Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Ecological Economics
journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
Following the Fish: The Role of Subsistence in a Fish-based Value Chain
Ana Helena V. Bevilacqua
a,⁎, Ronaldo Angelini
b, Jeroen Steenbeek
c, Villy Christensen
d,
Adriana R. Carvalho
aaFishing Ecology, Management and Economics, Department of Ecology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil bCivil Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil
cEcopath International Initiative Research Association, Barcelona, Spain
dInstitute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords: Small-scalefisheries Value chain analyses Local consumers Tourism Intake value Landed value
A B S T R A C T
This study evaluated the socioeconomic benefits generated by the small-scale fisheries sector based on a socio-economic modeling approach using the value chain plugin in the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software system. Based on an EwE ecosystem model for the Baía Formosa area in Rio Grande do Norte State (Northeast Brazil), a value chain with 14 components was described, including four producers (divided by vessel size categories: sailboat, small, medium, and large engine boat), four processors and distributors, two retailers (in two cate-gories, street markets and restaurants), and three different final consumers (local consumers, subsistence, and tourism). The data was obtained through face-to-face interviews (n = 154) performed between February and November 2014 using the snowball method and tracking thefish around nearby cities. The total revenue from the primary producers (i.e.fishers) was estimated to be US$11 million in 2014. All sectors (including sellers and retailers) encompassed about US$ 44.5 million per year, contributing around US$ 16 million to the GDP. Overall, the price per ton increased three times from it was landed, while employment generation on land was twice that found at sea. Local consumers obtained roughly 66% of production, while subsistencefishers consumed 28% of what was caught. The lowest portion went to tourist consumption (6%). Fish productionflowed to local markets andfishers' tables, revealing a clear bias toward the consumption of seafood by local dwellers and the sub-sistence of localfishers. Few studies have quantified the role of small-scale fishing in providing household income, job creation, and contribution to the GDP. By neglecting such economic and social reliance on natural resource conservation and under the current lack of conservation policies, not only may overfishing become a threat tofishers, but policy makers, managers, and users may inadvertently compromise the continuation of the activity.
1. Introduction
Small-scalefisheries supply around 50% of all global fish catches and are responsible for 90% of the employment in thefisheries sector, which represents nearly 10 million people worldwide in the harvest and post-harvest sectors (Teh et al., 2011). The small-scalefishery and its seafood systems offer an array of economic, environmental, and social benefits, but their impact, positive or negative, is generally poorly documented (McClenachan et al., 2016).
The benefits of small-scale fisheries may be made clearer through an investigation of how seafood moves from the sea to thefinal consumers (Kittinger et al., 2015). Thisfish-food system, i.e., its supply chain, is a concept that refers to both the geographical distance between food suppliers (producers) and consumers (Christensen et al., 2014) and the
integrated network wherein raw materials are manufactured intofinal products to be delivered to customers (via distribution, retail, or both). In addition, the value chain describes a high-level model of howfishery businesses receive raw materials as input (i.e.fish caught), add value through various processes, and sellfinished products to customers in the marketplace (Ovando et al., 2016;Avadí et al., 2014).
Another fundamental issue of a value chain assessment is the food security of local communities, which could conflict with other trades, such as tourism. Fisheries are often sources of healthy and sustainable local food, supporting many of the values and goals embraced by the local food movement, including conservation (Cinner and Aswani, 2007).
Value chain assessment is a key method for understanding the seafood supply network (Olson et al., 2014). The processes, markets,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.004
Received 3 July 2017; Received in revised form 29 January 2019; Accepted 5 February 2019
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail address:[email protected](A.H.V. Bevilacqua).
0921-8009/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
and actors involved, as well as modeling approaches, are gaining in-creasing attention in fisheries (Thyresson et al., 2013). Specifically, modeling approaches have been refined in recent decades to under-stand the flow of material across the market supply, as well as to identify and compare the network's properties, strengths, and weak-nesses (Plagányi et al., 2014). Although the supply chain analysis and modeling of agri-food systems is quite common in research, fishery-related modeling research has historically focused on population dy-namics and ecological modeling, neglecting seafood supply chains and their socio-economic aspects (Olson et al., 2014).
Aiming to overcome this lack of information, the widely-applied modeling software Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) has recently added the capability to track theflow of fish products from the point of harvest to the end consumer, thus giving equal emphasis to both ecosystem and economic modeling (Christensen, 2013). The value chain plug-in was not designed to quantify connectivity and resilience attributes (Plagányi et al., 2014); it relies on an ecological model to assess the economics of a seafood network and to evaluate the trade-offs between different fisheries, cross-linkages, and important components, which may better inform the management of thefisheries (Christensen, 2013). In terms of management, the EwE value chain allows the appraisal of the effect that any interventions (e.g., quota or area closures) may have on the ecosystem, the economy, and the social setting, and on food availability for the consumer. This, however, is the second step of the analysis; in this publication, we focus on developing, parameterizing, and describing a detailed case study, while the management aspects will follow in a subsequent study.
