Desarrollo de las infraestructuras portuarias y su implicación en el esfuerzo pesquero para La Palma (Canarias)

MÁSTER EN GESTIÓN SOSTENIBLE DE LOS RECURSOS PESQUEROS CURSO 2011/2012 UNIVERSIDAD DE LAS PALMAS DE GRAN CANARIA DESARROLLO DE LAS INFRAESTRUCTURAS PORTUARIAS Y SU IMPLICACIÓN EN EL ESFUERZO PESQUERO PARA LA PALMA (CANARIAS) MARIA ROBERT-BANCHARELLE GARCÍA TRABAJO FIN DE MASTER A mis familiares y amigos “Que inapropiado llamar Tierra a este planeta, cuando es evidente que debería llamarse Océano” (Arthur C. Clarke) TRABAJO FIN DE MÁSTER PRESENTADO POR: MARÍA ROBERT-BANCHARELLE GARCÍA DIRIGIDO POR: JOSÉ JUAN CASTRO HERNÁNDEZ JULIO 2012 UNIVERSIDAD DE LAS PALMAS DE GRAN CANARIA MASTER EN GESTIÓN SOSTENIBLE DE LOS RECURSOS PESQUEROS 2011/2012 DESARROLLO DE LAS INFRAESTRUCTURAS PORTUARIAS Y SU IMPLICACIÓN EN EL ESFUERZO PESQUERO PARA LA PALMA (CANARIAS) DESARROLLO DE LAS INFRAESTRUCTURAS PORTUARIAS Y SU IMPLICACIÓN EN EL ESFUERZO PESQUERO PARA LA PALMA (CANARIAS) María Robert-Bancharelle García* Facultad de Ciencias del Mar. Máster en Gestión Sostenible de los Recursos Pesqueros Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria *Correspondiente al autor: Tel: 691492248, dirección e-mail: [email protected] Resumen Se estudia cómo afectan las estructuras portuarias al esfuerzo pesquero de la isla de La Palma. Se comparan diferentes unidades de esfuerzo para los puertos de Santa Cruz de La Palma y Tazacorte, en base al tamaño de la flota y la capacidad portuaria, proporcionando medidas contradictorias. En general se concluye que los recursos se encuentran sobreexplotados, con una clara disminución de la abundancia de los mismos, como consecuencia de una política de gestión pesquera inadecuada, y en conjunto contradictoria, que ha provocado un excesivo aumento del poder de pesca, principalmente en forma de infraestructuras en tierra y en TRBs, y consecuentemente del esfuerzo y de la mortalidad por pesca asociada a éste. Palabras Clave La Palma, CPUE, esfuerzo pesquero, estructuras portuarias, capturas. Abstract It has been studied how the port structures affect to the fishing effort on the island of La Palma. Different effort units are compared for the two main ports, Santa Cruz de La Palma and Tazacorte, based on fleet size and port capacity, providing contradictory measures. In general conclusions the resources are overexploited, with a clear decline in abundance of them, as a result of inadequate fisheries management policy, and altogether contradictory, which has caused an excessive increase in fishing power, mainly in form of infrastructure on land and in TRBs, and consequently the effort and the fishing mortality associated with it. Key Words La Palma, CPUE, fishing effort, port structures, catch. Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 1 Introducción Los niveles de explotación de los recursos pesqueros son función directa, en gran medida, de la capacidad extractiva de la flota que incide sobre los mismos. Por ello, es elemental determinar y caracterizar la flota, así como su poder de pesca, pero también conocer su evolución en el tiempo, ya que la situación de los recursos no es sólo función de la actividad realizada en el momento presente (Castro y Hernández-García, 2012). El poder de pesca determina la capacidad extractiva que tiene cada unidad de pesca y se define como la cantidad, en peso o número de organismos (peces, crustáceos y moluscos) que se puede capturar por unidad de esfuerzo (Guerra-Sierra y Sánchez-Lizaso, 1998), por ello se asocia y calcula tradicionalmente en función de las unidades extractivas, ya sean barco o sistemas de pesca (Cubillos et al., 1998). Por otro lado, el esfuerzo de pesca es uno de los parámetros más difíciles de medir en una pesquería (Pereiro, 1982), ya que depende de múltiples factores que no sólo engloban a las características físicas de los buques (eslora, TRB, potencia del motor, etc.), incorporaciones de tipo mecánico (haladores –power block-, maquinilla, viradores de palangre, etc.), electrónicas (GPS, ecosondas, receptores de satélites, etc.) y características propias de los sistemas de pesca que usa (longitud, flexibilidad del material, cebos, etc.), sino que también influyen parámetros poco tangibles, y de difícil cuantificación, como la experiencia y grado de formación de los pescadores. Es evidente que el esfuerzo no es un parámetro constante y único para una pesquería dada, sino que evoluciona de forma rápida, y no siempre de manera lineal, con los cambios que se introducen en la pesquería, independientemente de su naturaleza, incluyendo Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 2 aquellos de tipo social y económico. De forma general, el esfuerzo de pesca, que es el causante final de la mortalidad por pesca y que se liga claramente con la captura y con la rentabilidad de dicha acción, se encuentra directamente relacionado con el poder de pesca que tiene la flota extractiva, a través del tiempo que este está siendo aplicado sobre un área o recurso (Guerra-Sierra y Sánchez-Lizaso, 1998). Por tanto, se hace necesario establecer que elementos definen el poder de pesca o la potencialidad extractiva de una pesquería, más allá de aquellos factores de índole biológica (e. g.: abundancia