Marine Policy 35 (2011) 34 3 –350

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

journal homepage: www.el s e vie r .com/locate/marpol

Contextual factors influencing sustainable fisheries in Mexico

Alejandro Espinoza-Tenorio a, Ileana Espejel b,n, Matthias Wolff a, Jose´ Alberto Zepeda-Domı´nguez c

a Leibniz-Zentrum fu¨r Marine Tropeno¨kologie GmbH, Fahrenheitstr. 6, 28359 Bremen, Germany

b Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Auto´noma de Baja California, Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada 103 km, 22800 Ensenada, Mexico

c CICIMAR, Av. Instituto Polite´cnico Nacional s/n, 23096 La Paz, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 26 September 2010

Received in revised form

21 October 2010

Accepted 22 October 2010Available online 20 November 2010

Keywords:

Contextual factors analysis

Sustainable fisheries

Holistic management

Developing countries

a b s t r a c t

Sustainable fisheries take into consideration that managed fisheries ecosystems shift over time in response to evolving environmental as well as market and political factors. These contextual forces are especially valuable in understanding developing countries such as Mexico, where the unconsolidated fisheries administration faces productive marine ecosystems but unsustainable fisheries. To recognize the issues that have inhibited the consolidation of a regulatory system for sustainable fisheries, a contextual factor analysis was applied to the co-development of two current policies in the Mexican fishery regime: fisheries and environmental policies. Six historical phases have been identified in which there are few long periods of stability and frequent short periods of radical change that alternate between stable and adverse contextual situations. These short and contrasting contextual situations cause a kind of tug-of- war in Mexican fisheries policy-making. On the one hand, domestic economic, scientific, and techno- logical forces seem to slowly lead toward the consolidation of sustainable fisheries; on the other hand, domestic policies drift from one position to another at other timing than the international fisheries and environmental policies. Although recent crises seem to highlight new periods of radical change in Mexico, they also provide an opportunity to adopt new structural plans to consolidate domestic forces as a basis for long-term strategies.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years, holistic approaches have been adopted as con- ceptual management frameworks for numerous sustainable fisheries policies [1]. A fundamental component of any holistic approach is the recognition that managed fisheries ecosystems involve the life histories of marine organisms (e.g., fish) as well as human beings (e.g., fishermen). For this reason, these systems exhibit complex, interwoven dynamics that shift over time in response to evolving environmental as well as market and political forces, some of which may be small but have huge consequences for the state of the natural resources [2]. Fisheries management approaches have commonly underestimated the influence of these social and ecological contextual forces [3], and a greater understanding of their implications may be especially valuable to developing countries that have unconsolidated fisheries administrations to deal with productive but complex marine ecosystems and actual unsustainable fisheries [4–6].

Developing countries are among the most important fish pro- ducers in the world; they make up 14 of the 20 countries that produce more than 1,000,000 metric tons annually [7], contributing

n Corresponding author. Tel.: + 52 646 174 5925; fax: + 52 646 174 4560.

E-mail addresses: espinoza@zmt-bremen.de (A. Espinoza-Tenorio),

ileana.espejel@uabc.edu.mx (I. Espejel), matthias.wolff@zmt-bremen.de (M.

Wolff), joalzedo@hotmail.com (J. Alberto Zepeda-Dom ı ́ nguez).

more than two-thirds of the global fish production over the last decade [8]. However, in contrast to the consolidated fishery systems of developed countries [9,10], some of which have had intensive fishing for centuries (e.g., England, Norway, Russia) [11–13], massive fisheries are relatively recent additions to developing nations (beginning in the 1970s) [14]. This is the case of the Mexican multi-species fisheries regime (17th worldwide) [7], whose high- commercial-value pelagic (e.g., Sardinops cauruleus, Engraulis mordax, Thunnus albacares) and shrimp fisheries (e.g., Litopenaeus stylirostris, L. vannamei, Farfantepenaeus californiensis) have typically accounted for two-thirds of the total Mexican marine catch. Most Mexican-caught seafood is exported; in 2003, the export/import ratio was approximately 2:1 [15]. Accounting for about 90% of the approximately 250,000 national fishermen, artisanal fisheries are regionally important for alleviating poverty and satisfying domestic consumption [15]. Unfortunately, after only 40 years of intensive exploitation, 57% of Mexican fish stocks are currently at maximum exploitation and 25% are overexploited [16].

To stop the increasing deterioration of its fisheries resources, the Mexican Federal Government has recently adopted sustainable management approaches (e.g., ecosystem-based approaches, co- management strategies, producer–academy linking) through its legal instruments [17]. However, as noted by Barnes and McFadden [18], policy adoption is not the same as policy implementation. In Mexico, the development of a consolidated regulatory system to

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights

reserved. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.014

344 A. Espinoza-Tenorio et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 343–350

encourage sustainable fisheries management has been inhibited by inconsistent, and some times contradictory, policy directions. Which are the issues that have influenced these changing fisheries policies? And how Mexican regulators must design fisheries- management strategies that consider these particularities of its national context? These questions were addressed through a historical analysis (1934–2009) of the contemporary fisheries regime in Mexico. By applying a methodological adaptation of the contextual-factors analysis (CFA) suggested by Edwards and Steins [19] for the study of multiple-use, common-pool-resources regimes, local and remote forces (political/legal, economic, scientific, and physical/technological) that have played key roles in the historical co-development of the two main policies currently involved in Mexican fisheries management were indentified: fisheries (use) and environmental (marine-species conservation) policies.

