Keywords

1 Introduction

Small-scale fishers are inherently involved in the management of ecosystems and natural resources. Through bottom-up processes and traditional knowledge, small-scale fishers have participated in the adoption of ecosystem-based approaches in several regions worldwide (Espinosa-Romero et al. 2021; Delgado Ramirez-Soto Aguirre 2018; Berkes 2021). For various fishing communities, especially Indigenous peoples which are widespread in Latin America and the Caribbean, small-scale fishing is a source of income and part of community identities and worldviews (Salas et al. 2019).

Despite their contributions to sustainability and social importance, Mexican small-scale fisheries face challenges that hinder sustainable fishing, including the overexploitation of 17% of species, habitat degradation, and illegal fishing (Hernandez & Kempton 2003; Galindo-Cortés et al. 2019; DOFFootnote 1 2022). These factors affect the livelihoods of more than 240,000 fishers (DOF 2020a). Most of Mexico’s 11,000 coastal communities live in poverty, with limited access to public safety and the amenities needed for a dignified livelihood (Gabriel-Morales and Pérez-Damián 2006; Inteligencia Pública, EDF 2019). This structural vulnerability of the small-scale fisheries sector and coastal communities is exacerbated by climate change, which is projected to affect ~84% of fisheries across Mexico (Cisneros-Mata et al. 2019; Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2020); the COVID-19 pandemic also added a synergistic risk (López-Ercilla et al. 2021).

Two recent ocean development solutions propose addressing climate change, poverty, and inequality based on the Blue Economy and Blue Growth agendas (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2022). These are global initiatives seeking a “winning” formula by considering oceans for economic expansion, food, energy, and innovative climate change solutions (for some examples see Delgado-Ramirez and Soto-Aguirre 2018). They consist of reconciling factors to “protect effectively, produce sustainably, and prosper equitably” (Stuchtey et al. 2020, p. 5). Yet, under the guise of the Blue Economy, people feel endangered as they get displaced from their fishing areas because of development projects (WFFP 2021). Academics and fishers question the lines of action involved in the blue agenda because they exclude vulnerable social actors, such as the small-scale fishing sector, and ignore human rights, social justice, and potential impacts on traditional livelihoods (Bennett et al. 2021; Jentoft et al. 2022).

Given the injustices described above, in which Blue Economy and Blue Growth initiatives have been conducted, scholars coined the concept of Blue Justice to “critically examine the political, economic, and ecological processes” of Blue Ocean initiatives (Isaacs, PLAAS 2019, cited in Chuenpagdee 2020, p. 3). Scholars argue that justice (i.e., Blue Justice) is an a priori condition for sustainable development (Jentoft et al. 2022).

As an emerging concept, Blue Justice has been enriched by principles of procedural and distributional justice (Bennett et al. 2021; Gustavsson et al. 2021; Chuenpagdee et al. 2022). Blue Justice offers solutions to tenure and access, small-scale fisheries, food security, and environmental justice, among others (Bennett et al. 2021). The Voluntary Guidelines for Ensuring Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) address the precepts and goals promoted by the Blue Justice approach (FAO 2015; Chuenpagdee et al. 2022). Blue Justice in small-scale fisheries can be translated into legal and enforceable terminology through the human rights-based approach (HRBA). Furthermore, the principles reflected in the SSF Guidelines and Blue Justice can improve legal instruments and reinforce obligations to leverage sustainable small-scale fisheries (Nakamura 2022).

In this chapter, we (1) assess the consistency of Mexican laws and policies with SSF Guidelines and highlight challenges regarding policy instruments and (2) propose lines of actions and reforms to advance the implementation of the SSF Guidelines and incorporate Blue Justice principles in Mexican policies. To this end, we asked the following questions: (1) How viable is the adoption of the SSF Guidelines given the existing legal framework of Mexican fisheries and related policies to support Blue Justice principles? (2) Does the legal system in Mexico incorporate laws and policies to secure the rights of small-scale fishers? (3) What are the strengths and limitations of available legal instruments? (4) What changes are needed to ensure the coherence of national policies and the legal framework in line with the SSF Guidelines and Blue Justice principles?

2 Methods

To address these questions, the chapter is organized into two main components: (1) a longitudinal analysis of Mexico’s fisheries legal framework, tracking institutional and normative changes across time, and (2) a rapid appraisal to assess the consistency of the legal framework and related policies with the SSF Guidelines and Blue Justice Principles.