Using an existing EwE ecosystem model (Bevilacqua et al., 2016), we applied the value chain approach to a small-scalefishery, aiming to disclose the economic and social benefits delivered by the local fish-value network. Our overarching goal was to test the assumption of an even production value throughout the chain, and whether the local fishery plays a major socioeconomic role in food security and income generation at the local level. Furthermore, we provide a discussion linking the raw economic values to the need for fish resource con-servation as a way to sustain theflow of seafood and its derived benefits into thefishery-dependent communities and markets in the study area. 2. Methods
2.1. The Modeled Fishing Area
Althoughfisheries in Brazil contribute less than 0.4% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), they employ approximately 800,000 people, and around 4 million people depend on this activity indirectly (Brasil, 2006). Rio Grande do Norte State, as is common in Brazil, has no monitoring and fishing statistics, and the coastal communities have little involvement in the management process. Territoriality is non-ex-istent in common-use areas, and there is no enforcement to restrict fishing practices in marine protected areas (MPAs). Management stra-tegies involve closed seasons for some species and minimum catch sizes. The study area included a small-scale-fishery-dependent community in Baía Formosa Town, which fishes on the continental shelf on the Northeast coast of Brazil (Fig. 1). The small-scale fishery in the Rio Grande do Norte State lands around 11,500 tons per year, distributed over 95 coastal communities and providing direct employment for 12,300 activefishers (Brasil, 2006). Thefishing fleets (total 4700 ves-sels) operating in this State include sail or paddle powered (80%), motorized (18.5%), and industrial (1.5% of the total vessels; Brasil, 2006).
Baía Formosa catches correspond to approximately 75% of the total fish production in the State. The catch is made almost exclusively by small-scalefishers, using local and family labor with low-tech methods, in areas near the coastal zone. This area was chosen as a case study because of the relatively controlled access to fishing areas and the mostly centralized landings. In addition, this area is an important
tourism hub in the State, with Pipa beach in Tibau do Sul nearby along with two other towns—Goianinha and Canguaretama—and a little further to the north, the State Capital, Natal City (Fig. 1).
Handlines and gillnets are the most common equipment in the study area. However,fishers also use traps, trawling, and diving to catch fish and invertebrates. Thefishing fleets that operate in the area (500 boats) include sail or paddle powered (about 25% of the total number of boats), small motorized boats (less than 5 m, about 10%), medium size motorized boats (5 to 8.9 m, about 50%), and large motorized vessels (more than 10 m, about 15% of total;Lessa et al., 2004;de Melo Alves Damasio et al., 2016).
The major species in the official landing statistics in the Rio Grande do Norte include tuna and tuna-like species (Thunnus atlanticus and Euthynnus alletteratus), mackerels (Scomberomorus brasiliensis and Scomberomorus cavalla), grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), and snappers (Lutjanus analis and L. jocu). Invertebrate catches are also economically important, such as octopus (Octopus insularis), lobster (Panulirus argus and P. laevicauda), and various shrimp species (Litopenaeus schmitti, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri and Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis;Lessa et al., 2004). 2.2. Food Web Model
This study was based on a trophic food web model (Bevilacqua et al., 2016) previously constructed using the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software (Christensen and Pauly, 1992). Ecopath, the mass-bal-ance part of the EwE modeling framework, is built on a system of linear equations to describe the averageflow of mass and energy between a series of functional groups that represent the organisms inhabiting an ecosystem during a specific period of time (Christensen and Walters, 2004).
The Baía Formosa's food web model has 25 components, with 18 fish groups (including 10 target fish species caught by fishers, see above), four invertebrate groups (including cephalopods), two primary producers, and one detritus group (Fig. 2). The mean trophic level of the catch was 2.88, and the estimated ecosystem attributes showed that the food web has high resilience (for more details, seeBevilacqua et al., 2016). The landing data for this ecosystem modeling were provided by official governmental fishery monitoring from 2001 to 2011 (IBAMA, unpublished data) and included production from commercial small-scalefishers in four locations in the State, including Baía Formosa. The catch data did not included discards or recreational and illegalfishing. However, these activities are scarce in this region, according to inter-views with localfishers.
2.3. Data Sampling for Populating the Value Chain
The supply chain was designed based on information recorded though interviews using a structured questionnaire. The interview process started withfishers (the producers), who described how the fish would pass through possible distributors, processing, retailers, and on to the end consumers. During this process, the respondents also sup-plied information on caught species, the amount of tradedfish, and its value through the chain. Representatives from each component of the fisheries sector were approached between February and November 2014 in Praia do Porto in Baía Formosa and in three other main sur-rounding towns (Canguaretama, Goianinha, and Tibau do Sul, in-cluding Pipa Beach). This was not an exhaustive sample, but it allowed the identification of all enterprises operating in the region and provided economic estimates of production (such as revenue and cost), as well as recording the employment created at each segment of the value chain in the small-scalefishing sector.