Finally, because political change tends to occur over long periods of relative stability and shorter periods of radical change [20], the outcomes from each historical phase were back-solved to determine the underlying mechanisms in three general contextual management situations found in developing countries (accelerated development, stable circumstances, and adverse conditions) [5,6]. Although identical circumstances are unlikely to occur, tracing the outcomes backward allowed us to focus on critical factors with sporadic or recurrent presence and variable influence and thus to understand particular behaviors influencing the decision-making process in Mexican fisheries. Contrary to previous sectorial reviews [21–29], this paper is the first study in Mexico and one of few in the world [30,31] focusing on the integration of fisheries and environ- mental policies as a way to improve our understanding of the complex, interwoven dynamics operating in a fisheries regime. This retrospective analysis of changes in fisheries policies and their influence on eventual outcomes will be particularly useful in assessing future management scenarios in Mexico.

2. Methods

To reconstruct the history of the contemporary Mexican fish- eries regime (1934–2009), a bibliographic review of the specialized literature was carried out. Initially, the information by sexenios (presidential periods beginning every 6 years on December 1) was analyzed because the Mexican Constitution establishes exclusive federal jurisdiction over the oceans and their fishing resources, and presidential priorities have therefore strongly shaped fisheries policy through public investment. However, the historical periods identified by other authors as relevant to fisheries [11,26,28] and environmental policies [23,25] suggest that the development of these two policies can be summarized in six phases. Within each phase, data on fisheries and environmental policies were arranged according to both political (agencies, operational rules, and poli- cies) and legal aspects (general laws and instruments).

A key issue for policies dealing with common pool resources (CPR) such as fisheries is how the social and natural environment influences actors’ decision-making. Edwards and Steins [19] sug- gested the use of contextual-factors analysis (CFA) to understand users’ actions in the context of a particular resource situation and thus to understand the evolution and state of fisheries regimes. Edwards and Steins defined contextual factors as dynamic forces exerted by the user groups’ social, cultural, economic, political, technological, and institutional environment that may play an important part in establishing the sets of choices from which CPR users can select strategies. Contextual factors can be categorized according to their direct or indirect influence on situational variables; local factors (LF) are endogenous variables having an immediate effect on the set of choices for the use of common resources,

and remote factors (RF) are exogenous variables that are

A. Espinoza-Tenorio et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 343–350

345

beyond the control of the resource-management regime. Further- more, a CFA makes it possible to ‘backsolve’ the outcomes to identify underlying mechanisms and critical contextual factors and thus to understand particular behaviors influencing decision-making. This procedure may assist in the assessment of possible future changes in context by identifying a range of potential outcomes [2].

To describe the contextual factors in the co-development of Mexican fisheries management, the classification suggested by Buck [32] was adapted. This methodology places fisheries and conserva- tion policies into four categories: (a) political/legal, including federal policies, legal aspects, civil-society participation (LF), and interna- tional events (RF); (b) economic, including economic crises (LF) and international loans and fishing embargos (RF); (c) scientific, includ- ing domestic (LF) and international fisheries research (RF); and (d) physical/technological, including domestic (LF) and global fisheries systems and macro-environmental events (RF).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Evolution of the fisheries regime

The evolution of the Mexican fisheries regime can be summar- ized with respect to the co-development of fisheries and environ- mental policies in at least six phases, as described below.

3.1.1. The search for balanced resource use (1934–1940)Fisheries policy: During this period, foreign fleets exploited the

major commercial Mexican fisheries resources, while domestic vessels were limited to the coastal zone. Lacking experience in designing fisheries policies, Mexico organized cooperatives within the fisheries sector to endorse the equitable distribution of eco- nomic benefits. Regulated by the Department of Forestry, Hunting, and Fishery and the General Law of Cooperatives (1938), these fishermen’s cooperatives had exclusive access to the most impor- tant fish stocks, such as shrimp, abalone, and lobster [24]. In 1935, Mexico’s nine miles of Exclusive Economic Zone were enacted [21].

Environmental policy: The first Mexican environmental policies were initiated during this period, although marine management was merely an extension of terrestrial strategies. Resource con- servation was envisioned in terms of common well being [23]. Consequently, marine conservation was endorsed by the terrestrial Faunal Law (1940), and only a few (2) Coastal and Marine Protected Areas were created [27].

Contextual factors:

(a) Political and legal: During this sexenio, presidential priorities promoted a nationalistic governmental protectionism of natural resources of economic interest (Fig. 1), which culminated in the petroleum expropriation (1938) (LF). This domestic concern was influenced by the United States, whose 1929 crisis motivated a global boom of nationalistic policies and whose ‘‘New Deal’’ pact favored bilateral collaboration in conservation issues (e.g., the International Commission of Parks, 1935) (RF) [23].

(b) Economic: As a consequence of the US crisis of 1929 (RF), Mexico’s priorities were to promote a self-sufficient economy through the growth of national industries (LF) [33].

(c) Scientific: At this time, no systematic, domestic fisheries- research system had been established (LF) [34], but within the worldwide arena, fisheries scientists began to produce data indicating that sea resources were not inexhaustible (RF) [3].

