Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 623–638 | Cite as

Resource Conflicts: Challenges to Fisheries Management at the São Francisco River, Brazil

  • Jutta Gutberlet
  • Cristiana Simão Seixas
  • Ana Paula Glinfskoi Thé
  • Joachim Carolsfeld
Article

Abstract

The paper describes factors influencing artisanal fisheries at the São Francisco River in Brazil as an example of the challenges of managing socially and economically valued common-pool resource systems. A rapid assessment of problems affecting São Francisco River fisheries in 10 communities was carried out in 2003, representing the upper, middle, and lower river portions. Field visits, interviews, focus group discussions and a literature survey allowed us to map socioeconomic and environmental factors important to the fisheries, including conflicts and tensions between stakeholders. Federal, state, and municipal governments, industries, farmers, hydroelectric companies, and urban and rural populations all have a stake in river use. Traditional fishers are the most disadvantaged of these stakeholders. With declining fish populations, most of the fishing communities surveyed are now poor, socially excluded, and with few alternative livelihood options. The stakeholders involved in access and use conflicts are artisanal fishers, professional fishers, sport fishers, farmers, enforcement and regulatory agencies, and hydroelectric companies. Traditional fishers have close ties to the river and its environment and they are usually not invited to contribute to resource management decisions. We recommend changes to management structures involving the fishing communities that are essential to resolve the major conflicts and to improve equity and sustainability of artisanal fisheries.

Keywords

Artisanal Fisheries Resource Conflicts Common-pool Resources Brazil 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all fishers, their families, and communities, as well as the municipal and government agents that participated in the surveys, including Raimundo Marques of the Federation of Professional Fishers, Barbara Johnsen and Carlão of the Environment Secretary of Três Marias, and Sineide Montenegro and Fatima Sá of the Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL). The fieldwork was supported by World Fisheries Trust, the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), and the Federation’s Peixes, Pessoas e Agua Project through CIDA funding, with counterpart support of field activities by the city of Três Marias and UFAL. Ana Thé was supported by FAPESP and the Post-graduate program in Ecology and Natural Resources of UFSCar.

References

  1. Berkes, F. (ed.) (1989). Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development. Belhaven Press, London.Google Scholar
  2. Berkes, F. (2002). Cross-scale institutional linkages: Perspectives from the bottom up. In Ostrom, E. et al. (eds.), The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, Washington, pp. 293–321.Google Scholar
  3. Berkes, F. (2003). Alternatives to Conventional Management: Lessons from Small-scale Fisheries. Environments 31(1): 5–19.Google Scholar
  4. Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R., and Pomeroy, R. (2001). Managing Small-scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  5. Bromley, D. W. (ed.) (1992). Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy. ICS Press, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, R. (1980). Rapid Rural Appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. IDS Discussion Paper (Brighton) (N.155).Google Scholar
  7. Diegues, A. C. (1995). Povos e Mares: leituras em sócio-antropologia marítima. Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. NUPAUB, São Paulo.Google Scholar
  8. Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two Years Later. Human Ecology 18: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felicidade, N., de Mendonca, S. A. T., Leme A. A., Goncalves, M. C., Martins, R. C., and Felix, S. A. (2001). Condições de vida e trabalho do pescador profissional da bacia do Alto/Médio São Francisco. In Felicidade, N., Martins, R. C., and Leme, A. A. (eds.), Uso e Gestao dos Recursos Hídricos no Brasil. RiMa, São Carlos, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar
  10. Foster, M., and Mathie, A. (2003). Situating asset-based community development in the international development context. [Online] URL: http://www.stfx.ca/institutes/coady/about_publications_new_situating.html (accessed: 07.07.2007).
  11. Godinho, H. P., and Godinho, A. L. (eds.) (2004). Águas, peixes e pescadores do São Francisco das Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, CNPq/PADCT, Editora PUC Minas.Google Scholar
  12. Gutberlet, J., and Seixas, C. S. (2003). Rapid socio-economic assessment of fishing communities at the São Francisco River in Brazil. Report prepared for World Fisheries Trust, Victoria, September 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiménez, L., Godinho, A. L., and Petrere Jr., M., (2004). As desovas de peixes no alto-médio São Francisco. In Godinho, H. P., and Godinho, A. L. (eds.) Águas, peixes e pescadores do São Francisco das Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, CNPq/PADCT, Editora PUC Minas, pp. 369–383.Google Scholar
  15. Kalikoski, D. C., Almudi, T., and Seixas, C. S. (2006). O estado da arte da gestão compartilhada e gestão comunitária da pesca no Brasil. Revista Jirau, 15: 14–16. ProVárzea, IBAMA. [Online] URL: http://www.ibama.gov.br/provarzea/index.php?id_menu=167 (accessed 07.07.2007).
  16. Kretzmann, J., and McKnight, J. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out. ACTA Publications, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Mahon, R. (1997). Does Fisheries Science Serve the Needs of Managers of Small Stocks in Developing Countries? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 54: 2207–2213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markey, S., Vodden, K., Ameyaw, S., Pierce, J., and Roseland, M. (2001). Understanding Community Capacity: Planning, Research and Methodology. In The Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development 2(1): 43–55.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, A., and Sherington, J. (1997). Participatory Research Methods Implementation, Effectiveness and Institutional Context. Agricultural System 55(2): 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (eds.) (1987). The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  21. McCully, P. (2001). Silenced River: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. Zed Books, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Montenegro, S. C. S., Nordi, N., and Marques, J. G. W. (2001). Contexto Cultural, Ecológico e Econômico da Produção e Ocupação dos Espaços de Pesca Pelos Pescadores de Pitu (Macrobrachium Carcinus) em um Trecho do Baixo São Francisco, Alagoas-Brasil. Interciência 26(11): 1–7.Google Scholar
  23. Nielsen, J. R., Degnbol, P., Viswanathan, K. K., and Ahmed, M. (2002). Fisheries Co-management—An Institutional Innovation. Perspective and Challenges Ahead. IIFET 2002 Proceeding. Paper 216.Google Scholar
  24. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Ostrom, E., and Schlager, E. (1996). The formation of Property Rights. In Hanna, S. S., Folke, C., and Mäler, K. (eds.), Rights of Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 127–156.Google Scholar
  26. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., and Weber, E. U. (eds). (2002). The Dramas of the Commons. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. Sato, Y., and Godinho, A. L. (1988). Tucunaré—um peixe exótico na represa de Três Marias. In Coletânea de Resumos dos Encontros da Associação Mineira de Aqüicultura (AMA): 1982–1987. Brasília. CODVASF, pp. 92–93.Google Scholar
  28. Sato, Y., and Godinho, H. P. (2003). Migratory fishes of the São Francisco River. In: Carolsfeld, J., Harvey, B, Baer, A., and Ross, C. (eds.), Migratory Fishes of South America. Biology, Fisheries and Conservation Status. World Fisheries Trust, World Bank, and IDRC, pp. 199–232.Google Scholar
  29. Suassuna, J. (2005). Erros da Transposição. Fundação Joaquim Nabuco. [Online] URL: http://www.joaosuassuna.hpg.ig.com.br/. (accessed 07.07.2007).
  30. Thé, A. P. G. (1999). Etnoecologia e Produção Pesqueira dos Pescadores da represa de Três Marias, Minas Gerais. Dissertação de mestrado, PPG-ERN, UFSCar, São Carlos. SP. 122p. (Masters Thesis dissertation).Google Scholar
  31. Thé, A. P. G. (2003). Conhecimento Ecológico, Regras de uso e Manejo Local Dos Recursos Naturais Na Pesca Do Alto-Médio São Fransciso, MG. Tese de Doutorado, PPG-ERN, UFSCar, São Carlos. SP. 199p. (Doctorate Thesis dissertation).Google Scholar
  32. Thé, A. P. G., and Nordi, N. (2006). Common Property Resource System in a Fishery of the São Francisco River, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Human Ecology Review 13(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, J. A., Acheson, J. M., Metcalfe, M., and Kleban, P. (1994). Chaos, Complexity and Community Management of Fisheries. Marine Policy 18(4): 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jutta Gutberlet
    • 1
  • Cristiana Simão Seixas
    • 2
  • Ana Paula Glinfskoi Thé
    • 3
  • Joachim Carolsfeld
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Fisheries and Food InstituteCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Federal University of São CarlosSão CarlosBrazil
  4. 4.World Fisheries TrustVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations