ADAPTIVE CAPACITYof FISHERMEN of the URUGUAYAN COAST of the RIO de la PLATA,

to HYDROCLIMATIC VARIABILTY and OTHER STRESSORS

Norbis W, GJ Nagy, A Ponce, V Pshennikov, G Sención, R Silva and J Verocai

DEPARTAMENTO DE ECOLOGIA - OCEANOLOGIA

Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR, Montevideo, Uruguay

THIS PRESENTATION AIMS TO DESCRIBE1: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

ESTUARINE FRONT (EF) ENSO-RELATED VARIABILITY FISHERIES RESOURCE ARTISANAL FISHERIES WITHIN THE E.F.

2: THE

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY CURRENT VULNERABILITY SUSTAINABILITY

OF THE COASTAL FISHERY SYSTEM

ESTUARINE FRONT OF THE RIO DE LA PLATA

THE PROBLEM

An artisanal fleet exploits fisheries a few miles off the Uruguayan coast (in the estuarine front zone (EF) of the Río de la Plata (FIG. 1)

The location of the EF (therefore the accesibility of exploitedresources) depends on ENSO-related variability of the river flow

Artisanal fishermen are highly vulnerable to both climate and non-climate constraints (regional economic crisis since 2001)

Coastal community has low adaptive capacity

Figure 1. Estuarine Front locationa) Strong La Niña event (summer 99-2000)b) Neutral - Typical c) Moderate El Niño (winter 1987)d) Strong El Niño (Spring / Summer 2002 – 2003)

a

R O U

R A

a bc

dSa n Luis

P. Bla nc a sKiyú

Evolution of SST & Salinty at Montevideo: ENSO events1998-2000

0

4

8

12

16

20

0 2 4 6Sea Surface Temperature

AnomalyEl NIÑO 3,4 (+1.8)

Riv

er

Flo

w

0

7

14

21

28

0 4 8 12 16

River Flow (m3/s x1000)

Sa

linit

y

Extreme river-ward location of the EF (yellow): La Niña event (March 2000)

Seaward location of the EF (yellow):El Niño (October 2002)

CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: SOCIAL

PROXYVARIABLES

VULNERABILITY

HIGH MODERATE LOW

FAMILYEDUCATIONHOUSINGEMPLOYMENTHEALTHSOCIAL ORGANIZATI0N

X

X X X X X

CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: ECONOMIC

PROXYVARIABLES

VULNERABILITY

HIGH MODERATE LOW

BOATSENGINES

FISHING GEARSCOMMUNICATIONREFRIGERATION

CATCHPRICES

NET INCOME

X

XX

X

XXX

X

CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL

PROXYVARIABLES

VULNERABILITY

HIGH MODERATE LOW

CLIMATE-ENSOWINDSSTORM SURGES ANDFLOODING RISKEUTROPHICATIONHABITAT LOSS

XX

X

XX

CUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE VULNERABILITY: LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL

PROXYVARIABLES

VULNERABILITY

HIGH MODERATE LOW

LAWSTERRITORIAL PLANNINGCOAST GUARD CONTROLSCONFLICTS WITH INDUSTRIAL FLEETCONFLICTS WITH NEIGHBOURSLEGAL ORGANIZATION

XX

X

XX

X

ANATOMY of the ADAPTATION to CLIMATE CHANGE & VARIABILITY

1. WHAT IS ADAPTATION ?

2. ADAPT TO WHAT ?

3. WHO ADAPTS ?

4. HOW DOES ADAPTATION OCCUR ?

5. HOW GOOD IS THE ADAPTATION ?

1) WHAT IS ADAPTATION ?

Process by which stakeholders involved in the Coastal Fishery System reduce the adverse

effects of climate on their livelihood.

This Process involves any passive, reactive or anticipatory adjustment of behavior and economic structure in order to increase

sustainability and reduce vulnerability to climate change, variability and weather / climate

extremes.

(modified from Burton,1992; Smit, 1993; Smith, 1993; Stakhiv, 1993)

2) ADAPT TO WHAT ?

CLIMATIC STIMULI: ENS0 VARIABILITY

3) WHO ADAPTS ?

COASTAL FISHERY SYSTEM

4) HOW DOES ADAPTATION OCCUR ?