(d) Physical/technological: With a national fisheries catch of about

8388 metric tons [35], most of the national resources were catalogued as underexploited (LF). However, these national statistics did not consider the legal and illegal landings of foreign fleets. In 1935, the legal US fleet operating under the

Fig. 1. Schematic-view of the Mexican fisheries regime evolution according to its fishery and environmental policies co-development. The 13 sexenios (6 years

presidential periods) were ordered in six phases: (1) the search of a balanced resource use; (2) ‘‘Mexican Miracle’’: Fishery pre-development, (3) rapid growth of fisheries

and market: institutional bases; (4) from plenitude to crisis: Hands off Government; (5) adoption of sustainable development approach; and (6) full exploitation: incipient

institutionalism. Main contextual local (squares) and remote (circles) factors affecting such fisheries management phases were divided in: (a) political/legal (PL); (b) economic

(E); (c) scientific (S); and (d) physical/technological (PT).

Sources: Soberanes [21], Simonian [23], Espinoza-Tenorio et al. [34], Grande-Vidal [35], CONAPESCA [37], Lluch-Belda et al. [38].

fisheries treaty captured 16,865 metric tons, which was twice the Mexican catch during the same year (RF) [23].

3.1.2. ‘‘Mexican Miracle’’: pre-development of fisheries (1941–1970) Fisheries policy: The first institutional programs (e.g., ‘‘March to

the sea’’ and ‘‘Maritime progress’’) to modernize the Mexican fleet were implemented during this phase, and a specialized office focusing on fisheries issues was established in 1941. A new Fishing Law (1947) established the regulation of industrial fisheries by general licenses and by fishing trips and the control of artisanal fisheries through contract concessions, restrictions during repro- ductive seasons, and fishing-gear controls. The first National Fish- ing Register (1949) integrated the available data on the Mexican maritime area, which extended out to 12 miles in 1966 [21].

Environmental policy: Because the development of agriculture and industry were government priorities, environmental policy focused on water and soil conservation [23]. The active Hunting and Fishing laws introduced the first fishing regulations, such as banning the use of explosives and restricting trawl fisheries at locations containing sedentary marine species [21].

Contextual factors:

(a) Political and legal: To promote accelerated development during this long phase (Fig. 1), the government directly intervened in economic activities through custom duties, subsidies, and tax exemptions (LF) [33]. Within the international arena (RF), there was increasing collaboration between Mexico and both the United States and Europe during the Second World War (1939–1945) and the Korean War (1950–1951). In post-war times, however, a discussion about sovereignty over marine areas was promoted by developing countries in international forums (Latin-American Fisheries Council, 1951; United Nations Con- vention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS I, 1956; and II, 1960). In response, developed countries with international fleets promoted the adoption of the maximum sustained yield to justify relatively large harvests in the under-utilized stocks of the Southern Hemisphere [3]. A series of multilateral commissions were created, such as the Food and Agriculture

Organization

(FAO, 1945) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission(1949), but these commissions had limited authority [12].

(b) Economic: During this phase, the national economic develop- ment of Mexico was known internationally as the ‘‘Mexican Miracle’’. Except for the mild economic crisis of 1954, Mexico had a positive gross domestic product (LF) [36] due to its privileged situation as an important supplier of the United States and Europe in key productive sectors (e.g., petroleum, industry, agriculture, and mines) (RF).

(c) Scientific: Under the assumption that the ocean system is infinitely resilient, fisheries scientists in the 1950s analyzed population dynamics to estimate critical harvest points such as the maximum sustained yield (RF) [12]. In Mexico (LF), the first attempts to promote systematic fisheries-management research occurred during this phase with the creation of academic and research infrastructure (Fig. 1), particularly the National Insti- tute of Fishing-Biological Investigations (1962), which was founded to provide official technical and scientific advice to the fisheries sector [34]. In addition, the National Council of Science and Technology (1970) was inaugurated to support the development of domestic scientific and technological research.

(d) Physical/technological: The domestic fisheries system was con- solidated through the rehabilitation of ports, roads, and electrical networks (LF) [26] and by a set of technological developments (e.g., nylon nets and inboard diesel engines) introduced in developing countries (RF) [6]. Although Mexico sustained an average annual catch of 300,000 metric tons (LF) [37], even with strong macro-environmental events such as the El-Nin˜ o Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in 1958 and the decadal variation in1959 [38], the traditional stocks of major fishing nations (e.g., theNorth Sea) showed serious signals of depletion (RF) [3].

3.1.3. Rapid growth of fisheries and markets: institutional basis(1971–1982)

Fisheries policy: Domestic policies during this phase promoted rapid increases in the fisheries sector. Shrimp licenses to foreign fleets were not renewed (1979) [21]; instead, fishermen’ coopera- tives were increased and the shrimp fleets from the private sector were transferred to the cooperatives. In addition, national fleets

were improved with better fishing gear, fishing credits without guaranties were granted by a state-directed bank (BANPESCA,1980), and fishermen were assisted in markets through parastatal enterprises (PROPEMEX, 1972, and Ocean Garden company, 1975). Moreover, new means of controlling and registering landings were enforced (e.g., licenses to market the catch) after 1970 by the Fisheries Sub-secretary and earlier by the Fisheries Department in1976 [26]. A new Federal Law for Fishery Promotion (1972) and the first National Plan of Fishery Development were enacted to promote the development of the fisheries sector [21].

Environmental policy: The environmental policy in this phase was largely symbolic, focused on international recognition, and lacked the capacity to implement long-term strategies [29]. The Undersecretary of Environmental Improvement (1972) was cre- ated as an intersectorial institution to deal with environmental issues that were considered to present health concerns due to their frequent ecological impacts [22]. At this time, a new Environmental Law (1971), which was repealed in 1982, reconsidered protected areas as key conservation instruments. Consequently, another 29Coastal and Marine Protected Areas were created [27].