The rapid appraisal followed the approach suggested by Nakamura et al. (2021) and the recommendations of Bennett et al. (2021), including an analysis of the Mexican Political Constitution of 1917 (hereafter the Mexican Constitution), 16 laws, eight public policies,Footnote 2 and six international instruments (see Appendix I). Strengths, weaknesses, and grey areas associated with instruments that could affect small-scale fishers are highlighted. Additionally, we carried out phone interviews with key informants (18 fishers: 15 men and three women) from different regions of MexicoFootnote 3 to elicit fishers’ perspectives regarding marine tenure, sustainable fishing, and challenges in implementing the SSF Guidelines. These people were selected considering their embeddedness in their communities and previous collaborations with academics and NGOs; hence we trust on their expert knowledge. We close the chapter with proposed steps to guide the adoption of the SSF Guidelines and Blue Justice principles in the Mexican legal framework.

3 Institutional Fisheries Frameworks in Mexico: Past and Present

The Mexican Constitution defines flora, fauna, land, subsoil, and water as national heritage. Historically, eight fisheries laws have regulated the use of natural aquatic resources (DOF 1925; 1932; 1948; 1950; 1972; 1986; 1992; 2007; see Appendix I). In the case of fisheries, management has been under different institutional domains, including Federal Secretariats of Agriculture, Navy, and Economy (Espinosa-Romero 2021). To provide context, this section presents a historical overview of fisheries governance and integration of small-scale fisheries into legislation since 1917 (Fig. 5.1). A historical perspective of how the Mexican state has addressed fisheries governance provides insight into how the fisheries sector has been prioritized over time. Results indicate that the institutional structure for fisheries management has also defined policy objectives and regulatory tools that shaped natural resource use, economic policies, and international commitments to fisheries sustainability. Figure 5.1 depicts historical institutional changes and the normative regimes associated with such changes. The periods illustrate changes in how the fisheries institutional setting transited from a lower position in 1925 to its peak in 1982 with the creation of the Fisheries Secretariat and again with the neoliberal period that led to downsized capacity until present day.

Fig. 5.1
A plot with hierarchical level of authority of the fisheries department. Level 1, New Secretaial between 1930 and 1950, Fisheries Secretariat 1982. Level 2, Agriculture and Development subsecretarist between 1917 and 1930. Level 3, Direction of Forestry, Game, and Fisheries 1918. Level 4, Direction of Fisheries, 1923.

Historical trend of institutional structures associated with fisheries governance in Mexico, including progression of Fisheries Laws. (Based on Espinosa-Romero (2021), Fraga et al. (2008), and López-Chavarría (1997), * Fisheries Law includes rights allocation to fishers. Additionally, the Fisheries Law includes preference in rights allocation for Indigenous groups and coastal communities under equal conditions)

Full size image

The historical transitions of institutional and normative changes are presented below:

1917–1970

Fisheries management was placed in several Ministries or Secretariats (Forestry, Hunting and Fishing, Navy, Industry and Commerce) at the directorate level. From 1934 to 1939, fisheries management was controlled by a department, which is lower in rank than a directorate. Two fisheries laws allocated fishing rights for valuable marine species to fishing organizations (DOF 1938; 1948) and cooperatives (DOF 1950). In 1962, the National Fisheries Institute was created, making scientific support for fisheries management available (Instituto Nacional de Pesca 2012).

1971–1981

A fisheries ministry and two undersecretaries were created. Fisheries management gained momentum with economic, political, and human resources that strengthened the sector through value chain investments, credit, training, and outreach (Fraga et al. 2008; Espinosa-Romero 2021). Small-scale fishing cooperatives were differentiated from industrial fishing cooperatives, including 80% of coastal and inland fishers (DOF 1972). Concessions for various high-value species and fishing areas were granted exclusively to communal cooperatives (DOF 1950; Espinosa-Romero 2021). Mexico declared sovereignty over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (DOF 1976).

1982–1994

The Department of Fisheries (1977–1982) became the Secretariat of Fisheries in 1982 and fisheries management achieved its highest rank ever. In parallel, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was signed, facilitating management within EEZs. In Mexico, this brought support to the fishing sector through investments in infrastructure, capacity building, research, and institutions. Landings escalated and remained steady since 1980 (Fernández et al. 2011), after which relevant species attained maximum sustainable levels (Cisneros-Montemayor and Cisneros-Mata 2018).

1994–2000

Conservation measures were highlighted within the fishing sector, and institutional changes moved the fisheries management to the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries (SEMARNAP) (Guzmán-Amaya et al. 2008), and fisheries management decisions were then taken from a sub-secretariat. Human and financial resources for fisheries were reduced, diminishing the capacity to address problems (Hernández and Kempton 2003). The National Fisheries Plan became a tool for decision-making and management (Martínez-Martínez and González-Laxe 2016). The Federal Fisheries Law, which in 1986 granted fishing rights to cooperatives for high-value species, was amended in 1992, and cooperatives could still request fishing concessions, but they were not exclusively allocated to organized groups anymore (DOF 1992).