2.4. Value Chain Components and Parameters
The value chain module, recently added to the EwE modeling fra-mework, describes theflow of seafood from an ecosystem through the
various enterprises of thefisheries sector from producers until the end consumers (Christensen et al., 2011). In a broad sense, a value chain provides a thorough understanding of theflow of value added to goods and services through all components of the supply chain (Christensen et al., 2014).
Beyond quantifying theflow of fish, the value chain module also calculates the contribution offishery activities to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by evaluating theflow of earnings to each enterprise type in thefisheries sector. The GDP is described by the sum of the total cost of compensations, the gross operating profit, the total taxes, and the cost for management, royalties, certification, and monitoring after deducting the income from subsidies (Christensen et al., 2014). In the fishing area assessed here, the chain required data collection on six enterprise types and parameters described below.
2.4.1. Producers
Thefishers provided information on production quantity, price, and the technology used, as well as the number of people directly employed. The data were obtained using interviews randomly conducted in Praia do Porto (the only landing place in the community) using the snowball sampling method (Goodman, 1961). In this segment of the chain, the fishing fleets were split in four categories based on the propulsion system used and boat size. The categories used were (1) sailboats (with sizes between 5 and 9 m); (2) small engine boats measuring less than 5 m; (3) medium engine boats ranging in size from 5 to 8 m; and (4) large engine boats with sizes between 8 and 12 m. Interviews yielded information on boat and crew size, tons caught per year, and variable cost per year (such as food for the trip, ice, and fuel). The share of production consumed by the fishers' families, and thus contributing directly to their food security, was quantified (in proportion) by in-terviewing thefishers.
2.4.2. Distributors
The distributors identified in the study area were responsible for
storing and distributing thefish. Distributers buy the product directly fromfishers and trade it with processors, street markets, restaurants, or other local consumers. The distributors were split into local or regional distributors depending on the target markets of their enterprises. They provided information about the amount offish purchased (in tons), the price per ton, and the destination of products through the product chain. They also provided information about the number of employees, the total cost of the distribution process, and the proportion offish used for family consumption. The distribution costs included the costs of energy, services (such as fuel and driver), and employers' payments. 2.4.3. Processors
The processors are responsible for receiving the catches from the boats and processing the seafood (cutting,filleting, freezing, etc.) for human consumption. They were asked about the amount offish pro-cessed per month, the total production bought from producers or dis-tributors (in tons), the price for re-selling the product, and potential purchasers. For analytical purposes, the processors were split into small or medium processors, depending on the amount offish (in tons) pro-cessed per month. Processor data included the number of employees, the total cost for processing thefish, and the proportion of fish destined for family consumption. The processing costs included the costs of en-ergy, services (such as fuel and transport), and employers' payments. 2.4.4. Retailers
Retailers (street markets and restaurants) were also interviewed. They provided information about the amount of tradedfish, the price per kg of each species sold, and their costs related to energy, services, management, taxes paid, and employee salaries.
2.4.5. Export
This segment was included to represent the proportion of produc-tion that was removed from the local system to be traded statewide, which we were not able to follow.
2.4.6. Consumers
Consumers were identified as (1) local consumers, local inhabitants that boughtfish on a regular basis; (2) tourists, who also bought and/or consumed the local fish, and (3) subsistence consumption—no sale, which encompassed thefish used for the fishers' household consump-tion. These categories were used to better understand the importance of fish to the locals, tourists, and the fishers' families and dependents. 3. Results
In total, 154 representatives were interviewed across all categories. Interviewees included producers (N = 89, representing 40% of the total number), distributors (N = 7, 100% interviewed), processors (N = 6, 100% interviewed), and retailers (52 or 87% were interviewed of the total, 60). Specifically, 24 retailers from street markets were ap-proached and 28 retailers owning or managing restaurants were terviewed. Despite experiencing high variability and the sparse in-formation offered by official statistics, the estimated number of tourists was 120,000 annually.
The value chain describing theflow of fish comprised 14 compo-nents, including exports, which accounted for 15% of the total catches (Fig. 3). Producers were placed at the bottom level (≈ first trophic level). The rest of the components were arranged in the subsequent levels according to their trading position in the supply chain, i.e., the level increased by one for each trade. Under this frame, consumers were set in the upper nodes of value chain, as top predators (in our case, tourists) at the highest level (Fig. 3).
The revenue/job earnings by category, from sailboats to large boats, were surprisingly similar, and we found that the highest revenue per
person was for the small motorizedfleet (Table 1). Overall, the pro-cessors experienced the lowest economic benefits, while the local dis-tributors and restaurants had the largest earnings (Table 1).
In terms of social benefits among producers, large engine boats generated the highest number of jobs, followed by small engine boats (Table 1). Medium engine boats had moderate employment, while sailboats produced only a few jobs. Interestingly, restaurants and street markets (retailers) provided the greatest employment though the chain (Table 2). Regional distributors, local small processors, and local medium processors contributed the least jobs (Tables 1 and 2).
The distribution of earnings among producers was very specific. As fishers had little storage capacity and limited capital, they relied on middlemen to afford the costs of fishing trips. Revenue sharing hap-pened after transactions with middlemen (distributors or processors) and after discounting fishing trip costs (such as fuel, ice, food, gear replacement, and repair). The remaining profit was split in two equal parts. Thefirst was delivered to the boat owner (for boat maintenance); the second was equally distributed amongfishers. If a boat owner also fished, he also took part in this final sharing. As a result, to many fishers, the middleman set the off-vessel prices beforehand and had exclusive access to purchasing landings.
Overall, the producer and retailer segments showed the best eco-nomic and social indicators and achieved the highest landed value, GDP contribution, paid salaries (total and average), and generated jobs (Table 2). Retailers, however, had the highest costs and did not collect subsidies. On the other hand, even though processors had the least revenue and cost, they received more subsidies than any other segment and contributed the least to the GDP (Table 2). Revenues represent benefits generated by the fish trade while salaries describe the Fig. 2. Food web ecosystem andfishing boats (producer) linking to value chain for Baía Formosa (Brazil): Roman numerals indicate the trophic level. The main fisheries target groups are indicated with icons (for group names and other details seeBevilacqua et al., 2016). The value chain is detailed inFig. 3.
proportion of revenue intended for employees. The production value or landed value refers to the amount offish caught multiplied by its price per kg by species. Subsides were mainly government benefits, while taxes were whatever other payment was required to performfish or retail activities. Input fish refers to all production passing through sectors.
Mostly, producers passed landings directly to distributors, who re-ceived almost 30% of the total landed tonnage, while only 11% of the total landings were forwarded to processing (cut,filleting or freezing; Fig. 4). As expected, production decreased along the value chain while revenue increased, leading to revenues on average 50% lower for fishers when compared to distributors (Fig. 4). Again, processors were responsible for the lowest share.
Even though women were not found to be working among the 1500 fishers dedicated to the small-scale fishery in the region, female labor represented 34% out of the 2500 formal jobs offered by street markets and restaurants. Distributors and processors generated around 500 jobs, and female labor represented less than 0.4%.
The overallfigures for the segments operating at sea and on land indicated more revenue ($33.3 million/y) and job creation (68.1%) by the second group than by producers, i.e., thefishing fleets, which were the only segment working in the aquatic ecosystem. The economic multipliers through the entire value chain were around 2.9, indicating that the economic benefit in the entire fishery sector reaches three times more than in itsfirst step (Table 1). In terms of employment, land work provided up to twice as many job opportunities asfishing-related work at the seaside. In other words, for eachfisher working at sea, there were two people working on land (Table 1). Restaurants and street markets offered most of the land employment, being responsible for 39.4% and 16.8%, respectively. In spite of this, the GDP contribution resulting from work done on land was just 13% higher than the GDP contribution coming from work done at sea (Table 1).
Despite the low economic multiplier on the landed value offish traded through the value chain, the total production value increased markedly for thefish traded by restaurants operating in the tourism sector (Fig. 5).
Fig. 3. Value chain framework: components per segment and sector (Roman numerals) of the value chain from Baía Formosa Town (Brazil). Squares: components with estimated revenue and number of jobs; Circles: the last node on the value chain (no estimate); Line thickness: the approximate amount offish flowing from each segment to the next. Roughly 15% of totalfish landings went to export, i.e., outside the State. SeeTables 1 and 2for details.
Table 1
Revenue (USD per year), GDP contribution (USD per year), and jobs (in number) generated by each segment at sea and on land, and their respective percentages in thefish value chain (Baía Formosa, Brazil).
Category Revenue % of total revenue Jobs % total of jobs Revenue/job GDP contribution % of total GDP
At the sea Sailboat $1,555,000 3.5 193 4.4 $8057 $1,057,390 6.5
Small $3,350,000 7.5 380 8.6 $8816 $2,608,430 16.1 Medium $2,475,000 5.6 307 6.9 $8062 $1,366,020 8.4 Large $3,810,000 8.6 530 12 $7189 $2,507,490 15.5 Total at sea $11,190,000 25.1 1410 31.9 $7936 $7,550,000 46.6 On land Distributors $12,470,000 28 452 10.2 $27,588 $2,430,854 15 Processors $5,280,000 11.9 72 1.6 $73,333 $1,795,618 11.1 Street market $5,140,000 11.5 743 16.8 $6918 $1,366,577 8.5 Restaurants $10,425,000 23.4 1743 39.4 $5981 $5,771,678 35.7 Total on land $33,300,000 74.9 3010 68.1 $7936 $8,650,000 53.4 Overall total $44,490,000 4420 $16,200,000
Fish consumption through the value chain was irregular and locally driven, since most of the catch ended up being consumed byfishers or local inhabitants (who purchased from local distributors and street markets). Tourists consumed a minor portion of the catches (6%). Given the trends infish consumption and the total landed value estimated to the sector (USD 28.4 million per year;Table 2), theflow of money into the local economy provided by local people was USD 18.7 million/year (66% from total catch), while the input of money into the local economy from tourists' fish consumption was UDS 1.7 million/year. Moreover, the subsistence value of fish consumption revealed by the fishers was USD 7.9 million/year (28% of the total catch).
3.1. Fish Species Leading Catches and Economic Values
The entire economic production relied on the catch of 19 species/ groups (Table 3). Out of the total caught (≈3.6 tons), one species (Scomberomorus brasiliensis) and six groups comprised 77.6% of the totalfish biomass landed (Lutjanus sp.; medium pelagics; carnivorous reef fish; omnivorous reef fish; small pelagics, and carnivorous zoo-benthos).
However, among the three most caught groups, small pelagics and omnivorous reeffish generated the lowest prices per ton (Table 3). The group of small pelagics included Opisthonema oglinum, Selar crume-nophthalmus, Decapterus punctatus, D. macarellus, and D. tabl, while the
group of omnivorous reeffish included Balistes vetula, Holocentrus ad-scensionis, Myripristis jacobus, Scarus trispinosus, Sparisoma axillare, S. amplum and S. frondosum.
The most caught and highest priced functional group was the car-nivorous zoobenthos, which includes the species Chaceon spp., Panulirus argus, and P. laevicauda. Therefore, the most profitable groups were the carnivorous zoobenthos (USD 2,733,000/year), followed by the medium pelagics (USD 1,370,000/year), and the Lutjanus spp. (USD 1,030,000/year). The medium pelagic species caught were Centropomus parallelus, C. undecimalis, Elagatis bipinnulata, Rachycentron canadum, and Sphyraena barracuda.
4. Discussion
4.1. The Small Scale Fishery Provided Local Food Security
In this study, we followed thefish from the fishers (producers) until the end consumers. By tracking the trade offish in a small-scale fishing community, we uncovered a short, non-linear value chain (four levels and 14 components) with an even economic multiplier along the chain and roughly the same GDP contribution regardless of the economic value generated by land or seaside work. Thisfishery produced social returns beyond the marine workers, since for eachfisher there were two people working on land, notably in restaurants and street markets, Table 2
Estimates of production (in tons), and economic and social indicators at each segment in the seafood value chain for the small-scalefishery in Baía Formosa, Brazil. Values are in US Dollars (exchange rate was 1 USD = 2.83 BR in November 2014,www.worldbank.org). Gray shading represents the economic parameters generated by the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software based on the information collected through interviews.
Producer Distribution Processing Retailer Total
Production 3,580 2,670 990 1,780 9,020 Production value $10,800,000 $12,300,000 $5,300,000 $15,560,000 $43,940,000 Subsidies $378,000 $183,500 $700 $0.00 $562,200 Revenue $11,190,000 $12,470,000 $5,280,000 $15,560,000 $44,500,000 Cost $8,410,000 $10,440,000 $3,670,000 $14,000,000 $36,550,000 Profit $2,770,000 $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,540,000 $7,950,000
Average salaries (year) $3,650 $1,300 $2,600 $1,000 $8,550
GDP contribution $7,540,000 $2,430,000 $1,790,000 $4,400,000 $16,170,000
Jobs, female (number) 0 0 5 840 845
Jobs, male (number) 1,410 450 70 1,645 3,575
Jobs, total (number) 1,410 450 70 2,485 4,420
Fig. 4. Distribution of social and economic benefits. Relative proportions of total production (t), revenue (USD/y), and jobs (numbers) at each step of the value chain in the small-scalefishing sector of Baía Formosa, Brazil.
where one-third of employees were women. Locals andfishers' house-holds consumed 94% of the catches. Such notable local consumption upheld a flow of USD 18.7 million/year into the local economy. Furthermore,fish intake by the fishers avoided extra costs for protein and produced average subsistence earnings of USD 304 perfisher per month, which is over the threshold for the poverty line (USD 57 per person per month;FAO, 2016).
Fish productionflowed primarily to local market and fishers' tables, revealing the clear bias toward seafood consumption by local in-habitants and the subsistence of local fishers and ensuring food se-curity, a concern for sustainability in food systems such as fisheries (FAO, 2016). Fish were also used as payment for indirectfishery jobs or for bartering for non-relatedfishery services or products. As a result, the small-scalefishery was a mainstay of the local economy, and fish were the main currency in the local market. Even though the bulk of the fish caught was traded nearby (66%), the role of the activity in sub-sistence was not negligible.
The subsistence value of thefishery, described by the market price of thefish directly consumed by fishers, represents its consumer surplus (CS). Together, CS and producer surplus (PS) serve as a reliable mea-sure of the economic value of fisheries. As the net income from fish sales may be used as a proxy for producer surplus (Grantham and Rudd, 2015), the economic value offisheries reported here (CS + PS) reached up to $28.3 million/year. Roughly 28% of the economic value of this fishery was used for subsistence. Each ton of fish represents the flow of money into the community and fish for fishers' households. A much
lower proportion of the economic value came into the community throughfish consumption by the tourism sector.
Current value chain analyses are mostly focused on the social-eco-logical effects of the seafood trade and the effect of fishers on fish stocks (McClenachan et al., 2016), on revealing the drivers behind the seafood trade (Rodrigues and Villasante, 2016), and on the distribution of in-come among them. Indeed, an even distribution of earnings through the value chain occupies an important place in the food chain, since the market economy may not provide enough for all to purchase the food needed (FAO, 2016). Because poverty impacts nourishment and basic needs (health, education, nutrition, security, empowerment, and dig-nity), it increases the overall vulnerability of thefishing community. Hence, vulnerability represents a further dimension of poverty (FAO, 2016). More direct supply chains with fewer intermediaries that are more adaptable to challenges (resilient) and have greater connectivity (sensu Plagányi et al., 2014) can mitigate vulnerability. An under-standing of the food chain system is important for underunder-standing the wellbeing of thefishing community (Rodrigues and Villasante, 2016). Other initiatives, such as management systems as a basis for modern marine resource conservation, could be useful tofill the gap regarding fishery management prescriptions (Cinner and Aswani, 2007).
Even though we did not strictly evaluate the supply chain using the Plagányi et al. (2014)approach, the value chain studied here linked producers and consumers through many nodes, indicating high con-nectance and resilience, since well-connected supply chain networks result in reasonable robustness and protection against changes by nodal Fig. 5. Economic multiplier on the value chain. Fish traded in the small-scalefishing sector of Baía Formosa and the total earned (average per tons in $) at each segment of the value chain (exchange rate: 1 USD = BRL 2.83, Nov 2014,www.worldbank.org).
Table 3
Total landings (in tons) of each functional group or species and the price per ton (USD) by boat size category; bolded values indicate the highest landing for each species/group per boat category.
Groups Total landing Price per tonne Sail boat Small engine Medium engine Large engine
Carnivorous zoobenthos 644.40 $4240 5.40 207.78 155.92 275.31 Small pelagics 615.62 $1100 486.41 0 106.18 23.04 Omnivorous reeffish 388.42 $1060 7.13 139.58 13.25 228.46 Carnivorous reeffish 343.65 $2915 8.72 173.80 51.38 109.75 Medium pelagics1 323.45 $4240 15.95 195.25 64.34 47.91 Lutjanus1 263.30 $4060 37.21 74.66 33.06 118.37 Scomberomorus brasiliensis 200.40 $3530 7.66 28.63 117.55 46.56 Thunnus atlanticus 172.01 $2830 77.41 11.37 18.75 64.49 Coryphaena hippurus 130.51 $3890 82.71 0.67 22.75 24.39 Scomberomorus cavalla1 108.54 $4590 10.60 37.06 12.29 48.58 Cephalopods1 80.92 $5650 0 21.93 26.56 32.44 Detritivorous zoobenthos 80.24 $3530 0 0 21.64 58.61 Dogfish 54.89 $2120 2.89 17.45 19.33 15.23 Euthynnus alletteratus 48.96 $1060 2.07 4.63 30.51 11.76 Grouper1 32.53 $4590 3.57 1.16 7.47 20.34 Demersal 30.94 $1940 3.13 7.66 13.59 6.55 Cynoscion jamaicensis1 27.81 $4240 2.02 15.81 7.66 2.31 Seriola fasciata1 19.13 $4240 2.65 0.05 3.95 12.48 Large pelagic 14.80 $2120 9.06 0.19 2.94 2.60
removal (Christensen et al., 2014). Notwithstanding the number of nodes and the overlapping of trade functions among actors in the value chain, we found that distributors played an important role in the chain connectivity. Indeed, distributors made up 30% of the entire production and performed a fundamental supply service. Such an understanding of the supply chain is useful to maintaining its underlying structure and avoiding decisions that reduce pathways or create alternative diffuse connections that may end up increasing costs (e.g., through subsidies to prop up new businesses) and generating false economies (Plagányi et al., 2014). On the other hand, limited information about the sub-sistence economic values offisheries covers up the vulnerability of the users to natural resource overexploitation and may drive managers and policy makers to disregard sustainable fisheries and fish stock con-servation.
Therefore, an understanding of thefish-based value chain is a va-luable tool for uncovering the economic reliance of fishers on their catch to supply their household fish consumption and revealing the additional expense they would have to go to in order to replacefish as a food item in the case of local overfishing.
4.2. Contribution of Value Chain Disclosure to Conservation Policies The value chain assessed here showed the localfishery as an activity that provided cash inflow from tourism, allowed local flow of money through fish consumption, and generated subsistence values to the fishers' households. In this context, it is important to highlight the role of restaurants, which generated 35% of the jobs (including jobs for women) and 23% of the revenue in thefish value chain from only 5% of thefish production. Additionally, the total landed value was estimated to represent 33% of the municipal GDP for 2012 (~USD 85 million), stressing the role of this small-scalefishery in terms of macroeconomic performance.
Altogether, these numbers revealed the need to uphold thefishery activity to assure its overall economic benefits. Such values enhance awareness of the significant contributions from fisheries and the im-portance of achieving ecological and economic sustainability for the activity (Swartz et al., 2013). However, policies for supportingfisheries are frequently presented as subsides, which may be useless or even harmful for the fishery, the fishers, and the marine environment (Schuhbauer and Sumaila, 2016). In the area we studied, smaller and less subsidized boats produced higher catches and employment than larger and more subsided boats (de Melo Alves Damasio et al., 2016). We therefore contend that the conservation offish stocks would the best approach to preserve the fish-based value chain and ensure the economic and social benefits it delivers. Indeed, the understanding of market-based solutions through the supply chain continues to gain momentum in the conservation community (McClenachan et al., 2016). Noticeably, over the past decade many market-based approaches have arisen to create incentives for sustainable harvestingfisheries, but few are geared toward small-scalefisheries (Thyresson et al., 2013).
Our estimates of the value added to the local community and businesses by the small-scale fishery may represent a window of op-portunity to engage fishers, managers, and policy makers on fish re-source conservation and sustainable harvesting with the aim of up-holdingfishing activities. Specifically, the output unveiled by the value chain assessment also underscored the economic and social fate that would result from a potentialfishery collapse.
From this perspective, food security would be a priority, depending on more partnership with stakeholders to ensure the sector's develop-ment goals, including identifying the most promising pathways for positive food security impacts through a cross-sectorial diagnosis (McClenachan et al., 2016).
In our study, the localfishery was not being managed by any means and there was no monitoring system or management initiative. As the fishers and local inhabitants relied on fish consumption, they would be equally exposed to economic deprivation, undernourishment, and
vulnerability in the case of a localfishery collapse. Unless managers, policy makers, and entrepreneurs are all aware of the critical economic role played by coastal and marine ecosystem services, their contribu-tion to sustainable economic welfare will be seriously underestimated, resulting in under-investment in conservation, especially in developing countries (Ovando et al., 2016).
In this context, seafood sustainability initiatives could be useful, emphasizing the local food source (reduced carbon footprint), eco-label (reduced habitat destruction), and fair-trade (no slavery or child labor) aspects. The development of consumer guidelines for sustainable sea-food could be used by local restaurants, as well as a certification re-garding population stock status to inform the consumers (McClenachan et al., 2016).
By neglecting the economic and social reliance on natural resource conservation and with the current lack of conservation policies, not only may overfishing become a threat to fishers, but also to policy makers, managers, and users, who may inadvertently increase the dif-ficulties concerning fisheries. These problems can be avoided if an fective management regime is implemented using the principles of ef-fective governance, institutions that induce compliance, mechanisms for conflict resolution, and possibly sanctions for violators (Cinner et al., 2009).
4.3. Caveats and Future Perspectives
Despite that the case documented here was able to account for the fisheries' economic contributions to the local economy, food security and livelihood, our research did not cover the geography of the entire foodshed of the small-scalefishery. Accordingly, we were not able to follow thefish traded outside the community, which we accounted for in the model as Export (15% of total landings) and which extends the social and economic benefits beyond our estimates. Still, the results comprised the majority of the supply and value chain, which were dominated by a local market network instead of regional markets. In addition, thefishers described recreational and illegal catches as being negligible, which increased our confidence in our findings.
Likewise, considering the current lack offishery statistics nation-wide and our efforts in recording local fish landings, we were not able to precisely indicate which species each group of consumers most relied on for their consumption. However, as shown in other studies, tourists can afford higher prices than local consumers (Thyresson et al., 2013; Rodrigues and Villasante, 2016); thus, the most valued species are mainly directed to distributors and retailers. Recent research in the same study area has confirmed this pattern (Bevilacqua et al., 2016).
Further, we estimated from our results the proportion of the total production consumed by fishers, locals, and tourists. Here, there are both a limitation and a perspective to highlight. First, we did not record individual consumption or possible cultural values, i.e., the amount of fish given to family or friends or used for social gatherings (McClenachan et al., 2016). If possible, we would like to be able to add an estimation of cultural values as a link in this value chain.
Additionally, based on the outcomes of this study, we would like to recommend to policy makers the monitoring of the value chain values, including fishers' household consumption (subsistence value of the fishery). Such values would allow the comparison of economic figures among different fisheries globally. It would also be useful to inform readers of the economic multiplier at each step of the value chain (Christensen et al., 2014). In this context, afishery monitoring system, including landing (tons and prices), costs, and otherfishing variables (such as the locations of vessels and main target species) could be es-sential to maintainingfishing activities and the associated fish value chain.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of thefishers and stakeholders from the
studied communities for their kind support and patience and for the contributions to improve the paper. We also thank S. de la Puente for technical-scientific guidance for the value chain analyses, and T.H.O. Lapa-Souza for the technical graphical support. Thanks also to two anonymous referees.
Funding Information
FAPERN supported AHVB through a PhD scholarship, and supported thefieldwork through grant 005/2013. CAPES also supported AHVB in the exchange period of the IOF-UBC fellow (PVE A063/2013, Ed.71/ 2013; 99999.010248/2014-05). VC acknowledges the support received through the NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2014-05782.
References
Avadí, A., Freón, P., Tam, J., 2014. Coupled ecosystem/supply chain modelling offish products from sea to shelf: the Peruvian anchoveta case. PLoS One 9 (7).
Bevilacqua, A.H.V., et al., 2016. More than anecdotes:fishers' ecological knowledge can fill gaps for ecosystem modeling. PLoS One 11 (5).
Brasil, 2006. Boletim da Estatística da Pesca Maítima e Estuarina do Nordeste do Brasil. Ministério do Meio Ambiente 6.4.1.
Christensen, V., 2013. Ecological networks infisheries: predicting the future? Fisheries 38 (2), 76–81. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2013.757987% 5Cnpapers2://publication/uuid/AA57B54F-F55B-4953-B6A9-A818B55BB670.
Christensen, V., Pauly, D., 1992. ECOPATH II— a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem models and calculating network characteristics. Science 61 (681), 169–185.
Christensen, V., Walters, C.J., 2004. Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecol. Model. 172 (2–4), 109–139. Available at: http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030438000300365X.
Christensen, V., Steenbeek, J., Failler, P., 2011. A combined ecosystem and value chain modeling approach for evaluating societal cost and benefit of fishing. Ecol. Model. 222 (3), 857–864. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.09.030.
Christensen, V., et al., 2014. Valuing seafood: the Peruvianfisheries sector. Mar. Policy 44, 302–311.
Cinner, J.E., Aswani, S., 2007. Integrating customary management into marine
conservation. Biol. Conserv. 140, 201–216.
Cinner, J.E., Daw, T., McClanahan, T.R., 2009. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers' readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conserv. Biol. 23 (1), 124–130. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01041.x.
FAO, 2016. In: F., F., D., A. (Eds.), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), [online], ed., Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en.
Goodman, L., 1961. Snowball sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 32, 148e170.
Grantham, R.W., Rudd, M.A., 2015. Current Status and Future Needs of Economics Research of Inland Fisheries. pp. 458–471.
Kittinger, J.N., et al., 2015. From reef to table: social and ecological factors affecting coral reeffisheries, artisanal seafood supply chains, and seafood security. Plos One 10 (8), e0123856. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123856.
Lessa, R.P., Nóbrega, M.F., Bezerra, J.L.J., 2004. Dinâmica de Populações e Avaliação de Estoques dos Recursos Pesqueiros da Região Nordeste. pp. 246.
McClenachan, L., Dissanayake, S., Chen, X., 2016. Fair tradefish: consumer support for broader seafood sustainability. Fish Fish. 1–14.
de Melo Alves Damasio, L., et al., 2016. Size matters:fishing less and yielding more in smaller-scalefisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 76 (3), 1494–1502.
Olson, J., Clay, P.M., Pinto da Silva, P., 2014. Putting the seafood in sustainable food systems. Mar. Policy 43, 104–111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol. 2013.05.001.
Ovando, D., Dougherty, D., Wilson, J.R., 2016. Market and design solutions to the short-term economic impacts of marine reserves. Fish Fish.https://doi.org/10.1111/faf. 12153.p. n/a-n/a. Available at:.
Plagányi, É.E., et al., 2014. Ecosystem modelling provides clues to understanding eco-logical tipping points. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 512, 99–113.
Rodrigues, J.G., Villasante, S., 2016. Disentangling seafood value chains: tourism and the local market driving small-scalefisheries. Mar. Policy 74 (September), 33–42. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.006.
Schuhbauer, A., Sumaila, U.R., 2016. Economic viability and small-scalefi sheries — a review. Ecol. Econ. 124, 69–75. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2016.01.018.
Swartz, W., Sumaila, R., Watson, R., 2013. Global ex-vesselfish price database revisited: a new approach for estimating“missing” prices. Environ. Resour. Econ. 56 (4), 467–480. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9611-1.
Teh, L.S.L., Teh, L.C.L., Sumaila, U.R., 2011. Quantifying the overlooked socio-economic contribution of small-scalefisheries in Sabah, Malaysia. Fish. Res. 110 (3), 450–458. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.06.001.
Thyresson, M., et al., 2013. Tracing value chains to understand effects of trade on coral reeffish in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Mar. Policy 38, 246–256. Available at: http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308597X1200139X.