Contextual factors:

(a) Political: The Mexican population had doubled during the preceding 30 years. Therefore, governmental policies during this phase were dominated by the increasing necessities of employment and cheaper food (LF) [33]. Moreover, civil environmental organizations appeared in the fisheries sector, promoting regional social movements, principally in southern Mexico (e.g., the Coastal Pact, 1977) [39]. In 1972, Mexico, along with other developing countries, unilaterally declared the 200 miles of its Exclusive Economic Zone (Fig. 1), which reached international consensus until the plenary session of UNCLOS III in 1982. Mexico also signed the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE, 1972), which renewed its interest in environmental concerns (RF). However, it abandoned other agreements; in 1978, for example, Mexico rejected the tuna quota assigned by the Inter-American Tro- pical Tuna Commission (160,000 metric tons to the US and25,000 metric tons to Mexico) [26].

(b) Economic: Two strong economic crises (LF) followed the embargo of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which promoted a dramatic decline in Mexican sales in the US in1976, and the overproduction of petroleum in Asia, which encouraged the decline in petroleum prices in 1982 (RF) [36]. To complicate the situation, US traders initiated the first com- mercial yellowfin-tuna embargo (1980–1986) during this period. However, the Mexican fisheries sector faced these adverse economic conditions with the aid of international assistance designed to promote intensive fishing technologies in developing countries (e.g., BANPESCA was supported by the Inter-American Development Bank) [24] and revenues from new oil locations (Chiapas-Tabasco, 1973 and Sonda de Campeche, 1976; Fig. 1).

(c) Scientific: Whereas the international research arena estimated the critical fisheries limits for sustainable harvest (e.g., opti- mum sustainable yield) (RF) [40], the National Council of Science and Technology in Mexico decentralized research through the creation of academic and research infrastructure, mainly on the Pacific coast (LF) [34].

(d) Physical/technological: In spite of the ENSO and the decadal variation in 1972 (RF), a spectacular increase in the number of national fishing vessels (e.g., 6000 new artisanal boats) and in fisheries landings ( 1.2 million metric tons consisting of about

50% sardines and Californian anchovies) occurred (LF). Moreover, the rapid development of the oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico led to a large-scale deterioration of marine resources [41].

3.1.4. From prosperity to crisis: hands-off government (1983–1994) Fisheries policy: During these neo-liberal sexenios, a modernized

fisheries policy was implemented to fully exploit the resources through the highest administrative level of the

Secretary (1982) [42]. As part of the strategy to diminish public investment, parastatal agencies were declared bankrupt

(e.g., BANPESCA) or were sold (e.g., Ocean Garden) [21]. These administrations estab- lished legal reforms, such as those

governing the 50 miles of national waters, but the primary focus was on the new Federal Fishery Law (1986), which

eliminated the reservation of fisheries resources to cooperatives, allowing private entrance into the sector, and the General Law

of Cooperative Societies (1994), whichconferred more independence to the cooperatives.

Environmental policy: The 1980s may be identified as the beginning of organized Mexican environmental policy [25]. At that time, environmental concerns were combined and elevated into a single cabinet-level position, the Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology (1983). At the end of the period, the duties of this Secretary were transferred to the Secretary of Social Development (1992). In addition to the publication of the first Federal Environ- mental Plan, other key developments during this period were the creation of the Federal Ecology Institute (1992) to provide technical advice to the environmental sector and of the Office of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (1992) to enforce environ- mental legislation. Furthermore, the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (1988) was published to support the legal framework of environmental instruments and regulations. In this way, 42 Coastal and Marine Protected Areas were created [27] and two new instruments were adopted: (a) Ecological Ordinance Programs to regulate fisheries in marine and coastal areas and (b) Official Mexican Standards to detail the management requirements for commercial and threatened species.

Contextual factors:

(a) Political and legal: To control inflation and decrease public expenditures (LF), a National Agreement promoted private investment in key economic sectors and gave more power to the states and society [36]. In this way, a serious and well- organized group of environmental activists emerged in civil society [29]. To bring back foreign investment (RF), the govern- ment actively sought to establish trade agreements (e.g., General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—GATT, 1986; North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA, 1993; Fig. 1). These agreements were signed under neo-liberal conditions, such as decreased government participation in the economic sector. This situation led to Mexico’s adoption of environmental approaches from developed countries, especially from the US [22]. The Mexican government signed international conservation conventions (e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Spe- cies—CITES, 1991; United Nations Conference on Environment and Development—UNCED, 1992; Fig. 1) to obtain grants, such as the Global Environmental Facility, which supported the creation of a large number of Natural Protected Areas [39].

(b) Economic: Although the fisheries sector was responsible for in the second-largest amount of foreign-currency input [26], the enormous dependency on petroleum during previous phases set the stage for the severe economic crisis of 1982 (Fig. 1), when Mexico had to inflate its currency by historic levels (LF). Aside from the increase in domestic fuel prices, this debt crisis was escalated in the fisheries sector due to debts that had been incurred in US dollars and to the new US commercial embargo on yellowfin tuna (1991–1997) (RF).

(c) Scientific: Imminent environmental damage caused by trawl nets and by-catch led fisheries scientists to consider approaches emphasizing habitat protection (RF) [40]. Thus,

Mexican fisheries research was diversified based on local resources (e.g., abalone,

clams), endangered species (e.g., marine mammals and turtles), and environmental impact assessments (LF) [34]. Moreover, the restricted national budget forced the federal government to stop building infrastructure for research, concentrating on reinforcing academic work through the National Researchers System (1984).

