Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ocean conflicts for whom and why? Participatory conflict assessment in the southeast coast of Brazil

  • Research
  • Published:
Maritime Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conditions and pathways for transforming ocean conflicts require an understanding of the wide range of perspectives and values from all relevant stakeholders. In such cases, participatory assessment of conflicts can lead to knowledge co-production and collective learning. In this approach, the different views and the relevance assigned to conflicts are described by the involved stakeholders. In this paper, we aim to present a participatory assessment of conflicts involving small-scale fishing communities of São Paulo coastline, southeastern Brazil from the perspective of the multiple actors involved with the marine-coastal ecosystems of the region. The conflicts were assessed through an online survey and virtual participatory workshops. The survey was used to assess the conflicts related to the fishing activities in the territory. Participatory workshops were carried out to validate and complement the conflict assessment by the online survey and to establish a ranking of the most important conflicts by different stakeholders. A total of 132 conflicts were systematized into 12 categories, and the most relevant were as follows: legislation and surveillance, large-scale enterprises in coastal areas, pollution, fishing regulation, and fisheries management and planning. We argue that a collaborative identification of conflicts has the potential to refine and validate different interpretations and to foster social learning among the stakeholders that is essential to promote sustainability in the territory. This participatory process seeks to increase the social legitimacy for future marine spatial planning processes and to contribute with a novel process of coproducing transformative knowledge action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), but restrictions apply to the availability of these data by the Human Research Ethics Committee. The data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of Human Research Ethics Committee from Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP).

Notes

  1. OCEANS PACT is linked to the Belmont Forum’s Collaborative Research Action on Ocean Sustainability and has the participation of 6 countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, Sweden, Norway, and the USA). For more information check: https://oceanspact.eu/.

  2. Before application, the survey was approved by the human research ethics committee (#4.683.554) and by the scientific technical committee of the MEPAs (#D4129/2021).

References

  • Acserald, H. 2004. Conflitos ambientais no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, K. 2019. Conflicts over marine and coastal common resources: Causes, governance and prevention. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315206424.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, N.T., and N. Pierri. 2014. A política pesqueira no Brasil (2003–2011): A escolha pelo crescimento produtivo e o lugar da pesca artesanal. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 32: 61–80. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v32i0.35547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S. 2011. Subsidiarity as a guiding principle for small-scale fisheries. In World small-scale fisheries: Contemporary visions, ed. R. Chuenpagdee, 311- 320. Delft: Eburon. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.349899

  • Bavinck, M., and J. Verrips. 2020. Manifesto for the marine social sciences. Maritime Studies 19: 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00179-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begossi, A. 2004. Ecologia de pescadores da Mata Atlântica e da Amazônia. São Paulo: Hucitec.

  • Bellanger, M., C. Speir, F. Blanchard, K. Brooks, J.R.A. Butler, S. Crosson, R. Fonner, S. Gourguet, D.S. Holland, S. Kuikka, B.L. Gallic, R. Lent, G.D. Libecap, D.W. Lipton, P.K. Nayak, D. Reid, P. Scemama, R. Stephenson, O. Thébaud, and J.C. Young. 2020. Addressing marine and coastal governance conflicts at the interface of multiple sectors and jurisdictions. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 544440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennet, N.J., J. Blythe, C.S. White, and C. Campero. 2021. Blue growth and blue justice: Ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy 125: 104387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasil. 2010. Panorama da conservação dos ecossistemas costeiros e marinhos no Brasil. Brasília: MMA.

  • Brown, G., and C.M. Raymond. 2014. Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning 122: 196–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruckmeier, C., and C.H. Larsen. 2008. Swedish coastal fisheries - from conflict mitigation to participatory management. Marine Policy 32 (2): 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J., and M. Kearnes. 2016. Remaking participation - science, environment and emergent publics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chuenpagdee, R., and S. Jentoft. 2018. Transforming the governance of small-scale fisheries. Maritime Studies 12: 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0087-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, F. 1999. Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development 11 (4): 597–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B., and Kothari, U. 2001. Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books.

  • CPP. 2016. Conflitos Socioambientais e Violações de Direitos Humanos em Comunidades Tradicionais Pesqueiras no Brasil. Brasilia, DF: Conselho Pastoral dos Pescadores.

    Google Scholar 

  • CPP. 2021. Conflitos socioambientais e violações de direitos humanos em comunidades tradicionais pesqueiras no Brasil: relató rio 2021. Pernambuco: CPP.

