An assessment of local fisheries in Diego-Suarez Bay, Madagascar

elieved that the size has decreased over time. The latter view would agree with the general opinion that
catch size and abundance are decreasing. Either answer is acceptable, as there will be some fish caught
before they grow to a large size as a result of increased fishing pressure. There will also be some
individuals that are able to reach their full adult size before being caught. With a 3.2% yearly increase in
the population of Madagascar in general (Billé et al., 2002), plus an increase in visiting tourists as Diego-
Suarez and Ramena become more developed, has caused an increase in fishing pressure. This study
presents no direct evidence of this, however this phenomenon is well documented by fisheries scientists
globally (e.g. Gedamke et al., 2007). Diego-Suarez Bay will be no exception. A rise in fishing pressure
presents a significant management issue, which should be addressed to ensure fish populations are safe
guarded for future generations.
When questioning the opinions of the fishermen on resource use some interesting answers appeared (table
3). No areas should be restricted to fishing, according to the majority. They believe that they have the
right to fish wherever they want. This view shows that fishermen would show resistance to any such
management plan restricting where they could and could not fish, such as implementing no-take zones.
The level of environmental awareness was high for most fishermen, showing considerable future thought
for the resources in Diego-Suarez Bay. Most agreed to using larger nets to prevent catching smaller fish.
This shows an understanding that by not catching smaller fish, more will grow to sexual maturity and
input back into the population. Similarly catching only large fish will guarantee that they will of a large
enough size to have reached sexual maturity and again would have spawned contributing to future stock
(Mangi & Roberts, 2006; Grandcourt et al, 2006). Some fishermen believed targeting species because
they are large spawners, or targeting one or two species only allowing others to thrive, would have a
benefit on fish stocks. This would be correct, however this may have a detrimental effect on the species
being isolated for targeting (Koslow et al., 1994). In reality this would be difficult to implement as a
management strategy due to nature of a reef fishery, where species are often caught that are not directly
targeted.
Local fishermen still believe that praying to or asking ancestors will improve fish stocks. This view is
predominately from the older generations who still believe that it will have an effect. Very high
percentages of fishermen agreed that deforestation should be stopped in coastal areas. This demonstrates
an awareness of the problems caused by deforestation such as surface run-off and its knock-on effect to
nearby coral reef habitats (e.g. reef sedimentation). Agreeing with the problem could therefore signal the
cooperation of villages to stop deforestation from taking place. By agreeing to only go out fishing on
certain days shows that by limiting the number of days this will limit fishing effort, which therefore could
act as a management strategy toward conserving fish. The majority of fishermen showing that they have a
basic understanding of environmental issues is a comforting thought. Future management therefore has
less risk of being dismissed and would have a good chance of succeeding, if the reasons behind the any
management regulations where explained in detail. Whatever happens in the future, communities must
work together on any resource use issues. Other management methods such as getting Diego-Suarez
government or village chief to regulate fishing activity were agreed with by the majority. A majority also
thought that individual fishermen have the right to set their own quotas. This is slightly contradictory. Its
does however suggest that they would welcome some assistance in managing fishing in the bay.
Eating less fish could be a viable option as a management strategy, however caution would have to be
taken when implementing it, in order to provide an alternative source of protein for local people. Zebu
farming could be encouraged as an alternative, although this would have to be managed carefully as to
not damage surrounding areas. Seafood is important to the Malagasy people both nutritionally and
culturally, so any management proposal reducing the consumption of fish may be difficult to implement
in reality. A more feasible solution would be to try to increase the number of fish in the bay rather than
reducing consumption. The introduction of three or four no-take zones within the bay, in areas such as the
eastern part of sector 4, the western part of sector 5, Nosy Koba and Nosy Langoro would help to
facilitate this. The introduction of no-take zones is well known to protect fish stocks and natural habitats,
allowing fish populations to increase in density and abundance (Ashworth & Ormond, 2005; McClanahan
& Mangi, 2000; Roberts et al., 2001). Increasing the number of tourists in the bay was agreed with by
many of the fishermen from Antsisikala who see how people in Ramena benefit from the presence of
tourists. They make money on tourist excursions, as well as selling catches to restaurants and hotels. This
18