THROUGH PROCESSES:

• EXTERNAL FORCINGS (RIVER FLOW CHANGES) AND DISPLACEMENT OF THE ESTUARINE FRONT

VARIATIONS IN THE LOCATION OF MAIN RESOURCE (CROAKER)-

>FISHERMEN MIGRATION

OUTCOME:

THIS EXAMPLE OF AUTONOMOUS ADAPTATION HAS BEING SUCCESFUL UNTIL 2002

5) HOW GOOD IS ADAPTATION ?

COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Long-term Fishermen Gross Income (from October (1) to September (12)

Evolution of Salinity at Pajas Blancas: October 2002 - May 2004

From October 2002 to J une 2003 (El Niño impact) salinity was zero

because of high river fl ow at both regional and local scales

(Data; AIACC LA-32)

October - March: Peak of Fishing Activity

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Oc tober 2002 - J une 2003 (V er y H i gh Q) and J ul y 2003 - M ay 2004 (M oder ate / Low Q)

Months

October

October

2003

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Gro

ss I

nco

me

Daily fishing sortiesAverage weight of boxes (1 = 23 Kg) Fishing period 1998-99

3236

3135

39 40

19

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1-5

6-10

11-1

5

16-2

0

21-2

5

26-3

1 13 19

Clusters

boxes

Min Average

Max Average

Pajas Blancas´ Fishing Scenarios Fleet = 30 boatsFishing period = 4 months (rows 1,2,3); 3 months (4,5,6) ; 2 months (7,8,9) Days of effective fishing: ( 17 day/month (1,4,7); 12 d/m (2,5,8); 8 d/m (3,6,9)

Performance Boxes/performance % boats # boatshigh 46 boxes/day 23 6.9moderate 38 boxes/day 59 17.7low 26 boxes/day 18 5.4

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Scenarios, boat productivity, fishing period and days

Catch level max fishing period 98-99

Catch level low fishing period 98-99

ton

s

TOTAL ACCUMULATED BOXES (OBSERVED VS. MODEL)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

250001 6

11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61

Number of fishing sorties (days)

Bo

xes

ObsModel

OBSERVED = 923 BOATS SORTIED IN 64 DAYS – AVERAGE CATCH 22 NET BOXESMODEL= 640 BOATS SORTIED (10 BOATS PER SORTIE/DAY) - AVERAGE CATCH 20 NET BOXES PER SORTIE/BOAT

TOTAL ACCUMULATED BOXES (OBSERVED VS. MODEL)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61

Number of fishing sorties (days)

Bo

xes

ObsModel

OBSERVED = 923 BOATS SORTIED IN 64 DAYS – AVERAGE CATCH 22 NET BOXESMODEL= 640 BOATS SORTIED (10 BOATS PER SORTIE/DAY) - AVERAGE CATCH 25 NET BOXES PER SORTIE/BOAT

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61Sortied days

Log IB boxes

Sc 1

Sc 2

Sc 3

Sc 1 - 31 average boxes with 15 boats

Sc 2 – Fishing period 98-99

Sc 3 - 40 average boxes with 31 boats

“Pajas Blancas” Fishing Scenarios

Evolution of Salinty: El Niño 2002Evolution of Salinity at Pajas Blancas: October 2002 - May 2004

From October 2002 to J une 2003 (El Niño impact) salinity was zero

because of high river fl ow at both regional and local scales

(Data; AIACC LA-32)

October - March: Peak of Fishing Activity

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Oc tober 2002 - J une 2003 (V er y H i gh Q) and J ul y 2003 - M ay 2004 (M oder ate / Low Q)

Months

October

October

2003

051 01 52 02 53 03 5

9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3frequencyo

foccurrenc

e

w i n d f a v o u r a b l e s i t u a t i o n s w i n d u n f a v o u r a b l e s i t u a t i o n s n o n - f i s h i n g t r i p d a y s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3

freq

uen

cyof

occu

rren

ce

w ind fa vou r a b le s itu a tions w ind u nfa vou ra b le s itu a t ions non-fish ing tr ip d a ys

CONCLUSIONS about

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

ENSO EVENTS ARE RECURRENT AND ONCE SST ANOMALIES ARE KNOWN, ADAPTATION MEASURES SHOULD START

EARLY WARNING IS POSIBLE A FEW MONTHS BEFORE

PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES INVOLVING SCIENTISTS, MANAGERS AND FISHERMEN PARTICIPATION ARE NEEDED TO ALLOW ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

DIALOG AND COMMUNICATION NEED TO BE ENHANCED