del recurso y su dinámica poblacional) o climático-ambientales, que puedan definir su efectividad. Está claro que la relación existente entre esfuerzo de pesca y la captura no es lineal (Thøgersen et al., 2012), aunque es cierto que gran parte de los modelos clásicos que se utilizan en evaluación de stocks sometidos a explotación pesquera asumen, por cuestiones de operatividad matemática, una cierta linealidad entre ambos parámetros a través de la capturabilidad (Gulland, 1971; Csirke, 1980; Pereiro, 1982; Sparre y Venema, 1987; Guerra-Sierra y Sánchez-Lizaso, 1998). Sin embargo, en el cálculo del poder de pesca, y por tanto también en el esfuerzo de pesca, es preciso introducir todas aquellas infraestructuras y elementos técnicos o mecánicos, que se establecen en tierra y que indirectamente facilitan, e incluso posibilitan, las operaciones extractivas en el mar. No cabe duda que la presencia de un puerto de abrigo multiplica las posibilidades de que se desarrolle una pesquería en el área próxima al mismo, y que ésta es más intensa si además en el mismo confluyen una serie de servicios tales como equipamientos de avituallamiento, reparación de buques y artes, sistemas de conservación de la captura (congeladores, hielo, etc.), logística (cadenas de distribución y transporte por carretera, tren o avión) y/o de Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 3 comercialización (lonjas, mercados, etc.) (Castro y Hernández-García, 2012). Por ello, se hace necesario a la hora de determinar el poder de pesca real de una flota, y a partir del mismo el esfuerzo de pesca, conocer la contribución de la flota y de los sistemas de pesca al uso, pero también fijar la parte del mismo debida a las infraestructuras en tierra, y a su evolución temporal (Castro y Hernández-García, 2012). En este contexto, el objetivo del presente trabajo es describir la evolución de los parámetros básicos que definen la flota artesanal de la Isla de La Palma (Fig. 1), su caracterización, así como del poder de pesca, y su impacto sobre los recursos de las aguas de la isla. Fig. 1. Situación geográfica de La Palma, Canarias Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 10 Tabla 1b. Infraestructuras portuarias de La Palma (Canarias). Fuente: José J. Castro Hernández. * No funciona o no se usa Isla: La Palma Infraestructura Barlovento Puntallana Sauces El Remo/ Bombilla Salemera Fuencaliente Pto. Espíndola 1983 2010 1983 2012 2012 2000 2012 1983 2012 1983 2012 1969 1983 2012 Puerto/ refugio No No No No No No No No 85 230 Rampa/zona de varada No No Playa Playa Playa Playa Playa Playa Playa 17 Pantalanes/atraque No No No No No No No No No No/30 Cofradía/cooperativa No No No No No No No No No No Accesibilidad por tierra B B M M M No B B B B Depósito combustible No No No No No No No No No No Travelift No No No No No No No No No No Grúa/pluma (Tm) No No No No No No No No Si 2 Elevadores No No No No No No No No No No Fábrica de hielo (Tm/d) No No No No No No No No No No Cámaras de frío (Tm) No No No No No No No No No No Cámara de congelación No No No No No No No No No No Camión isotermo No No No No No No No No No Lonja No No No No No No No No No No Primera venta No No No No No No Almacén/oficinas (m2) No No No No No No No No Cuartos de pertrechos No No No No No No No No Pescadería/Restaurante No No Sector recreativo 24 12 No 11 No 40 Acuicultura No No No No Nº pescadores litoral 6 0 4 0 2 0 41 0 59 5 23 2 Buques litorales 2 0 2 0 1 15 0 26 3 16 1 TRBs litorales 2,7 1,8 32,8 27.2 14 C.V. 6 0 255 54 97 Captura litoral (Tm) Maquinilla/Halador Nº de Artes Edad flota Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 11 Por otro lado, en relación al tamaño de la flota de pesca, actualmente se observa una disminución del 58% sobre el máximo histórico registrado en el número de embarcaciones (1986) para Tazacorte, y de un 35% para Santa Cruz de La Palma (Fig. 2) (Massieu-Vega, 1988). No obstante, la gran diferencia existente en los registros dados para 1984 y 1986 (Gafo-Fernández 1984b y Massieu-Vega, 1988) obligan a pensar que pueden existir errores en las fuentes de información utilizadas por uno de estos dos autores. Por otro lado, el número de pescadores en la actualidad se ha reducido en un 33% y 19% respectivamente en los puertos de Tazacorte y Santa Cruz (Fig. 3). Fig. 2. Evolución de los buques litorales de La Palma (1969 – 2012) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1969 1984 1986 2012 Número de buques Años Santa Cruz de La Palma Tazacorte Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 12 Fig. 3. Evolución de los pescadores de litoral de La Palma (1969 – 2012) Las capturas obtenidas en el periodo que comprende 1975 hasta la actualidad reflejan un aumento de estas, destacando los picos de 1991 y 1999 (Figs. 4 y 5), que pueden estar relacionados con la influencia de variables climáticas favorables sobre el reclutamiento de especies bento-demersales (Alonso-Alonso, 2012). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1969 1984 1986 2012 Número de pescadores Años Santa Cruz de La Palma Tazacorte Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 13 Fig. 4. Evolución de las capturas totales para La Palma de SSP (1975 – 2011) Fig. 5. Evolución de las capturas totales para La Palma (2006 – 2011) 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Capturas (kg) Años 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Capturas (kg) Años Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 14 La CPUE como indicador de la abundancia de las especies objetivo de la pesquería, muestra diferentes tendencias en función de la unidad de esfuerzo que se utilice en su cálculo. Así, cuando se utiliza el número de embarcaciones de pesca activas, se observa un importante aumento de la CPUE consecuencia del aumento de las capturas y la reducción del tamaño de la flota entre 1984 y 2011 (Fig. 6). Hay que tener en cuenta que dichas embarcaciones no tienen por qué ser una medida real del esfuerzo efectivo ni, por tanto, de la mortalidad por pesca. Fig. 6. Cálculo de CPUE mediante el número de buques registrados en Santa Cruz de La Palma y Tazacorte Además, manteniendo la base de los buques, se procedió también a otros dos cálculos de CPUE, los relacionados con los TRBs (Fig. 7) y con los CV (Fig. 8). En ambos casos se observa una disminución muy pronunciada desde 1986 hasta la actualidad, a pesar de que 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1984 1986 2003 2010 CPUE Años Santa Cruz de La Palma Tazacorte Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 15 cuando el CPUE está basado en el número de buques lo que se ve es un aumento debido a la disminución de estos. Fig. 7. Cálculo de CPUE mediante la evolución del TRB de los buques para La Palma Fig. 8. Cálculo de CPUE mediante la evolución de CVs de los buques de La Palma 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1983 2011 CPUE Años 3.8 3.85 3.9 3.95 4 4.05 4.1 4.15 4.2 4.25 4.3 1983 2011 CPUE Años Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 16 No obstante, cuando la medida de esfuerzo utilizada es un parámetro relacionado con la disponibilidad de infraestructuras que facilitan las tareas de pesca, que tampoco tiene porque ser una aproximación adecuada a la mortalidad por pesca generada, se observa que la CPUE disminuye a medida que aumentan los metros lineales disponibles para atraque de embarcaciones (artesanales, profesionales o recreativas) (Tabla 2, Imágenes 1 y 2, Fig. 9). Tabla 2. Evolución de los metros lineales disponibles para atraque de embarcaciones (artesanales y de pesca recreativa) en los puertos de Santa Cruz y Tazacorte (información obtenida de Google Earth). Puerto\Años 2000 2003 2006 2008 2009 2011 Santa Cruz 293,61 380,14 575,63 575,63 805,29 805,29 Tazacorte 646,15 X 690,91 690,91 690,91 1328,03 Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 17 Imagen 1. Evolución del puerto de Santa Cruz de La Palma. De izquierda a derecha, fila superior: Años 2000, 2003, 2006; fila inferior: Años 2008, 2009, 2011. Google Earth. ( ) ( ) Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 18 Imagen 2. Evolución del puerto de Tazacorte. De izquierda a derecha, fila superior: Años 2000, 2006, 2008; fila inferior: Años 2009, 2011. Google Earth. -------,( ) --------,( )~-------- Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 19 Fig. 9. Cálculo de CPUE mediante la evolución de los metros de puerto en Santa Cruz de La Palma y Tazacorte Discusión En Canarias el desarrollo de las infraestructuras portuarias se ha llevado a cabo en torno a núcleos pesqueros que en sus inicios poseían una capacidad extractiva muy limitada, casi nula, ya que no se tenían tecnologías adecuadas (García-Cabrera, 1970; Gafo-Fernández et al., 1984). A pesar de ello, las actuales investigaciones sobre el recurso pesquero de las islas coinciden en la existencia de una situación de sobreexplotación en los distintos caladeros (García-Cabrera, 1970; Bas et al., 1995; González, 2008; Castro y Hernández-García, 2012). Estos hechos han dado lugar a una importante paradoja: por un lado se reconoce la situación de sobreexplotación a la que se encuentran los recursos 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1986 2000 2006 2008 2009 2010 CPUE Años Santa Cruz de La Palma Tazacorte Desarrollo de las Infraestructuras Portuarias y su implicación en el Esfuerzo Pesquero para La Palma (Canarias) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 26 García-Cabrera, C. 1970. La pesca en Canarias y Banco Sahariano. Consejo Económico Sindical Interprovincial de Canarias. 176 pp. González, J.A. (editor). 2008. Memoria científico-técnica sobre el Estado de los recursos pesqueros de Canarias (REPESCAN). Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas. Telde (Las Palmas): 210 pp. Guerra Sierra, A. y J.L. Sánchez Lizaso. 1998. Fundamentos de explotación de recursos vivos marinos. Edit Acribia. Zaragoza. Gulland, J.A. 1971. Manual de métodos para la evaluación de las poblaciones de peces. Editorial Acribia. Zaragoza. MAPyA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación). 2006. Análisis y la ordenación de la pesca de recreo en el ámbito de las Islas Canarias. Secretaria General de Pesca Marítima. Massieu-Vega, M. 1988. Infraestructura actual y necesidades de los refugios pesqueros del Archipiélago Canario. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. Dirección General de Pesca. Gobierno de Canarias. Melnychuck, M., S. Guénette, P. Martínez-Sosa y E. Balguerías. 