(d) Physical/technological: In the 1980s, global fisheries ( 85 million metric tons) [43] and Mexican fisheries recorded their largest catches (Fig. 1). However, important stocks collapsed, such as the Canadian Atlantic northern cod fishery in 1992 (RF) [12], and Mexican commercial fisheries suddenly declined (LF). This decline was particularly pronounced for the Mexican industrial fleet due to a dramatic collapse of anchovy stocks after ENSO events (1982, 1991, and 1993), a decadal oscillation (1982) [38], and the US commercial embargo on yellowfin tuna (RF). With the emerging conflict between small- and large- scale fishing operations, the focus of international assistance shifted toward less-controversial big-ticket items, notably the construction of ice plants and related facilities [14].

3.1.5. Adoption of sustainable-development approaches (1995–2000) Fisheries policy: During this phase, the fisheries agenda included

the recently created Secretary for Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (1994), which was the first government agency responsible for reconciling the use and conservation of natural resources. The amended Fisheries Law and the recent National Program for Responsible Fisheries promoted the National Fishery Chart (2000), whose aim was to control the fishing effort by regulating gear usage and fishing-ground distribution.

Environmental policy: During this period, the federal expense budget increased substantially (from 0.2% to 1.2%) [29]. The National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (2000) was formed as a more independent office that created 34 new Coastal and Marine Protected Areas [27].

Contextual factors:

(a) Political and legal: Environmental issues became a common topic for discussion in Mexico, and environmental activism was increasingly consolidated through international and national Non-Governmental Organizations (LF) [29]. The Code of Con- duct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO-CCRF, 1995; Fig. 1) led the federal administration to adopt the sustainable-development paradigm in the fisheries arena (RF) [45].

(b) Economic: The large-scale economic crisis in 1994 (Fig. 1) caused the sudden devaluation of the Mexican peso (LF), forcing the federal government to obtain stabilizing loans from the United States and other international financial institutions (RF).

(c) Scientific: Before more holistic research approaches (e.g., the precautionary approach, co-management, ecosystem-based man- agement) became widespread (RF) [12], the domestic research system was consolidated through the creation or improvement of specialized groups of marine scientists (LF) [34].

(d) Physical/technological: The fisheries-research community showed that rather than increasing, as previously reported, global fisheries were declining by approximately 500,000 metric tons (RF) [43]. Thus, Mexico faced overexploitation, overcapitalization, and failures in control efforts (LF) [15], as well as serious impacts of the ENSO (1997–1998; Fig. 1) [38].

3.1.6. Full exploitation: incipient institutionalism (2001–2009) Fisheries policy: During this period, governmental agencies dealing

with environmental issues and the fisheries sector were once again separated. In line with this vision, fisheries management is currently led by the Federal Commission on Fishery and Aquaculture (2001) under the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development,

Fisheries and Food. The Federal Fisheries Law of 2001 was replaced in2007 with a new Sustainable Fishery and Aquaculture General Law, which gave the states and municipalities more decision-making power and promoted co-responsibilities among local users. For the first time, the government intends to address long-term problems in the sector (up to 2020) through the Federal Rector Program for Sustainable Fishery and Aquaculture, which has been designed by academics and contains novel approaches (e.g., co-management strategies, producer–academy links, economic incentives) [44].

Environmental policy: To deal with the environmental agenda, the Secretary for Environmental and Natural Resources (2000) was redesigned to supervise the integration of productive and environ- mental issues through inter-institutional federal arrangements [29]. With 25 new Ecological Ordinance Programs in the coastal zone, this instrument has recently received a renewed impetus through its four new modalities: the national and marine mod- alities, which are regulated by federal agencies, and regional and local modalities, which are regulated by states and municipalities.

Contextual factors:

(a) Political: In 2000, the official Institutional Revolutionary Party, which had been in power for 71 years, lost the presidential elections (LF). Since this date, a centrist and Christian party has governed the country and most states, focusing on national security and employment (Fig. 1). Under productive and economic criteria, this government has promoted strategic planning of natural-resource use. In the international arena (RF), Mexico has reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development in international agreements (e.g., World Summit on Sustainable Development—WSSD, 2002; Oceans Act, 2002).

(b) Economic: There is currently economic stability in Mexico (Fig. 1), though the economy is not growing (LF). The yellow- fin-tuna fishery continues to face commercial constraints from the US market (RF) because it has not yet obtained the Dolphin- Safe label. Consumers prefer tuna with this label.

(c) Scientific: Worldwide (RF), emerging ecosystem-based manage- ment approaches, such as the resilience concept, are being applied to understand the complex impact of human activities [3]. Meanwhile, fishing tools such as individual transferable quotas are being proposed as innovative co-management stra- tegies [40]. In Mexico, however, academic institutions have included only practical approaches and interdisciplinary research in their graduate and undergraduate programs [34]. The evaluation methods of the National Council of Science and Technology and the National Researchers System are not always considered to be relevant to this kind of research (LF) [45].

(d) Physical/technological: At the beginning of the 21st century, many of the world’s fish populations were overexploited, and the ecosystems that sustain them were degraded (RF) [46]. Although the Mexican fisheries maintain an annual yield of about 1.3 million metric tons, 57% of the fisheries stocks are at maximum exploitation, 25% are overexploited, and only 18% have the potential to be developed (LF) [16]. In addition, the fisheries system of Mexico suffers from overcapacity, obsolete vessels, commercial monopolies, loan-payment failures, and a lack of effort control [28]. Specifically, the artisanal fishery, which makes up 90% of the approximately 250,000 fishermen, is the most numerous and increasing fleet ( 102,807 small-scale registered boats; Fig. 1) [15]. Conversely, the frequently over- estimated industrial fleet has stabilized or even declined [15].

