Response to change: who responds and how

To increase fish catch, fishers, community (investors, fishing support services), and the government in some way responded by improving gear technology (Table 6.1).

The popularization of longline technology began when the Fisheries Division promoted the Cuban technology. After the crisis of the US invasion the Fisheries Division continued promoting the technology in communities. Fishers were trained locally and abroad and worked aboard foreign vessels, so had the basics on which to further improve longline. Innovations by fishers were based on fast, locally specific, continuous social learning, which were most significant in 2000 - 2004.

The community (private investors and enterprises) was the catalyst for gear improvement; they sourced the required fishing equipment and made it available to fishers. As fishers continued to improve on the gear, meaningful contributions from the government lessened. Fishers wanted lighter and diverse types of longline; the Fisheries Division wanted longer and heavier hydraulic operated lines for offshore fishing. By the mid-1990s fishers rejected gear technology suggestions and contributions from the government, and created their own reorganization/renewal through innovation. Gear improvements had positive benefits; it led to increased fish supply and income for fishers, and employment for community members.

Boat technology changed to support changes in gear technology. The fishers, community (private enterprises - boat builders), and the government responded to improving boat technology as the longline fishery expanded (Table 6.2). Initially fishers

adapted small wooden canoes which the government and community supported; later fibreglass pirogue boats were introduced. By the third era, the CFDP provided large Japanese-built vessels (>12 m) which the government promoted. However, Gouyave fishers designed their own boat which was specific to their needs. In 2000-2004, based on fishers’ previous experiences with rough seas, hurricanes, and high boat operational costs, they wanted smaller, cost and operation-efficient, multi-purpose boats. The Fisheries Division wanted fishers to move to larger boats that could fish further offshore and be safer at sea (Roland Baldeo, pers. comm., 2003). Many fishers believed that larger boats required higher capital investment and operational costs, and with unpredictable fish catch and weather conditions they were not going to take the risk of losing everything. Thus, boat technology suggestions from the Fisheries Division were rejected. Fishers opted for small, nationally built (Grenville) and locally maintained (Gouyave) wooden canoes (5-9 m), and locally maintained fibreglass boats (22 m) with fuel-efficient four stroke engines.

In recent years the amount of flyingfish for use as bait declined which led fishers to seek alternative sources of bait. The fishers sought local options, while the Fisheries Division considered other possible options (Table 6.3). By the late 1990s, fishers started experimenting and substituting jack for flyingfish. The Fisheries Division believed that imported squid could solve the bait problem. Fishers disagreed as they believed importing bait only added to their operational costs. Jack was available from the local beachseine fishery although supply was seasonal. Thus, fishers wanted the government to assist their efforts to build a cage or an enclosure at sea to store jack when available, thus bait would be available when needed. Again, fishers rejected the government’s response and continued experimentation in different bait storage techniques.

The crisis in the number of foreign boats that were given fishing licenses in 1987-1989 angered Gouyave fishers. Their outcry resulted in the Fisheries Division withdrawing all foreign licenses and a national policy that no foreign vessels would be granted fishing licenses. The fishers’ revolt resulted in a policy change; one that is still in effect.

Marketing was a continuous problem. Improvements in gear and boat technology, the availability of bait year-round, and fisher ecological knowledge of when,

144

how, and where to fish increased fish landings. In many instances, there was nowhere to store the fish, which forced fishers to stop fishing. Fishers, community (private enterprises – fish processing plants), and the government responded to improving sales to the local and export markets (Table 6.4). The change from traditional handline to longline fishing led to an increase in the quality and quantity of fish landed. Initially, the industry was plagued with problems such as fish supply less than local demand, limited freezer storage, and poor market management to deal with a growing fishery, which led fishers to protest the conditions. The protest resulted in improved fish market facilities and rules to govern fish market operations. By the second historical era, fishers learned to stop fishing when the cold rooms were full. Local community members decided to establish NORDOM Seafoods Ltd. to export fish overseas (Box 4.3). During the third era other national processing plants developed to market fish locally and for export. At the same time the government decided to build a processing plant, the GCFL. Yet marketing problems persisted, as continued improvements in boat and gear technology resulted in further increased fish landings. The government wanted to maintain export trade to the French Caribbean Island and USA, and increase exports to other countries in the world. In order to export fish to European countries, Grenada had to implement the European Union (EU) seafood health and safety requirement. Regionally the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) provided technical and financial assistance to support the government in its efforts to develop a fish health and safety program.

Crises due to hurricanes and storms occurred mainly in the third and fourth historical eras (Table 6.5). Prior to Hurricane Ivan the last major hurricane was Janet in 1955. Fishers, community members (local institutions – NGOs), and government usually respond to hurricanes and storms by providing financial assistance (Table 6.5). Fishers were used to yearly cycles of sea and weather conditions: hurricane season, June to December; winter storm surges, December; rough seas, October to March. Fishers learned to secure boats, and the government over time learned to source the necessary technical and financial support locally (Ministry of Finance) and regionally/internationally. The intensity and impact of hurricanes and storms were unpredictable, thus it was difficult at times to prepare for such crises. Hurricane Janet

had more rain, Gouyave received a direct hit, and the population had to rely on slow government assistance via regional and international organizations.

Table 6.1: Gouyave fishers, community members, and Fisheries Division gear technology response to critical changes in the longline fishery

Historical eras Fishers’ response Community’s response Fisheries Division’s response 1978-1985 Adopted Cuban technology No response Training to promote Cuban

technology

FD staff & fishers trained abroad;

changed from Cuban design to Gouyave design; gear concession

1991-1999 Innovation No response Little response

2000-2004 Innovation Supplied gear No response

Table 6.2: Gouyave fishers, community members, and Fisheries Division boat technology response to critical change in the longline fishery

1978-1985 Wooden canoes Local wooden boat builders Wooden canoes 1986-1990 Pirogue boats National pirogue boat

builders

Pirogue boats; concession for boat building material 1991-1999 Large boats (local design

made in the USA) No response CFDP - large Japanese built boat 2000-2004 Small locally built wooden

canoes

National large and small boat builders

Large locally built boats (in Petite Martinique)

Table 6.3: Gouyave fishers, community members, and Fisheries Division bait response to critical change in Gouyave longline fishery

1978-1985 Catch flyingfish with ‘bazor’ No response Catch flyingfish with ‘bazor’

1986-1990 Catch flyingfish with gillnet No response Catch flyingfish with gillnet 1991-1999 Flyingfish with gillnet; jacks

with beachseine No response Catch flyingfish with gillnet 2000-2004 Locally available jacks with

beachseine No response Consider importing squid

Table 6.4: Gouyave fishers, community members, and Fisheries Division market response to critical changes in the longline fishery

1978-1985 Protested, buried fish No response AFDP – improved management of fish markets

1986-1990 Stopped fishing Local processing plant Little response 1991-1999 Stopped fishing National processing plants CFDP – infrastructure; Govt.

processing plant established 2000-2004 Stopped fishing Two of five plants met EU

standards HACCP & SSOP

Table 6.5: Gouyave fishers, community members, and Fisheries Division response to crisis due to hurricanes and storms in the longline fishery

1991-1999 All boats hauled to shore;

personal savings

Hauled small boats to shore;

pirogues and large boats

146

Hurricane Ivan was more like a tornado with no rain. Gouyave was not directly hit, more buildings were destroyed, but the community was able to reorganize faster with assistance from family and friends overseas, and government aid. Diverse fishing practices helped fishers secure food and income for their households; banks and NGOs were always willing to assist by providing financial assistance. The government provided financial and technical assistance at times through regional and international assistance.