2001. Fisheries in the Canary Islands, Spain. In: Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic ecosystems: Catch, effort and national/regional data sets (Zeller, D., R. Watson & D. Pauly, eds.). Fisheries Centre Research Report, 9(3):221-224. Morales-Malla, D. 2011. Estudio de las infraestructuras y el poder de pesca en Gran Canaria. Memoria de Trabajo Fin de Máster. Máster en Gestión Sostenible de Recursos Pesqueros. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Pereiro, J.A. 1982. Modelos de uso en dinámica de poblaciones marinas sometidas a explotación. Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Madrid. 255 pp. Sparre, P. y S.C. Venema. 1997. Introducción a la evaluación de recursos pesqueros tropicales. Parte 1. Manual. FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca. N°. 306.1 Rev. 2: 420 pp. Thøgersen, T., A. Hoff y H. Fronst. 2012. Linking effort and fishing mortality in a mixed fisheries model: Comparing linear versus non-linear assumptions. Fisheries Research, 127-128:9-17. Watson, R. y D. Pauly. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch PORT INFRASTRUCTURES DEVELOPMENT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN THE FISHING EFFORT FOR LA PALMA (CANARY ISLAND) María Robert-Bancharelle García* Faculty of Marine Science. Master in Gestión Sostenible de los Recursos Pesqueros University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria *Corresponding to the author: Tel: 691492248, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract It has been studied how the port structures affect to the fishing effort on the island of La Palma. Different effort units are compared for the two main ports, Santa Cruz de La Palma and Tazacorte, based on fleet size and port capacity, providing contradictory measures. In general conclusions the resources are overexploited, with a clear decline in abundance of them, as a result of inadequate fisheries management policy, and altogether contradictory, which has caused an excessive increase in fishing power, mainly in form of infrastructure on land and in TRBs, and consequently the effort and the fishing mortality associated with it. Key Words La Palma, CPUE, fishing effort, port structures, catch. Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 1 Introduction The exploitation levels of fisheries resources are a direct function, in great measure, of the extractive capacity from the fleet that falls on them. Therefore, it is elemental the identification and characterization of all the fleet and its fishing power, but also to evaluate the changes over the time, now a days the situation of the resources is not only a function of the activity in the present. (Castro y Hernández-García, 2012). The fishing power determines the extractive capacity of each fishing unit and this is defined as the quantity, weight or number of organisms (fish, crustaceans and molluscs) that can be catch per unit effort, CPUE (Guerra-Sierra y Sánchez-Lizaso, 1998), that’s why it is linked and traditionally calculated in function of the extractive units, boats or fishing systems (Cubillos et al., 1998). On the other side, fishing effort is one of the most difficult parameters to measure in a fishery (Pereiro, 1982), it depends on multiple factors that not only encompasses the physical characteristics of vessels (length, GRT, engine power, etc..), incorporations of mechanical (block-haulers-power, winch, hauling longline, etc.. ), electronics (GPS, echo sounders, satellite receivers, etc..) and the characteristics of fishing systems used (length, flexibility of the material, bait, etc.), but slightly tangible influence parameters, and very difficult to quantify, as experience and the level of fishermen’s training. It is obvious that the effort is not a constant parameter and unique for a given fishery, but evolves quickly, and not always in a linear way, with changes being introduced into the fishery, regardless of its nature, including those of social type and economic. In general, fishing effort, that is the final cause of fishing mortality and is clearly linked with the Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 2 capture and the profitability of this action is directly related to the extractive fishing fleet over the time that is being applied over an area or resource (Guerra-Sierra y SánchezLizaso, 1998). So, it is needed to establish which elements define the fishing power or the extractive potential of a fishery, beyond those biological factors (eg: fish abundance and population dynamics) or climate-environment, that can define its effectiveness. It is clear that the relationship between fishing effort and catch is not linear (Thøgersen et al., 2012), although it is true that a lot of the classical models used in stock assessment subject to overfishing assume, for reasons of mathematical operation, a certain linearity between both parameters through the catchability (Gulland, 1971; Csirke, 1980; Pereiro, 1982; Sparre y Venema, 1987; Guerra-Sierra y Sánchez-Lizaso, 1998). However, in the calculation of fishing power, and thus also in the fishing effort, is necessary to introduce all the infrastructure and technical or mechanical elements, which are established on land