Redes entre dos mares: cofradías y armadores en los caladeros atlántico y mediterráneo de Andalucía

Abstract

ResumenDescribimos la red organizativa del sector extractivo en los enclaves pesqueros andaluces. Para ello evaluamos 6 tipos de relaciones informales e institucionales entre 30 cofradías y asociaciones de armadores de 21 puertos pesqueros de Andalucía. Las redes analizadas responden a una estructura centro-periferia, con un rol central de las cofradías. Con el procedimiento QAP diferenciamos dos contextos para la formación de relaciones: los encuentros informales y la red de gestión de asuntos pesqueros, que se corresponde con encuentros formales, tales como las mesas de pesca, las asambleas de puerto o la negociación de cuotas pesqueras. Comprobamos la existencia de dinámicas de homofi lia por caladero de pesca y por tipo de organización. Key wordsSocial AbstractThis study examines the organizational network of the extractive sector in Andalusian fi shing enclaves. For this, we have evaluated 6 types of informal and institutional relationships between a total of 30 guilds and ship-owner associations in 21 Andalusian fi shing ports. The analyzed networks were found to have a core-periphery structure with the guilds playing a central role. The QAP procedure was used to identify two distinct contexts of relationship formation: informal meetings and the government fi shing network (corresponding to formal meetings, such as fi shing tables, port assemblies and fi shing quota negotiations). We verifi ed the existence of signifi cant homophily dynamics based on both fi shing ground and organization type. Cómo citarMaya-Jariego, Isidro; Holgado, Daniel; Florido del Corral, David y Martínez de Alba, Inmaculada (2016). «Redes entre dos mares: cofradías y armadores en los caladeros atlántico y mediterráneo de Andalucía». Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 114Redes entre dos mares: cofradías y armadores en los caladeros atlántico y mediterráneo de Andalucía INTRODUCCIÓN 1 La gobernanza de los recursos naturales y, por ende, la comprensión de los sistemas socio-ecológicos han suscitado un enorme interés en los últimos años (Alegret, 2002; Berkes y Folke, 1998; Berkes, Colding y Folke, 2003; Carlsson y Berkes, 2005; Sanz Ló-pez y Torres Rodríguez, 2006). La preocupación por la dimensión social de la sostenibilidad se ha expresado, por ejemplo, en el estudio del capital social en cuencas hidrográfi cas, zonas pesqueras y parques naturales (Grafton, 2005;Pretty, 2003). Entre otros factores sociales, se han tenido en cuenta los patrones de comunicación (Crona y Bodin, 2006), las formas de liderazgo (Crona y Bodin, 2010), la participación de la comunidad (Jentoft, 2000; Pomeroy y Berkes, 1997; Suárez de Vivero, Rodríguez Mateos y Florido del Corral, 2008), las capacidades organizativas (Folke et al., 2005) y la infl uencia de las relaciones formales e informales entre actores clave (Bodin, Crona y Ernston, 2006;Prell et. al., 2010).En el caso concreto de la gestión de recursos pesqueros, la investigación se ha centrado especialmente en las formas de gobernanza participativa y sostenible (Carlson y Berkes, 20...

Differential effect of fisheries to the COVID-19 pandemic in the region of Andalusia (Spain)

“…After Galicia, the Region of Andalusia (Southern Spain) has the highest number of fishing landings in Spain [16] . Fishing activity in Andalusia has immense economic value and is a key element in its social and cultural image [17] , [18] . This region is naturally divided by the Strait of Gibraltar into two different fishing grounds, one in Atlantic waters and the other in the Mediterranean Sea.…”

“…This region is naturally divided by the Strait of Gibraltar into two different fishing grounds, one in Atlantic waters and the other in the Mediterranean Sea. According to Maya-Jariego [17] , there is a clear differentiation between fleets in these two areas, one fleet with a considerably higher level of technology (mainly working in the Atlantic), and the other more coastal-based fleet (mainly working in the Mediterranean). Thus, in the Atlantic, the non-artisanal fishing fleet uses high-level technology for the extractive tasks, more stratified labour organization, and links with transformation industries and commercial networks [17] .…”

“…According to Maya-Jariego [17] , there is a clear differentiation between fleets in these two areas, one fleet with a considerably higher level of technology (mainly working in the Atlantic), and the other more coastal-based fleet (mainly working in the Mediterranean). Thus, in the Atlantic, the non-artisanal fishing fleet uses high-level technology for the extractive tasks, more stratified labour organization, and links with transformation industries and commercial networks [17] . On the other hand, in the Mediterranean basin, the non-artisanal fishing fleet is more traditional and has a lower level of technology [16] , [17] , [18] .…”

“…Thus, in the Atlantic, the non-artisanal fishing fleet uses high-level technology for the extractive tasks, more stratified labour organization, and links with transformation industries and commercial networks [17] . On the other hand, in the Mediterranean basin, the non-artisanal fishing fleet is more traditional and has a lower level of technology [16] , [17] , [18] . In contrast, the artisanal fleet is very similar in both fishing grounds.…”