• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16031 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16031 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • IRD Éditions
  • ›
  • Synthèses
  • ›
  • Marine spatial planning in the tropical ...
  • ›
  • Part II. Marine spatial planning in the ...
  • ›
  • Chapter 10. The information challenges o...
  • IRD Éditions
  • IRD Éditions
    IRD Éditions
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral IntroductionMarine spatial planning and geographic informationThe information issue in Senegal’s fisheriesSome lessons on information issues in these case studies Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Chapter 10. The information challenges of marine spatial planning

    Lessons learned from small-scale fisheries in Senegal

    Brice Trouillet, Ndickou Gaye, Aïchetou Seck, Michel Desse, Awa Niang, Alexis Fossi, Thierry Guineberteau, Alioune Kane et Laurent Pourinet

    Texte intégral Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Texte intégral

    Introduction

    1Marine spatial planning (MSP) requires the ability to “objectify” the distribution of activities at sea, which in turn requires information on multiple aspects. Geographic information is one of the central of these. However, from the construction of information to its dissemination (types, metrics, collection and processing methods, modes of representation, quality and reliability, tools and forms of dissemination, etc.), data is far from “objective” or neutral, and thus nor is the series of following choices (d’Aquino et al., 2002; Iliadis and Russo, 2016; Kitchin and Lauriault, 2018; Noucher et al., 2019). Bowker (2005) stated this in his assertion, later taken up by Gitelman and Jackson (2013), that “‘Raw data’ is both an oxymoron and a bad idea.” Geographic information is no exception to this (Boucquey et al., 2019; Campbell et al., 2020; Trouillet, 2019). This leads to an information issue that is little discussed, but lies at the heart of several problems raised by the scientific literature on MSP. Among these are the unequal distribution of the benefits of MSP, the predominance of the rationalist approach, the absence of real theoretical foundations, and the dominance of certain interests to the detriment of others (Flannery and Ellis, 2016; Flannery et al., 2018; Jentoft, 2017; Kidd and Ellis, 2012; Tafon, 2019; Trouillet, 2018).

    2Two elements may further accentuate this information issue. Firstly, this problem is particularly acute when seeking to characterise spatially dispersed, mobile and variable activities, which are difficult to describe and represent. This challenge can be even greater in the case of activities at the margins of the market or in the informal sector, for which observation systems may be inoperative. This is linked to another limitation of MSP that tacitly makes it an exercise of rationalising the use of space in a quest to maximise economic gains while taking into account marine ecosystems, but leaving aside other aspects associated with its use (cultural, social, identity, religious, territorial). In short, MSP is not only a question of defining what to observe, but knowing how to do so, i.e. with what variables. Fisheries, in particular small-scale, artisanal, subsistence fisheries, are often off the radar of observation systems (Agapito et al., 2019; Trouillet et al., 2019), and therefore marginalised (Pauly, 2006). At best, they are summarised by reductionist bioeconomic metrics unable to capture their complexity and diversity (Tolvanen et al., 2019; Said and Trouillet, 2020), and as such can be at risk.

    3The second element that makes information an issue in MSP particularly affects developing countries and involves the greater scarcity of data (Mills et al., 2011) and informational dependence on foreign actors (e.g. foreign aid agencies, large international non-governmental organisations) (Avgerou, 2008; Walsham and Sahay, 2006). As a result, to date, very few marine plans have been developed in emerging countries (Frazão Santos et al., 2020; Trouillet, 2020), with the exception of a few island micro-states and other sub-national approaches sometimes related to MSP, such as certain marine protected areas (MPAs)1. Yet this situation is starting to change as new uses of the sea arise and major projects become more numerous, in developing countries as elsewhere. This is the case in Senegal, where the evolving blue economy may lead the Senegalese authorities to embark on MSP in the near future, following in the footsteps of a growing number of countries around the world (Zaucha and Gee, 2019). A project promoting MSP in all the signatory countries of the Abidjan Convention (including Senegal) is currently underway2.

    4This chapter aims to draw attention to the information challenges of MSP by exploiting the heuristic potential of the case of small-scale artisanal fisheries in Senegal. In particular, the chapter examines the role of geographic information and associated geo-technologies used in MSP to identify the main points of vigilance to be considered (see Box 1 on the risk of ocean grabbing, for example). An empirical approach was used, based on fieldwork, interviews with stakeholders in maritime and coastal development, and the analysis of a body of literature including reports and websites of the various stakeholders. The first part describes the changes taking place in Senegal’s maritime space that may justify the implementation of MSP in the near future, and the importance of taking into account information issues in an MSP approach. This information issue is highlighted in our case study at two levels: fisheries at the national level and three more localised cases in Senegal. The chapter then discusses lessons to be learned regarding geographic information in the context of MSP in developing and emerging countries in the tropics.

    Box 1. The threat of ocean grabbing
    Alexis
    Fossi

    The term “ocean grabbing” originated in a 2012 report on fisheries by Olivier De Schutter (UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food) for the UN General Assembly. The report raised the alarm on the growing constraints faced by coastal communities and artisanal fishermen linked to the non-respect of “human rights” or “rights of access to resources”. It stressed the importance of involving fishing communities at all stages when developing projects in coastal areas, as well as in the development and implementation of fisheries policy. Many of the report’s recommendations were incorporated into the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries (FAO, 2015), supported by the work of organisations such as the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) in negotiations with the Committee on Fisheries of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (COFI).
    In 2014, the issue of ocean grabbing was analysed in a study carried out jointly by three fisherfolk and farmer support organisations (TNI
    et al., 2014) with the WFFP. The causes identified for this phenomenon are very diverse, but one of the most important is the complex process involved in defining fisheries policy and access rights in the form of quotas, from which artisanal fishing is often excluded. Other factors are the increasing number of projects linked to aquaculture or energy production (e.g. offshore wind farms), the creation of large marine protected areas associated with ecotourism projects, the expansion of the oil and gas extraction industry and the development of port infrastructure. These activities, grouped under the concept of the “blue economy”, very often involve a form of privatisation or restrictions on access to marine or coastal spaces and/or resources. Fishing communities, which depend on these areas and resources for their livelihoods, are typically not involved in the discussions and decision-making processes, which tend to be mainly oriented towards short-term economic benefits.
    The Transnational Institute (TNI), a non-profit research and advocacy think tank, brought up this issue in a critical analysis of blue growth in 2018, in which it presented MSP as a tool for the privatisation of maritime space for the benefit of the most “profitable” industries, such as fossil fuel extraction and maritime transport.

    For more information

    Brent Z., Barbesgaard M., Pedersen C., 2018
    The Blue Fix: unmasking the politics behind the promise of blue growth. Amsterdam, TNI, 24 p. https://www.tni.org/en/bluegrowth

    FAO, 2015
    Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries. Rome, FAO, 39 p. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/I4356F

    Schutter O., 2012
    Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. General Assembly, Sixty-seventh session, A/67/268, New York, United Nations, 28 pp.

    TNI, Masifundise Development Trust, Afrika Kontakt, WFFP, 2014
    The global sea grab. A booklet. 57 p. http://worldfishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The_Global_Ocean_Grab-FR.pdf

    Marine spatial planning and geographic information

    5In this section, the emerging issues around sharing maritime and coastal space in Senegal are highlighted, with a focus on challenges around the information issue in the field of fisheries.

    Changes in Senegal’s maritime and coastal space

    6There have been multiple changes in Senegal’s maritime space in recent years. These affect all coastal and maritime sectors in the country to varying degrees, and are often linked to global changes (climate, energy transition, etc.).

    7Following several initiatives to promote growth in different sectors, the Plan for an Emerging Senegal3 (PSE) (Republic of Senegal, 2014) puts forward an overall development strategy for 2035, focusing in particular on the diversification of activities. This has resulted in an ambitious Strategic Plan for the Development of Aquaculture (PSDA) adopted in December 2016. Its objective is to increase aquaculture production to 40,000 or 50,000 t in 2023 (Bonnin et al., 2016), a 40- or 50-fold increase, in certain identified geographical areas, notably Casamance (Sédhiou department upstream from Adéane; fig. 1). Another priority in the PSE is tourism, which has been the subject of various previous initiatives: the National Agency for the Promotion of Tourism in 2004, the Society for the Development and Promotion of Senegal Coasts and Tourist Zones (SAPCO) in 1975, whose scope of action was extended beyond the Petite Côte from 2004, and a tourism development strategy defined in 2005. Although the development of tourism is aimed at the whole of Senegal, the expected effect will be particularly strong in the coastal areas, which include five of the six “integrated tourist areas”4 of the PSE. The energy sector is a further priority, with the PSE expanding the orientations in the 2012 policy letter on the development of the energy sector. With regard to hydrocarbons, after the first discovery of deposits in 2014 in the current Block 10 (fig. 1), almost all of Senegal’s maritime space has been opened up to offshore oil and gas exploration permits. In terms of mining activities, a sand extraction zone (rich in zircon and ilmenite) corresponding to a 4.5 km strip extending over 107 km was granted in 2007 until 2032 to the Australian company Mineral Deposits Limited (MDL) (Bonnin et al., 2016) (fig. 1). Lastly, there is a development strategy for infrastructure, which is reflected in several projects to create new commercial ports. This includes a multifunctional port project at Ndayane on the Petite Côte (fig. 1), built by the UAE company Dubai Ports World. This would be one of the links in a large logistics hub integrating several port projects, including the bulk and mineral port currently under construction in Bargny, interconnected by planned road, motorway and rail networks. In Ndiago in Mauritania, just on the other side of the border with Senegal (15 km north of Saint-Louis, where a river–sea port project is in the works under the aegis of the city and the Organisation for the Development of the Senegal River), the multifunctional port of Ndiago is being constructed by the Chinese company Poly Technologies and is due to be completed soon. The Ndiago port is designed both to take advantage of the exploitation of the offshore deposit of Grand Tortue Ahmeyim on the Mauritania–Senegal border (partially in Block 2; fig. 1), and to land fish from Senegalese fishermen working in this area.

    8Despite the fact that they are spread along the Senegalese coastline, these rapid changes, which are sometimes profound, are having an impact on fishing activities, (fig. 1), which form the backbone of Senegal’s coastal economy and on which many coastal communities depend. After several years of growth, fishing landings in Senegal are slowing, or even decreasing, depending on the species (Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Economy, 2016). This is due to a complex mix of fishing overcapacity, habitat degradation (Mbaye et al., 2018) and the effects of climate change, which are redrawing the distribution patterns of species of interest. Moreover, these changes are taking place against a backdrop of geopolitical issues linked to fishing agreements with neighbouring countries (particularly Mauritania5) or regions further afield (Asia, Europe), or issues linked to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which represents an estimated loss of income of nearly US$300 million per year in Senegal (Belhabib et al., 2014).

    9Two other elements add to an already complex fisheries situation. Firstly, following sub-regional initiatives such as the Regional Partnership for Coastal and Marine Conservation (PRCM), the Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas in West Africa (RAMPAO), etc., Senegal has recently developed a national MPA strategy in line with international commitments (Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, 2013). To date, Senegal has about 15 MPAs, four of which are relatively large (fig. 1). Secondly, strong urban pressure on the sea front (construction of hotels, urban port projects, etc.), combined with sometimes very rapid coastal erosion problems (Guet Ndar, Dakar, etc.), exposes fishing communities to the risk of exclusion and forced relocation.

    Figure 1. Study areas and general context

    Image 10000000000004BD0000067FA2365CC80FEE83EF.jpg

    Source: L. Pourinet, A. Fossi, B. Trouillet
    High resolution map: Figure 01 HD

    10All of these changes are taking place at a time when the legislative foundations for coastal and maritime planning to regulate their effects are still unclear, both in land planning (problems of defining the public maritime domain) and in marine planning (absence of agreements on maritime borders with Cabo Verde, an unclear zone between Gambia and Cabo Verde, and a joint management zone between Senegal and Guinea-Bissau) (Bonnin et al., 2016).

    Geographic information: key to marine spatial planning

    11While MSP has its roots in experiments carried out as early as the 1960s and 1970s, it only really began to take hold in the mid-2000s. Of the many existing definitions, the most common is: “The public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process” (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). It can be tempting to adopt a unifying and universalist definition, but in reality practices encompass diverse rationales and pursue diverse goals (Jones et al., 2016; Trouillet, 2020), tipping the balance either to the side of systematic conservation planning (Agardy et al., 2011; Kirkman et al., 2019) or to spatial planning in the broadest sense of the term (Jay, 2010a; Olsen et al., 2016).

    12Nonetheless, three constants can be identified, regardless of the position between the two typical cases mentioned above. Firstly, geographic information is omnipresent throughout the MSP process. It is used to describe the existing situation, to construct and represent different scenarios, and finally to translate these into spatial management measures. Geographic information technologies – in particular geographic information systems (GIS) – are thus enlisted to carry out multi-criteria spatial analyses that shed light on “(in)compatibilities” between uses, regulations, natural habitats, species and the physical environment (Caldow et al., 2015; Pınarbaşı et al., 2017; Stelzenmüller et al., 2013). In this, the input data (from which information is extracted) is fundamental, as to a large extent the final result and the very way of rendering it depends on this: “What data go into the data portals has profound impacts on what kinds of decision-making are possible and how the environment and communities are formatted” (Campbell et al., 2020).

    13This information issue is central to MSP, even more than in land-based planning, for two main reasons. One is that for most maritime stakeholders, and especially decision-makers, maritime space is an abstract space disconnected from experience (Steinberg and Peters, 2015). This means that there are fewer alternatives to qualitative – even sensitive – data on maritime space, and less critical distance from the data itself. The other is the multiple levels at which “what data goes into the data portals” plays out: the presence or absence of information, the context of information production, the metrics used, the types of processing carried out, the cartographic representations produced, the portal or dissemination infrastructure, and the nature and status of the information producers (Boucquey et al., 2019; St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008; Stamoulis and Delevaux, 2015; Trouillet, 2019; Said and Trouillet, 2020). At each of these levels, choices are made, whether conscious or unconscious, explicit or implicit, and none can be considered neutral. As MSP is now leaning towards a quantitative and rationalist model, unlike land-based planning (Jay, 2010b; Kidd and Ellis, 2012), the information issue is exacerbated and, paradoxically, remains little studied. The consideration of this is in line with the perspective of “a partial renewal of the methodological frameworks of critical cartography (…) [which] must allow for a deeper description of new ways of making maps, of the stages of their making (…) and of the power relations that accompany this making both in design and in use” (Joliveau et al., 2013).

    14The rationalist anchoring of MSP, confining itself to “evidence-based” or “data-driven” planning, seems to be linked to the dual aims of MSP of systematic conservation planning and spatial planning (understood here in the broad sense). So the second constant is that the information issue delineates an epistemological fault line between conservation science and spatial planning science. In the absence of the clarification and substantive theoretical debates taking place for over a century in land-based planning, this fault line raises the question of positivism in the field of MSP (Trouillet, 2019). In land-based planning, Davoudi (2006) reminds us that facts and information are not in themselves evidence (it is more a matter of combinatorics), and that any evidence must include multiple forms of knowledge. It is therefore necessary to place this information issue, which is currently only indirectly addressed in the already limited theoretical debates regarding MSP, at the centre of our concerns. Failing this, and given a certain revival of (neo)positivism in the field, there will be an overinvestment in “how” to the detriment of “why”, returning to the tired but endless debate between spatial and strategic planning.

    15The third constant is that the question of information is also one of situated and relational power. Information is strongly dependent on the socio-technical organisation – or network – of actors, as well as objects such as information, technology, discourse, etc., within which it is gathered and disseminated (Akrich, 1989; Callon, 1986; 2006; Latour, 2005). Each point in the network influences the others and thus contributes to shaping the power relationships between actors. To take an extreme example, a situation of data deluge, in which there is an abundance of data, differs from that of a lack of data, even if the abundance of data has no bearing on its quality and vice versa. In some ways, the situated and relational power in the information issue echoes the shift from an interest in maps as objects to maps as practices (Crampton, 2009) or, by extension, geographic information as object to geographic information as practice. The capacity of geographic information to exert power over the dominated has long been pointed out (Pickles, 1995; Chambers, 2006; Dunn, 2007), but vigilance is particularly necessary in the West African context, as standards and references are usually defined exogenously (as is often the case with aid and data production), overlooking pluralism, local specificities and so-called “non-scientific” knowledge (d’Aquino et al., 2002). This observation has been at the origin of the development of participatory geographic information systems (Crampton, 2010), and the emergence of certain currents of critical cartography, critical GIS, counter-mapping and even data activism. It is linked to questions of invisible power (Lukes, 2015), referring in part to what Young (1990) defines as cultural imperialism, i.e. a process leading to the unconscious acceptance of the norms and references of the dominant power. In tropical maritime contexts, where geographic information is scarce, attention must be paid to intertwining top-down and bottom-up (especially participatory) approaches to information production, and the associated information issues, including the analysis of formal and informal information networks, powers and modalities of collection, and tools for knowledge integration (Pomeroy et al., 2014).

    16With these three constants in mind, it is of interest to apply a methodological framework explicitly attentive to power issues to the question of information and MSP in the case of small-scale fisheries in Senegal.

    The information issue in Senegal’s fisheries

    17This section gives a brief overview of Senegal’s fisheries at a national level and the information systems related to this, and then looks at three case studies in the regions of Saint-Louis, Kayar and the Saloum delta.

    Overview of Senegal’s fisheries

    18While there has long been pirogue fishing activity on the Senegal coast, at the turn of the 20th century, the French colonial power began to develop Senegalese maritime resources (Chauveau and Samba, 1990). The initial colonial objective “was to supply food products to France at war and to the local European population cut off from exports”; over the subsequent decades, Senegal’s fisheries would undergo many changes (Chauveau and Samba, 1990).

    19Today, maritime fishing in Senegal is made up of two sectors with often competing rationales, with a marked dichotomy between industrial and artisanal fishing. Industrial fishing, based in Dakar, is mainly characterised by vessels equipped with inboard engines. The national fleet consists of an estimated 104 trawlers and eight tuna boats6, not counting the presence of a foreign fleet. Landings are destined for export and, unlike artisanal fishing, industrial fishing plays a small role in the national economy. Artisanal or traditional fishing is often defined by (1) a household-based production unit, (2) the acquisition of knowledge and skills adapted to the local environment, based on local or traditional transmission, and (3) the use of relatively simple technologies (Jentoft, 2006; World Bank, 2008; 2012). In an attempt to capture the diversity and complexity of artisanal fisheries, various criteria are combined: technological (size of boat and type of fishing gear), spatial (area of exploitation, area of catch) and socio-economic (capital, labour, integration into local and national markets) (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006; Garcia et al., 2010). In Senegal, artisanal fishing is increasing due to its flexible nature, which allows new actors to take up the activity or develop related industries and trade networks, but also because it is being promoted as a lever for development. The artisanal fleet is estimated at 19,000 pirogues, of which more than 90% are motorised7. These two different types of fishing pose challenges in terms of fisheries monitoring: the industrial fishing fleet is concentrated in the port of Dakar and consists of a small number of boats, while the artisanal fishing fleet is scattered along the coast, is very diversified and has a much larger number of boats.

    20It is important to note that fishing activity should not be reduced to its bioeconomic dimension alone: it constitutes the most visible form of maritimisation of coastal societies. Senegal’s fishing area presents forms of exploitation and appropriation that policies have long sought to structure and organise. The Senegalese government’s initiatives and strategies in terms of information collection in this sphere are essentially based on two objectives: the development of the fisheries sector and the management of the fisheries resource (FAO, 2008). The latter provides an overview of the existing information on fisheries throughout Senegal’s maritime space. To ensure the sustainability of its marine resources, Senegal has relied heavily on the institutional framework, particularly by strengthening the capacity and means of action of the fisheries agencies. At the national level, the collection and management of this information is the responsibility of the Directorate of Maritime Fisheries (DPM), the Directorate of Fisheries Protection and Monitoring (DPSP) and the Oceanographic Research Centre of Dakar Thiaroye (CRODT) (fig. 2). These institutions are supported by decentralised regional and departmental agencies, and locally by monitoring stations. An example of a classic monitoring system, this institutional framework aims to provide information for discussions on sectoral policies, particularly those aimed at fisheries management, regulatory and environmental frameworks, and the implementation of monitoring programmes for certain overexploited species (e.g. sharks and shrimp).

    Figure 2. Collection and management of marine fisheries information at a national level

    Image 100000000000038400000230E9907A0305765E95.png

    Source: WAEMU (http://atlas.stafpeche-uemoa.org/)

    21Information collection relating to the fisheries sector thus relies heavily on both central and decentralised agencies, as well as on national research institutes (notably CRODT). These structures are mainly oriented towards collecting information on resources (landings, size/weight, quality, origin, etc.), and the sprawling development of small-scale fishing poses a problem for monitoring. Fisheries agencies are understaffed, and cooperation at a local level with management agencies (particularly for checks at sea) is not operational. These rely on a small number of volunteers who lack official status and very often encounter resistance from small-scale fishermen. There is also an issue of the reliability of the collected data, which is often biased or even the result of extrapolations.

    22The system for monitoring foreign fishing vessels is also problematic. Satellite monitoring by a vessel monitoring system (VMS) was made compulsory by Ministerial Decree No. 009757 of 5 December 2005, theoretically making it possible to receive data on the position of vessels operating in Senegal’s national waters and to verify their activities. In practice, surveillance is far from regular. Aerial patrols (flyovers, photography and identification of vessels) are subject to the availability of the French armed forces in Senegal (EFS) (Diagne, 2014), while maritime patrols (especially on the high seas) require significant financial resources. These constraints prevent regular monitoring and leave an open door to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

    23Other entities are also involved in the collection/production of data alongside Senegal’s fisheries agencies: other ministries (in particular the Ministry of the Environment via the Directorate of Community Marine Protected Areas), national organisations and federations (Association of Shipowners and Fishing Industrials in Senegal, Employers’ Union of Wholesalers and Exporters of Senegal, Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils), foreign or regional supranational organisations (European Union, Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission), scientific institutes and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) through research programmes, etc. These various forms of cooperation provide more or less one-off additional information, either for routine monitoring or in areas not covered by observation systems.

    24The collection of data on the fisheries sector thus faces a variety of shortcomings (reliability, availability of human, technical and financial resources, etc.). Once collected, the information is processed by Senegalese authorities and disseminated through statistical reports that are sometimes accessible online. There is little or no geographic processing of the data collected, except through landing points. To date, there is no fisheries data infrastructure in Senegal (in open access).

    The Saint-Louis region: multiuse and multiscale

    25The Saint-Louis region (fig. 1) is one of the most active and long-standing artisanal fishing areas in the country. Artisanal fishing is mainly carried out by the migrant fishermen of Guet Ndar, a coastal community that has participated in turning West African fishing into a market economy (Seck, 2014). Through its dynamism and by taking advantage of technological advances, the Guet Ndar community has extended its fishing area along the West African coastline to preferred zones such as Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau (Dème et al., 2012). The mobility of the production unit (the pirogue), its specialisation in relation to the resource, and the investment made for long migrations give the Guet Ndar of Saint-Louis a succession of fragmented fishing areas that extend beyond Senegal’s national jurisdiction.

    26In the Saint-Louis region, the specific characteristics of fishing, in addition to the appearance of new maritime activities (MPAs, blocks for gas and oil extraction and future ports) have resulted in real MSP issues that involve methods of sharing maritime space, integrated management of the coastline and its resources, and environmental protection. These issues must be addressed on an appropriate scale, taking into account the functional borders which, in the case of the northern region, transcend the Mauritania–Senegal border, or even take shape on a sub-regional scale. The Saint-Louis fishing area is undergoing rapid and profound changes that require a reexamination of the dynamics of the activities involved. As early as 2004, the creation of an MPA covering an area of 496 km² upset the spatial perception of artisanal fishermen and raised the question of the capacity of local agencies to regulate, manage and monitor the marine area. When the Saint-Louis MPA, located between the relief canal opened on the Langue de Barbarie in 2003 and the original river mouth (fig. 3) was defined, three considerations were taken into account to ensure that the MPA:

    • encompasses an important spawning area for shrimp – resources necessary for the presence of demersal species (fishermen participated in its definition)

    • avoids proximity to the fishermen’s settlements and is therefore far from the Guet Ndar district, while not encroaching on the Louga area located further south

    • covers a large area – an asset for artisanal fishermen to stop repeated incursions by trawlers into their fishing space (arbitrarily set by the government at 6 miles offshore).

    27However, the participatory process to delimit the MPA was quickly unanimously opposed by the community, which feared restrictions on the resource and sanctions. This led to numerous demands and even a denial of the conservation area by certain categories of users (those fishing with passive nets and purse seines). In addition, the lack of monitoring resources (equipment and personnel), the absence of markers, and the conflicts of authority between the Ministry of Maritime Fisheries and the Ministry of the Environment have all created obstacles to the proper functioning of the MPA. Today, the Saint-Louis MPA is recognised as a conservation area by fishermen; however, updating its perimeter will rely on the availability of information to enable managers to establish clear planning and mapping, which is currently lacking (fig. 3).

    Figure 3. Spatial planning issues in the Saint-Louis region

    Image 10000000000004BD000006CA2EF040BD83F7CB53.jpg

    Source: L. Pourinet, B. Trouillet
    High resolution map: Figure 03 HD

    28In this already complex context, new challenges are emerging on the Saint-Louis coastline with the discovery of gas leading to exploration/extraction blocks and a renewal of river and maritime transports through port projects (the “Polish” port of Saint-Louis and the port of Ndiago). The potential for a hydrocarbon industry has been discussed and researched since the 1990s, and in the 2000s the Senegalese government initiated exploration contracts with oil companies. Hydrocarbon exploration and production activities carried out in Senegal’s sedimentary basin between 2014 and 2016 confirmed the presence of significant oil and gas reserves along the coastline, with the prospect of effective exploitation by 2022 (fig. 1).