and indirectly facilitate, in even possible, extractive operations at sea. No doubt that the presence of a harbor increases the chances of developing a fishery in the area next to it, and that it is more pronounced if also a convergence of services such as equipment supplies, repair of vessels and gear, preservation systems of captures (freezers, ice, etc..), logistics (distribution chains and road transport, rail or air) and / or marketing (auctions, markets, etc..) (Castro y Hernández-García, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to determining the power of a real fishing fleet, and from the same, fishing effort, know the contribution of the fleet and fishing systems to use, but also set the part of if due to infrastructure on land, and its temporal evolution (Castro y Hernández-García, 2012). Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 3 In this context, the objective of this paper is to describe the evolution of the basic parameters that define the artisanal fleet in the island of La Palma (Fig. 1), its characterization, and fishing power, and its impact on water resources of the island. Fig. 1. Geographical situation of La Palma (Canary Islands) Material and methods It was realized an inventory of the infrastructures to service of the fishing fleet in the island of La Palma and its temporal evolution. Because most of the fishing fleet is concentrated in the ports of Santa Cruz de La Palma and Tazacorte, these were studied in Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 4 further detail. It also analyzed other secondary fishing villages of the island, with the presence of beaches where boats occasionally beaching, or that are configured as natural shelters or have small infrastructure (piers or jetties), as is the case of Fuencaliente, Puerto Naos, Puerto Espindola, Garafía and Punta Gorda, that at some time mainly during the summer, it provides shelter to some vessels professional or recreational character. For the analysis of the evolution of catches, these points have been excluded in the final analysis, since it does not match fishing record associated with them. For the analysis of catch the data have been used proportionate by the Deputy Ministry of Fisheries of the Canary Islands between 2006 and 2011, registered at the point of first sale in the ports of Tazacorte and Santa Cruz de La Palma. It has also disposed a series of catches from 1975 to 2010, provided by a fisherman in Santa Cruz de La Palma (hereafter SSP). However, because at the nature of both databases are significantly different, since in the Canary Islands Government statistics contains pelagic species, including tuna, which have not been targeted by SSP, it was proceeded to start a process of homogenization of both series in the analysis enclosing only bento-demersal species, crustaceans and mollusks. Previously to the analysis of catch data, it was a study of similarities between the two series in the time period that it coincides (2006-2010), in order to establish whether the SSP data capture can be taken as representative of those obtained for the entire fleet of the island. This was performed by Pearson correlation with R program. In addition, it was compared the evolution of both registered fishing fleet in the port of Santa Cruz de La Palma and the Tazacorte. This analysis also took into account the Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 5 recreational fleet, as it is estimated that the impact on resources can be very important (MAPyA, 2006). To determine the evolution of fishing power associable to the existence of infrastructure and services related to fishing, such as maritime and logistics equipment on land (buildings, cranes, freezers, etc.) it has gone to search bibliographical material where data are collected information on these infrastructures at different periods over the past 40 years. This information has been verified through visits to various ports and shelters, as well as through interviews with fishermen and officials from both fishermen's associations. It was considered not only the infrastructure and port works (dams, shelters, jetties, ramps, etc..), but also all those who although considered secondary (workshops, recycling center, first sale, accessibility, cold storage and freezers, elevators, etc..) may be connected or in any way facilitate the professional or recreational fishing. In addition, it has been registered the present vessels is each of the places visited, both engaged in professional fishing (3 rd. list), as a recreational-professional high (charters or 6th list) or purely recreational (7th list). In the latter case it was accounted for all types of vessels, not only those that clearly showed that their use was to recreational fishing (e. g: professional fishing boats converted to 7th list), but all those in this category that could be used at some point to this mode of fishing (e. g small sailboats). In this sense, it has to recognize the impossibility to have a real census of the number of vessels engaged in recreational fishing at each location, because a lot of them are light boats, made of fiberglass, and they are stored in private garages after the activity ends. Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 6 As part of the calculation of relative fishing power of the fleet, it has counted all vessels that strand on beaches where do not exist port infrastructures of any kind, but they are associated with guilds or cooperatives nearby, as is the case of Puerto Espindola , Fuencaliente, El Remo, Salemera, etc.. Some data, particularly those related to measures of port infrastructure and recreational fleet anchored on beaches, shelters and marinas have been obtained from historical photographic archives or photos taken from satellites and they are available from Google Earth from 2000 to 2011. All this information has allowed establish an inventory of available extractive infrastructure for both recreational and artisanal. Moreover, it has been carried a literature review of available information, both written and in pictures. Several technical reports prepared for the Government of the Canary Islands have been consulted, as well as reports about fishing in the islands or infrastructure available for fishing from the 1970 developed by researchers at the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO) of the Directorate General of Fisheries of the Canary Government or of the University of La Laguna. In addition it was made an approximate inventory of the infrastructure associable to fishing (professional and recreational) in different coastal towns of La Palma, with particular emphasis on those where it is available from to fishermen's associations, as well as the equipment and services which the same feature and/or under their responsibility. The purpose of this inventory is to determine the degree of use thereof, and data were obtained through interviews with leaders of both guilds. Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 7 The recent census of vessels that are associated with the two main ports of the island have been obtained from the Official State Bulletin (BOE No. 240 of October 7, 2003 and BOE No. 58, February 22, 2010), because since it is carrying out the project to be La Palma Biosphere Reserve, it is being controlled more and more how many fishermen can fish in the area. Moreover, in order to establish the parameters that define the current fleet (from late 2011 until April 2012) have consulted the databases of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (www.magrama.gob. com /) and the bases of census fleet registered in Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?lg=EN). The oldest census of fishermen, mainly from the 1970 and 1980, were obtained from fishing literature of the island of La Palma or the entire archipelago (see García Cabrera, 1970; Delgado de Molina et al., 1983; Gafo-Fernandez et al., 1984 a, b, Bas et al., 1995; Melnychuck et al., 2001, etc.). Results In the analysis of the historical evolution for the feature set involved in defining the fishing power of coastal artisanal fleets based in the ports of the island of La Palma (Tazacorte and Santa Cruz de La Palma) it observe clear differences between both (Table 1a). In 1969, Santa Cruz de La Palma already had port or shelter, while Tazacorte had to wait some years for it (Garcia-Cabrera, 1970). In 1984, the port of Santa Cruz was underdeveloped, and the Tazacorte stood at 70 meters in length (Gafo-Fernandez et al., 1984 a, b). In 1986 the fishing dock at the port of the capital was enlarged to 94.5 meters Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 8 (Massieu-Vega, 1988), and currently it has about 805 meters of berthing line, while Tazacorte has a dam that allows 1328 meters of berthing line, including exterior breakwater, wetlands and other docking area. --------~( )~-------- --------~( )~-------- Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 15 Fig.7. CPUE calculation through the evolution of GRT of vessels to La Palma Fig. 8. CPUE calculation through the evolution of CV of vessels to La Palma 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1983 2011 CPUE Years 3.8 3.85 3.9 3.95 4 4.05 4.1 4.15 4.2 4.25 4.3 1983 2011 CPUE Years Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 16 However, when the measure of effort used is a parameter related to the availability of infrastructure that facilitate the work of fishing, which does not have to be an adequate approximation to the fishing mortality generated, it is noted that CPUE decreases with increasing meters available for the berthing of ships (artisanal, professional or recreational) (Table 2, Pictures 1 and 2, Fig. 9). Table 2. Evolution of meters available to berthing of vessels (artisanal and recreational fishing) in the ports of Santa Cruz and Tazacorte (information obtained from Google Earth). Port\Years 2000 2003 2006 2008 2009 2011 Santa Cruz 293,61 380,14 575,63 575,63 805,29 805,29 Tazacorte 646,15 X 690,91 690,91 690,91 1328,03 Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 17 Picture 1. Port evolution for Santa Cruz de La Palma. From left to right, top row: Years 2000, 2003, 2006, bottom row: Years 2008, 2009, 2011. Google Earth. ( ) ( ),---- Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 18 Picture 2. Port evolution for Tazacorte. From left to right, top row: Years 2000, 2006, 2008, bottom row: Years 2009, 2011. Google Earth. ----------~( ).---------- ----------~( )~----------- Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 19 Fig. 9. CPUE Calculation through the meters developments port in Santa Cruz de La Palma and Tazacorte Discussion In the Canary Islands the development of port infrastructure has been carried out around fishing towns that in the beginning it had a very limited extraction capacity, since it does not have adequate technologies (Garcia-Cabrera, 1970; Gafo-Fernandez et al., 1984). However, the current researches on the fishery resource of the islands agree on the existence of a overexploitation situation in the various fisheries (Garcia-Cabrera, 1970, Bas et al., 1995; Gonzalez, 2008, Castro and Hernandez-Garcia, 2012). These facts have led to an important paradox: on one hand is recognizes the situation of exploitation to which canaries fish stocks are found, but other are established infrastructure development policies (Castro and Hernandez-Garcia, 2012). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1986 2000 2006 2008 2009 2010 CPUE Years Santa Cruz de La Palma Tazacorte Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 20 Possibly this situation happens for not be correctly identified the parameters that define the fishing effort and mortality that results from it. In the Canary Islands the fishing power, and consequently the effort, have development in two trends very different, but complementary: one "traditional" component, in based of the boats and equipment, and through improvements in the various fishing systems in use on the islands (Guerra-Sierra and Sanchez-Lizaso, 1998, Bas et al., 1995), but it has also developed, in very significantly form, across the infrastructure that support the fishing fleet on the ground and logistics developed around it (Castro and Hernandez-Garcia, 2012). However, the containment measures of effort have been mainly oriented towards the first component of fishing power, as reflected in the current Canary Fisheries Act 2003 (Law 17/2003 of 10 April, Fisheries of the Canary Islands .), but simultaneously there have been major improvements in the infrastructure, without an analysis of its impact on the effort made by the fleet. In addition, paradoxically, part of the fleet has been renovated for years, which not only made of them a more secure and comfortable boats, but also increased its extractive capacity and with thus their fishing power. Also, these improvements have added the active implementation for many of the GRTs who for one or another reason was immobilized, that it being used by shipowners for the construction of ships larger than the existing ones. In the specific case of the island of La Palma, there has been a progressive increase in the volume of catches, mainly of bento-demersal species, though more stressed in the early years of the series studied. However, the various parameters which traditionally effort have been measured have shown a tendency contradictory. Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 21 The number of vessels and active fishermen have declined gradually, with an increasingly older fleet (in 2005 it was estimated that the average age of the vessels over 12 meters in length was 28 years, while the smallest were around the 36; Data of the Canarian Government in the Strategic Plan for Fisheries of the Canary Islands 2007/13), which represents major drawbacks to keep in proper operating conditions. This decreasing evolution of fishermen and vessels (also of total GRT) should be determined a decrease in the pressure over resources, but the catches have been increasing over the years, in response to the improvements that it has carried in the sector, mainly in modernization of ships (best boats and engines, GPS, winches, fishing systems, etc.). So and though the fleet nominal effort, in GRT, decreases, the total catch has increased, and therefore increased the CPUE calculated from these parameters, providing a misleading view of the health of exploited resources. Part of the fleet underwent a major renovation in the 1990s, so many old ships were replaced by larger boats and better equipment (eg: engine with more power) while in the 1980s, many ships were still rowing. This may be explain why the power has increased, and therefore, increasing the stress on the resource and thus providing the increased in catches, with a real decline in CPUE and abundance. Moreover, the infrastructure has enhanced in the two main ports, increasing the efficiency of ships, and it has more facilities for the conservation of the catches, transportation and marketing, as well as appropriate technical assistance, supplies and administrative (Castro and Hernandez-Garcia, 2012). But these improvements have been frequently the result of misguided expectations of fisheries development and the Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 22 productivity of the waters around them (especially in relation to the possibilities of CanarySaharan Shoal; García-Cabrera, 1970), so that today many of these infrastructures are partially obsolete or simply served to support recreation or tourism activities (MoralesMalla, 2011). Moreover, it notes that despite the gradual reduction of fishing fleet and the provision of infrastructure and services have increased significantly (Morales-Malla, 2011). Until late 1980s, the fishermen still need extra help for beaching the boats, already they did not have seawalls, they had neither traction winches for lifting of traps, even they should be raise these by hand. Beyond, even many of these boats were propelled to rowing (Barrera-Luján et al. 1982; Gafo-Fernandez et al. 1984). Unfortunately, despite the overexploitation of the resource (Gonzalez, 2008) it is expected an increase fishing power in the coming years, at least in the Santa Cruz because the port is currently being improved, which provides for a widening of the dam and the extension of the multipurpose dock. There will be increased through the dam East Dam, from to 200 meters at 315 existing on the last alignment, and of 45 to 235 meters in the second. The polyvalent dock also will suffer significant improvements, reaching to the 412 meters of berthing line. All this will greatly increase the area available at the port for deposit and the transportation cargo and docking of recreative fishing boats, among others (State Ports - Port Authority of Santa Cruz de Tenerife - Puerto de La Palma). In short, in spite of the investment in the sector, both of fleet and at the level of port infrastructure on land, the resource abundance that is decreases with the overexplotation is accentuated by the excessive increase in fishing power and fishing effort, and consequently mortality that it generates, situation that seems irreconcilable with the strategy that should Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 23 keep one Biosphere Reserve, in that it must be implement measures of natural heritage conservation, both on land and in the adjacent sea. In this case inevitably pass by a reduction in fishing power, affecting at the fleet (professional and recreational) and the development of ground support infrastructure. Acknowledgements To all peers of the master and the union that has been created, thanks to which we could move forward on this project, well as for the support and complicity we have created. A José J. Castro Hernández for facilitate the work. At the fishermen of La Palma, in particular, Hermenegildo Martin Gonzalez, for their major contribution. To Tamara Alonso for start the road together and be able to guide us in the initiation and development of both studies. And last but not least, for those outside that have endured all those afternoons of work, providing all the serenity and help possible. Port Infrastructures Development and its implication in the Fishing Effort for La Palma (Canary Island) María Robert-Bancharelle García, 2012 24 References Alonso Alonso, Tamara-E, 2012. Evolución de la Pesquería Artesanal de la isla de La Palma entre 1975 y 2010. Memoria de Trabajo Fin de Máster. Máster en Gestión Sostenible de los Recursos Pesqueros. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Barrera-Luján, A., J. Carrillo-Molina, R. Castillo-Enguía, J.A. Gómez de Bethencourt, M.D. Ojeda-Guerra, F. Pérez-Artiles y J.I. Santana-Morales. 1982. Estudio preliminar de la pesquería artesanal canaria. Departamento de Pesquerías. Centro de Tecnología Pesquera de Taliarte. 151 pp. Bas, C., J.J. Castro, V. Hernández-García, J.M. Lorenzo, T. Moreno, J.G. Pajuelo y A.J. González Ramos. 1995. La Pesca en Canarias y áreas de influencia. Ediciones del Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas. B.O.E. núm. 240 de 7 de Octubre de 2003 B.O.E. núm. 58 de 22 de Febrero de 2010 Castro, J.J. y V. Hernández-García. 2012. Caracterización del poder de pesca de la flota artesanal Canaria, con especial referencia a la fracción con eslora superior a 12 m, y análisis del estado de los recursos que explota. Informe Técnico, Viceconsejería de Pesca del Gobierno de Canarias. 129 pp. Csirke, J.B. 1980. Introducción a la dinámica de poblaciones de peces. FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca (192):82 pp. Cubillos, L.S., M. Canales, A.R. Hernández, D.S. Bucarey, L. Viludrón y L.A. Miranda. 1998. Poder de pesca, esfuerzo de pesca y cambios estacionales e interanuales en la abundancia relativa de Strangomera bentincki y Egraulis ringens en el área frente a Talcahuano, Chile (1990-97). Invest. Mar., Valparaíso, 26:3-14. Delgado de Molina, A., M.T. García-Santamaría, E. Rodríguez-Rodríguez y L.J. LópezAbellán. 1983. Plan regional de evaluación de recursos. Provincia de Santa Cruz de Tenerife. Volumen 2. Pelágicos Costeros. Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Costero de Canarias. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. Gobierno de Canarias. Gafo-Fernández, J.I., C. Smith-Agreda, M. Lagarejos-García y C. Escribano-Puche. 1984 a. Situación y necesidades de infraestructura pesquera en el Archipiélago Canario. Tomo I. Departamento de Planificación de CEPSA. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. Gobierno de Canarias. 1-292 pp. Gafo-Fernández, J.I., C. Smith-Agreda, M. Lagarejos-García y C. Escribano-Puche. 1984 b. Situación y necesidades de infraestructura pesquera en el Archipiélago Canario. Tomo II. Departamento de Planificación de CEPSA. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. Gobierno de Canarias. 293-597 pp.