boat and might May apply to buy the boat May apply to buy the boat machinery be needed. For subtidal, may apply apply for surveillance to buy the boat Level of Co-production High-intensive Medium-extensive Low Medium Medium-high Co-production details Year round owners might be rearing The ratio of area/shellfishers is lower Skills and knowledge of shellfishers are Specific knowledge and skills are Specific knowledge and skills are the intertidal areas of their than in the intensive. Rearing and the most important human traits to needed to operate vessels and gears, needed to operate vessels and ownership to maximize the seeding are subjected to specific develop the service and obtain the and to know suitable areas to deploy gears, and to know suitable areas production of certain clam species. plans where a local biologist jointly benefit. Quantity and period of pots. Values and norms shared to deploy nets. Logistics on land to Seeding activities might be year with management authorities and extraction are subjected to quotas among fishers establish fishing limits pull the nets require a high number round, and the owner decides the shellfishers decide the amount and and specific plans which look after and/or compliance with rules which of workers and tractors. Fishers’ amount of seed and species based intensity of these human the economic and equity among all are pre-requisites for a long-term societies are run according to on experience. Period and amount of disturbances based on past stakeholders. exploitation of the resource. agreed norms and rules to manage extraction are subjected to individual experiences and technical advice. income, tasks, and fishing decision and might be year round, Quantity and period of extraction are resources. Fishers have a strong mainly regulated by market demand. subjected to quotas and specific sense of belonging to their plans which look after the economic community, and attribute symbolic and equity among all stakeholders. meanings and religious rituals to fishing activities. Ecosystem disservices Regulating, risk of pests Regulating, risk of pests Unknown Adverse climate/sea conditions; Adverse climate/sea conditions; predation of octopus by other spp.; predation of forage fish by other unsuitable water temperature and spp.; unsuitable water temperature salinity for octopus recruitment and salinity for fish recruitment INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 43 extensive semi-aquaculture and other semi-aquacul- availability of large quantities of dead seagrass stems, ture types is in the intensity of the seeding rate, and which float on the surface and cause physical distur- bance creating a barrier for sports/recreational users, the type and origin of the species. The other operations involved (e.g., rearing, plowing, such as recreation fishers or water sports. and cleaning) are substantially less intensive in time and Regarding ecosystem disservices, regulating ES might be affected by the risk of invasive species when space compared with intensive semi-aquaculture. Therefore, this activity might trigger or contribute to bringing seeds from hatcheries in other ecosystems, similar trade-offs and ecosystem disservices as which can come along with resistance viruses, bacteria, or allochtonous undesired species. This is especially explained above, but with lower intensity. In fact, peo- ple are harvesting a larger area, and the management relevant given a recent infestation in 2012–2014 in the actors are jointly involved with decision-makers. In cockle (C. edule) by the protozoan Marteilia cochillia with Marteiliosis (Villalba et al. 2014). The protozoan extensive semi-aquaculture, production is determined devastated C. edule production, negatively affecting by setting a maximum sustainable yield, and decided with collective harvesting quotas determined through 1500 families who directly depend on this resource. The exact entrance pathway of this parasite is still collaboration between existing social capital with input unknown, but one of the most plausible hypotheses is of local ecological knowledge of fishers. Despite these that the species was brought from hatcheries which are trade-offs between provisioning and regulating ES, dedicated to supply producers. Similar trade-offs were extensive semi-aquaculture individuals have recently found for crop systems between increasing provision ES created initiatives to diversify their income through in the short term and reducing the ability to cope with aquaculture tourism, which allows tourists to live the pest at the long run (Bonmarco et al., 2013). The pest experience of being harvesters for one day (LVG 2009). episode has direct links to the resilience of SES with Wild harvesting is perhaps the oldest activity per- trade-offs between provisioning and regulating ES that formed in this area. Before the co-management are compromising the ability of the system to cope regime adopted by the Galician Government in the economically with the pest outbreak. Moreover, it also 1990s, these areas were subjected to a de facto open- opens the discussion toward the inter-personal trade- access with no quotas or permits, where all interested offs which may be caused using seed from unknown individuals could develop extraction activities. Today, origin in semi-aquaculture, and the impacts received on these areas are the only areas managed mainly by the the wild harvesting fishers which could not harvest in Galician administration which elaborates annually a this area for two campaigns in 2013 and 2014 due to the stock assessment to set quotas and regulate