Regulations on the Use of Fish and Wild Meat Segregate the Intrinsically Un-Dissociable for Subsistence Livelihoods in Colombia

Q2 Social Sciences
J. Gómez, N. Vliet
{"title":"Regulations on the Use of Fish and Wild Meat Segregate the Intrinsically Un-Dissociable for Subsistence Livelihoods in Colombia","authors":"J. Gómez, N. Vliet","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1481598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Wild animals have a special importance in Colombian rural contexts, where access to other sources of protein is limited. In rural communities, fishing and hunting provide food and generate income for household subsistence. In general, an important portion of the animals harvested is consumed within the family, and the remaining surplus is traded to acquire other subsistence foods and goods. Under the Colombian legal framework, harvesting animals from the wild (fishing and hunting) for subsistence purposes is allowed without restrictions on harvested amounts, if limited to family consumption. However, the trade of wild fish and wild meat, even in small amounts, is subject to a license, permit, or authorization. Regulations for the commercial use of wild fish, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, are clear and simple to comply with. On the other hand, the commercial use of wild meat, regulated under the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, remains illegal in practice, due to the complex requirements and the caveats in the regulatory framework. The reasons for these differences in the legal requirements to obtain a commercial permit for wild fish and wild meat are based on institutional differences and not on the sustainability of the practice. Considering the relevance of both hunting and fishing for rural livelihoods, it is important to question whether the current legal framework offers guarantees for the sustainable use of these resources in the future. Our analysis shows that the contrasting regulatory approaches between fish and wild meat use, as well as the discrepancies in the arguments to justify commercial fishing while prohibiting wild meat trade, have concrete consequences for local livelihoods. Moreover, instead of guaranteeing sustainability, bans on wild meat trade lead to more underground distribution channels and, potentially, also to increased pressure on fish stocks. Integrated management options need to be encouraged at the local level and promoted through integrated policy and regulatory frameworks for both resources and their habitats. Improved valuation and monitoring systems for subsistence and small-scale fish and wildmeat trade should also be integrated in the regulatory system to ensure sustainability for the future.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1481598","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Wild animals have a special importance in Colombian rural contexts, where access to other sources of protein is limited. In rural communities, fishing and hunting provide food and generate income for household subsistence. In general, an important portion of the animals harvested is consumed within the family, and the remaining surplus is traded to acquire other subsistence foods and goods. Under the Colombian legal framework, harvesting animals from the wild (fishing and hunting) for subsistence purposes is allowed without restrictions on harvested amounts, if limited to family consumption. However, the trade of wild fish and wild meat, even in small amounts, is subject to a license, permit, or authorization. Regulations for the commercial use of wild fish, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, are clear and simple to comply with. On the other hand, the commercial use of wild meat, regulated under the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, remains illegal in practice, due to the complex requirements and the caveats in the regulatory framework. The reasons for these differences in the legal requirements to obtain a commercial permit for wild fish and wild meat are based on institutional differences and not on the sustainability of the practice. Considering the relevance of both hunting and fishing for rural livelihoods, it is important to question whether the current legal framework offers guarantees for the sustainable use of these resources in the future. Our analysis shows that the contrasting regulatory approaches between fish and wild meat use, as well as the discrepancies in the arguments to justify commercial fishing while prohibiting wild meat trade, have concrete consequences for local livelihoods. Moreover, instead of guaranteeing sustainability, bans on wild meat trade lead to more underground distribution channels and, potentially, also to increased pressure on fish stocks. Integrated management options need to be encouraged at the local level and promoted through integrated policy and regulatory frameworks for both resources and their habitats. Improved valuation and monitoring systems for subsistence and small-scale fish and wildmeat trade should also be integrated in the regulatory system to ensure sustainability for the future.
在哥伦比亚,关于使用鱼类和野生肉类的规定将本质上不可分离的鱼类与生存生计分开
野生动物在哥伦比亚农村环境中具有特殊的重要性,在那里获得其他蛋白质来源是有限的。在农村社区,捕鱼和狩猎为家庭生计提供食物和收入。一般来说,收获的动物中有很大一部分在家庭内消费,剩余的则用于交易,以获得其他维持生计的食物和商品。在哥伦比亚的法律框架下,允许为维持生计而从野外(捕鱼和狩猎)采集动物,如果仅限于家庭消费,则不受采集数量的限制。然而,野生鱼类和野生肉类的贸易,即使是少量的,也需要许可证、许可证或授权。农业和农村发展部关于野生鱼类商业利用的规定明确且易于遵守。另一方面,由于复杂的要求和监管框架中的警告,在环境和可持续发展部的监管下,野生肉的商业用途在实践中仍然是非法的。获得野生鱼类和野生肉类商业许可证的法律要求存在这些差异的原因是基于制度差异,而不是基于这种做法的可持续性。考虑到狩猎和捕鱼与农村生计的相关性,重要的是要质疑目前的法律框架是否为未来可持续利用这些资源提供了保障。我们的分析表明,鱼类和野生肉类使用之间截然不同的监管方法,以及在为商业捕捞辩护的同时禁止野生肉类贸易的论点存在差异,对当地生计产生了具体影响。此外,禁止野生肉类贸易非但不能保证可持续性,反而会导致更多的地下分销渠道,并可能增加鱼类资源的压力。必须在地方一级鼓励综合管理办法,并通过资源及其生境的综合政策和管理框架加以促进。还应将改善的用于维持生计和小规模鱼类及野生肉类贸易的估价和监测系统纳入管理系统,以确保未来的可持续性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信