3.2. Contextual management situations

Global fisheries management has been driven more by policy concerns than by social, environmental, and scientific goals [12,3],

and the contemporary development of Mexican fisheries manage- ment is no exception. However, certain key contextual factors with sporadic or recurrent presence and variable influence have con- tributed to the establishment of three general contextual situations (described below) during the different phases of the evolution of Mexican fisheries.

3.2.1. Accelerated developmentPeriods of accelerated economic development due to

highly productive sectors (e.g., oil revenues; LF-Economic) are stable periods in which local mechanisms are given a central role and, therefore, domestic politics (LF-Political/Legal) are less vulnerable to international forces (RF-Political/Legal; Economic; Technologi- cal; Scientific). Thus, if viewed from an economic-development perspective, as in Mexico from 1941 to 1982 or in countries like Bangladesh and the Philippines today [5], the fisheries sector can achieve a high political priority in the governmental agenda. Governments may make an effort to address urgent issues related to maritime sovereignty until issues related to employment or cheaper food take precedence. During long periods of accelerated development, fisheries policy is formulated by sectorial experts who share several fundamental assumptions about the ultimate objectives of their policies and the instruments that are most appropriate to reach these objectives [31]. If the priority is to justify large harvests to satisfy a production-oriented vision, federal agencies will administer resources with little environmental con- cern and will not consider either local signs of resource exhaustion or effects of macro-environmental events (LF/RF-Physical). There- fore, subsidies and few effective regulations are applied, allowing, in the worst case, overcapitalization and increased fishing effort (LF-Technological).

The independence of domestic policies from external forces during a period of accelerated economic development may be exemplified in Mexico by the local scientific development in the1980s. At that time, when most international agencies endeavored to increase the productivity of fisheries by constructing new vessels and supporting infrastructure rather than research, staff training, and education [14], oil revenues provided major economic support to the national research infrastructure, which is the basis of the current scientific system [34].

3.2.2. Stable circumstancesDuring two short periods (1934–1940 and 1995–2000),

Mexico experienced the stable political conditions needed to examine the state of its resources and its long-term opportunities. During these periods, environmental concerns related to fisheries were mainly affected by pressures exerted by remote forces (RF-Political/Legal) and by presidential priorities (LF-Political/Legal). Although the domestic economy was not at its most favorable level (e.g., the economic crisis in 1994; LF-Economic), during these short periods Mexico had a fisheries regime similar to that of developed countries, where governmental agencies and their rules of opera- tion are sensitive to the overexploitation of resources (LF-Physical/ Technological) [18,32]. The indirect role of scientific forces on natural resources is especially important during periods of stable conditions when attention is paid to environmental concerns. International academic opinions (RF-Scientific) played a crucial role in shaping multilateral agreements, while the national acad- emy served as an adviser for governmental decision-making (LF-Scientific). The inclusion of public research institutions between 1995 and 2000, for example, has been beneficial for fisheries management because scientists are given an important role in the decision-making process [47].

During stable periods, it becomes possible to discuss the role

of the government in environmental concerns. In Mexico, this debate

has led to conflicting opinions. Authors like Hernandez and Kempton [47] have found that governmental natural-resource management agencies expand their mandates to include broader environmental concerns (e.g., the creation of the Secretary for Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries in 1994). This process has advantages, such as the incorporation of multi- disciplinary scientific advice in the decision-making process and inter-institutional cooperation. However, the fishing industry has insisted that the sector should not be subordinated to environ- mental agencies but should be transferred to the jurisdiction of an agency responsible for the implementation of production-related policies. Some academics, such as Alcala´ [26], have maintained that the environmentalist periods caused a considerable loss of decades of fisheries experience, diluting the problems of fisheries within broader environmental concerns.

3.2.3. Adverse conditionsAdverse situations in the fisheries sector cause crucial periods of

change, during which the priorities of both fisheries and environ- mental policies can vary depending on the contextual circumstances. Domestic and remote physical (LF/RF-Physical) and economic factors (LF/RF-Economic) may cause adverse scenarios in the fisheries sector [30], but internal political factors in developing countries can also play a fundamental causal role (LF-Political/Legal) [4]. Adverse physical and economic conditions occurred in Mexico between 1983 and 1994, when in addition to resource deterioration and adverse macro- environmental events, a domestic economic crisis and drastic political changes motivated the progressive but effective disarticulation of previous fisheries policies. As in other developing countries in Latin America [42] and Asia [6] during this period, the fisheries regime became more vulnerable to external forces such as trade agreements (RF-Political/Legal). This situation resulted in major interest in environmental issues, but also caused a loss of governmental control over resources, even leading to the manipulation of fisheries data (LF-Technological). For instance (although the official fisheries data are often misleading), during this stressful neo-liberal period, the data were severely manipulated to show stable numbers of vessels and fishermen so that Mexico could be considered a developed country [15]. When corrected by the subsequent administration, the data showed that the number of fishermen in Mexico doubled from the 1980s onward, while the fleet increased by more than 300% [47].

Although no severe economic crisis has occurred from 2000 to the present, drastic internal political changes are causing differences between the official and the actual data. For example, in some parts of the Southern Pacific, the number of artisanal boats has been under- estimated by 50% [48]. This type of manipulation occurs when fisheries and environmental concerns are subsumed by other govern- mental priorities, such as employment. For example, following a logical productive arrangement from other fisheries regimes, the current fisheries policy is once again led by the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food agency. However, such governmental adjustments do not consider that this secretary in charge of implementing production-related policies, which is one of the most powerful but bureaucratic secretaries, is fundamentally oriented toward agriculture and livestock and does not have an inherent concern with fisheries. In consequence, the fisheries sector is neglected. Moreover, in all adverse situations, the domestic scientific system (LF-Scientific) lacks economic support and is only administratively reorganized (RF-Scientific).

4. Conclusions

According to common belief, policy changes in Mexico depend on changing presidential priorities and fluctuating international pressures, causing a kind of backward evolution. However, these

views are simplified judgments and the actual situation is more complicated when the whole picture is considered. The CFA shows, in an organized and explicit form, that during its 80 years of contemporary evolution, the Mexican fisheries regime has been conducted by fisheries policies and, more recently, environmental policies in a rapidly changing balance between domestic and remote forces. In developing countries such as Mexico, there are few long periods of stability and frequent short periods of radical change that alternate between stable and adverse contextual situations. This domain of short and contrasting contextual situa- tions cause a kind of tug-of-war in Mexican fisheries policy- making. On the one hand, domestic economic, scientific, and technological forces seem slow but towards consolidation of sustainable fisheries. On the other hand, domestic policies drift from one position to another at other time rates than the interna- tional fisheries and environmental policies. Thus, developing countries in general and Mexico in particular will continue to respond primarily to urgent and immediate necessities until domestic forces can be consolidated to motivate long periods of relative stability.

Recent crises throughout the world (e.g., global warming and severe economic crises) and in Mexico (e.g., insecurity associated with drug trafficking) seem to be outlining a new period of unfavorable conditions. Due to the complex network of forces affecting fisheries and environmental policies, it is difficult to predict what will happen. However, if the old system continues to operate, certain conditions (e.g., fewer economic resources for research, international loans with conditions) might be expect to increase the vulnerability of domestic policies in developing countries and promote the rapid adoption of theoretical models designed in other places. Nevertheless, short periods of radical change also provide a good opportunity to adopt new structural plans. In contrast to previous periods and resource management approaches, contemporary sustainable fisheries management approaches attempt to consolidate domestic forces (e.g., co-man- agement strategies, producer-academy linking) as a basis for long- term strategies.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) under a Ph.D.’s scholarship to A.E.-T.; English editions were funded by Red de Manejo Costero, PROMEP. We thank Milena Arias-Schreiber, Kathleen Schwerdtner, and an anonymous reviewer for all suggestions and helpful comments. The language corrections of Rosana Herrero and A.J.E. are also appreciated.

References

[1] Pitcher JT, Kalikoski D, Short K, Varkey D, Pramod G. An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries. Marine Policy 2009;33:223–32.

[2] Edwards MV, Steins AN. Special issue introduction: The importance of context in common pool resource research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 1999;1:195–204.

[3] Finley C. The social construction of fishing, 1949. Ecology and Society 2009;14:

1–6.[4] Husain Z, Bhattacharya R. Common pool resources and contextual

factors: Evolution of a fishermen’s cooperative in Calcutta. Ecological Economics2004;50:201–17.

[5] Thorpe A, Reid C, van Anrooy R, Brugere. When fisheries influence national policy-making:an analysis of the national development strategies of major fish-producing nations in the developing world. Marine Policy 2005;29:211–22.

[6] Boonstra JW, Dang BN. A history of breaking laws—social dynamics

of non-compliance in Vietnamese marine fisheries. Marine Policy 2010;34:1261–7.

[7] FAO. Yearbook of fishery statistics: capture production. Rome: FAO; 2007.

[8] Arnason R, Kelleher K, Willmann R. The sunken billions: the economic justification for fisheries reform. Washington: The World Bank, FAO; 2008.

[9] Chircop A. Education for sustainable development of the Mediterranean: themissing link. Ocean and Coastal Management 1996;31:183–97.

[10] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht WR, Vallega A, Harakunarak A. Education and training in integrated coastal management: lessons from the international arena. Ocean and Coastal Management 2000;43:291–330.

[11] Garcia SM. Ocean fisheries management: the FAO programme. In: Fabbri P, editor. Ocean management in global change. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 1992. p. 381–418.

[12] Caddy JF, Cochrane KL. A review of fisheries management past and present and

some future perspectives for the third millennium. Ocean and CoastalManagement 2001;44:653–82.

[13] Roberts MC. The unnatural history of the sea. Washington: Island Press; 2007. [14] Bailey C. The political economy of fisheries development in the third world.

Agriculture and Human Values 1988;5:35–48.[15] Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Agricultural

and fisheries policies in Mexico, recent achievements, continuing the reform agenda. Paris: OECD; 2005.

[16] DOF–Federal Gazette. Acuerdo por el que se aprueba la Carta NacionalPesquera. Adopted on 17 August 2000. Available at /h t t p : / / w w w . i n p . s a g a r p a. m x S .

[17] DOF–Federal Gazette. Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura sustentables.

Adopted on 24 July 2007. Available at /http://www.inp.sagarpa.mx S .[18] Barnes C, McFadden WK. Marine ecosystem approaches to management:

challenges and lessons in the United States. Marine Policy 2008;32:387–92.

[19] Edwards MV, Steins AN. A framework for analyzing contextual factors in common pool resource research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning1999;1:205–21.

[20] Jones BD, Baumgartner FR. The politics of attention. How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press; 2005.

[21] Soberanes FJL. Historia contempora´ nea de la legislacio´ n pesquera en Me´ xico.

In: Gonza´ lez OM, Garita AMA, editors. El re´ gimen jurı´dico de la pesca enMe´ xico. Mexico: UNAM, IPN; 1994. p. 2–26.

[22] Mumme PS, Bath CR, Assetto JV. Political development and environmental policy in Mexico. Latin American Research Review 1998;23:7–34.

[23] Simonian L. La defensa de la tierra del jaguar. Una historia de la conservacio´ n en

Me´ xico. Mexico: INE; 1999.[24] Aguilar IA, Reid C, Thorpe A. The political economy of marine fisheries

development in Peru, Chile and Mexico. Journal of Latin American Studies2000;32:503–27.

[25] Micheli J. Polı´tica ambiental en Me´ xico y su dimensio´ n regional. Regio´ n y

Sociedad 2002;XIV:129–70.[26] Alcala´ G. Polı´ticas pesqueras en Me´ xico (1946–2000)

contradicciones y aciertos en la planificacio´ n de la pesca nacional. Me´ xico: COLMEX; 2003.

[27] Bezaury-Creel EJ. Protected areas and coastal and ocean management inMexico. Ocean and Coastal Management 2005;48:1016–46.

[28] Csirke J, Gumy A, Lleonart J, Gonza´ lez de la Rocha J, Seijo JC, Sosa E, et al.

Informe de la evaluacio´ n para el fortalecimiento del Instituto Nacional de laPesca de Me´ xico. Rome: FAO; 2005.

[29] Guevara SA. Polı´tica ambiental en Me´ xico: ge´ nesis, desarrollo y perspectivas.

ICE 2005;821:163–75.[30] Kim S. Fisheries development in northeastern Asia in conjunction with

changes in climate and social systems. Marine Policy 2010;34:803–9.[31] Princen S. Venue shifts and policy change in EU fisheries policy. Marine Policy

2010;34:36–41.[32] Buck JS. Contextual factors in the development of state wildlife

management regimes in the United States of America. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 1999;1:247–59.

[33] Schlefer J. Palace politics: how the ruling party brought crisis to Mexico.

Austin, TX: University of Texas; 2008.[34] Espinoza-Tenorio A, Espejel I, Wolff M. Capacity building to achieve

sustain- able fisheries management in Mexico. Manuscript.[35] Grande-Vidal JM. La explotacio´ n pesquera en Me´ xico (1929–2003). In: Guzma´

n- Amaya P, Fuentes-Castellanos FD, editors. Pesca, Acuacultura e Investigacio´ n en Me´ xico. Mexico: CEDRSSA; 2006. p. 93–106.

[36] Martı´nez LN. Evolucio´ n y expresio´ n territorial de la industria petroquı´mica en

Me´ xico. Investigaciones geogra´ ficas 2001;46:98–116.[37] CONAPESCA. Anuario estadı´stico de pesca. Mexico: SAGARPA; 2005.[38] Lluch-Belda D, Lluch-Cota DB, Lluch-Cota SE. Changes in marina

faunal distributions and ENSO events in the California Current. Fisheries Oceano- graphy 2005;14:458–67.

[39] Heerman H. El papel de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en el

manejo costero. In: Rivera-Arriaga A, Villalobos-Zapata JG, Azuz AI, Rosado MF, editors. El manejo costero en Me´ xico. Campeche, Mexico: CEPOMEX, CETYS University, Quintana Roo University, SEMARNAT; 2004. p. 115–32.

[40] Lackey RT. Fisheries: history, science, and management. In: Jay HL, Keeley J, editors. Water encyclopedia: surface and agricultural water. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Publishers; 2005. p. 121–9.

[41] Atwood DK, Ferguson RL. An example study of the weathering of spilledpetroleum in a tropical marine environment: IXTOC-1. Bulletin of MarineScience 1982;32:1–13.

[42] Aguilar IA, Reid C, A. Thorpe. Neo-liberalism and its impact on overfishing and overcapitalization in the marine fisheries of Chile, Mexico and Peru. Food Policy 2000;25:599–622.

[43] Pauly D, Alder J, Bennett E, Christensen V, Tyedmers P, Watson R. The future for fisheries. Science 2003;302:1359–61.

[44] CONAPESCA. Programa rector nacional de pesca y acuicultura. Mexico; 2009.

Available at /http://www.co n a pesca.s a garpa.g o b . mx/w b / cona/p r o grama_ r e c t or_ nacional_de_pesca _ y _ a c u a cultur a S .

[45] Espejel I, Leyva C, Arellano E, Ara´ mburu G, Martı´nez R, Ferma´ n JL, et al.

Evaluating interdisciplinary teaching and research in developing countries. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review 2005;7:82–90.

[46] FAO. The State of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: FAO; 2008.

[47] Herna´ ndez A, Kempton W. Changes in the fisheries management in Mexico: Effects of increasing scientific input and public participation. Ocean and Coastal Management 2003;46:507–26.

[48] Espinoza-Tenorio A, Bravo-Pen˜ a LC, Serrano GJS, Ronso´ n-Paulı´n JA, Ahumada

ZMA, Cervantes HP, et al. La diversidad e´ tnica como factor de planeacio´ n de la pesca artesanal: Chontales, Huaves y Zapotecas del Istmo de Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Me´ xico. In: Alcala´ G, Camargo A, editors. Estudios etnogra´ ficos sobre pesca y pescadores en Ame´ rica Latina y el Caribe. Mexico: UNAM, CIEMAD-IPN, Colombia University; 2010.