2000–2006

Fisheries management was under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, and Food (SAGARPA) (Guzmán-Amaya et al. 2008). To oversee fisheries management, the National Commission for Fisheries and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA) was created in 2001 as part of SAGARPA. Reaching the rank of commission was the lowest institutional level for fisheries management capacity. In those years, CONAPESCA had Fisheries Coordination offices in Mexican provinces, which were useful for fishers to communicate with fisheries management authorities. Despite the relevance of habitat conservation and ecosystem health for sustainable fisheries, the removal of fisheries management from SEMARNAT disarticulated institutional arrangements within federal entities and blurred environmental issues relevant to the fisheries sector.

2007–2022

The General Law for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (hereafter Fisheries Law) was published (DOF 2007). In 2018, fisheries management remained in the agrifood sector (Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development [SADER]), while CONAPESCA maintained oversight of fisheries management and the National Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INAPESCA) continued to provide technical advice. In 2020, CONAPESCA’s Fisheries Coordination Offices were eliminated; now, bureaucratic work has been centralized, increasing the challenges that fishers face when they navigate administrative processes. Currently, SEMARNAT and CONAPESCA share management of aquatic species within natural reserves, endemic species, and endangered species under a Mexican Norm (NOM-059) (DOF 2010). Fisheries management is linked to other federal secretariats, such as the Navy, Environment, and Industry and Commerce, but institutional arrangements are unclear (Fig. 5.2).

Fig. 5.2
A block diagram presents the institutional arrangements. SEMARNAT governs biodiversity and species at risk. NAVY oversees fisheries enforcement. SENASICA oversees the traceability of fishing products, CONAPESCA governs fisheries management and law enforcement, and IMIPAS for fisheries research.

Institutional arrangements for Mexican fisheries management. The Secretariats of SEMARNAT, NAVY, and SADER have the same hierarchical level. The National Service of Agrifood, Health, Safety and Quality (SENASICA), the National Commission of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA), and Mexican Institute of Research of Fisheries and Aquaculture (IMIPAS) are branches of SADER 

Full size image

​Overall, bureaucracy and changes in the laws over time reduced the resources allocated by the State to fisheries management, limiting capacities to face growing governance challenges (Salas et al. 2011; Espinosa-Romero 2021). The rulings of the Fisheries Law have not been published 16 years later, while operationalizing institutional collaboration among federal, state, and local entities remains challenging, which reduces institutional capacities and generates uncertainty.

During the neoliberal period (since the 1980s), shifts in primacies of the Mexican governmental regime affected small-scale fisheries as social priorities drifted downward. Such changes were partially dictated by international agencies, especially the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which resulted in laws and public policies that have affected Mexican agrifood systems (Calva 2011; Parra-Vázquez et al. 2020).

Mexican institutional changes over time have precluded long-term visions and planning for sustainability. Currently, policies framed within the Blue Growth agenda in Mexico could exclude small-scale fisheries and affect the livelihoods of fishers. According to Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2022), “If states ... do little or nothing to implement the SSF Guidelines, Blue Economy/Growth policies are likely to ... [exacerbate] ... long-standing inequities ...” (p. 3). If Mexican public policies for fisheries continue to privilege economic gains over human rights, Blue Growth strategies will generate injustices in coastal communities. This blue development will favor economic entities and neglect benefits to small-scale fishing communities (Cohen et al. 2019).

3.1 The SSF Guidelines and the Mexican Legal System

Human rights in Mexico are consecrated in the Constitution, as well as international and regional treaties, to comply with the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN 293/2011). The SCJN has recognized that soft law instruments, such as the SFF Guidelines in the context of human rights, are fundamental to understanding the content and international obligations related to human rights (SCJN 636/2019).

The relationship between the SFF Guidelines and the Mexican legal framework is depicted in Fig. 5.3. Therefore, despite their voluntary nature, the SSF Guidelines are relevant within the Mexican system, as illustrated, and constitute a framework to comply with international mandates for small-scale fishers (Nakamura and Hazin 2020; Nakamura 2022).

Fig. 5.3
A pyramid diagram presents the hierarchical relationship. From top to bottom, the Mexican Constitution and International Treaties, general laws, federal laws, local constitutions, local laws, and general normativity.

Hierarchical relationship among different instruments of the Mexican legal framework. The Mexican Constitution and international human rights treaties at the top embrace the SSF Guidelines as a “soft law” and pose small-scale fisheries in the context of human rights commitments. (Source: Own elaboration)

Full size image

4 Rapid Appraisal of the Mexican Legal Framework and Alignment with the SSF Guidelines and Blue Justice Agenda

Table 5.1 shows the results of the rapid appraisal conducted to assess the alignment of the SSF Guidelines with the Mexican legal framework, from assessing the legal definitions of small-scale fisheries (1) through issues associated with national considerations regarding climate change impacts on small-scale fisheries (8). We based our analysis on eight of the 13 principles proposed by Nakamura et al. (2021), as indicated earlier.

Table 5.1 Alignment of Mexican legal instruments: Mexican Constitution (C), law (L), and policy (P) to eight key legal issues associated with the Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF) Guidelines. Scores: 0 = not considered; 1 = considered, not specific to small-scale fisheries; 2 = considered and specific to small-scale fisheries
Full size table

The appraisal showed that several legal instruments, including tenure and access, sustainable management, financial mechanisms, and climate change, are considered strengths for the operationalization of the SSF Guidelines. However, explicit legal recognition of small-scale fisheries and unclear institutional responsibilities within the fishing sector remained weak and ambiguous. Along the same lines, features of the HRBA regarding small-scale fishers are absent in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (DOF 2007), as well as in associated public policies. Such rights are addressed in the constitutional mandates, international human rights treaties and standards, and International Labor Organization (ILO) instruments. However, these are not addressed within fisheries’ legal and policy frameworks. The various components, strengths, and limitations are discussed below.

4.1 Legal Definition of Small-Scale Fisheries

The current Fisheries Law does not distinguish between small-scale and industrial fisheries, despite the differences in characteristics and dynamics of operations (DOF 2007; Fitzmaurice et al. 2021). The law includes fishers in a cluster called “productores pesqueros” (fish producers), which is a mix of companies and individuals. However, some legal provisions in the Fisheries Law draw distinctions between types of fishing. For instance, the glossary defines subsistence and commercial fishing, the former being exempt from the requirement to have fishing permits.

Vessel characteristics used to distinguish industrial, semi-industrial, and small-scale (artisanal) fishing are based on the vessels’ length: 12 m or smaller applies to small-scale fisheries (Art. 4). This provides a reference for some government programs, such as BIENPESCA, a subsidy aimed at supporting the welfare of small-scale fishers (DOF 2021). Even though the Fisheries Law does not contain an explicit definition of small-scale fisheries, the National Program for Fisheries and Aquaculture (2020–2024) recognizes coastal fisheries as an important source of food and jobs and then includes measures to prevent poverty and the marginalization of small-scale fishing communities (DOF 2020a). The term coastal or artisanal fisheries have been considered analogous to small-scale fisheries (Ramos-Miranda et al. 2021).

4.2 Representation of Small-Scale Fishing Peoples in Institutional Arrangements

As noted above, fisheries management institutions have lost power over time while there is a lack of coordination, and at times competition, among institutions that manage and oversee fisheries. Because there is no distinction between small-scale and industrial fisheries, small-scale fishers are de jure and de facto excluded from key decision-making processes.

Despite operational and institutional limitations, the Mexican Fisheries Law contains prescriptions for the empowerment of small-scale fishers that have not yet been implemented. Examples include the mandate to co-design management plans through Fisheries and Aquaculture Councils (DOF 1948; 1950; 1972) and provincial committees (DOF 2007). Often, however, the functioning of such groups is not inclusive: small-scale fishers are generally included in a consultation procedure rather than in the decision-making process.

4.3 Tenure Rights of Small-Scale Fisheries

4.3.1 Fishing Rights and Marine Tenure

The Mexican Constitution considers marine and freshwater resources as the property of the nation; however, tenure rights have been granted in specific contexts. Tenure rights are associated with procedural justice, which involves fishers’ participation and inclusion in decision-making processes and governance to safeguard human rights, cultural heritage, and livelihoods (Bennett et al. 2021).

Access to resources for commercial fishing requires permits or concessions granted by the federal government through CONAPESCA. Access rights may refer to species, a mix of species, or fishing grounds. To gain access, people must meet several requirements, such as proving legal ownership of boats and fishing gear, paying fees, and being registered in the national fisheries registry (DOF 2007). Access is granted or denied according to recommendations by INAPESCA, which provides scientific advice regarding optimal effort in each fishery and reported in the Fisheries Chart (DOF 2022). Subsistence fishers are exempted from obtaining a permit that allows them permanent access to resources and long-term fishing tenure.

As mentioned previously, from 1925 to 1986 the Mexican State showed interest in coastal communities, granting fishing cooperatives exclusive use rights over high-value species and fishing areas (DOF 1925; 1932; 1948; 1950; 1972; 1986). Under neoliberal principles, this does not apply now (DOF 2007). Mexican small-scale fishers are often denied full access to decision-making by operational and institutional barriers. This has two major root causes: weak organization due to a general splitting trend of cooperatives, and restricting access to fishing permits. Permit holders (locally called “permisionarios”) usually thrive at the expense of small-scale fishers, which would otherwise take the role of an organized cooperative (Coronado et al. 2020a; Cepeda-Fernández and Salas 2021). Exceptions exist to this trend, which can be considered as role models, such as cooperatives and federations of small-scale lobster and abalone fishers off the Pacific coast of Baja California and Quintana Roo (Torre and Fernández Rivera-Melo 2018; Coronado et al. 2020b).

Lack of transparency regarding the allocation of rights and permits exacerbates power imbalances between small-scale fishers and permit holders (Pedroza and Salas 2011; Coronado et al. 2020a). Thus, informal labor relationships emerge and are widespread; as a result, fishers often cannot formally access resources and must work for third parties (fishing cooperatives and permit holders), maintaining unbalanced conditions of power.

The current Fisheries Law declares that Mexican authorities should prioritize and grant permits and concessions to coastal community members and Indigenous groups (DOF 2007, Art. 43). If this were to be effective in practice, this criterion would partially address the right to tenure in line with the SSF Guidelines. However, bureaucracy and other factors hamper the implementation of this principle. Interviewees also reported legal shortcomings, describing scarce information and long and complicated administrative procedures that deprive fishers of full access to fishing permits and create a sense of dismissal. This can result in the loss of commercial opportunities, the emergence of informal labor, and illegal fishing. Scarce knowledge about legal and normative issues, human rights, and transaction costs prevents the sound use of HRBA to address distributional inequities.

4.3.2 Indigenous Tenure Rights

It is worth noting that Mexico is a “pluricultural” nation and Indigenous peoples are recognized in the Mexican Constitution (DOF 1917). This requires the State to guarantee the integrity of Indigenous lands, mainly under the collective and agrarian land unit of the ejido and the “comunidad agraria” (agrarian community; Art. 27, p. 2). In rural and small-scale fishing communities, natural resources contribute to food security and are deeply connected with traditions. Tenure becomes relevant in this context, referring to the territorial rights of Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and rural communities with close ties to the land and natural resources.

Mexico applies international instruments on Indigenous rights through the provisions contained in the Fisheries Law. The State must consider the perspectives of Indigenous communities prior to granting fishing concessions or permits that may impact their livelihoods (DOF 2007, Art. 43). This partly considers international instruments such as the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (ILO C-169, Art. 13), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, Art. 26; United Nations 2007), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP, Art. 17; United Nations 2018). Specific fisheries policies influenced by these legal instruments protect tenure rights and access to natural resources ancestrally stewarded by Indigenous communities. For example, the Cucapá and Yaqui peoples in Sonora hold exclusive and permanent rights to fish in their marine and coastal lagoon areas (DOF 1975), and the Cucapá in Baja California are excluded from Gulf corvina fishing quotas (DOF 2021d).

Although these two types of social property are robust, under a neoliberal system, people can now sell their coastal ejido lands, relinquishing access to historical resources. This rampant gentrification process creates conditions of instability for traditional coastal dwellers (Bennet et al. 2023). The relevance of the SSF Guidelines falls within this context of legal pluralism (Jentoft and Bavinck 2019) and could align with national legal normative systems to recognize and protect small-scale fishing communities and Indigenous territories (García-Contreras et al. 2020). Through coalitions of organized groups and society, actions can be promoted to raise the profile of fishers and Indigenous communities through HRBA to advance a capacity-building agenda that empowers vulnerable people and reduces the uncertainty affecting their livelihoods.

4.4 Gender Equality

Gender equality is addressed in the legal framework by several laws, such as the Federal Planning Law (DOF 2012) and Federal Law on Budgeting and Fiscal Responsibility (DOF 2006, Art. 1, 2, and 17). The National Development Plan (2019–2024) considers gender equality as a transversal element within public policies and programs (DOF 2019). The PROIGUALDAD (Pro-Equality) program is a federal policy to encourage women’s participation in cooperatives, with special emphasis on rural agrifood activities (DOF 2020). The General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection also recognizes women’s participation as key actors in environmental conservation and sustainable development (DOF 1988). More recently, the Climate Change Law calls on the State to respect gender equality and strengthen women’s participation in addressing the impacts of climate change (DOF 2012).

Despite women’s participation in the entire value chain, especially in postharvest processes (Harper et al. 2013; Kleiber et al. 2014), and contribution to conservation and community welfare (Torre et al. 2019), the Fisheries Law lacks gender considerations, which creates power imbalances for women and dismisses their rights in decision-making processes (Solano et al. 2021).

Women are not included in the statistics of the population of fishers and thus in the rights associated with the fishing sector, due to an ongoing understanding of fishing as a primarily male occupation (Solano et al. 2021). Despite these constraints, there is a novel fishery policy in Mexico that takes gender issues into account: the 2022 operational rules for BIENPESCA introduced a preferential criterion that benefits women and marginalized communities (DOF 2021b, Art. 46). This is a modest step toward improving gender equality, but it still leaves activities beyond extraction without support. Three female fishers interviewed for this study mentioned that they experienced discrimination when requesting support from government programs.

4.5 Labor Rights and Decent Working Conditions

The Mexican Constitution was one of the first legal instruments to recognize social rights and labor standards. Article 123 establishes the right of men and women to a socially equitable job with decent working conditions (8-h day, social security, healthcare, and safety standards). The Federal Labor Law defines labor standards such as social security and healthcare (DOF 1970). The Social Security Law stipulates the rights of workers to social security for maternity, disability, old age, childcare, and health (DOF 1995). While fishing is among the riskiest activities, the current Fisheries Law excludes provisions to guarantee decent work, social security, or occupational safety and health. In a few cases, mainly some fishing cooperatives supported by social organizations, small-scale fishers are provided access to benefits through monthly fees (Huchim-Lara et al. 2015). The General Law of Cooperatives (1994) requires the provision of social security to members (Article 57); currently, many cooperatives are unable to comply with this requirement due to financial inability or debt (Senado de la República 2016).

The lack of financial resources and limited capabilities of fishing cooperatives is related to legislative changes and neoliberal policies that undermined their social power. The current legislation reduced the number of members needed to create a cooperative from 30 to only five (DOF 1994). Since then, many small organizations were established just to gain access to resources and financial support. This incentive distorted the goals of cooperative organizations. In addition, over time government support for fishing cooperatives has decreased. The Fisheries Law no longer recognizes cooperatives as social units for small-scale fishers, further reducing their ability to access financial support (DOF 2021c).

4.6 Fisheries Management, Social Participation, and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)

The right of people to a safe environment is enshrined in the Mexican Constitution (Article 4) and international human rights treaties, such as Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, the San Salvador Protocol (Articles 11 and 12), UNDRIP (Article 29), UNDROP (Article 18), and the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement, Article 1). This right is considered by the Mexican Supreme Court with three fundamental principles: (1) a healthy environment as a human right, (2) the State should adopt measures to protect and guarantee this right, and (3) the duty of each person and community to contribute to its protection (SCJN 2015, p. 24). All of this is in line with the SSF Guidelines and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF), which fully recognize the need to ensure safe environmental standards (Morgera and Nakamura 2021). However, while in the past more attention was given to the links between fisheries and the environment, currently better cooperation between fisheries and environmental agencies is needed to advance the implementation of the EAF.

The right to a safe environment in Mexico is not explicitly included in the Fisheries Law or related policies; however, other legal instruments and some elements within the law could facilitate its adoption (Espinosa-Romero 2021). The goal of the Fisheries Law is to ensure the sustainable use of fishing resources while considering social and environmental dimensions (Art. 2, Section I). The principles of national policy also include environmental perspectives (Art. 17, para. XI). Furthermore, Mexican normative and legal frameworks contain tools that can be combined with the EAF and SSF Guidelines (Ramos-Miranda et al. 2021). The National Fisheries Plan and several Fisheries Management Plans also include environmental and social considerations (DOF 2007, Art. 36).

Implementation of the EAF also demands full recognition of the contributions of small-scale fishers, women, and vulnerable groups in conserving and managing ecosystems with the State to ensure a safe environment. Paradoxically, while Mexican fisheries and environmental instruments require the participation of small-scale fishers, as stated in the SSF Guidelines (FAO 2015, Section 5.15; Nakamura et al. 2021), there is still a long path forward in that direction. For example, there are only a few documented examples of small-scale fishers contributing with their knowledge and information. The Fisheries Law requires the inclusion of traditional knowledge and the participation of fishers in resource and environmental management and protection.

One intervention that could ease the process would be an effort to legally decentralize fisheries management and coordination at different levels of government for the implementation of the EAF, the creation of key institutional channels such as the National and Provincial Fisheries and Aquaculture Councils (Art. 8, 23, and 39 of the Fisheries Law) and Natural Protected Areas Councils. Technical and scientific advice provided by the National Research and Information Network (RNIIPA) (Art. 31) can also enable social, private, and public participation in the formulation of fisheries research to support decision-making processes (Art. 22 and 23) toward the implementation of the EAF. In this process, the incorporation of traditional knowledge and citizen science is key to creating opportunities to improve the mechanisms for disseminating and implementing the SSF Guidelines and moving toward the EAF (Villanueva-Poot et al. 2017; Fulton et al. 2019; Berkes 2021). The enabling conditions and tools are in place, but a lack of long-term goals in the plans, limited institutional capacity, administrative changes, institutional jurisdictional gaps, poor communication, and limited economic and human resources have created barriers to progress toward the EAF.

4.7 Public Financial Mechanisms

In 2007, the Mexican Fund for the Development of Fisheries and Aquaculture (PROMAR) was created to finance conservation and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture (DOF 2007, Art. 26), but its operation has not been formally implemented. Until 2018, the fishing sector had 23 types of programs to support its activities; in contrast, the BIENPESCA subsidy program is presently the only source of financial support for small-scale fishers. It provides USD 350 per year directly to individuals, undermining the cohesion of traditional cooperative organizational structures. It was designed to focus on marginalized rural areas, including Indigenous territories (DOF 2021c), but makes no provision for capacity-building or accountability among recipients of such direct cash transfers (Causa Natura 2023). The fishers interviewed expressed the need for capacity development to strengthen skills in cooperative management, sustainable fishing, leadership, negotiation, fisheries management, marketing, value addition, financial management, and access to information. These are still pending issues due to the current limited capacity of the institutions in charge of the fisheries sector.

On the other hand, the financial capacity of the private sector in terms of access to assets, capital, and infrastructure creates a power imbalance for small-scale fishers. A high dependency on middlemen and other sources of funding to operate has created informal arrangements among actors to remain in the activity (Pedroza and Salas 2011; Coronado et al. 2020a; Cepeda-Fernández and Salas 2021), resulting in a prevailing power imbalance.

4.8 Climate Change

Mexico has a comprehensive framework to address climate change stemming from the General Law on Climate Change (DOF 2012). This legislation includes the fishing sector and the conservation of associated biodiversity as key components of a national policy to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts (Art. 7, Section VII a, b). The Special Program for climate change (Art. 66–68) includes the creation of no-take zones to achieve sustainable production and ecosystem equilibrium (DOF 20–21c), representing an important tool for this purpose due to direct linkages with small-scale fisheries. However, fishers are rarely involved in the establishment of no-take zones.

In the Fisheries Law, SADER (Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock) oversees the promotion, regulation, direction, and implementation of actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change and foster sustainable fisheries (DOF 2007). Despite this, there is room for fisheries policies to be better aligned with climate change actions (see Tolentino-Arévalo et al. 2019). Collaborative efforts are underway to create a national program on climate change and fisheries, specifically for small-scale fisheries and which includes the participation of fishers (Impacto Colectivo 2021). Paradoxically, the federal National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change was recently abolished. Its responsibilities have been transferred to SEMARNAT, which has insufficient financial and human resources to monitor this area. Similar changes to diminish the capacities of institutions can be seen in the proposal to incorporate INAPESCA into the CONAPESCA agency as of April 2023 (Parliamentary Gazette 2023).

The potentially negative effects of climate change due to sea level rise, extreme weather events, and changes in species distribution and abundance, among other triggers, generate additional uncertainty about the vulnerability of small-scale fisheries and their users (Salas et al. 2019; Woods et al. 2021). Therefore, these conditions require rapid adaptation by members of fishing communities and equally rapid response from government agencies. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 resulted in increased poverty, particularly in most small-scale fisheries of developing nations. The impacts extended from health issues to disruption of fishing operations and supply chains, threatening jobs, incomes, and food security (Grillo-Núñez et al. 2021). Small-scale fishers in Mexico were not an exception, suffering from an interruption of their activities and livelihoods, as well as supply chains (COBI 2021; López-Ercilla et al. 2021). Interestingly, the adaptive capacity of small-scale fishers—including in Mexico—was critical in enabling fishing communities and supply chains to withstand and initiate a recovery process (Amos et al. 2022). This is a clear strength that must be capitalized on in the implementation of the SSF Guidelines. Mexico must design and implement policies and programs to address national and local challenges related to the vulnerability of fishers and coastal communities while addressing the impacts of climate change.

5 Concluding Remarks: Challenges and Necessary Actions

People living in coastal communities, including small-scale fishers in Mexico, live in poverty with limited access to public services and amenities for a dignified living. In addition, a high proportion of fishing resources show signs of overexploitation (Arreguín-Sánchez and Arcos-Huitrón 2011; Oceana 2019; DOF 2022), threatening the livelihoods of coastal communities. Pervasive resource-based approaches to fisheries management in Mexico, miscommunication, the disarticulation of government agencies, and the historical weakening of institutions in charge of fisheries over 40 years have greatly reduced the capacity to implement novel resource management approaches to face increasing challenges. Blue Justice in fisheries and the SSF Guidelines offer opportunities to explore and improve the quality of life of coastal communities through a HRBA approach while pursuing resource sustainability (Chuenpagdee et al. 2022).

This chapter showed that despite a broad rainbow of legal instruments, the Mexican state lacks proactive, integrated strategies to effectively implement the SSF Guidelines. We identified the need to ensure policy coherence to align laws and public policies (Cohen et al. 2017). The improved governance of small-scale fisheries will require increasing ongoing cooperation among scientists, civil society, and fishers working together to improve territorial productive systems (Espinosa-Romero 2021) and fishers taking ownership of the process of implementing the SSF Guidelines. Shared visions and commitment must result from adaptive planning processes with clearly defined goals and performance indicators. It also requires collaboration and coordination between polycentric governance in the form of simultaneous decision-making with multiple centers of governance. For example, Iceland devolves decision-making authority to communities through fishing cooperatives (Ostrom et al. 1961; Pinkerton and Davis 2015).

​The implementation of the SSF Guidelines and Blue Justice approaches will require leadership in the small-scale fishing sector and capacity-building, especially where coastal communities are not yet ready to lead and participate. The progressive empowerment of fisheries cooperatives and communities will enhance their voice and position to influence agendas. This is possible on the light of successful experiences in improving the management of specific fisheries through bottom-up processes and political commitment. For instance, the engagement of fishers, civil society, and the Mexican government to achieve common goals in the certified California spiny lobster fishery is an example of successful processes to improve management. The proposal of a regional approach to fisheries management in coastal areas (Díaz-Uribe et al. 2013) and fishery improvement projects are also good examples (Fernández-Rivera Melo et al. 2018). With the gradual strengthening of cooperatives and communities, fishers can strengthen their voice and position to influence fisheries and marine development agendas.

There are several issues associated with the implementation of the SSF Guidelines that could be sensitive and require government intervention. These include the allocation of fishing rights to traditional fishers and Indigenous peoples and the overhaul of social fishing cooperatives through legal, financial, and policy instruments. Drawing generalizations from our own experiences, the implementation of the SSF Guidelines is likely to be most feasible when collaborative efforts include three key components: (1) a clear understanding by fishers of the benefits of their implementation; (2) political will on behalf of governments to bring the voices of small-scale fishers to decision-making, regulation, and enforcement; and (3) third-party monitoring, which can be undertaken by nongovernmental organizations, academia, and local government entities.

In Mexico, it is important to break inertias from the mid-1980s in response to socio-environmental regimes dictated by neoliberal interests. The disarticulation of institutions reduced the capacity for successful management schemes and novel approaches. Changes in public policies regarding food systems over time resulted in the inability of the Mexican government to support small-scale fishers and other rural actors (Rivera-Núñez and Arce-Ibarra, in press). The logical step in implementing the SSF Guidelines is to invoke the HRBA in fisheries management. The elevation of HRBA in fisheries legislation is likely to create a link between constitutionally protected rights and fisheries legislation, thereby making small-scale fishers visible. The role of fishers in building social power is crucial, which would help build collective visions beyond the biological and economic aspects of fisheries management. A clear HRBA on fisheries legislation can potentially shed light on typically overlooked aspects such as fishers’ representation in institutional arrangements, decent working conditions, and gender equality. The implementation of the SSF Guidelines can thus serve as a lever that builds on existing relationships between state institutions and other powerful economic actors to ensure inclusive cooperation and partnerships.

The government must be sensitive to fishers’ perceptions and understand their systems, family structures, organizations, and networks, in devising novel approaches on resistance and strategies to adapt to the political and environmental conditions in fishing areas and coastal communities (Arce-Ibarra et al. 2020). Fishers also need to assume responsibility and participate in small-scale fisheries and ocean development agendas with the support of other actors. The implementation of the SSF Guidelines, which would also pave the way for the adoption of the Blue Justice principle, can help shed light on the heterogeneity and complexity of small-scale fisheries systems, considering the diversity of climatic conditions, fishing resources, customs, community needs, and inclusive governance structures.