  • Dahlet, L.L., A. Himes-Cornell, and R. Metzner. 2021. Fisheries conflicts as drivers of social transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 53: 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boni, R. B. 2020. Web surveys in the time of COVID-19. Reports on public health 36(7): e00155820.

  • Diegues, A.C. 2006. Artisanal fisheries in Brazil. Chennai, India:SAMUDRA Monograph.

  • Dudley, N. 2013. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, A., and B. Korf. 2005. Negotiation and mediation techniques for natural resource management. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, L.C. 2004. Dimensões humanas da biodiversidade: Mudanças sociais e conflitos em torno de Áreas Protegidas no Vale do Ribeira, SP Brasil. Ambiente and Sociedade 7 (1): 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves, L.R., L.X. Xavier, P.H. Torres, S. Zioni, P.R. Jacobi, and A. Turra. 2020. O litoral da Macrometrópole: Tão longe de Deus e tão perto do Diabo. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 54: 40–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HOB. 2020. O I Relatório do Programa Horizonte Oceânico Brasileiro: Ampliando o horizonte da governança inclusiva para o desenvolvimento sustentável do oceano brasileiro. São Paulo, SP: Horizonte Oceânico Brasileiro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, B.C. 2018. Blue growth: Stakeholder perspectives. Marine Policy 87: 375–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDESC. 2009. Levantamento de Turismo e Economia Solidária no Vale do Ribeira. Campinas: UNICAMP.

  • Jentoft, S., and M. Knol. 2014. Marine spatial planning: Risk or opportunity for fisheries in the North Sea? Maritime Studies 13 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/2212-9790-13-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopsel, V., G.M. Kipper, and M. Peck. 2021. Stakeholder engagement vs. social distancing—how does the Covid-19 pandemic affect participatory research in EU marine science projects? Maritimes Studies 20: 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, A.M., L.N.H. Verbrugge, A. Chelliah, M.L.E. Ang, and C.M. Raymond. 2020. Rethinking tourism conflict potential within and between groups using participatory mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning 203: 103902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J.P. 1997. Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. 2003. The little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. New York: Good Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, I.M., L.C. Gammage, A. Jarre, and M.A. Gasalla. 2019. Different but similar? Exploring vulnerability to climate change in Brazilian and South African small-scale fishing communities. Human Ecolology 47: 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745019-00098-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, J.T. 2015. Characteristics of small-scale fishing on the south coast of São Paulo (Brazil). Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 41(3): 479–492.

  • Miall, H. 2004. Conflict transformation: a multi-dimensional task. Berghof Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulazzani, L., and G. Malorgio. 2017. Blue growth and ecosystem services. Marine Policy 85: 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neto, J. B. G., Goyanna, F. A.A., Feitosa, C. V., Soares, M. O. 2021. A sleeping giant: the historically neglected Brazilian fishing sector. Ocean & Coastal Management 209: 105699.

  • Neto, A.L.P., Capucci, M.R., Lima, P.G.C., Junior, T.B.I.B. 2017. A vocação do litoral norte paulista. In Rumos da sustentabilidade costeira: uma visão do litoral norte paulista. São Paulo: IOUSP.

  • Oceana,. 2020. Auditoria da Pesca: uma avaliação integrada da governança, da situação dos estoques e das pescarias. Brasília: Oceana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira-Monteiro, N.R., R.E. Scachetti, and V. Nagib. 2017. Caiçaras fishermen identities: Heroism and precariousness in traditional populations? Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambinte 41: 124–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez, M. R.P., Arce-Ibarra, M., Baltazar, B.E., Araujo, L.G. 2020. Local Socio-Environmental Systems as a Transdisciplinary Conceptual Framework. In: Socio Environmental Regimes and Local Visions: Transdisciplinary Experiences in Latin America, Ed. Arce-Ibarra, M., Vázquez, M. R.P., Baltazar, B.E., Araujo, L.G., Berlin: Springer. 3–24.

  • Peterson, N.D. 2011. Excluding to include: (Non) participation in Mexican natural resource management. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9258-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, N., K. Broad, B. Orlove, C. Roncoli, R. Taddei, and M.A. Velez. 2010. Participatory processes and climate forecast use: Sociocultural context, discussion, and consensus. Climate and Development 2: 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PMAP-SP. 2019. Projeto de Monitoramento da Atividade da Pesca no estado de São Paulo: Caracterização socioeconômica da pesca. São Paulo: PMAP.

  • PÓLIS. 2012. Litoral sustentável: desenvolvimento com inclusão social. Resumo executivo de Santos. São Paulo: Instituto Polis.

  • Prado, D.S., L.G. Araújo, P. Chamy, A.C.E. Dias, and C.S. Seixas. 2020. Participação social nos conselhos gestores de unidades de conservação: Avanços normativos e a visão de agentes do ICMBio. Ambiente e Sociedade 23: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prado, D.S., I.M. Martins, and R.A. Christofolleti. 2022. Pesca Artesanal e conflitos costeiros e marinhos no litoral de São Paulo (SP). Relatório Projeto PactoMar/FAPESP, São Paulo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramires, R., W. Barrella, and A.M. Esteves. 2012. Caracterização da pesca artesanal e o conhecimento pesqueiro local no Vale do Ribeira e Litoral Sul de São Paulo. Revista Ceciliana 4 (1): 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saarikoski, H., J. Mustajoki, and M. Marttunen. 2013. Participatory multi-criteria assessment as ‘opening up’ vs. ‘closing down’ of policy discourses: A case of old-growth forest conflict in Finnish Upper Lapland. Land Use Policy 32: 329–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer-Novelli, Y. 1991. Manguezais brasileiros. Tese de Livre Docência. São Paulo: IOUSP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholtens, J., and M. Bavinck. 2018. Transforming conflicts from the bottom-up? Reflections on civil society efforts to empower marginalized fishers in postwar Sri Lanka. Ecology and Society 23 (3): 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sckendorff, R.W., and V.G. Azevedo. 2007. A atuação de grandes embarcações pesqueiras na região costeira: O conflito de uso no litoral norte do estado de São Paulo. Série De Relatórios Técnicos 31: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabra, A.A., A. Khosrovyan, T.A. Del Valls, and M. Polette. 2015. Management of pre-salt oil royalties: Wealth or poverty for Brazilian coastal zones as a result? Resources Policy 45: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEADE. 2021. População e Estatísticas Vitais. Fundação SEADE: São Paulo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seixas, C.S. 2006. Barriers to local-level, participatory ecosystem assessment and management in Brazil. In: Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: LInking Global Science and Local Knowledge in Asessments. ed. Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T. Capistrano, Washington: Island Press 255–274.

  • Sousa, E.E., and T.Z. Serafini. 2018. Survey of coastal and marine protected areas in São Paulo State. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 44: 360–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taddei, R. 2011. Watered-down democratization: Modernization versus social participation in water management in Northeast Brazil. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tafon, R. Glavovic, B. Saunders, F. Gilek, M 2021. Oceans of Conflict: Pathways to an Ocean Sustainability PACT. Planning Practice & Research 37(2): 1–18.

  • Teixeira, L.R. 2013. Megaprojetos no litoral norte paulista: O papel dos grandes empreendimentos de infraestrutura na transformação regional. Tese Doutorado. Campinas: NEPAM-IFCH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temper, L., F. Demaria, A. Scheidel, D. Del Bene, and J. Martinez-Alier. 2018. The global environmental justice atlas (EJAtlas): Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability. Sustainability Science 13 (3): 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0563-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toro, J.B., and N.M.D. Werneck. 2004. Mobilização social: um modo de construir a democracia e a participação. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres, P.H.C., R.F. Ramos, and L.R. Gonçalves. 2019. Environmental conflicts at São Paulo macrometropolis: Paranapiacaba and São Sebastião. Ambiente and Sociedade 22: e0101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimble, M., L.G. Araujo, and C.S. Seixas. 2014. One party does not tango! Fishers’ non-participation as a barrier to co-management in Paraty, Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management 92: 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, M.A.R., C.R. dos Santos, and C.S. Seixas. 2015. Oportunidades na legislação brasileira para sistemas de gestão compartilhada da pesca costeira. Boletim Do Instituto De Pesca 41 (4): 995–1012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, T., Trentin, G., Hubner, J.C., Longaray, A.S., Veiga, K.R., Umpierre, M.B., Caldasso, L.P., Fischer, J., Takahashi, N.F. 2019. Conflitos ambientais envolvendo pescadores(as) artesanais na zona costeira. In Mulheres na Atividade Pesqueira no Brasil, Ed. Martínez, S.A., Hellebrandt, L., Rio de Janeiro: EDUENF. 75–109.

  • White, S.C. 1996. Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice 6 (1):6–15.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our sincere thanks to all participants of the online survey and participatory workshops who kindly gave their time and share their knowledge for the research development. Our gratitude extends to all members of the PactoMar project team (Alexander Turra, André L. F. Silva, Adriana S. Lima, Emanuelle Spironello, Flávio Lontro, Gabriela T. Sartori, Henrique S. C. Costa, Leopoldo C. Gerhardinger, Maria C. T. Lanza, Maria J. H. D. Sallum, Márcio J. Santos, Nicole R. Guerrato, Pedro H. C. Torres and Santiago Bernardes). We also thank Debora Ramalho for helping us with the engagement strategies through phone calls and WhatsApp messages and Wiebren Boonstra for the friendly review on the earlier version of this article. Special thanks should be given to the OceansPACT project (Belmont Forum research initiative) colleagues for the opportunity to interact and discuss the transdisciplinary and co-developed research initiatives.

Funding

The research leading to these results received funding from FAPESP (São Paulo’s State Research Foundation) Grant 2019/24416–8). FAPESP also provided scholarships to the involved researchers: LYX 2017/21797–5; LRG 2018/00462–8; IMM 2020/16029–1; and DSP 2020/16028–5.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Marine Science, Federal University of São Paulo (IMar/UNIFESP), Santos, SP, Brazil

    I. M. Martins, D. S. Prado, L. R. Gonçalves, N. R. Oliveira-Monteiro, R. E. Scachetti, R. Taddei, M. Vivacqua & Ronaldo A. Christofoletti

  2. Institute of Energy and Environment, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    P. R. Jacobi

  3. Instituto Linha d’Água, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    H. C. Kefalas

  4. Forestry Foundation, Marine Environmental Protection Area of the North Coast, São Paulo, Brazil

    L. P. Vianna

  5. Forestry Foundation, Marine Environmental Protection Area of the South Coast, São Paulo, Brazil

    L. Quito & V. N. Vilches

  6. Oceanographic Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    L. Y. Xavier

Authors
  1. I. M. Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. S. Prado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. R. Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. R. Jacobi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. C. Kefalas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. N. R. Oliveira-Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. E. Scachetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. Taddei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. L. P. Vianna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Vivacqua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. L. Quito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. V. N. Vilches
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. L. Y. Xavier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ronaldo A. Christofoletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. M. Martins.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Online survey

1. Which sectors do you fall into?

() Government

() NGO

() University

() Private sector

() Traditional communities

() Indigenous

() Fisher

() Social movement

() Other

2.What is your main area of operation:

() North coast of São Paulo

() Central coast of São Paulo

() South coast of São Paulo

CASE 1

3. Do you know a case of conflict involving or impacting fishing communities and/or small-scale fishing activities in your region? If so, answer the questions below about this conflict case. Other cases of conflicts can be reported in the next block of questions. () Yes () No.

4. Describe this conflict case (describe what is happening, since when it occurs and other characteristics of the conflict). Please report only one case of conflict. If you wish, you will have the opportunity to report other cases of conflicts below.

5. What are the organizations or sectors involved in this conflict?

6. Do you consider this conflict to be local or regional?

() Local (in some specific communities or neighborhoods).

() Regional (in several municipalities/regions).

7. Indicate where this conflict occurs?

If local, in each Community / neighborhoods / municipality ____________.

If regional, in each municipalities / regions ____________.

8. Are you aware of any mobilization around this conflict? (discussion spaces, claims in progress, …)? If yes, which?

9. Do you know any document or news that talks about this conflict? If yes, describe here [there is an option the attach a document].

10. How do you rate the conflict you just described?

() I wouldn't know how to classify.

() Latent (the conflict exists, but it is not in evidence at this time).

() Low (there are few spaces for discussion about this conflict, but without many actions).

() Average (there are spaces for discussion and organized movements to expose and address this conflict).

() High (conflict in high evidence at the moment, with several discussions and processes of organization, social and/or judicial mobilization around it).

11. Is there another conflict you would like to report?

() Yes, i want to report another case of conflict (in this case, the same block of question was presented to the participant).

() No, I have already reported all the cases that I know of.

12. After identifying the conflicts and systematizing the information in this questionnaire, the project will hold online participatory workshops in the territories where the conflicts occur. Could you indicate key people and/or organizations to be invited to the workshops (name/phone)?

13. If you wish to be invited to participate in future project activities, please inform your contact.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martins, I.M., Prado, D.S., Gonçalves, L.R. et al. Ocean conflicts for whom and why? Participatory conflict assessment in the southeast coast of Brazil. Maritime Studies 22, 40 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00331-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00331-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation