Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries?

Abstract

This study uses the socio-ecological resilience concept to compare two categories of fisheries co-management in Brazil: Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves. Ecological resilience was estimated by the indicators: reserve areas, human density and the existence of buffer zones around the reserves. Indicators for social-resilience were grouped in two categories: flexibility (assessed by livelihood diversification and resources exploited) and capacity to organize (assessed by local/governrnenta1 demand for reserve creation, existence of fishing management rules or management plans, participation in the decision-making process and existence of self-monitoring). Amazonian reserves are larger, have buffer zones and people depend on a broader range of natural resources compared to those on the coast. However, the inhabitants of coastal reserves can rely on ecotourism and jobs outside the reserves, which may reduce local fishing pressure. Both regions have reserves created using top-down initiatives as well as those created from local demands. Yet, participation in decision making is not necessarily related to the origin of demand and the level of local involvement can be limited in either case. Unless co-management is followed by adaptive management, increased local participation of people in management and the diversification of economic sources. its benefit to resilience is limited.Fisheries management, co-management, socio-ecological resilience, small scale fisheries, resource use, Amazon, Brazilian coast,

Fishers’ knowledge indicates short-term temporal changes in the amount and composition of catches in the southwestern Atlantic

“…For example, a MPA recently enforced in the Paraty Bay has excluded fishers from fishing grounds and has not shown clear ecological nor socioeconomic benefits [44,45], while a recent law banned the catch of some endangered fish and invertebrate species, generating strong political opposition by fishers [24]. Besides being a cost-effective way to track temporal changes in resource abundance in the absence of regular monitoring [22,35], data from fishers' knowledge can provide a common ground for dialogue between fishers, biologists and managers [6], which can ultimately lead to comanagement initiatives [43]. These initiatives may include granting exclusive territorial rights to small-scale fishers [5,23], payments for ecosystem services or other compensation schemes to establish closed fishing seasons or protected areas [12], or diversification of economic activities by allocating more time to tourism [46].…”

Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change

“…There is a growing body of research that addresses the question of resilience to climate change from different angles: by looking at climate change adaptation and resilience in specific fisheries SES (Cinner et al 2009a; Lopes et al 2011; Pinsky and Mantua 2014; Maldonado and Moreno-Sánchez 2014) by assessing the adaptive capacity of fisheries SES to confront climate change (Leith et al 2014; López-Angarita et al 2014; Rivera et al 2014); and by identifying attributes that safeguard economic (van Putten et al 2013) and ecological resilience for a given fishery (McClanahan et al 2012). However, no studies have suggested broadly applicable criteria for assessing socio-ecological resilience of fisheries.…”

Comanagement of clams in Brazil: a framework to advance comparison

“…The Brazilian Extractive Reserve is a type of protected area that allows people to live and keep their traditional livelihoods within the area, as long as it is considered sustainable. Such reserves are designed to be managed collaboratively by both government and local people (Fearnside 1989, Lopes et al 2011. Although the success of extractive reserves is ambiguous (Goeschl and Igliori 2004), MER has become the most frequent type of protected area addressing coastal artisanal fisheries in Brazil.…”