effort lack of shellfish (LVG 2017). This episode triggered an (Parada et al. 2006). The co-production process increased artificial seeding rate on the semi-aquaculture involves less manufactured capital than the other areas in order to cope with the lack of cockles, but no two harvesting systems given that artificial seeding alternative other than closing was found for the wild is negligible. Therefore, this case does not involve the harvesting areas. risk of ecosystem disservices and trade-offs as shown Despite being initially conceived with the aim of in other two previous harvesting systems case studies wild harvesting with no artificial seeding, extensive (Table 3). This is also because the activities of plow- intertidal and subtidal semi-aquaculture has evolved ing, cleaning, and rearing are not yet implemented progressively in some practices toward intensive despite the claims by Guilds. The level of co-produc- semi-aquaculture. The main difference between tion is relatively lower compared to the other two Table 3. Ecosystem service trade-offs disaggregated per category and type for each of the co-production study case in Galicia and Northern Portugal. 1a. Intensive semi- 1b. Extensive semi- 1c. Wild 2a. Octopus 2b. Beach ES type ES categories aqua. aqua. harvesting pots Seine Provisioning Shellfish V V V –– Fish X X – VV Cultural Heritage and identity V V V V V Social capital – VV –– Social relations –– – VV Tourism V V –– X Recreation activities X X – XX Sense of place –– – – V Symbolic, spiritual, –– – – V religious Regulation Climate regulation X X –– X Water regulation X X –– X Genetic resources X X –– – Supporting Primary production X X –– – V: Ecosystem services co-produced; X: ES trade-offs; – : No detected effect. 44 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. 4.2. Beach seine and octopus pot fisheries harvesting systems. It is the closest harvesting system (Northern where the human intervention is negligible, co-pro- Portugal) duction is low, and synergies are more common than Fishers of the Northern Portuguese beach seine and trade-offs (Table 3). octopus pot fisheries are involved in the co-produc- As shown in other study cases in the agricultural tion of seafood provisioning, targeting benefits such context (Omer et al. 2010), the volume of production as nutrition, income, and employment (Table 2). Yet of the targeted ES, here clams and cockles, is also cultural ES such as cultural heritage and identity, dependent on the co-production gradient found in opportunities for social relations, symbolic services, these three harvesting systems. From the 1141 tons of spiritual, sacred and/or religious experiences, sense of shellfish officially landed in 2016, around 61% were place, and tourism are fundamental for the fishing landed by the intensive semi-aquaculture, 25% were communities that engage in these fisheries (Oliveira landed by the extensive semi-aquaculture, and almost et al. 2010; Santos 2015). For example, each of the a 13% were landed from the wild harvesting area beach seine ‘companhas,’ or fishers’ associations, has (Figure 3). This different order of magnitude in the its own symbolic and religious devotions (Santos production of these three systems has been a claim by 2015), which contribute to the co-production of cul- fishers (Parada et al. 2006). They use the intensive tural ES generated by the marine environment semi-aquaculture as an example of production effi- (Garcia Rodrigues et al. 2017). These associations ciency using only 1 km to obtain 61% of the total also foster the strengthening of sense of place, production of the Guild. Furthermore, shellfisheries belonging and social relations within the fishing from extensive semi-aquaculture had claimed over community. the last decade for progressively transforming wild In addition to natural capital, these fisheries harvesting areas toward an extensive semi-aquacul- strongly depend on non-natural capital, such as ture where more shellfishers could eventually join human, social, and manufactured capital to extract and sustain their livelihoods (LVG 2014). In terms food from the sea (Pereira 1999; Antunes 2007; of social equity, semi-aquaculture systems provide an Santos 2015). Human capital, such as local ecological example of differentiated co-production and social knowledge about the seasonal variability of fish/octo- equity especially due to the property regime. pus stock abundance, location of fishing grounds, and Intensive semi-aquaculture systems are individual skills to operate forms of manufactured capital, such property plots which can be transacted economically as fishing vessels and gears, are all pre-requisites for a between individuals or inherited from relatives. successful catch (Berkes et al. 2000). Social capital, in Despite that, before the 1990s, the plots were evenly the form of shared values and agreed norms, allows distributed among the local families providing their fishers to form and maintain social relations that livelihoods. Today, the concentration of large areas in ultimately enable a sustained provision of fish the hands of a small number of producers is happen- through local governance and management, and a ing slowly with the consequent income distributional fair distribution of food and income among the effect. In contrary, extensive semi-aquaculture has its community. property regime in public hands, and everyone may The forms of capital that enable the co-production apply for a right of harvest. However, the selection of food provision are shared by both fisheries. Yet the criteria for ultimately awarding harvest rights favors levels of co-production slightly differ from one fish- long term unemployed applicants and victims of ery to the other (Figure 2). The beach seine (‘xávega’) gender violence. Figure 3. Percentage of the total volume of landings by each of the harvesting shellfisheries systems in the Carril Guild (Galicia case study) in 2016. Source: Based on data from pescadegalicia.gal. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 45 fishery is arguably more capital-intensive than the octopus pot (‘alcatruz’) fishery because it requires a higher number of fishers per haul, more logistics on land, i.e., workers and tractors to pull the nets, and a higher number of workers to sort the catch (Pereira 1999; Antunes 2007). The octopus pot fishery does not require specific logistics on land to operate, and the pots used to catch octopus are highly selective, resulting in limited bycatch and a reduced workforce needed to sort the catch (Pereira 1999). Clear trade-offs exist with the increased use of manufactured capital by fisheries to increase seafood provision in the short-term. The presence of tractors, fishing gear, and vessels at coastal areas where the beach seine fishery operates may decrease the aes- Figure 4. Relationships between co-production level and thetic quality of beaches and seascapes to many trade-offs associated with marine ecosystem service and ben- recreational users and tourists (Table 3). Another efit provision for the Galician and Northern Portugal shellfish fisheries and small-scale fisheries (SSF). trade-off is related with the increasing use of plastic pots by the octopus fishery – instead of traditional clay pots – which can dramatically change seabed conditions, as lost plastic pots do not degrade easily Figure 4 shows the relative position of each of the and may negatively affect local habitats and species case studies that we explored in a two-way graph, during long periods of time (Sobrino et al. 2011). depicting the level of co-production and the ES Coastal recreational activities such as diving and trade-offs. For example, Galician intensive semi- snorkeling can also be negatively affected by the aquaculture shows the largest trade-offs which are increased use of fishing vessels, nets, and pots, as paired with a high use of human, manufactured, these activities usually compete for the same space and financial capital, which can affect the provision (Table 3). In addition, besides generating significant of habitat ES (e.g., nursery habitat area for squid or amounts of discards (Cabral et al. 2003), the interac- other species) and regulating ES (nutrient cycling). tion of seine nets with kelp forests and seagrass mea- Following the decreasing axis of co-production dows present in coastal shallow areas where the and trade-offs is the extensive semi-aquaculture, fishery operates can contribute to the degradation with similar interactions with the environment, but and destruction of these habitats and their important in a less intensive manner. However, this harvesting nursery ES. system is also associated with cultural ES and can provide important benefits from shellfish-based tour- ism. An order below in generating trade-offs and co- 5. Discussion production dependence are the two small-scale fish- To illustrate the relationships between non-natural eries from Northern Portugal. The beach seine fishery capital and marine ES, we presented three shellfish depends more on human capital and manufactured harvesting systems from Galicia (Spain) and two capital to obtain provisioning ES and potentially gen- small-scale fisheries from Northern Portugal that dif- erates more trade-offs between provisioning and reg- fer in co-production levels. By exploring in detail the ulating ES. The wild shellfish harvesting scores the different systems and types of marine ES co-produc- lowest level of co-production while a low level of tion, we were able to disentangle relationships that regulating ES trade-offs due to the low level of man- may help to understand the implications of non-nat- ufactured capital and the absence of human interven- ural capital in ES and benefit delivery (Figure 2). tion on adjacent river banks. All five case studies vary Although the case studies are small-scale fisheries at in an exponential fashion in the level of co-produc- a regional level, we believe that more intense levels of tion based on the capital inputs needed for service co-production may be related to greater ecosystem delivery. disservices and trade-offs (Figure 4). Size upscaling of More information would be needed to quantify the the intensive or extensive semi-aquaculture to larger level of co-production and ES delivery. Further research should be directed to shed light on the scale fleets and larger marine ecosystems might involve greater trade-offs, compromising the resili- links between co-production of ES and the conse- ence of marine SES at a larger scale, as reported in quent theoretical ecosystem disservices delivery. Empirical approaches such as interviews to key sta- salmon aquaculture (Outeiro and Villasante 2013), or reported from industrial fishing impacts on seagrass keholders will be helpful in the future to quantify these links and further understand the complex (Tanaka and Ota 2015). 46 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. critical change of societal values, institutional relationships illustrated in this paper. However, arrangements, and fishermen’s practices in the use applying cultural ES to the rationale of Figure 4 may change the picture completely. Future research of natural and non-natural capital (Villasante et al. 2017). Thus, identifying tipping points can be extre- should explore to what extent ES can be compro- mely useful to detect early signals of potential abrupt mised by co-production and how sustainable ES delivery can be assured. changes which also help to identify windows of opportunity to navigate into new resilient transi- The argument of low productivity level and exist- tions before tipping points are crossed (Villasante ing pressures used by local Guilds to justify changes in the shellfisheries banks leaves an open question: is and Österblom 2015). Despite the qualitative nature of this paper and for illustrative purposes, a likely this level of co-production necessary to enjoy provi- sign of a tipping point in the Galicia case study is sioning ES and benefits in the Anthropocene Era? From the Guilds’ leaders discourse seems to be neces- found when the shellfishing changed their reliance sary to intervene in the wild banks to have a produc- from dynamics alone sustaining their production toward a system where stakeholders systematically tion of shellfish that matches the levels required to satisfy local needs for income and employment (LVG perceived artificial seedling as a necessity to secure 2014). In fact, the two semi-aquaculture systems were annual production (AGPPCC 2017). The perception conceived initially as poly-culture – wild harvesting, of nature alone is unable to provide ES at the level of and they evolved in time toward being more reliant production demanded makes the system to enter in in non-natural capital with higher levels of human a ‘new state’ in which ecological processes such as intervention. Wild harvesting seems to be pushed regulating ES are depending not only on nature toward that state where natural soft-sediment banks variables, but also on social actions as artificial seed- are recurrently modified to maximize shellfish pro- ling with alochtonous species (i.e. Ruditapes duction with the consequent halting of dynamics. philippinarum). Other question this argument poses: Have the natural Provisioning co-production of ES is developed dynamics of the system, modified by decades of eco- under different property right regimes. Property nomic development, changed to a state that cannot be rights are exercised with a series of conditions, reliant on natural capital alone? Here, we propose a rules, instruments, and policies regarding access to, type of spatial trade-offs at the basin level (Howe use of, and control over natural resources and provi- et al. 2014; Rodriguez et al. 2006) to partially explain sioning ES (Schlager and Ostrom 1992). They are this question. The degree of human intervention in governed by different institutional regimes and the terrestrial area of this basin, land use change, authorities who are often overlapped and interacted deforestation jointly with recurrent wildfires, road under multiple scales (Ostrom 2010), for example infrastructures, and wastewater from settlements are regional governments and the EU Common key determinants to explain this question. Fisheries Policy. Property rights can be conceived as In addition, given that the interactions of marine a key instrument of governance to achieve societal ES over space and time may be linear or non-linear, goals such as economic development, resource con- understanding the role of non-natural capital and servation, and equity justice (Chomba and Nkhata marine ES could be extremely useful in order to 2016). Under specific property rights, managers and avoid unexpected thresholds and tipping points. users can make specific decisions and carry out Since crossing critical tipping points can lead to actions regarding a particular production of ES. For abrupt social transformations of marine social–ecolo- instance, in the case studies, intensive farmers and gical systems, a critical question emerges: Can we shellfishers in Galicia may have exclusive individual identify at what level of co-production do we trigger private rights to access and use the coastal area while ES trade-offs? The scientific community does not wild harvesting and industrial fishing have the ‘rights’ have a definitive answer and more research would to use the area and resources, but under public or be needed in this direction. common property regimes. Globally, property rights However, ignoring the role of tipping points in and co-production are following similar patterns as the co-production processes of marine ES may our study cases. In Chile where salmon aquaculture, increase the risk of unpredictable and potential shellfish gathering, and open shellfishing and fishing abrupt changes of marine socio-ecological systems. exist, the gradient of co-production increases from Considerable management efforts to reverse such open systems to TURF’s to aquaculture private con- changes are usually made, but most of them are cessions (Outeiro et al. 2015). In British Columbia very expensive since they are taken after the abrupt (Canada) too it is quite similar; however, in this changes have taken place (Villasante et al. 2017). In region the existence of highly priced individual fact, crossing undesirable tipping points has been licenses (i.e. giant clam) and the inexistence of also recently associated with large social transforma- TURF’s systems differ slightly the property regime tions of marine ES, which mean a fundamental and and co-production gradient (Pinkerton 2015). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 47 new trade-offs, especially between provisioning and Finally, further development for linking marine ES regulating ES. So, one question arises: What are the and co-production will also need to consider the drivers of change and the different actors related to limits of non-natural capital inputs in the co-pro- duction process? We believe that the co-production seafood production and provisioning operating at process is inherently facilitating the delivery of ES different scales. As pointed out by Rocha et al. (2014), this information will inform and promote but, at the same time, it can exacerbate the provi- sion of ecosystem disservices, potentiate unsustain- the development of more sustainable forms of man- able practices, and thus result in detrimental agement actions. environmental conditions. In a growing global sce- nario with policies directed to the provision of ES, 6. Final remarks special attention is needed to understand and address the implications of co-production to the We have depicted the relationships and trade-offs system, going further from the ES approach. between provisioning, regulating, cultural, and sup- This work with its historical and spatial perspec- porting ES that are co-produced in the marine envir- tive addressed some interesting messages toward the onment. Current science and policy is discussing the policy arena. Evidence from this paper shows that the implications of non-natural capital in the production intensity of co-production (i.e. artificial seedling) is and delivery of ES. The degree to which co-produc- already incorporated in fishers, shellfishers, and local- tion sustains desirable ES flows, produces ES trade- regional authorities reliance for production and thus offs, and can be regulated by different property to achieve decent livelihoods. The intensity of non- regimes are highly relevant questions that are natural capital used in the co-production of ES has addressed here in order to fill this gap. We contribute been increasing in all case studies steadily from the to the state of the art by exploring these relationships last 25 years. This has important trade-offs not only empirically, for the case of Galician shellfisheries and on regulating but also the biodiversity and conserva- Northern Portuguese beach seine (‘xávega’) and octo- tion management plans in time of climate and global pus pot (‘alcatruz’) small-scale fisheries, where infor- change. Specially relevant in the context of the EU-27 mation exists about the pathways to co-produce Marine Strategy Framework Directive where the marine ES. objectives to achieve an ecosystem approach in mar- The analysis presented here contributes to existing ine ecosystems seem to find an opposed view local research gaps on understanding the relationship and regional authorities which are actually progres- between different marine ES and co-production sing in the contrary way. Eventually in terms of levels. Our main conclusion is that while the relation- policy, we are in a ‘policy train crash,’ local regional ship can be linear for some ES (e.g., provisioning), it policy going in one direction, and another supra may not be the case for others (e.g., cultural ES). We national level in the opposite direction. Thus, an also find that management practices may have a very effective supra national level policy should take into important role in the set of the co-production of ES. account this type of micro realities and specificities if Future research can illustrate these relationships in that policy does want to make a smooth and effective different ES and case studies and contrast the level of socio-economic transformation of marine socio-eco- ES and co-production with stakeholder preference logical systems management toward ecosystem analysis and sustainability assessments in order to approach. inform policymaking. These five cases constitute an example of the transition from wild reliant harvesting where the Note process of production relies mainly on natural capi- tal, toward aquaculture production systems which 1. Semi-aquaculture or cultured-based fisheries is the release of hatchery-reared animals into the wild for are called to be the new paradigm of seafood pro- capturing fisheries enhancement, being aquaculture- duction (Molares and Freire 2003). In thecaseof driven (Ottolenghi et al. 2004). Galicia, when the wild harvesting is not yielding accordingly to stakeholders or is not in good shape in terms of economic yielding, communities Acknowledgments and authorities found co-produced semi-aquacul- ture harvesting as the solution along with individual LO acknowledges the ﬁnancial support from Xunta de Galicia I2C program through the Postdoctoral Project and sometimes private property regimes. In ED481B 2014/051-0. EO acknowledges funding from EU Northern Portugal, a likely next step would imply H2020 ERC Starting Grant project CLOCK (grant 679812) an eventual setting up of octopus aquaculture and Xunta de Galicia (Axuda complementaria aos benefi- (Iglesias et al. 2004; Vaz-Pires et al. 2004)or fish ciarios do programa StG do Consello Europeo de aquaculture (Matos et al. 2006;Santosetal. 2006). Investigación). CP would also like to acknowledge FCT/ A higher input of non-natural capital may create MEC national funds and FEDER co-funding, within the 48 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG. 2013. Ecological intensi- PT2020 partnership Agreement and Compete2020, for the fication: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. ﬁnancial support to CESAM (Grant No. UID/AMB/50017/ Trends Ecol Evol. 28(4):230–238. 2013). EC acknowledges the European Investment Funds Cabral H, Duque J, Costa MJ. 2003. Discards of the beach by FEDER/COMPETE/POCI, under Project POCI-01- seine fishery in the central coast of Portugal. Fish Res. 63 0145-FEDER-006958 and National Funds by FCT, under (1):63–71. the project UID/AGR/04033/2013, for the ﬁnancial support Cabral HN. 2000. A pesca com arte de xávega na frente to CITAB. SV, GM, and CP acknowledge the financial Atlântica do Concelho de Almada. Lisboa: Instituto de support from the ICES Science Fund project ‘Social trans- Oceanografia. formations of marine social-ecological systems’. This paper Cacabelos E, Quintas P, Troncoso J, Sanchez J, Amigo J, is an outcome of the ICES Working Group Resilience and Romero I, Garcia V, Cremades I, Cremades B. 2015. Marine Ecosystem Services (WGRMES) meeting held in Capítulo VIII. Galicia. In: Ruiz JM, Guillén JE, Ramos Porto (Portugal) in June 2016. YJL acknowledges the Segura A, Otero MM, editors. Atlas de las praderas Norwegian Research Council for partial funding through marinas de España. Spain Instituto Español de REGIMES project (project # 261809). Oceanografía, Instituto de Ecología Litoral, International Union for Conservation of Nature. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries Disclosure statement RS, Díaz S, . . . Perrings C. 2009. Science for managing No potential conflict of interest was reported by the ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem authors. Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 106(5):1305–1312. Chomba MJ, Nkhata BA. 2016. Property rights and benefit sharing: a case study of the Barotse floodplain of Funding Zambia. Int J Commons. 10(1):158–175. Church A, Burgess J, Ravenscroft N. 2011. Cultural services. LO acknowledges the ﬁnancial support from Xunta de UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. Galicia I2C program through the Postdoctoral Project UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, pp. 633–690, Chapter 16. ED481B 2014/051-0. EO acknowledges funding from EU Consellería do Mar. 2017. [Internet] Plan de explotación de H2020 ERC Starting Grant project CLOCK (grant 679812) Moluscos Bivalvos. Confraría de Carril. Conselleria do and Xunta de Galicia (Axuda complementaria aos benefi- Mar. Xunta de Galicia. [accessed 2017 Apr 26] http:// ciarios do programa StG do Consello Europeo de www.pescadegalicia.gal/PlanesExp/index.htm. Investigación). CP would also like to acknowledge FCT/ Cooper J, Lewis R, Urquhart C. 2004. Using participant or MEC national funds and FEDER co-funding, within the non-participant observation to explain information PT2020 partnership Agreement and Compete2020, for the behaviour. Inf Res. 9(4):9. ﬁnancial support to CESAM (Grant No. UID/AMB/50017/ Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, 2013). EC acknowledges the European Investment Funds . . . Bartuska A. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework by FEDER/COMPETE/POCI, under Project POCI-01- —connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ 0145-FEDER-006958 and National Funds by FCT, under Sustainability. 14:1–16. the project UID/AGR/04033/2013, for the ﬁnancial support Domínguez R, Olabarria C, Macho G, Peteiro LG, Woodin to CITAB. SV, GM, and CP acknowledge the financial SS, Wethey DS, Vázquez E. 2016. Effects of low salinity support from the ICES Science Fund project ‘Social trans- on the physiological and behavioural responses of four formations of marine social-ecological systems’. major intertidal bivalves. Campus do Mar International Science Conference 2016; 2016 Nov 17–18; Vila Real (Portugal). ORCID Emery M, Flora C. 2006. Spiraling-up: mapping commu- nity transformation with community capitals frame- Luis Outeiro http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6536-2158 work. Community Dev. 37(1):19–35. Fischer A, Eastwood A. 2016. Coproduction of ecosystem services as human–nature interactions—an analytical References framework. Land Use Policy. 52:41–50. Franca MLP, Costa FC. 1979. Nota sobre as xávegas da Abbott A. 1995. Sequence analysis: new methods for old Costa da Caparica e Fonte da Telha. Boletim (Do) ideas. Annu Rev Sociol. 21(1):93–113. Instituto Nacional De Investigação Das Pescas. 1:37–69. [AGPPCC] Agrupación de Productores de Parques de Cultivo Frangoudes K, Marugán-Pintos B, Pascual-Fernández JJ. de Carril. 2017. [Internet] Agrupación de Productores de 2008. From open access to co-governance and conserva- Parques de Cultivo de Carril, Quienes Somos [accessed tion: the case of women shellfish collectors in Galicia 2017 Mar 05]. http://agrupocarril.blogia.com/. (Spain). Marine Policy. 32(2):223–232. Antunes M. 2007. Caracterização da pesca com arte de Garcia Rodrigues J, Conides A, Rivero Rodriguez S, xávega na zona costeira adjacente ao estuário do Tejo. Raicevich S, Pita P, Kleisner K, Pita C, Lopes P, Alonso [master's thesis]. Universidade de Lisboa. p. 54. Roldán V, Ramos S, et al. 2017. Marine and coastal [accessed 2017 April 12]. http://repositorio.ul.pt/han cultural ecosystem services: knowledge gaps and dle/10451/1191 research priorities. One Ecosystem. 2:e12290. Bas L, Souza-Troncoso J, Villasante S. 2015. Towards adap- Godinho VM. 1963. Os descobrimentos e a economia tive management of the natural capital: disentangling mundial. Vol. 2. Lisboa: Editora Arcádia. trade-offs among marine activities and seagrass mea- Graells M. 1870. Exploración científica de las costas del dows. Mar Pollut Bull. 101(1):29–38. departamento marítimo del Ferrol, verificada de orden Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Rediscovery of tradi- del Almirantazgo en el verano de 1869. Madrid: Est. tional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Tipográfico de T. Fortanet. Ecol Appl. 10(5):1251–1262. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 49 Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily Ojea E, Pearlman I, Gaines SD, Lester SE. 2016. Fisheries GC,Griffin R, ...Feldman MW. 2015. Natural capital and regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change. ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to Ambio. 46(4):399–412. practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 112(24):7348–7355. Oliveira SA, Oliveira IB, Ferreira MMD. 2010.A Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM. 2014. Creating win- Comunidade Piscatória de Vila Chã (Vila do Conde) – wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human cultura e Desenvolvimento in XII Colóquio Ibérico de well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade- Geografia. Porto: Faculdade de Letras (Universidade do offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Porto). ISBN 978-972-99436-5-2 (APG); 978-972-8932- Change. 28:263–275. 92-3 (UP-FL). [accessed 2017 April 12]. http://web. Iglesias J, Otero JJ, Moxica C, Fuentes L, Sánchez FJ. 2004. letras.up.pt/xiicig/comunicacoes/63.pdf The completed life cycle of the octopus (Octopus vul- Omer A, Pascual U, Russell N. 2010. A theoretical model of garis, Cuvier) under culture conditions: paralarval rear- agrobiodiversity as a supporting service for sustainable ing using Artemia and zoeae, and first data on juvenile agricultural intensification. Ecol Econ. 69(10):1926– growth up to 8 months of age. Aquaculture Int. 12 1933. (4):481–487. Orth RJ, Carruthers TJ, Dennison WC, Duarte CM, Klain SC, Chan KMA. 2012. Navigating coastal values: Fourqurean J, Heck KL, Highes AR, Kendrick GA, participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial Kenworthy WJ, Olyarnik S, et al. 2006. A global crisis planning. Ecological Econ. 82:104–113. for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience. 56(12):987–996. Leslie HM, Basurto X, Nenadovic M, Sievanen L, Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sus- Cavanaugh KC, Cota-Nieto JJ, Erisman BE, Finkbeiner tainability of social-ecological systems. Science. 325 E, Hinojosa-Arango G, Moreno-Báez M, et al. 2015. (5939):419–422. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems frame- Ostrom E. 2010. Beyond markets and states: polycentric work to assess sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 112 governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ (19):5979–5984. Rev. 100(3):641–672. [LVG] La Voz de Galicia. 2009. [Internet] Una lección Ottolenghi F, Silvestri C, Giordano P, Lovatelli A, New práctica de marisqueo. [accessed 2009 Aug 8]. http:// MB. 2004. Capture-based aquaculture: the fattening www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/arousa/2009/08/06/lec of eels, groupers, tunas and yellowtails. Rome: FAO; cion-practica-marisqueo/0003_7891130.htm. p. 308. [LVG] La Voz de Galicia. 2014. [Internet] El marisqueo se Outeiro L, Gajardo C, Oyarzo H, Ther F, Cornejo P, enfanga en Carril. [accessed 2014 Feb 23]. http://www. Villasante S, Ventine LB. 2015. Framing local ecological lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/arousa/2014/02/23/marisqueo- knowledge to value marine ecosystem services for the enfanga-carril/0003_201402A23C2991.htm. customary sea tenure of aboriginal communities in [LVG] La Voz de Galicia. 2017. [Internet] El libre maris- southern Chile. Ecosystem Serv. 16:354–364. queo cerró la mejor campaña del último lustro con 503 Outeiro L, Villasante S. 2013. Linking salmon aquaculture toneladas extraídas [accessed 2017 Apr 1]. http://www. synergies and trade-offs on ecosystem services to human lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/barbanza/2017/04/01/libre-mar wellbeing constituents. Ambio. 42(8):1022–1036. isqueo-cerro-mejor-campana-ultimo-lustro-503-tonela Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, das-extraidas/0003_201704B1C3991.htm. Pascual U. 2016. Disentangling the pathways and effects [MA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. of ecosystem service co-production. Advances in ecologi- Ecosystems and their services. In: Ecosystems and cal research. In: Woodward G, Bohan D, editors. human well-being: a framework for assessment. Ecosystem services: from biodiversity to society, Part 2. Washington (DC): Island Press; p. 49–70. Advances in ecological research (Vol. 54). Amsterdam: Macho G, Naya I, Freire J, Villasante S, Molares J. 2013. Elsevier; p. 245–283. The key role of the barefoot fisheries advisors in the co- Parada JM, Molares J, Sánchez-Mata A, Martínez G, managed TURF system of Galicia (NW Spain). Ambio. Darriba C, Mariño J. 2006. Plan de actuación para la 42:1057–1069. recuperación del banco “Lombos do Ulla”: campañas Macho G, Woodin SA, Wethey DS, Vázquez E. 2016. marisqueras desde 2002 a 2005. Revista Galega dos Impacts of sublethal and lethal high temperatures on Recursos Mariños. 1:1–37. clams exploited in European fisheries. J Shellfish Res. Partelow S. 2015.CoevolvingOstrom’ssocial–ecological 35(2):405–419. systems (SES) framework and sustainability science: Martins R, Carneiro M, Rebordão F, Sobral M. 2000. A pesca four key co-benefits. Sustainability Sci. 11(3):399– com arte de xávega. Relatórios Científicos Técnicos do 410. Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar. 48:32. Partelow S, Winkler K. 2016. Interlinking ecosystem ser- Matos J, Costa S, Rodrigues A, Pereira R, Pinto IS. 2006. vices and Ostrom’s framework through orientation in Experimental integrated aquaculture of fish and red sea- sustainability research. Ecol Soc. 21:3. weeds in northern Portugal. Aquaculture. 252(1):31–42. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke Molares J, Freire J. 2003. Development and perspectives for M, Watson RT, Dessane EB, Islar M, Kelemen E, et al. community-based management of the goose barnacle 2017. Valuing nature’s contribution to people: the IPBES (Pollicipes pollicipes) fisheries in Galicia (NW Spain). approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 26:7–16. Fish Res. 65(1):485–492. Patrício J, Marques JC. 2006. Mass balanced models of the [OEDC] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and food web in three areas along a gradient of eutrophica- Development. 2017. [Internet]. Country note on tion symptoms in the south arm of the Mondego estuary national fisheries management systems –Portugal. (Portugal). Ecol Modell. 197(1):21–34. [accessed 2017 Apr 30] https://www.oecd.org/portugal/ Pereira JMF. 1999. Control of the Portuguese artisanal 34431028.pdf. octopus fishery. In: Nolan CP (editors), Proceedings of 50 L. OUTEIRO ET AL. the International Conference on Integrated Fisheries Schlager E, Ostrom E. 1992. Property-rights regimes and Monitoring; 1999 Feb 15; Sydney (Australia), Rome: natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land FAO, pp. 369–378. Economics. 249-262. Pescadegalicia. 2017. [Internet] Statistics [cited 2017 Apr] Sobrino I, Juarez A, Rey J, Romero Z, Baro J. 2011. http://www.pescadegalicia.gal/estadisticas/. Description of the clay pot fishery in the Gulf of Cadiz Pinkerton E. 2015. The role of moral economy in two (SW Spain) for Octopus vulgaris: selectivity and exploi- British Columbia fisheries: confronting neoliberal poli- tation pattern. Fish Res. 108(2):283–290. cies. Marine Policy. 61:410–419. Surís-Regueiro JC, Santiago JL. 2014. Characterization of Pita C, Pereira J, Lourenco S, Sonderblohm C, Pierce GJ. fisheries dependence in Galicia (Spain). Marine Policy. 2015. The traditional small-scale octopus fishery in 47:99–109. Portugal: framing its governability. In: Jentoft S, Tanaka T, Ota Y. 2015. Reviving the Seto Inland Sea, Japan: Chuenpagdee R, editors. Interactive Governance for applying the principles of Satoumi for marine ranching Small-Scale Fisheries: Global Reflections. p. 117–132. project in Okayama. In: Marine productivity: perturba- New York: Springer International Publishing. tions and resilience of socio-ecosystems. Switzerland: Polasky S, Tallis H, Reyers B. 2015. Setting the bar: stan- Springer International Publishing; p. 291–294. dards for ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 112 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 2010. The (24):7356–7361. economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstream- PRESPO. 2012. Pequena pesca na costa continental portu- ing the economics of nature. A Synthesis of the guesa: caracterização sócio económica, descrição da acti- Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of vidade e identificação de problemas. Gaspar MB, editor. TEEB. [accessed 2017 April 12]. http://wedocs.unep. Projecto PRESPO, Instituto Português do Mar e da org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/20120/TEEB_ Atmosfera. Synthesis_Report_2010.pdf?sequence=1 Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK AP, Polasky S. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of the key services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC. Environ. 11(5):268–273. Vaz-Pires P, Seixas P, Barbosa A. 2004. Aquaculture poten- Rocha J, Yletyinen J, Biggs R, Blenckner T, Peterson G. tial of the common octopus (Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 2014. Marine regime shift and impacts on ecosystem 1797): a review. Aquaculture. 238(1):221–238. services. Philosophical Transactions B., Royal Society, VillalbaA,IglesiasD,RamiloA, Darriba S, Parada JM,NoE, London. 370:20130273. Abollo E, Molares J, Carballal MJ. 2014.Cockle Rodríguez JP, Beard Jr TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cerastoderma edule fishery collapse in the Ría de Arousa Cork SJ, Agard J, Dobson AP, Peterson GD. 2006. (Galicia, NW Spain) associated with the protistan parasite Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Marteiliacochillia. Dis Aquat Organ. 109:55–80. Ecology and Society. 11(1):28. Villasante S, Guyader O, Pita C, Frangoudes K, Macho M, Santos BMP. 2015. Arte A Xávega em Espinho: Notas para Moreno A, Pierce G, Santos B, Garcia B, Thébaud O. Compreensão da Arte Xávega como Património 2017. Social transformations of marine social-ecological Imaterial [master's thesis]. Universidade de Coimbra. p. systems, ICES Science Fund Report, Denmark, 16 p. 86. [accessed 2017 April 12]. https://estudogeral.sib.uc. Villasante S, Lopes P, Coll M. 2016.The role of marine ecosys- pt/jspui/handle/10316/29739 tem services for human well-being: disentangling synergies Santos MN, Lino PG, Pousão-Ferreira P, Monteiro CC. and trade-offs at multiple scales. Ecosystem Serv. 17:1–4. 2006. Preliminary results of hatchery-reared seabreams Villasante S, Österblom H. 2015. The role of cooperation released at artificial reefs off the Algarve coast (southern for improved stewardship of marine social-ecological Portugal): a pilot study. Bull Marine Sci. 78(1):177–184. systems in Latin America. Ecol Soc. 20(1):8.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis
Published: Nov 29, 2017
Keywords: Marine ecosystem services; co-production; small-scale fisheries; shellfisheries; social-ecological systems; natural capital; non-natural capital
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.