Page 9 - HimesAH(2003)

Small-Scale Sicilian Fisheries 397

assumed that the data summarized here is representative of the respective sampling pop-
ulations, as calculated through traditional sampling theory.

In each MPA, the distribution of population demographics, fishing characteristics,
and fishing gear is fairly uniform. Fishers vary widely in age from 23 to 80. Fishers’
formal education level is generally very low, and they do not have sources of income
other than fishing. Most run fishing vessels alone or with only one other person, the
vessels are all in the same size range (4.5–12 m in length), and the most utilized piece
of fishing gear is the trammel net with occasional use of one or two other gear types
(e.g., purse seining, long lining, fish traps, hand lines).

Interviews with local fishers in each MPA brought out similar needs for future
management within each. The present study found four commonalities between the two
MPAs studied in terms of needed management measures. These include: (1) better com-
munication, especially regarding regulations and boundary delimitation; (2) increased
involvement of local communities in decision making; (3) increased enforcement of
regulations; and (4) new performance measurements and monitoring along with a com-
monly agreed definition of success. The following is broken into four sections describ-
ing each of these with regards to the major findings in this study along with possible
solutions to help resolve each issue.

Communication

One of the most important components of MPA development and establishment is
informing the local people about new regulations. This includes explaining where the
boundary of the reserve is, any associated zonation, and the regulations associated with
the MPA. Fishers were asked questions designed to show their level of awareness re-
garding the local MPA, including its delimitation, regulations, and management mecha-
nism.

In the Gulf of Castellammare, though fishers were relatively well informed, there
was inconsistent knowledge of the boundary and other details of the reserve. While
most fishers are aware of the reserve, very few are able to exactly identify its boundary.
Responses were evenly spread between fishers that could correctly identify the reserve
boundary, identify it to a close approximation (meaning within a couple of geographic
points of the actual boundary), identify it incorrectly, and those that could not identify a
boundary at all. This can be explained by the fact that most artisanal fishers only use set
gear (e.g., trammel nets, hand lines) and do not actively participate in the trawl fishery,
thus trawling regulations do not affect them. In addition, few considered themselves
well informed of fishing regulations in general.

In the EIMR, the majority of fishers do not consider themselves very informed
about general fishing regulations or the boundary of the zones within the reserve. How-
ever, the majority claim that they can correctly identify the reserve boundaries. Most
fishers that attempted to identify the reserve and zone boundaries could only identify the
zones adjacent to their island and incorrectly claimed that the area they showed on the
map was the entire reserve, excluding the zones around the other islands. A fairly equal
distribution of responses was seen when respondents were asked how informed they feel
of the regulations governing activity in the reserve. As described in the next section, this
lack of communication has contributed to dissatisfaction with reserve management.

Since active fishers do not take part in the trawl fishery in the GCFR, knowledge
about reserve regulations and boundaries is not critical. In contrast, the majority of fish-
ers in the EIMR will be impacted by reserve boundaries and therefore should under-
stand the reserve zones and associated regulations. Moreover, once one fisher under-
stands the regulations, he can help pass the message regarding MPA rules along to