    29In this context, the Grand Tortue Ahmeyim gas field on the Mauritania–Senegal border in the Saint-Louis area presents great opportunities (fig. 3). With reserves estimated at 450 billion m3 according to British Petroleum8, the gas field is located in rock formations under the seabed 125 km from the coast and covers a total area of 9463 km². A framework agreement was signed on 14 January 2016 between Société des Pétroles du Sénégal (Petrosen), Société Mauritanienne des Hydrocarbures et du Patrimoine Minier (SMHPM) and Kosmos Energy Ltd.9 This agreement covers the delineation, evaluation, development and exploitation of the common hydrocarbon resources of the area. The area of activity is specified as:

    • an offshore area approximately 125 km from the coast and at a water depth of 2700 m. It includes the gas field as well as the subsea wells and manifolds.

    • a pipeline area linking the offshore and nearshore infrastructure. It will house a floating production, storage and offloading facility (FPSO) and a platform about 35–40 km offshore for gas pre-processing and liquid disposal.

    • a nearshore area where a breakwater will protect the planned floating gas liquefaction plant. The breakwater is 1-km long and will be approximately 3–5 km from the coast where the depth is approximately 16–20 m.

    30There are high economic expectations for the Grand Tortue Ahmeyim project, with production intended for export as well as for the domestic market, but the project also raises questions about its potential impacts. A public consultation was conducted in 2017 between project stakeholders and local stakeholders in Saint-Louis (fishermen’s organisations, women’s groups involved in fish processing, fishmongers, Saint-Louis citizens, local authorities, NGOs, academics, etc.), but information that would allow the environmental and social impacts of gas exploitation to be identified is sorely lacking.

    31The fishermen of Guet Ndar fear that the future construction of the gas terminal will lead to a reduction in their fishing territory in an already tense context. They are concerned that a loss of territory would lead to a drop in landings and revenue, not to mention the risk of accidents, safety problems and pollution caused by the operation. For their part, conservation stakeholders (managers of the MPA and the Langue de Barbarie National Park) are very uncertain about the future of migration corridors for certain species (avifauna, marine turtles and cetaceans) due to the noise caused by seismic activities. The decentralised government services are powerless to anticipate the risks of pollution and degradation of the marine environment related to the project. The local authorities also have an urgent need for information to deal with issues linked to coastal erosion, a major problem on the north coast, an area in which two major port projects are underway. With the retreat of the coastline particularly marked on the Langue de Barbarie and the relocation of Guet Ndar populations to the interior (which is not always successful, especially when fishing communities are very resistant to these measures), risk management for vulnerable coastal communities will require planning that takes greater account of the need for observation data on coastal dynamics10. In this context, updating development and management plans on the basis of documented information is imperative in order to reassess the human and financial resources necessary in this new context, including for various monitoring activities – a question that currently remains without a clear answer.

    Kayar MPA: mapping fishing grounds

    32The fishing areas of Senegal’s artisanal fleets have expanded considerably over the last few decades. Although economically very important for the country, artisanal fishing is not yet officially and systematically geo-referenced, although a great deal of data exists. The example of the trollers of Kayar, a dynamic fishing centre, illustrates the potential that exists at a national level.

    33Located about 60 km north of Dakar (fig. 1), Kayar has long been considered one of the two main landing centres for artisanal fisheries on the north Senegalese coast along with Saint-Louis (Cury and Roy, 1987). The particular topography of the coast as well as the presence of a submarine canyon that cuts deeply into the continental shelf creates a discontinuity in the environment that strongly influences the distribution of fish in this area (Cury and Roy, 1987) (fig. 4). As early as the 1950s, artisanal fishing developed here with the construction of a paved road following the recommendations of the 1948 Dakar Maritime Fisheries Conference (Chabou and Kebe, 1989). Subsequently, various projects have contributed to the development of the site: the Senegalese Cooperative for the Supply and Distribution of Seafood Products (Coopmer) with an industrial complex in 1950, followed by the Senegalese Artisanal Fishing Support Centres (Capas) and the Pirogue Motorisation Support Centres (Camp) in the 1970s11. In the early 2000s, with the support of Japanese cooperation, major developments took place to improve the marketing and processing of fishery products. In this context, the artisanal fishermen of Kayar developed an awareness early on of the uniqueness of their marine environment, which became their “fishing territory” (Charles-Dominique and Mbaye, 2000).

    Figure 4. Kayar MPA: geographical context and fishing areas of Kayar artisanal fishermen

    Image 10000000000004540000071155CA7EF88762277E.jpg

    Source: L. Pourinet, A. Fossi, B. Trouillet
    High resolution map: Figure 04 HD

    34This attachment to a “fishing territory” and the desire to preserve it, combined with strong local cohesion, have generated repeated and sometimes violent conflicts (1953, 1985, 2001, 2005) between the trollers of Kayar and the driftnetters of Guet Ndar and Fassboye (Le Roux and Noël, 2007; Siffert, 2017). The Kayar fishermen wanted to ban fishing with set nets, arguing, quite rightly, that the nets lost on the shelf edge “destroy” the trollers’ fishing grounds. However, according to some analyses, this “technical argument” was merely a catalyst for tensions between communities that existed for different reasons (CRODT, 1985). Thus, in the 1980s, the Kayar fishermen participated in the first structuring of the profession within the National Committee of Senegalese Fishermen (CNPS) and created a local Fisheries Committee. This level of organisation enabled, in 1994, a set of “management rules” to be accepted by the two main fishing communities present: the Kayar and the Guet Ndar of Saint-Louis. These “rules” made it possible to regulate the daily supply of fish in order to raise prices and compensate for the economic loss linked to the devaluation of the CFA franc (Charles-Dominique and Mbaye, 2000; Dème, 2014).

    35From the end of the 1990s onwards, the possibility of acquiring a portable GPS – which can therefore be used onboard a pirogue – has had a major impact on the evolution of fishing strategies. It is interesting to note that the appropriation of GPS by Senegalese artisanal fishermen was very rapid and was not supported by any project. This new tool was an immediate success among the artisanal fleets, as in Kayar (fig. 5), facilitating the precision of the positioning of anchorage, which largely determines fishing success, particularly in the vicinity of the canyon.

    Figure 5. Kayar troller looking for a position on his portable GPS

    Image 10000000000004B000000384B49D84DA3CC8FC5F.jpg

    © A. Fossi, 2002

    36In 2004, the Senegalese government created four MPAs along the coast ex nihilo under pressure from a conservation NGO, without taking into account the knowledge of artisanal fishing communities. Only the Community Marine Protected Area of Bamboung was the subject of consultation with local communities before it was set up under another programme. In Kayar, it was not until the establishment of the MPA development and management plan in 2007 that community knowledge was taken into consideration (Dème, 2014). The resulting MPA zoning map (fig. 4), based on toponymy and the knowledge of artisanal fishermen, shows precise zones determined by bathymetry, the different areas and uses, making it possible to precisely define fishing zones. The community mapping of fishing zones is very different from the arbitrary and rectangular delimitation of the MPA, but is limited to the perimeter of the MPA up to about 7 miles offshore. Thus, it does not cover all the fishing zones of the Kayar fleet, whose range has been estimated at between 10 miles and several dozen kilometres (Cury and Roy, 1987; Charles-Dominique and Mbaye, 2000). It is highly likely that the small-scale fishermen of Kayar have a vision of their “fishing territory” and the toponymy associated with fishing zones that extends well beyond the boundaries of the MPA towards the north, west and open sea.

    37Within Senegal’s artisanal fishing communities, there is now very detailed geographical knowledge of the zones and of artisanal fishing practices. Following the example of the work carried out in Kayar, capitalising on the knowledge of artisanal fishing communities, at least in the major fishing centres, would make it possible to draw up dynamic “maps based on the words of fishermen”12, produced by and for artisanal fishermen, and to understand the occupation of maritime space by the artisanal fisheries sector in its entirety. Given the numerous issues that weigh on fishing in Senegal today, producing geographic information by artisanal fishermen would contribute to envisaging a more just consideration of the fisheries sector in the framework of future MSP in Senegal.

    The Saloum delta: finding a balance between traditional and new activities

    38The Saloum delta is located in the Fatick region (fig. 1), where populations living in this estuarine environment have structured the area through the exploitation of a variety of terrestrial and aquatic resources (Cormier-Salem, 1997). Although modest on the national scale, fishing activities in the Saloum delta are distinguished by the great diversity of resources due to the biodiversity reservoirs created by the alternation of “bolongs” (inlets colonised by extensive mangrove vegetation) and “tannes” (mangrove swamp interiors). This forms a mosaic of environments (fig. 6) that are favourable to the harvesting of various marine resources (fish, shrimp, shellfish) and other types of activity.

    Figure 6. The Saloum delta: geographical context of artisanal fisheries

    Image 10000000000004BD000006851223DFB43D9BAC76.jpg

    Source: L. Pourinet, B. Trouillet
    High resolution map: Figure 06 HD

    39Until the 1970s, the exploitation of these resources was based on a balance between activities and seasons, with agriculture dominant (rice, maize, millet, groundnuts, sorghum, etc.), followed by artisanal fishing, oyster farming, livestock farming and the harvesting of sea products (molluscs, shellfish, etc.). However, a conjunction of factors has led more and more people to turn to fishing activities: the decline in agriculture due to the lack of rainfall since the 1970s, the fall in the price of agricultural raw materials during the 1980s, free access to fishery resources, and insufficient regulation of the fishing effort. As a result, artisanal fishing has risen sharply in the Saloum delta: the number of pirogues increased by 38% between 2011 and 2014, accompanied by an increase in the size of pirogues and in engine power. In parallel, the number of annual trips to the sea, the technology for locating fish, and the fishing methods used have continued to develop (Dème, 1991), leading fishermen to explore areas that were previously difficult to access by rowing or sailing over several days at the whim of the tides. These changes in the former ways of doing things have exacerbated the situation, and the increased pressure on fisheries resources is threatening the pre-existing balance to the point of raising doubt about the sustainability of fishing activities, weakening coastal communities (Kébé, 2008).

    40In the Saloum delta, women traditionally do most of the fish processing and earn substantial income from this, contributing to the improvement of their families’ living conditions. Yet the profound changes taking place mean they are now experiencing difficulties related to the supply of raw materials, as well as to a rise in the purchase price of fish, as they are in competition with fish traders who have much greater financial and material capacity. Despite the fundamental role local women play in the various segments of the sector (micro-trading, artisanal processing, marketing, etc.), they do not always master the methods for better commercialisation of their products. They are also subject to increased competition from foreigners (for example, from Guinea and Burkina Faso) who are increasingly entering the processing business.

    41Shellfish harvesting is another exclusively female activity. It has become the main source of local income, contributing significantly to the improvement of women’s living conditions. Shellfish provide more than 90% of the animal protein consumed in the delta islands (Diouf, 1996). Unlike fishing, where the resource is mobile, shellfish gathering is a localised activity that takes place in the mangrove channels and in the mudflats uncovered at low tide. The collection is organised by the women during the mbissa, i.e. the period of the month during which the low tides are diurnal. This generally lasts between 15 and 18 days per month (Descamps, 1994) and is punctuated by a cycle of seven days of activity followed by four days of rest (Diouf and Sarr, 2009). Shellfish harvesting takes place during the dry season, from December to June, when it is easier to dry the products collected. Conversely, it is insignificant, or even non-existent, during the rainy season when agricultural activities mobilise almost the entire family.

    42Due to the diversity of ecosystems and landscapes as well as a rich cultural heritage, tourism is emerging in the Saloum delta, which is now the fifth largest tourist region in Senegal. There are many protected areas in this zone, but local populations were long excluded from the tourism industry. It was not until the 1990s that local populations became aware of the economic interest of tourism. Several types of tourism are now practised in the Saloum delta: fishing tourism, hunting tourism in leased areas of Niombato, and discovery tourism. Other types of tourism also exist, but are less developed (integrated rural, beach and cultural tourism). The Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2011, and the challenge today is to promote activities that encourage nature conservation. To this end, the policy defined by the Fatick Regional Council highlights the comparative advantages of ecotourism through the development of tourist infrastructure and the promotion of tourist products. The aim is to counter the model of large hotel complexes set up by foreign companies with an alternative model in which the camps belong to the local population (Fall, 2006). Currently, tourism in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve provides very little employment and income for the local population (Deheunynck et al., 2004), as:

    • almost all the camps and means of transport are owned by external investors

    • most guides are not from the area

    • local food and craft products are not sufficiently promoted

    • the jobs reserved for villagers are often menial.

    43However, the creation of the Community Marine Protected Area of Bamboung in 2004 has been a promising development. Some tourism stakeholders believe that ecotourism is a serious avenue to explore that could have a significant impact on the future of the delta.

    Some lessons on information issues in these case studies

    44These three examples highlight a fairly wide range of information issues that could affect MSP. The case of the Saint-Louis region illustrates the chronic lack of geographic information. It also shows the need to consider the spatial logic of various uses – and the interactions between these – on a range of scales (local, regional, or even global, including cross-border issues). In particular, there is a concerning lack of information on the foreseeable impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, which is likely to profoundly change the territory and coastal communities that have long been highly dependent on fishing for food and income.

    45The example of Kayar shows that, while it is necessary to document fishing practices and fleet areas in detail in order to take their specific issues into account, it is important to remember that the ways of documenting the practices (in this case, mapping them) can be diverse. Fishermen and communities can themselves be actors in the construction of information. Moreover, this active participation is probably the best guarantee of the effective appropriation of information by fisheries stakeholders (Trouillet et al., 2019).

    46Finally, the example of the Saloum delta highlights the importance of reconstructing the dynamics of human activities over a longer period of time to take these into account. There are limitations to seeing traditional activities such as fishing and shellfish harvesting solely as economic activities. Artisanal fisheries can be mainly subsistence activities, with dimensions that virtually always go beyond the framework of the market and touch on identity, culture, etc. This web of relationships is not easy to untangle, and the information that leads to decision-making must reflect this complexity. This requires a close examination of the way in which the diverse and complex reality of fisheries is coded, translated and transcribed into geographic information and not just reduced to simply market interests.

    47Taking a step back, it should be noted that these various information issues concern the entire information chain, from the production to the dissemination of data. In terms of geographic information production, the case studies clearly show that an approach of constructing information project by project, in fits and starts, has limitations, particularly when government information systems are deficient. This type of approach results in gathering information only where the attention of project sponsors is focused, without necessarily having an overall strategy for producing this information, leading inevitably to data issues (problems of standardisation making comparisons difficult, fragmentation and gaps in data, loss of information, etc.). It is necessary to pay attention to how information is produced, for what purpose and by whom. This has opened up the field of “data sovereignty” at a time when powerful private operators (Tech Giants such as Google, Apple, Meta, etc.) have become leading data producers.

    48Gaps in knowledge can also result in the misuse of existing geographic information. Indeed, since information is often not available for MSP purposes, authorities logically resort to the “best available information”, to quote a principle adopted by European authorities for MSP13. However, this approach has a downside, since information used for purposes other than those for which it was designed compromises its “external quality” (Devillers and Jeansoulin, 2006). From this point of view, within the framework of MSP, fisheries are a typical example of a field for which information is constructed (essentially bioeconomic information to characterise fishing effort and the monitoring of fishery dynamics), and then enlisted for want of a better way to illustrate the challenges of the fisheries sector as a whole. Given that this data only concerns the bioeconomic aspect of fisheries, it is erroneous to imagine that such information correctly reflects the issues of the sector as a whole, especially as regards small-scale or subsistence fisheries. However, this is only rarely discussed in the literature on past or current MSP processes (Said and Trouillet, 2020). This makes it essential to study more closely how pre-existing information or data created for MSP purposes is used. The same applies to the non-use of data. It is possible that key information exists but is not used, either through disinterest, to serve other interests or simply through ignorance. The example of fishermen’s knowledge in the Kayar MPA provides a good illustration: information on fishing grounds beyond the boundaries of the MPA exists, but only that concerning the MPA is used.

    49Another challenge is the dissemination of information. In Senegal, based on the recognition of a threefold problem – the fragmentation of geographic data, the underfunding of the geographic information sector, and inconsistency between existing systems – the National Geomatics Plan (Decree No. 2009-799) has enabled the creation of a geographic data infrastructure called “GéoSénégal”14. However, the maritime and coastal space remains on the fringe of the priority application areas of this ambitious plan supported by the Canadian International Development Agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the European Union (GICC, 2012)15. In addition to this plan, there are many other initiatives also supported by international agencies: for example, the West Africa Coastal Areas Management Programme (WACA)16 and one of its offshoots (WACA-F), supported by a French public institution, which has set up a data portal to make available geo-referenced orthophotographs documenting coastal retreat on a regional scale17. If the information hosted in these portals is enlisted for MSP, it will be important to look closely at the data, as this type of infrastructure in general shapes the representation of issues (Boucquey et al., 2019), sometimes to the point of becoming a mode of governance in itself rather than a simple governance tool (Campbell et al., 2020).

    50A further issue concerns the transversal appropriation of information at three major phases: its production, its use and its dissemination. In terms of the appropriation of the construction of information, how can the various stakeholders in MSP contribute to producing geographic information or alternative data that not only enriches knowledge, but makes the power relationships around geographic information used for spatial planning more explicit? Regarding the use of information, how is it possible to reduce or ideally eliminate the “black box” effect of many information processing tools to allow an understanding of the assumptions underlying data processing? Finally, concerning the appropriation of the tools and methods for disseminating information, how can alternative information that can contribute to a more diverse, complex vision, or a vision out of step with the dominant representations and narratives, be made visible?

    51These considerations on the issues around information at stake in MSP will resonate differently depending on the type of planning (spatial, strategic, communicative, prescriptive, integrating land/sea and the different levels of these) and the entity leading the approach (public agencies, NGOs, international institutions and the different combinations of these). Whatever the case, the stakes around geographic information in MSP call for redoubled attention, as this can be instrumentalised by the dominant powers, whether political or economic, particularly when MSP concerns populations that are more vulnerable to this risk of domination, such as coastal communities in developing or emerging countries.

    Bibliographie

    Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.

    Format

    • APA
    • Chicago
    • MLA
    Agapito, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Devillers, R., Gee, J., Johnson, A. F., Pierce, G. J., & Trouillet, B. (2018). Beyond the Basics: Improving Information About Small-Scale Fisheries. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_20
    Agardy, T., di Sciara, G. N., & Christie, P. (2011). Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006
    Avgerou, C. (2008). Information Systems in Developing Countries: A Critical Research Review. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136
    Belhabib, D., Koutob, V., Sall, A., Lam, V. W., & Pauly, D. (2014). Fisheries catch misreporting and its implications: The case of Senegal. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.12.006
    Boucquey, N., Martin, K. S., Fairbanks, L., Campbell, L. M., & Wise, S. (2019). Ocean data portals: Performing a new infrastructure for ocean governance. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818822829
    Caldow, C., Monaco, M. E., Pittman, S. J., Kendall, M. S., Goedeke, T. L., Menza, C., … Costa, B. M. (2015). Biogeographic assessments: A framework for information synthesis in marine spatial planning. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.023
    Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (Eds.). (2006). Sociologie de la traduction. Presses des Mines. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181
    Campbell, L. M., St. Martin, K., Fairbanks, L., Boucquey, N., & Wise, S. (2020). The portal is the plan: governing US oceans in regional assemblages. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00173-3
    Chambers, R. (2006). Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses?. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x
    Crampton, J. W. (2009). Cartography: performative, participatory, political. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508105000
    d’Aquino, P., Seck, S. mohamed, & Camara, S. (2002). Un SIG conçu par les acteurs : l’opération pilote POAS au Sénégal. CAIRN. https://doi.org/10.3917/eg.311.0023
    Davoudi, S. (2006). Evidence-Based Planning. Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2006.10556951
    Dunn, C. E. (2007). Participatory GIS — a people’s GIS?. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081493
    Flannery, W., Ellis, G., Ellis, G., Flannery, W., Nursey-Bray, M., van Tatenhove, J. P. M., … O’Hagan, A. M. (2016). Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental governance/Marine spatial planning:<i>Cui bono</i>?/“More than fishy business”: epistemology, integration and conflict in marine spatial planning/Marine spatial planning: power and scaping/Surely not all planning is evil?/Marine spatial planning: a Canadian perspective/Maritime spatial planning – “<i>ad utilitatem omnium</i>”/Marine spatial planning: “it is better to be on the train than being hit by it”/Reflections from the perspective of recreational anglers and boats for hire/Maritime spatial planning and marine renewable energy. Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1131482
    Flannery, W., Healy, N., & Luna, M. (2018). Exclusion and non-participation in Marine Spatial Planning. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.001
    Frazão Santos, C., Agardy, T., Andrade, F., Calado, H., Crowder, L. B., Ehler, C. N., … Rosa, R. (2020). Integrating climate change in ocean planning. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x
    Iliadis, A., & Russo, F. (2016). Critical data studies: An introduction. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238
    Jay, S. (2010). Planners to the rescue: Spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.11.010
    Jay, S. (2010). Built at sea: <i>Marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning</i>. Liverpool University Press. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.33
    Jentoft, S. (2006). Beyond fisheries management: The Phronetic dimension. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.10.001
    Jentoft, S. (2017). Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge integration and power. Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2017.1304210
    Joliveau, T., Noucher, M., & Roche, S. (2013). La cartographie 2.0, vers une approche critique d’un nouveau régime cartographique. CAIRN. https://doi.org/10.3917/lig.774.0029
    Jones, P. J., Lieberknecht, L., & Qiu, W. (2016). Marine spatial planning in reality: Introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026
    Kidd, S., & Ellis, G. (2012). From the Land to Sea and Back Again? Using Terrestrial Planning to Understand the Process of Marine Spatial Planning. Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2012.662382
    Kirkman, S. P., Holness, S., Harris, L. R., Sink, K. J., Lombard, A. T., Kainge, P., … Samaai, T. (2019). Using Systematic Conservation Planning to support Marine Spatial Planning and achieve marine protection targets in the transboundary Benguela Ecosystem. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.038
    Thatcher, J., Eckert, J., & Shears, A. (Eds.). (2018). Thinking Big Data in Geography. UNP - Nebraska. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21h4z6m
    Mbaye, A., Thiam, N., & Fall, M. (2018). The fishing protected zone in Senegal : Between the terroir of the fisherman and the course of the fish. What management scale ?. OpenEdition. https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.11999
    Mills, D. J., Westlund, L., Graaf, G. de, Kura, Y., Willman, R., & Kelleher, K. (2011). Under-reported and undervalued: small-scale fisheries in the developing world. CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936075.0001
    , , & . (2019). Mises en chiffres, mises en cartes, mises en ordre du monde. EspacesTemps.net. https://doi.org/10.26151/ESPACESTEMPS.NET-NY99-7659
    Olsen, E., Holen, S., Hoel, A. H., Buhl-Mortensen, L., & Røttingen, I. (2016). How Integrated Ocean governance in the Barents Sea was created by a drive for increased oil production. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.005
    Pınarbaşı, K., Galparsoro, I., Borja, Ángel, Stelzenmüller, V., Ehler, C. N., & Gimpel, A. (2017). Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: Present applications, gaps and future perspectives. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.031
    Pomeroy, R. S., Baldwin, K., & McConney, P. (2014). Marine Spatial Planning in Asia and the Caribbean: Application and Implications for Fisheries and Marine Resource Management. Universidade Federal do Parana. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v32i0.35627
    Said, A., & Trouillet, B. (2020). Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial Planning. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00178-y
    St. Martin, K., & Hall-Arber, M. (2008). The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015
    Stamoulis, K. A., & Delevaux, J. M. (2015). Data requirements and tools to operationalize marine spatial planning in the United States. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.011
    Steinberg, P., & Peters, K. (2015). Wet Ontologies, Fluid Spaces: Giving Depth to Volume through Oceanic Thinking. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1068/d14148p
    Stelzenmüller, V., Lee, J., South, A., Foden, J., & Rogers, S. I. (2013). Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: A review and some prototype tools. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.038
    Tolvanen, H., Erkkilä-Välimäki, A., & Nylén, T. (2019). From silent knowledge to spatial information – Mapping blue growth scenarios for maritime spatial planning. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103598
    Trouillet, B. (2019). Aligning with dominant interests: The role played by geo-technologies in the place given to fisheries in marine spatial planning. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012
    Trouillet, B. (2020). Reinventing marine spatial planning: a critical review of initiatives worldwide. Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2020.1751605
    Trouillet, B., Bellanger-Husi, L., El Ghaziri, A., Lamberts, C., Plissonneau, E., & Rollo, N. (2019). More than maps: Providing an alternative for fisheries and fishers in marine spatial planning. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.016
    Walsham, G., & Sahay, S. (2006). Research on information systems in developing countries: Current landscape and future prospects. Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20020
    Zaucha, J., & Gee, K. (Eds.). (2019). Maritime Spatial Planning. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8
    Agapito, Melinda, Ratana Chuenpagdee, Rodolphe Devillers, Jennifer Gee, Andrew F. Johnson, Graham J. Pierce, and Brice Trouillet. “Beyond the Basics: Improving Information About Small-Scale Fisheries”. Transdisciplinarity for Small-Scale Fisheries Governance. Springer International Publishing, October 16, 2018. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_20.
    Agardy, Tundi, Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, and Patrick Christie. “Mind the Gap: Addressing the Shortcomings of Marine Protected Areas through Large Scale Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, March 2011. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006.
    Avgerou, Chrisanthi. “Information Systems in Developing Countries: A Critical Research Review”. Journal of Information Technology. SAGE Publications, September 2008. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136.
    Belhabib, Dyhia, Viviane Koutob, Aliou Sall, Vicky W.Y. Lam, and Daniel Pauly. “Fisheries Catch Misreporting and Its Implications: The Case of Senegal”. Fisheries Research. Elsevier BV, March 2014. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2013.12.006.
    Boucquey, Noëlle, Kevin St. Martin, Luke Fairbanks, Lisa M Campbell, and Sarah Wise. “Ocean Data Portals: Performing a New Infrastructure for Ocean Governance”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. SAGE Publications, January 7, 2019. doi:10.1177/0263775818822829.
    Caldow, Chris, Mark E. Monaco, Simon J. Pittman, Matthew S. Kendall, Theresa L. Goedeke, Charles Menza, Brian P. Kinlan, and Bryan M. Costa. “Biogeographic Assessments: A Framework for Information Synthesis in Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, January 2015. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.023.
    Akrich, Madeleine, Michel Callon, and Bruno Latour, eds. Sociologie De La Traduction. []. Presses des Mines, 2006. doi:10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181.
    Campbell, Lisa M., Kevin St. Martin, Luke Fairbanks, Noelle Boucquey, and Sarah Wise. “The Portal Is the Plan: Governing US Oceans in Regional Assemblages”. Maritime Studies. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, April 22, 2020. doi:10.1007/s40152-020-00173-3.
    Chambers, Robert. “Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who Is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses?”. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. Wiley, June 2006. doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x.
    Crampton, Jeremy W. “Cartography: Performative, Participatory, Political”. Progress in Human Geography. SAGE Publications, May 21, 2009. doi:10.1177/0309132508105000.
    d’Aquino, Patrick, Sidy mohamed Seck, and Seydou Camara. “Un SIG conçu par les acteurs : l’opération pilote POAS au Sénégal”. Espace géographique. CAIRN, 2002. doi:10.3917/eg.311.0023.
    Davoudi, Simin. “Evidence-Based Planning”. DisP - The Planning Review. Informa UK Limited, January 2006. doi:10.1080/02513625.2006.10556951.
    Dunn, Christine E. “Participatory GIS — a people’s GIS?”. Progress in Human Geography. SAGE Publications, October 2007. doi:10.1177/0309132507081493.
    Flannery, Wesley, Geraint Ellis, Geraint Ellis, Wesley Flannery, Melissa Nursey-Bray, Jan P. M. van Tatenhove, Christina Kelly, et al. “Exploring the Winners and Losers of Marine Environmental Governance Marine Spatial planning:<i>Cui bono< i>? “More Than Fishy business”: Epistemology, Integration and Conflict in Marine Spatial Planning Marine Spatial Planning: Power and Scaping Surely Not All Planning Is Evil? Marine Spatial Planning: a Canadian Perspective Maritime Spatial Planning – “<i>ad Utilitatem omnium< i≫” Marine Spatial Planning: ‘it Is Better to Be on the Train Than Being Hit by it’ Reflections from the Perspective of Recreational Anglers and Boats for Hire Maritime Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy”. Planning Theory &Amp; Practice. Informa UK Limited, January 2, 2016. doi:10.1080/14649357.2015.1131482.
    Flannery, Wesley, Noel Healy, and Marcos Luna. “Exclusion and Non-Participation in Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, February 2018. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.001.
    Frazão Santos, Catarina, Tundi Agardy, Francisco Andrade, Helena Calado, Larry B. Crowder, Charles N. Ehler, Sara García-Morales, et al. “Integrating Climate Change in Ocean Planning”. Nature Sustainability. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, May 4, 2020. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x.
    Iliadis, Andrew, and Federica Russo. “Critical Data Studies: An Introduction”. Big Data &Amp; Society. SAGE Publications, October 17, 2016. doi:10.1177/2053951716674238.
    Jay, Stephen. “Planners to the Rescue: Spatial Planning Facilitating the Development of Offshore Wind Energy”. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Elsevier BV, April 2010. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.11.010.
    Jay, Stephen. “ <i>Marine Management and the Construction of Marine Spatial planning< i&Gt”;. Town Planning Review. Liverpool University Press, January 2010. doi:10.3828/tpr.2009.33.
    Jentoft, Svein. “Beyond Fisheries Management: The Phronetic Dimension”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, November 2006. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2005.10.001.
    Jentoft, Svein. “Small-Scale Fisheries Within Maritime Spatial Planning: Knowledge Integration and Power”. Journal of Environmental Policy &Amp; Planning. Informa UK Limited, March 23, 2017. doi:10.1080/1523908x.2017.1304210.
    Joliveau, Thierry, Matthieu Noucher, and Stéphane Roche. “La Cartographie 2.0, Vers Une Approche Critique d’un Nouveau régime Cartographique”. L’Information géographique. CAIRN, December 1, 2013. doi:10.3917/lig.774.0029.
    Jones, Peter J.S., L.M. Lieberknecht, and W. Qiu. “Marine Spatial Planning in Reality: Introduction to Case Studies and Discussion of Findings”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, September 2016. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026.
    Kidd, Sue, and Geraint Ellis. “From the Land to Sea and Back Again? Using Terrestrial Planning to Understand the Process of Marine Spatial Planning”. Journal of Environmental Policy &Amp; Planning. Informa UK Limited, March 2012. doi:10.1080/1523908x.2012.662382.
    Kirkman, Stephen P., Stephen Holness, Linda R. Harris, Kerry J. Sink, Amanda T. Lombard, Paulus Kainge, Prideel Majiedt, Silvi E. Nsiangango, Kumbi K. Nsingi, and Toufiek Samaai. “Using Systematic Conservation Planning to Support Marine Spatial Planning and Achieve Marine Protection Targets in the Transboundary Benguela Ecosystem”. Ocean &Amp; Coastal Management. Elsevier BV, February 2019. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.038.
    Thatcher, Jim, Josef Eckert, and Andrew Shears, eds. “Thinking Big Data in Geography”. []. UNP - Nebraska, April 1, 2018. doi:10.2307/j.ctt21h4z6m.
    Mbaye, Adama, Ndiaga Thiam, and Massal Fall. “The Fishing Protected Zone in Senegal : Between the Terroir of the Fisherman and the Course of the Fish. What Management scale ?”. Développement Durable Et Territoires. OpenEdition, March 30, 2018. doi:10.4000/developpementdurable.11999.
    Mills, D. J., L. Westlund, G. de Graaf, Y. Kura, R. Willman, and K. Kelleher. “Under-Reported and Undervalued: Small-Scale Fisheries in the Developing World”. Small-Scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World. CABI, 2011. doi:10.1079/9781845936075.0001.
    , , and . “Mises En Chiffres, Mises En Cartes, Mises En Ordre Du Monde”. EspacesTemps.net, 2019. doi:10.26151/ESPACESTEMPS.NET-NY99-7659.
    Olsen, Erik, Silje Holen, Alf Håkon Hoel, Lene Buhl-Mortensen, and Ingolf Røttingen. “How Integrated Ocean Governance in the Barents Sea Was Created by a Drive for Increased Oil Production”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, September 2016. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.005.
    Pınarbaşı, Kemal, Ibon Galparsoro, Ángel Borja, Vanessa Stelzenmüller, Charles N. Ehler, and Antje Gimpel. “Decision Support Tools in Marine Spatial Planning: Present Applications, Gaps and Future Perspectives”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, September 2017. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.031.
    Pomeroy, Robert S., Kimberly Baldwin, and Patrick McConney. “Marine Spatial Planning in Asia and the Caribbean: Application and Implications for Fisheries and Marine Resource Management”. Desenvolvimento E Meio Ambiente. Universidade Federal do Parana, December 18, 2014. doi:10.5380/dma.v32i0.35627.
    Said, Alicia, and Brice Trouillet. “Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial Planning”. Maritime Studies. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, July 21, 2020. doi:10.1007/s40152-020-00178-y.
    St. Martin, Kevin, and Madeleine Hall-Arber. “The Missing Layer: Geo-Technologies, Communities, and Implications for Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, September 2008. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015.
    Stamoulis, Kostantinos A., and Jade M.S. Delevaux. “Data Requirements and Tools to Operationalize Marine Spatial Planning in the United States”. Ocean &Amp; Coastal Management. Elsevier BV, November 2015. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.011.
    Steinberg, Philip, and Kimberley Peters. “Wet Ontologies, Fluid Spaces: Giving Depth to Volume through Oceanic Thinking”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. SAGE Publications, April 2015. doi:10.1068/d14148p.
    Stelzenmüller, Vanessa, Janette Lee, Andy South, Jo Foden, and Stuart I. Rogers. “Practical Tools to Support Marine Spatial Planning: A Review and Some Prototype Tools”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, March 2013. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.038.
    Tolvanen, Harri, Anne Erkkilä-Välimäki, and Tua Nylén. “From Silent Knowledge to Spatial Information – Mapping Blue Growth Scenarios for Maritime Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy. Elsevier BV, September 2019. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103598.
    Trouillet, Brice. “Aligning With Dominant Interests: The Role Played by Geo-Technologies in the Place Given to Fisheries in Marine Spatial Planning”. Geoforum. Elsevier BV, December 2019. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012.
    Trouillet, Brice. “Reinventing Marine Spatial Planning: A Critical Review of Initiatives Worldwide”. Journal of Environmental Policy &Amp; Planning. Informa UK Limited, April 15, 2020. doi:10.1080/1523908x.2020.1751605.
    Trouillet, Brice, Lise Bellanger-Husi, Angélina El Ghaziri, Christine Lamberts, Elodie Plissonneau, and Nicolas Rollo. “More Than Maps: Providing an Alternative for Fisheries and Fishers in Marine Spatial Planning”. Ocean &Amp; Coastal Management. Elsevier BV, May 2019. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.016.
    Walsham, Geoff, and Sundeep Sahay. “Research on Information Systems in Developing Countries: Current Landscape and Future Prospects”. Information Technology for Development. Informa UK Limited, January 2006. doi:10.1002/itdj.20020.
    Zaucha, Jacek, and Kira Gee, eds. Maritime Spatial Planning. []. Springer International Publishing, 2019. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8.
    Agapito, Melinda, et al. “Beyond the Basics: Improving Information About Small-Scale Fisheries”. Transdisciplinarity for Small-Scale Fisheries Governance, Springer International Publishing, 16 Oct. 2018, pp. 377-95. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_20.
    Agardy, Tundi, et al. “Mind the Gap: Addressing the Shortcomings of Marine Protected Areas through Large Scale Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy, vols. 35, nos. 2, Elsevier BV, Mar. 2011, pp. 226-32. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006.
    Avgerou, Chrisanthi. “Information Systems in Developing Countries: A Critical Research Review”. Journal of Information Technology, vols. 23, nos. 3, SAGE Publications, Sept. 2008, pp. 133-46. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136.
    Belhabib, Dyhia, et al. “Fisheries Catch Misreporting and Its Implications: The Case of Senegal”. Fisheries Research, vols. 151, Elsevier BV, Mar. 2014, pp. 1-11. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.12.006.
    Boucquey, Noëlle, et al. “Ocean Data Portals: Performing a New Infrastructure for Ocean Governance”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vols. 37, nos. 3, SAGE Publications, 7 Jan. 2019, pp. 484-03. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818822829.
    Caldow, Chris, et al. “Biogeographic Assessments: A Framework for Information Synthesis in Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy, vols. 51, Elsevier BV, Jan. 2015, pp. 423-32. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.023.
    Akrich, Madeleine, et al., editors. Sociologie De La Traduction. [], Presses des Mines, 2006. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181.
    Campbell, Lisa M., et al. “The Portal Is the Plan: Governing US Oceans in Regional Assemblages”. Maritime Studies, vols. 19, nos. 3, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 22 Apr. 2020, pp. 285-97. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00173-3.
    Chambers, Robert. “Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who Is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses?”. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, vols. 25, no. 1, Wiley, June 2006, pp. 1-11. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x.
    Crampton, Jeremy W. “Cartography: Performative, Participatory, Political”. Progress in Human Geography, vols. 33, nos. 6, SAGE Publications, 21 May 2009, pp. 840-8. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508105000.
    d’Aquino, Patrick, et al. “Un SIG conçu par les acteurs : l’opération pilote POAS au Sénégal”. Espace géographique, vols. 31, no. 1, CAIRN, 2002, p. 23. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3917/eg.311.0023.
    Davoudi, Simin. “Evidence-Based Planning”. DisP - The Planning Review, vols. 42, nos. 165, Informa UK Limited, Jan. 2006, pp. 14-24. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2006.10556951.
    Dunn, Christine E. “Participatory GIS — a people’s GIS?”. Progress in Human Geography, vols. 31, nos. 5, SAGE Publications, Oct. 2007, pp. 616-37. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081493.
    Flannery, Wesley, et al. “Exploring the Winners and Losers of Marine Environmental Governance Marine Spatial planning:<i>Cui bono< i>? “More Than Fishy business”: Epistemology, Integration and Conflict in Marine Spatial Planning Marine Spatial Planning: Power and Scaping Surely Not All Planning Is Evil? Marine Spatial Planning: a Canadian Perspective Maritime Spatial Planning – “<i>ad Utilitatem omnium< i≫” Marine Spatial Planning: ‘it Is Better to Be on the Train Than Being Hit by it’ Reflections from the Perspective of Recreational Anglers and Boats for Hire Maritime Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy”. Planning Theory &Amp; Practice, vols. 17, no. 1, Informa UK Limited, 2 Jan. 2016, pp. 121-5. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1131482.
    Flannery, Wesley, et al. “Exclusion and Non-Participation in Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy, vols. 88, Elsevier BV, Feb. 2018, pp. 32-40. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.001.
    Frazão Santos, Catarina, et al. “Integrating Climate Change in Ocean Planning”. Nature Sustainability, vols. 3, nos. 7, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 4 May 2020, pp. 505-16. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x.
    Iliadis, Andrew, and Federica Russo. “Critical Data Studies: An Introduction”. Big Data &Amp; Society, vols. 3, nos. 2, SAGE Publications, 17 Oct. 2016, p. 205395171667423. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238.
    Jay, Stephen. “Planners to the Rescue: Spatial Planning Facilitating the Development of Offshore Wind Energy”. Marine Pollution Bulletin, vols. 60, nos. 4, Elsevier BV, Apr. 2010, pp. 493-9. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.11.010.
    Jay, Stephen. “ <i>Marine Management and the Construction of Marine Spatial planning< i&Gt”;. Town Planning Review, vols. 81, nos. 2, Liverpool University Press, Jan. 2010, pp. 173-92. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.33.
    Jentoft, Svein. “Beyond Fisheries Management: The Phronetic Dimension”. Marine Policy, vols. 30, nos. 6, Elsevier BV, Nov. 2006, pp. 671-80. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.10.001.
    Jentoft, Svein. “Small-Scale Fisheries Within Maritime Spatial Planning: Knowledge Integration and Power”. Journal of Environmental Policy &Amp; Planning, vols. 19, nos. 3, Informa UK Limited, 23 Mar. 2017, pp. 266-78. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2017.1304210.
    Joliveau, Thierry, et al. “La Cartographie 2.0, Vers Une Approche Critique d’un Nouveau régime Cartographique”. L’Information géographique, Vol. 77, nos. 4, CAIRN, 1 Dec. 2013, pp. 29-46. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3917/lig.774.0029.
    Jones, Peter J.S., et al. “Marine Spatial Planning in Reality: Introduction to Case Studies and Discussion of Findings”. Marine Policy, vols. 71, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2016, pp. 256-64. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026.
    Kidd, Sue, and Geraint Ellis. “From the Land to Sea and Back Again? Using Terrestrial Planning to Understand the Process of Marine Spatial Planning”. Journal of Environmental Policy &Amp; Planning, vols. 14, no. 1, Informa UK Limited, Mar. 2012, pp. 49-66. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2012.662382.
    Kirkman, Stephen P., et al. “Using Systematic Conservation Planning to Support Marine Spatial Planning and Achieve Marine Protection Targets in the Transboundary Benguela Ecosystem”. Ocean &Amp; Coastal Management, vols. 168, Elsevier BV, Feb. 2019, pp. 117-29. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.038.
    Thatcher, Jim, et al., editors. Thinking Big Data in Geography. [], UNP - Nebraska, 1 Apr. 2018. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21h4z6m.
    Mbaye, Adama, et al. “The Fishing Protected Zone in Senegal : Between the Terroir of the Fisherman and the Course of the Fish. What Management scale ?”. Développement Durable Et Territoires, no. Vol. 9, n°1, OpenEdition, 30 Mar. 2018. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.11999.
    Mills, D. J., et al. “Under-Reported and Undervalued: Small-Scale Fisheries in the Developing World”. Small-Scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World, CABI, 2011, pp. 1-15. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936075.0001.
    , et al. “Mises En Chiffres, Mises En Cartes, Mises En Ordre Du Monde”. EspacesTemps.net, 2019, https://doi.org/10.26151/ESPACESTEMPS.NET-NY99-7659.
    Olsen, Erik, et al. “How Integrated Ocean Governance in the Barents Sea Was Created by a Drive for Increased Oil Production”. Marine Policy, vols. 71, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2016, pp. 293-00. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.005.
    Pınarbaşı, Kemal, et al. “Decision Support Tools in Marine Spatial Planning: Present Applications, Gaps and Future Perspectives”. Marine Policy, vols. 83, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2017, pp. 83-91. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.031.
    Pomeroy, Robert S., et al. “Marine Spatial Planning in Asia and the Caribbean: Application and Implications for Fisheries and Marine Resource Management”. Desenvolvimento E Meio Ambiente, vols. 32, Universidade Federal do Parana, 18 Dec. 2014. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v32i0.35627.
    Said, Alicia, and Brice Trouillet. “Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial Planning”. Maritime Studies, vols. 19, nos. 3, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 21 July 2020, pp. 347-5. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00178-y.
    St. Martin, Kevin, and Madeleine Hall-Arber. “The Missing Layer: Geo-Technologies, Communities, and Implications for Marine Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy, vols. 32, nos. 5, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2008, pp. 779-86. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015.
    Stamoulis, Kostantinos A., and Jade M.S. Delevaux. “Data Requirements and Tools to Operationalize Marine Spatial Planning in the United States”. Ocean &Amp; Coastal Management, vols. 116, Elsevier BV, Nov. 2015, pp. 214-23. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.011.
    Steinberg, Philip, and Kimberley Peters. “Wet Ontologies, Fluid Spaces: Giving Depth to Volume through Oceanic Thinking”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vols. 33, nos. 2, SAGE Publications, Apr. 2015, pp. 247-64. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1068/d14148p.
    Stelzenmüller, Vanessa, et al. “Practical Tools to Support Marine Spatial Planning: A Review and Some Prototype Tools”. Marine Policy, vols. 38, Elsevier BV, Mar. 2013, pp. 214-27. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.038.
    Tolvanen, Harri, et al. “From Silent Knowledge to Spatial Information – Mapping Blue Growth Scenarios for Maritime Spatial Planning”. Marine Policy, vols. 107, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2019, p. 103598. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103598.
    Trouillet, Brice. “Aligning With Dominant Interests: The Role Played by Geo-Technologies in the Place Given to Fisheries in Marine Spatial Planning”. Geoforum, vols. 107, Elsevier BV, Dec. 2019, pp. 54-65. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012.
    Trouillet, Brice. “Reinventing Marine Spatial Planning: A Critical Review of Initiatives Worldwide”. Journal of Environmental Policy &Amp; Planning, vols. 22, nos. 4, Informa UK Limited, 15 Apr. 2020, pp. 441-59. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2020.1751605.
    Trouillet, Brice, et al. “More Than Maps: Providing an Alternative for Fisheries and Fishers in Marine Spatial Planning”. Ocean &Amp; Coastal Management, vols. 173, Elsevier BV, May 2019, pp. 90-103. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.016.
    Walsham, Geoff, and Sundeep Sahay. “Research on Information Systems in Developing Countries: Current Landscape and Future Prospects”. Information Technology for Development, vols. 12, no. 1, Informa UK Limited, Jan. 2006, pp. 7-24. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20020.
    Zaucha, Jacek, and Kira Gee, editors. Maritime Spatial Planning. [], Springer International Publishing, 2019. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8.

    Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.

    Agapito M., Chuenpagdee R., Devillers R., Gee J., Johnson A. F., Pierce G. J., Trouillet B., 2019
    “Beyond the basics: improving information about small-scale fisheries”. In Chuenpagdee R., Jentoft S. (eds.): Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Mare Publication Series, 21, Cham, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_20

    10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_20 :

    Agardy T., Notarbartolo di Sciara G., Christie P., 2011
    Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large-scale marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 35 (2): 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006

    10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006 :

    Akrich M., 1989
    The construction of a socio-technical system: an outline for an anthropology of techniques. Anthropology and Societies, 13 (2): 31-54. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00005842/document

    Avgerou C., 2008
    Information systems in developing countries: a critical research review. Journal of Information Technology, 23: 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136

    10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136 :

    Belhabib D., Koutob V., Sall A., Lam V. W. Y., Pauly D., 2014
    Fisheries catch misreporting and its implications: the case of Senegal. Fisheries Research, 151: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.12.006

    10.1016/j.fishres.2013.12.006 :

    Bonnin M., Ly I., Queffelec B., Ngaido M. (eds.), 2016
    Droit de l’environnement marin et côtier au Sénégal. Dakar, IRD/PRCM, 532 p. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers17-02/010069145.pdf

    Boucquey N., St. Martin K., Fairbanks L., Campbell L. M., Wise S., 2019
    Ocean data portals: performing a new infrastructure for ocean governance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37 (3): 484-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818822829

    10.1177/0263775818822829 :

    Bowker G. C., 2005
    Memory Practices in the Sciences. Cambridge, MIT Press, 184 p.

    Caldow C., Monaco M. E., Pittman S. J., Kendall M. S., Goedeke T. L., Menza C., Kinlan B. P., Costa B. M., 2015
    Biogeographic assessments: a framework for information synthesis in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 51: 423-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.023

    10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.023 :

    Callon M., 1986
    Elements for a sociology of translation. The domestication of scallops and fishermen in the Bay of Saint-Brieuc. L’Année sociologique, 36: 169-208. www.jstor.org/stable/27889913

    Callon M., 2006
    “Sociology of the network actor”. In Akrich M., Callon M., Latour B. (eds.): Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs. Paris, Presses des Mines, 267-276. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181

    10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181 :

    Campbell L. M., St. Martin K., Fairbanks L., Boucquey N., Wise S., 2020
    The portal is the plan: governing US oceans in regional assemblages. Maritime Studies, 19: 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00173-3

    10.1007/s40152-020-00173-3 :

    Chaboud C., Kebe M., 1989
    The distribution of fresh sea fish in Senegal. Traditional trade and public intervention. Cah. Sci. Hum. 25 (l-2): 125-143. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_4/sci_hum/30751.pdf

    Chambers R., 2006
    Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x

    10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x :

    Charles-Dominique E., Mbaye A., 2000
    “Les usages de l’espace dans la pêche artisanale sénégalaise”. In Gascuel D., Chavance P., Bez N., Biseau A. (eds.): Les espaces de l’halieutique. Paris, IRD, 371-385. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers09-03/010024515.pdf

    Chauveau J-P., Samba A., 1990
    Development without developers? History of artisanal fisheries and fisheries development policies in Senegal. ISRA, Réflexions et perspectives, 1 (2): 4-20. https://www.oceandocs.org/bitstream/handle/1834/4587/historique_pecheartsen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    Chuenpagdee R., Liguori L., Palomares M. D. L., Pauly D., 2006
    Bottom-up global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches. Vancouver, The Fishery Center, University of British Columbia, Fisheries Center Research Reports, 4 (8): 105.

    Cormier-Salem M.-C., 1997
    “Sociétés et espaces littoraux ouest-africains: dynamiques, enjeux et conflits”. In Mainet G. (ed.): Îles et littoraux tropicaux. Proceedings of the VIIe days of Tropical Geography of the French National Geography Committee, U.G.I. (Commission ‘Espaces tropicaux et leur développement’), 11-12-13 September. Brest, Ouest Éditions/Presses Académiques: 695-708. https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_7/b_fdi_53-54/010016697.pdf

    Crampton J. W., 2009
    Cartography: performative, participatory, political. Progress in Human Geography, 33 (6): 840-848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508105000

    10.1177/0309132508105000 :

    Crampton J. W., 2010
    Mapping: a Critical Introduction to Cartography and GIS. Critical Introductions to Geography series, New Jersey, Wiley-Blackwell, 217 p.

    CRODT, 1985
    Kayar conflict, analysis of the Dakar-Thiaroye Oceanographic Research Centre. Internal document, 4 p.

    Cury P., Roy C., 1987
    Seasonal migration of thiof (Epinephelus aeneus) in Senegal: influence of Senegalese and Mauritanian upwellings. Oceanologica Acta, 11 (1): 25-36. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_5/b_fdi_18-19/25086.pdf

    d’Aquino P., Seck S., Camara S., 2002
    A GIS designed by the actors: the Poas pilot operation in Senegal. L’Espace géographique, 31 (1): 23-36. https://doi.org/10.3917/eg.311.0023

    10.3917/eg.311.0023 :

    Davoudi S., 2006
    Evidence-based planning. disP - The Planning Review, 42 (165): 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2006.10556951

    10.1080/02513625.2006.10556951 :

    Deheunynck A., Da Silva A. S., Biai J., Ould Mohamed-Saleck A., Ould Mohamed Saleh M., Diémé S., 2004
    Ecotourism in the coastal and marine protected areas of West Africa: assessment and modalities of a development and public policy alternative. Banc d’Arguin National Park, Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve, Bolama-Bijagos Archipelago Biosphere Reserve. Project Consdev, no. ICA 4-2001-10043, (INCO-DEV Programme, European Commission, Research Directorate General). Dakar/Bissau/Nouakchott, IRD/IUCN/PNBA/DPN, October, CONSDEV Working Document/WP6/01, 75 p.

    Dème M., 1991
    “Les effets du soutien financier de l’État face à la pêche artisanale: le cas du Sénégal”. In Durand J.-R., Lemoalle J., Weber J. (eds.): La recherche scientifique face à la pêche artisanale. Collection Colloques et Séminaires, Paris, Orstom, 845-849. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_6/colloques2/36794.pdf

    Dème M., 2014
    National consultation (study-analysis) on co-management systems in Senegalese MPAs. CCLME/FAO, 18 p. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bo653f.pdf

    DÈme M., Bailleux R., Ndiaye K., 2012
    Migrations of Senegalese artisanal fishermen: state of play. Dakar, IUCN/CSRP, 29 p.

    Descamps C., 1994
    “La collecte des arches: une activité bimillénaire dans le Bas-Saloum (Sénégal)”. In Cormier Salem M.-C. (ed.): Dynamique et usages de la mangrove dans les pays des rivières du Sud (du Sénégal à la Sierra Leone). Paris, Orstom: 107-113.

    Devillers R., Jeansoulin R. (eds.), 2006
    Fundamentals of Spatial Data Quality. Wiley-ISTE, Geographical Information Systems Series.

    Diagne A. S., 2014
    Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) plan for the deepwater shrimp fishery. Dakar, Ministère de la Pêche et des Affaires maritimes, project ‘Aménagement durable des pêcheries du Sénégal’, final report, 26 p.

    Diouf P. S., 1996
    Les peuplements de poissons des milieux estuariens de l’Afrique de l’Ouest: l’exemple de l’estuaire hyperhalin du Sine-Saloum. PhD thesis in population biology and ecology, Montpellier, University of Montpellier II, 267 p. https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_7/TDM_7/010008130.pdf

    Diouf M., Sarr A., 2009
    Guide to bio-ecological monitoring of shellfish harvested in the islands of Niodior, Dionewar, Falia and Fadiouth. Women shellfish farmers at the heart of research processes. ‘Women and shellfish’ project, Fiba/Enda Graf Sahel, IRD/IUPA, 16 p.

    Dunn C. E., 2007
    Participatory GIS - a people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography, 31 (5): 616-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081493

    10.1177/0309132507081493 :

    Ehler C., Douvere F., 2009
    Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, 53, Icam Dossier no. 6. Paris, UNESCO, 99 p.

    Fall M., 2006
    Dynamique des acteurs, conflits et modes de résolution pour une gestion durable des ressources naturelles dans la réserve de biosphère du delta du Saloum. Doctoral thesis in geography, Montreal, University of Montreal, 246 p.

    FAO, 2008
    General view of the national fisheries sector. Republic of Senegal. Rome, FAO, 27 p. http://www.fao.org/fishery/docs/DOCUMENT/fcp/fr/FI_CP_SN.pdf

    Flannery W., Ellis G., 2016
    Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental governance. Planning Theory and Practice, 17 (1): 121-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1131482

    10.1080/14649357.2015.1131482 :

    Flannery W., Healy N., Luna M., 2018
    Exclusion and non-participation in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 88: 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.001

    10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.001 :

    Frazão Santos C., Agardy T., Andrade F., Calado H., Crowder L. B., Ehler C. N., García-Morales S., Gissi E., Halpern B. S, Orbach M. K., Pörtner H.-O., Rosa R., 2020
    Integrating climate change in ocean planning. Nature Sustainability, 3: 505-516. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x

    10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x :

    Garcia S. M., Allison E. H., Andrew N. J., Béné, C., Bianchi G., De Graaf G. J., Kalikoski D., Mahon R., Orensanz J. M., 2010
    Towards integrated assessment and advice in small-scale fisheries: principles and processes. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 515, Rome, FAO, 98 p.

    GICC, 2012
    Synthèse et validation finale du Plan national de géomatique. Dakar, Groupe interinstitutionnel de concertation et de coordination en géomatique, 7 p.

    Gitelman L., Jackson V., 2013
    “Introduction”. In Gitelman L. (ed.): “Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron. Cambridge, The MIT Press: 1-14.

    Iliadis A., Russo F., 2016
    Critical data studies: an introduction. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238

    10.1177/2053951716674238 :

    Jay S., 2010a
    Planners to the rescue: spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60 (4): 493-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.11.010

    10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.11.010 :

    Jay S., 2010b
    Built at sea: marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning. Town Planning Review, 81 (2): 173-191. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.33

    10.3828/tpr.2009.33 :

    Jentoft S., 2006
    Beyond fisheries management: the phronetic dimension. Marine Policy, 30 (6): 671-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.10.001

    10.1016/j.marpol.2005.10.001 :

    Jentoft S., 2017
    Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge integration and power. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19 (3): 266-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304210

    10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304210 :

    Joliveau T., Noucher M., Roche S., 2013
    La cartographie 2.0, vers une approche critique d’un nouveau régime cartographique. Geographic Information, 77 (4): 29-46. https://doi.org/10.3917/lig.774.0029

    10.3917/lig.774.0029 :

    Jones P. J. S., Lieberknecht L. M., Qiu W., 2016
    Marine spatial planning in reality: introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Marine Policy, 71: 256-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026

    10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026 :

    Kébé M., 2008
    Le secteur des pêches au Sénégal: tendances, enjeux et orientations politiques. Kurukan Fugan Programme (European Union/Government of Senegal/Enda Graf/Gret). https://www.oceandocs.org/bitstream/handle/1834/4586/Rapport_peche_FKF_VF.pdf?sequece=1&isAllowed=y

    Kidd S., Ellis G., 2012
    From the land to sea and back again? Using terrestrial planning to understand the process of marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14 (1): 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2012.662382

    10.1080/1523908X.2012.662382 :

    Kirkman S. P., Holness S., Harris L. R., Sink J., Lombard A. T., Kainge P., Majiedt P., Nsiangango S. E., Nsingi K. K., Samaai T., 2019
    Using systematic conservation planning to support marine spatial planning and achieve marine protection targets in the transboundary Benguela ecosystem. Ocean & Coastal Management, 168: 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.038

    10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.038 :

    Kitchin R., Lauriault T., 2018
    “Towards critical data studies: charting and unpacking data assemblages and their work”. In Thatcher J., Eckert J., Shears A. (eds.): Thinking Big Data in Geography. New Regimes, New Research. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 324 pp.

    10.2307/j.ctt21h4z6m :

    Latour B., 2005
    Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 320 pp.

    Le Roux S., Noël J., 2007
    Globalization and conflicts over fisheries resources. Ecology & Politics, 1 (34): 69-82. https://www.cairn.info/revue-ecologie-et-politique1-2007-1-page-69.htm#re16no16

    Lukes S., 2015
    Power: a Radical View. Second Edition, London, Macmillan, 204 pp.

    Mbaye A., Thiam N., Fall M., 2018
    Protected fishing areas in Senegal: between the fisherman’s land and the fish’s journey. Which scale(s) of management? Développement durable et territoires, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.11999

    10.4000/developpementdurable.11999 :

    Mills D. J., Westlund L., de Graaf G., Kura Y., Willman R., Kelleher K., 2011
    “Under-reported and undervalued: small-scale fisheries in the developing world”. In Pomeroy R. S., Andrew N. (eds.): Small-scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World. Wallingford, CAB International: 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781845936075.0001

    10.1079/9781845936075.0001 :

    Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development, 2013
    Stratégie nationale pour les aires marines protégées du Sénégal. Dakar, Direction des aires marines communautaires protégées, 55 p. http://www.environnement.gouv.sn/sites/default/files/documentheque/doc%20strategie%20amp_2013_%20%284%29.pdf

    Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Economy, 2016
    General results of marine fisheries. 2015. Directorate of Maritime Fisheries, 131 p. http://www.statsenegal.sn/tic/func-startdown/52/

    Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Economy, 2018
    Plan de gestion participatif de la pêcherie de l’ethmalose dans la zone du Sine-Saloum. Dakar, Direction des Pêches maritimes, with the support of the USAID/Comfish Plus project, 58 p.

    Noucher M., Hirt I., Arnauld de Sartre X., 2019
    Putting numbers, putting maps, putting the world in order. EspacesTemps.net, Traverses. https://doi.org/10.26151/espacestemps.net-ny99-7659

    10.26151/espacestemps.net-ny99-7659 :

    Olsen E., Holen S., Håkon Hoel A., Buhl-Mortensen L., Røttingen I., 2016
    How integrated ocean governance in the Barents Sea was created by a drive for increased oil production. Marine Policy, 71: 293-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.005

    10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.005 :

    Pauly D., 2006
    Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies, 4 (2): 7-22. http://www.marecentre.nl/mast/documents/Pauly_Mast2006vol_4no_2_new.pdf

    Pickles J. (ed.), 1995
    Ground Truth. The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York, Guilford Press, 248 p.

    Pınarbaşı K., Galparsoro I., Borja Á., Stelzenmüller V., Ehler C. N., Gimpel A., 2017
    Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: present applications, gaps and future perspectives. Marine Policy, 83: 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.031

    10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.031 :

    Pomeroy R. S., Baldwin K., McConney P., 2014
    Marine spatial planning in Asia and the Caribbean: application and implications for fisheries and marine resource management. Desenvolvimento E Meio Ambiente, 32: 151-164. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v32i0.35627

    10.5380/dma.v32i0.35627 :

    Republic of Senegal, 2014
    Plan Sénégal émergent. 167 p. https://www.sec.gouv.sn/sites/default/files/Plan%20Senegal%20Emergent_0.pdf

    Said A., Trouillet B., 2020
    Bringing “deep knowledge” of fisheries into marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies, 19: 347-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00178-y

    10.1007/s40152-020-00178-y :

    Seck A., 2014
    The migrant fishermen of Guet-Ndar (Saint-Louis, Senegal). Analysis of a diverse territoriality between spaces of conflict and spaces of management. PhD thesis in geography and environmental sciences and management, Liège/Dakar, Université de Liège/Université Cheikh Anta Diop, 356 p.

    Siffert I., 2017
    Actors and regulation of the fisheries space: from conflict to integration of fishing communities in the Cayar marine protected area in Senegal. Geoconfluences. http://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/informations-scientifiques/dossiers-regionaux/afrique-dynamiques-regionales/corpus-documentaire/aire-marine-cayar-senegal

    St. Martin K., Hall-Arber M., 2008
    The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32: 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015

    10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015 :

    Stamoulis K. A., Delevaux J. M. S., 2015
    Data requirements and tools to operationalize marine spatial planning in the United States. Ocean & Coastal Management, 116: 214-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.011

    10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.011 :

    Steinberg P., Peters K., 2015
    Wet ontologies, fluid spaces: giving depth to volume through oceanic thinking. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33 (2): 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1068/d14148p

    10.1068/d14148p :

    Stelzenmüller V., Lee J., South A., Foden J., Rogers S. I., 2013
    Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: a review and some prototype tools. Marine Policy, 38: 214-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.038

    10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.038 :

    Tafon R., 2019
    The “dark side” of marine spatial planning: a study of domination, empowerment and freedom through theories of discourse and power. PhD thesis, Huddinge, Södertörn University, 180 p. http://sh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1306941/FULLTEXT01.pdf

    Tolvanen H., Erkkilä-Välimäki A., Nylén T., 2019
    From silent knowledge to spatial information. Mapping blue growth scenarios for maritime spatial planning. Marine Policy, 107: 103598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103598

    10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103598 :

    Trouillet B., 2018
    Les pêches dans la planification spatiale marine au scrutin des géotechnologies: perspectives critiques sur le ‘spatial’ et l’environnement. HDR thesis in geography, Nantes, University of Nantes, 122 p. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01961744/document

    Trouillet B., 2019
    Aligning with dominant interests: the role played by geo-technologies in the place given to fisheries in marine spatial planning. Geoforum, 107: 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012

    10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012 :

    Trouillet B., 2020
    Reinventing marine spatial planning: a critical review of initiatives worldwide. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22 (4): 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1751605

    10.1080/1523908X.2020.1751605 :

    Trouillet B., Bellanger-Husi L., El Ghaziri A., Lamberts C., Plissonneau E., Rollo N., 2019
    More than maps: providing an alternative for fisheries and fishers in marine spatial planning. Ocean & Coastal Management, 173: 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.016

    10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.016 :

    Walsham G., Sahay S., 2006
    Research on information systems in developing countries: current landscape and future prospects. Information Technology for Development, 12 (1): 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20020

    10.1002/itdj.20020 :

    World Bank, 2008
    Small-scale capture fisheries: a global overview with emphasis on developing countries. Profish series. Washington, World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/878431468326711572/Small-scale-capture-fisheries-a-global-overview-with-emphasis-on-developing-countries

    World Bank, 2012
    Hidden harvest: the global contribution of capture fisheries. Washington, World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/515701468152718292/Hidden-harvest-the-global-contribution-of-capture-fisheries

    Young I., 1990
    Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 304 p.

    Zaucha J., Gee K. (eds.), 2019
    Maritime Spatial Planning. Past, Present and Future. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 477 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8

    10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8 :

    Notes de bas de page

    1 In a census by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the Banc d’Arguin National Park (BANP) in Mauritania has oddly recently been listed as an MSP initiative, although the BANP has existed since 1976.

    2 Mami Wata Project: https://mamiwataproject.org (accessed May 2020)

    3 http://senegal-emergent.com/fr/ (accessed May 2020)

    4 Saint-Louis, Dakar, Petite Côte, Fatick, Casamance (Kafountine and Ziguinchor) on the coast, and Tambacounda inland: http://senegal-emergent.com/fr/zones-touristiques-integrees-zti (accessed May 2020).

    5 In the period between the end of the previous agreement and a new agreement signed in July 2018, the absence of a fisheries agreement for 2.5 years between Senegal and Mauritania was highly detrimental to Senegalese fishermen, particularly those from Saint-Louis. Between 1950 and 2010, 48% of landings in Senegal by Senegalese migrant fishermen came from Mauritanian waters (Belhabib et al., 2014).

    6 www.spcsrp.org (accessed May 2020)

    7 www.spcsrp.org (accessed May 2020)

    8 https://www.jeuneafrique.com/742328/economie/senegal-mauritanie-eiffage-et-saipem-construiront-le-terminal-gazier-de-grand-tortue-ahmeyim/ (accessed May 2020)

    9 Kosmos Energy Ltd subsequently sold the majority of its shares to British Petroleum, which became a shareholder in both countries.

    10 www.international.gc.ca (accessed March 2020)

    11 The Capas and Camp initiatives, financed with Canadian cooperation, were part of the first development projects for artisanal fishing in Senegal in the 1980s.

    12 “Fishermen’s maps” based on the toponymy of fishing areas could include “metadata” related to: (1) the determination of these areas (by who? why?), (2) the species present according to season, (3) the fleets and fishing strategies.

    13 Directive 2014/89/EU Art. 10.

    14 http://www.geosenegal.gouv.sn/ (accessed May 2020)

    15 The plan’s priority application areas are “land registration and the land sector in general, spatial planning in support of local governments, agriculture, water management, transport, democracy support, natural resource management [and] civil protection” (GICC, 2012, p. 34).

    16 https://www.wacaprogram.org/ (accessed May 2020)

    17 https://cerema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=ff30db5d09dd42ec8f4b8145fd346a3c (accessed May 2020)

    Auteurs

    • Brice Trouillet

      Geographer, LETG, University of Nantes, France

    • Ndickou Gaye

      Geographer, UCAD, Senegal

    • Aïchetou Seck

      Geographer, UCAD, Senegal

    • Michel Desse

      Geographer, Coastline – Environment – Remote sensing – Geomatics joint research unit (LETG), Nantes University, France

    • Awa Niang

      Geographer, UCAD, Senegal

    • Alexis Fossi

      Fisheries expert, Pesc’art, France

    • Thierry Guineberteau

      Geographer, LETG, University of Nantes, France

    • Alioune Kane

      Geographer, UCAD, Senegal

    • Laurent Pourinet

      Geographer, LETG, CNRS, University of Nantes, France

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    La population réunionnaise

    La population réunionnaise

    Analyse démographique

    Frédéric Sandron (dir.)

    2007

    Du social hors la loi

    Du social hors la loi

    L’anthropologie analytique de Christian Geffray

    Yann Guillaud et Frédéric Létang (dir.)

    2009

    Gestion durable des eaux et des sols au Maroc

    Gestion durable des eaux et des sols au Maroc

    Valorisation des techniques traditionnelles méditerranéennes

    Éric Roose, Mohamed Sabir et Abdellah Laouina

    2010

    Madagascar face au défi des Objectifs du millénaire pour le développement

    Madagascar face au défi des Objectifs du millénaire pour le développement

    Bénédicte Gastineau, Flore Gubert, Anne-Sophie Robilliard et al. (dir.)

    2010

    Le projet majeur africain de la Grande Muraille Verte

    Le projet majeur africain de la Grande Muraille Verte

    Concepts et mise en œuvre

    Abdoulaye Dia et Robin Duponnois (dir.)

    2010

    La Grande Muraille Verte

    La Grande Muraille Verte

    Capitalisation des recherches et valorisation des savoirs locaux

    Abdoulaye Dia et Robin Duponnois (dir.)

    2012

    Un arbre au désert

    Un arbre au désert

    Acacia raddiana

    Michel Grouzis et Édouard Le Floc’h (dir.)

    2003

    Parcours de recherche à Madagascar

    Parcours de recherche à Madagascar

    L’IRD-Orstom et ses partenaires

    Christian Feller et Frédéric Sandron (dir.)

    2010

    Pratiques et représentations linguistiques en Guyane

    Pratiques et représentations linguistiques en Guyane

    Regards croisés

    Isabelle Léglise et Bettina Migge (dir.)

    2008

    La pêche aux Antilles

    La pêche aux Antilles

    Gilles Blanchet, Bertrand Gobert et Jean-Alfred Guérédrat (dir.)

    2002

    Les sociétés rurales face aux changements climatiques et environnementaux en Afrique de l’Ouest

    Les sociétés rurales face aux changements climatiques et environnementaux en Afrique de l’Ouest

    Benjamin Sultan, Richard Lalou, Mouftaou Amadou Sanni et al. (dir.)

    2015

    Aires marine protégées ouest-africaines

    Aires marine protégées ouest-africaines

    Défis scientifiques et enjeux sociétaux

    Marie Bonnin, Raymond Laë et Mohamed Behnassi (dir.)

    2015

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    La population réunionnaise

    La population réunionnaise

    Analyse démographique

    Frédéric Sandron (dir.)

    2007

    Du social hors la loi

    Du social hors la loi

    L’anthropologie analytique de Christian Geffray

    Yann Guillaud et Frédéric Létang (dir.)

    2009

    Gestion durable des eaux et des sols au Maroc

    Gestion durable des eaux et des sols au Maroc

    Valorisation des techniques traditionnelles méditerranéennes

    Éric Roose, Mohamed Sabir et Abdellah Laouina

    2010

    Madagascar face au défi des Objectifs du millénaire pour le développement

    Madagascar face au défi des Objectifs du millénaire pour le développement

    Bénédicte Gastineau, Flore Gubert, Anne-Sophie Robilliard et al. (dir.)

    2010

    Le projet majeur africain de la Grande Muraille Verte

    Le projet majeur africain de la Grande Muraille Verte

    Concepts et mise en œuvre

    Abdoulaye Dia et Robin Duponnois (dir.)

    2010

    La Grande Muraille Verte

    La Grande Muraille Verte

    Capitalisation des recherches et valorisation des savoirs locaux

    Abdoulaye Dia et Robin Duponnois (dir.)

    2012

    Un arbre au désert

    Un arbre au désert

    Acacia raddiana

    Michel Grouzis et Édouard Le Floc’h (dir.)

    2003

    Parcours de recherche à Madagascar

    Parcours de recherche à Madagascar

    L’IRD-Orstom et ses partenaires

    Christian Feller et Frédéric Sandron (dir.)

    2010

    Pratiques et représentations linguistiques en Guyane

    Pratiques et représentations linguistiques en Guyane

    Regards croisés

    Isabelle Léglise et Bettina Migge (dir.)

    2008

    La pêche aux Antilles

    La pêche aux Antilles

    Gilles Blanchet, Bertrand Gobert et Jean-Alfred Guérédrat (dir.)

    2002

    Les sociétés rurales face aux changements climatiques et environnementaux en Afrique de l’Ouest

    Les sociétés rurales face aux changements climatiques et environnementaux en Afrique de l’Ouest

    Benjamin Sultan, Richard Lalou, Mouftaou Amadou Sanni et al. (dir.)

    2015

    Aires marine protégées ouest-africaines

    Aires marine protégées ouest-africaines

    Défis scientifiques et enjeux sociétaux

    Marie Bonnin, Raymond Laë et Mohamed Behnassi (dir.)

    2015

    Voir plus de livres
    La pêche artisanale en Haïti

    La pêche artisanale en Haïti

    Jean-Paul Alaric, Wilson Célestin, Nicolas Diaz et al. David Gilbert (dir.)

    2021

    Voir plus de livres
    La pêche artisanale en Haïti

    La pêche artisanale en Haïti

    Jean-Paul Alaric, Wilson Célestin, Nicolas Diaz et al. David Gilbert (dir.)

    2021

    Voir plus de chapitres

    Crues et inondations dans la basse vallée du fleuve Sénégal

    Alioune Kane

    Chapitre 10. Les enjeux informationnels de la planification spatiale marine

    Les leçons tirées du cas des petites pêches artisanales au Sénégal

    Brice Trouillet, Ndickou Gaye, Aïchetou Seck et al.

    Voir plus de chapitres
    1 / 2

    Crues et inondations dans la basse vallée du fleuve Sénégal

    Alioune Kane

    Chapitre 10. Les enjeux informationnels de la planification spatiale marine

    Les leçons tirées du cas des petites pêches artisanales au Sénégal

    Brice Trouillet, Ndickou Gaye, Aïchetou Seck et al.

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    ePub / PDF

    1 In a census by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the Banc d’Arguin National Park (BANP) in Mauritania has oddly recently been listed as an MSP initiative, although the BANP has existed since 1976.

    2 Mami Wata Project: https://mamiwataproject.org (accessed May 2020)

    3 http://senegal-emergent.com/fr/ (accessed May 2020)

    4 Saint-Louis, Dakar, Petite Côte, Fatick, Casamance (Kafountine and Ziguinchor) on the coast, and Tambacounda inland: http://senegal-emergent.com/fr/zones-touristiques-integrees-zti (accessed May 2020).

    5 In the period between the end of the previous agreement and a new agreement signed in July 2018, the absence of a fisheries agreement for 2.5 years between Senegal and Mauritania was highly detrimental to Senegalese fishermen, particularly those from Saint-Louis. Between 1950 and 2010, 48% of landings in Senegal by Senegalese migrant fishermen came from Mauritanian waters (Belhabib et al., 2014).

    6 www.spcsrp.org (accessed May 2020)

    7 www.spcsrp.org (accessed May 2020)

    8 https://www.jeuneafrique.com/742328/economie/senegal-mauritanie-eiffage-et-saipem-construiront-le-terminal-gazier-de-grand-tortue-ahmeyim/ (accessed May 2020)

    9 Kosmos Energy Ltd subsequently sold the majority of its shares to British Petroleum, which became a shareholder in both countries.

    10 www.international.gc.ca (accessed March 2020)

    11 The Capas and Camp initiatives, financed with Canadian cooperation, were part of the first development projects for artisanal fishing in Senegal in the 1980s.

    12 “Fishermen’s maps” based on the toponymy of fishing areas could include “metadata” related to: (1) the determination of these areas (by who? why?), (2) the species present according to season, (3) the fleets and fishing strategies.

    13 Directive 2014/89/EU Art. 10.

    14 http://www.geosenegal.gouv.sn/ (accessed May 2020)

    15 The plan’s priority application areas are “land registration and the land sector in general, spatial planning in support of local governments, agriculture, water management, transport, democracy support, natural resource management [and] civil protection” (GICC, 2012, p. 34).

    16 https://www.wacaprogram.org/ (accessed May 2020)

    17 https://cerema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=ff30db5d09dd42ec8f4b8145fd346a3c (accessed May 2020)

    Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic

    X Facebook Email

    Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Trouillet, B., Gaye, N., Seck, A., Desse, M., Niang, A., Fossi, A., … Pourinet, L. (2023). Chapter 10. The information challenges of marine spatial planning. In M. Bonnin & S. Lanco Bertrand (éds.), Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic. Marseille: IRD Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.46650
    Trouillet, Brice, Ndickou Gaye, Aïchetou Seck, Michel Desse, Awa Niang, Alexis Fossi, Thierry Guineberteau, Alioune Kane, et Laurent Pourinet. « Chapter 10. The Information Challenges of Marine Spatial Planning ». In Marine Spatial Planning in the Tropical Atlantic, édité par Marie Bonnin et Sophie Lanco Bertrand. Marseille: IRD Éditions, 2023. doi:10.4000/books.irdeditions.46650.
    Trouillet, Brice, et al. « Chapter 10. The Information Challenges of Marine Spatial Planning ». Marine Spatial Planning in the Tropical Atlantic, édité par Marie Bonnin et Sophie Lanco Bertrand, IRD Éditions, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.46650.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Bonnin, M., & Lanco Bertrand, S. (éds.). (2023). Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic. Marseille: IRD Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.46585
    Bonnin, Marie, et Sophie Lanco Bertrand, éd. Marine Spatial Planning in the Tropical Atlantic. Marseille: IRD Éditions, 2023. doi:10.4000/books.irdeditions.46585.
    Bonnin, Marie, et Sophie Lanco Bertrand, éditeurs. Marine Spatial Planning in the Tropical Atlantic. IRD Éditions, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.46585.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    IRD Éditions

    IRD Éditions

    • Mentions légales
    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.editions.ird.fr

    Email : editions@ird.fr

    Adresse :

    IRD

    44, bd de Dunkerque

    CS 90009

    13572

    Marseille

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement